¹ See, for example, Maugard, Adolfo Best, Método de dibujo. Tradición resurgimiento y evolución del arte mexicano (México: SEP, 1923).Google Scholar

² Schwarcz, Lilia Moritz, The Spectacle of the Races: Scientists, Institutions, and the Race Question in Brazil, 1870–1930 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), pp. 44–68;Google Scholar Stepan, Nancy Leys, The Hour of Eugenics: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), pp. 145–153;Google Scholar Raat, William D., “Ideas and Society in Don Porfirio’s Mexico,” The Americas 30 (1973), pp. 44–45, 48–49;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Raat, William D., “Los intelectuales, el positivismo, y la cuestión indígena,” Historia Mexicana 20 (1970), pp. 426–427;Google Scholar Powell, T.G., “Mexican Intellectuals and the Indian Problem, 1876–1911,” Hispanic American Historical Review, vol. 48 (1968), pp. 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Sierra praised the capacity of the Indian, but argued for the eradication of Indian languages. We see declarations of this nature as early as the 1889 Congreso Pedagógico. See Loyo, Engracia, Gobiernos revolucionarios y educación popular en México, 1911–1928 (Mexico: Colegio de México, 1999), pp. 12–13;Google Scholar Loyo, Engracia, “La empresa redentora. La Casa del Estudiante Indígena,” Historia Mexicana 46:1 (1996), p. 100–101;Google Scholar Rockwell, Elsie, “Schools of the Revolution: Enacting and Contesting State Forms in Tlaxcala, 1910–1930,” in Everyday Forms of State Formation (Durham: Duke University Press, 1994), pp. 170–179;Google Scholar Knight, Alan, “Racism, Revolution, and Indigenismo: Mexico, 1910–1940,” in The Idea of Race in Latin America, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990), pp. 71–113.Google Scholar

⁴ Krause, Enrique, Caudillos culturales en la Revolución Mexicana (México: Siglo XXI, 1985), pp. 11–21;Google Scholar Hewitt de Alcántara, Cynthia, Anthropological Perspectives on Rural Mexico (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984), pp. 8–41.Google Scholar

⁵ Mestizaje could be both a racial and cultural process, and many (especially Gamio and Vasconcelos) were ambivalent about whether the Indian needed both cultural and racial incorporation.

⁶ Their views often collided, but they shared these basic principles. Their connection to artists, poets, and musicians like Pablo González Casanova, Manuel Ponce, and Diego Rivera is also notable. For examples of this tradition See Gamio, Manuel, Forjando Patria (México: Editorial Porrua, 1960 [1916]);Google Scholar Vasconelos, José, La raza cósmica (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979 [1925]);Google Scholar Vasconcelos, José , “The Race Problem in Latin America,” in Aspects of the Mexican Civilization: Lectures of the Harris Foundation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926), pp. 75–102;Google Scholar Enriques, Andrés Molina, Los grandes problemas nacionales (México: Ediciones Nacional de la Juventud, 1964 [1909]);Google Scholar Sáenz, Moisés, La educación rural en México (México: Talleres Gráficos de la Nación, 1928);Google Scholar Basauri, Carlos, La situación social actual de la población indígena de México y breves apuntes sobre antropología y etnografía de la misma (México: Talleres Gráficos de la Nación, 1928).Google Scholar Vasconcelos did not really believe education was the only answer to hunger and poverty, but he was optimistic about its powers. Loyo, , educación popular, p. 127.Google Scholar

⁷ Vaughan, , Cultural Politics, pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

⁸ Loyo, , “La empresa redentora,” pp. 99–101;Google Scholar Beltrán, Gonzalo Aguirre, Teoría y práctica de la educación indígena (México: FCE 1992 [1973]), pp. 14–15, 59–60;Google Scholar Polanco, Héctor Díaz, Indigenous Peoples in Latin America: The Quest for Self-Determination (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 65–68;Google Scholar Vaughan, Mary Kay, Cultural Politics in Revolution, (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1997), pp. 25–27;Google Scholar Joseph, Gilbert, Revolution from Without: Yucatán, Mexico, and the United States, 1880–1924 (Durham, Duke University Press, 1988), pp. 101–112.Google Scholar

⁹ In this, they were not unlike nationalists in many western nations. See Hobsbawm, Eric, “Introduction: Inventing Traditions,” in Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence, eds. The Invention of Tradition, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar The SEP’s program was initially conservative, favoring only incorporation, but the cultural nationalist project redefined the nation as brown and Indian. See Vaughan, , Cultural Politics, pp. 29–31, 44–46.Google Scholar Loyo, , educación popular, pp. 121–122.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Beltrán, Aguirre, Teoría y práctica, pp. 68–69.Google Scholar This perspective contrasted the ideas promoted by Manuel Gamio, which called for harmonizing the school with local practices.

¹¹ James Scott uses this term to describe modernizing efforts be a variety of states in his recent work. He argues that the state seeks to simplify the national economy, ecology, and population in order to facilitate control, and that these simplifications become quasi-religious belief systems. See Scott, James, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 53–83, 309–357Google Scholar

¹² The Misiones Culturales were created in 1923 to train teachers. See Dr.Puig Casauranc, J.M. , El esfuerzo educativo en México (México: SEP, 1928);Google Scholar SEP, Bases que norman el funcionamiento de “las Casas del Pueblo” (México: SEP, 1923). See also Vaughan, , Cultural Politics, p. 25,Google Scholar Loyo, , educación popular, pp. 283–292.Google Scholar

¹³ They were influenced by Dewey, and Montessori, , Vaughan, , Cultural Politics, pp. 27–29.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Vaughan, , Cultural Politics, pp. 27–29.Google Scholar The books distributed under Vasconcelos were principally classics of the West, as in the Iliad and The Divine Comedy. Loyo, educación popular, p. 218. See also Edward, Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1978);Google Scholar Blaut, J.M., The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History (New York: Guilford, 1993).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See, for Example, Sáenz, Moisés, “Our Rural Schools,” Mexican Folkways 3:1 (Feb-Mar 1927), p.46.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Loyo, , educación popular, pp.168–173.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Loyo, , educación popular, pp.180–185,Google Scholar Beltrán, Aguirre, Teoría y práctica pp. 69–74;Google Scholar and Loyo, , “La empresa redentora,” pp. 102–103.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Lewis, Stephen, “A ‘Collective Psychological Experiment’ for the Mexican Nation: The Success and Failure of the Casa del Estudiante Indígena,” presented at the Rocky Mountain Conference of Latin American Studies (February 1999), p. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁹ While this generation of pedagogues spurned theories of biological racism, and argued that Indians were eminently educable, many post-revolutionary intellectuals still viewed living Indians as both inert and inferior, and argued that Mexico’s heterogeneity posed a serious threat to future prosperity. José Vasconceles (La raza cósmica) and Samuel Ramos (El perfil del hombre en México) are notable examples, but Indigenistas such as Manuel Gamio also suggested the importance of racial miscegenation. See, for example, Knight, , “Racism, Revolution, and Indigenismo,” pp. 78–94;Google Scholar Lomnitz-Adlzer, Claudio, Exits from the Labyrith (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), pp. 261–281.Google Scholar Brading sees intellectuals such as Gamio and Vasconcelos as the heirs to Justo Sierra, who in the pre-revolutionary period argued that the mestizo was the “dynamic” element within the nation from a social darwinist perspective. See Brading, , “Manuel Gamio and Official Indigenismo in Mexico,” Bulletin of Latin American Research 71 (1988), pp. 75–79;Google Scholar Brading, , The Origins of Mexican Nationalism (Cambridge: Centre of Latin American Studies, 1985), pp. 4–23, 101;Google Scholar Gamio, Manuel, La Población del Valle de Teotihuacán (México: Talleres Gráficos de la Nación, 1922), pp. XVIII, XLI, LII-LIV;Google Scholar See also Gamio, , “Nacionalismo y internacionalismo,” Ethnos 1:1 (April 1920), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

²⁰ Many observers did conclude that these problems had racial origins. See La Casa del Estudiante Indígena. 16 meses de labor en un experimento psicológico con indios, febrero de 1926-junio de 1927, (México: SEP, 1927), p. 16–17, 31. The Casa was not the only site within the SEP that rejected racial determinism, but it was without doubt the most public and direct repudiation of racist ideologies heretofore established. For other arguments undermining racial determinism during these years, see Dawson, Alexander, “From Models for the Nation to Model Citizens: Indigenismo and the ‘Revindication of the Mexican Indian, 1920–1940” Journal of Latin American Studies 30 (May 1998), pp. 279–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, p. 15. Loyo, , “La empresa redentora,” pp. 104–105.Google Scholar See also Beltrán, Aguirre, Teoría y práctica, p. 97.Google Scholar

²² Quoted in “Informe del Visitador Especial,” Memoria relativa al estado que guarda el Ramo de Educación Pública el 31 de Agusto de 1932, vol. 1 (México: SEP, 1932), p. 25.

²³ Modern sensibilities connoted the ability to speak and read Spanish, a scientific and secular world-view, and a familiarity with the tools of modern life. Casa administrators thus sought out Indians who could be a tabula rasa, the most primitive subjects possible, to be used as the ultimate proof of Indian assimilability.

²⁴ Enrique Corona, the director the School from 1926 until mid-1932, had been chief of the Departamento de Educación y Cultura Indígena before being assigned to the school. Beltrán, Aguirre, Teoría y práctica, pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

²⁵ La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, p. 35. See memorandum by Enrique Corona, 3 January 1927, Archivo Histórico de la Secretaría de Educación Publica—Escuelas Rurales, (Hereafter, AHSEP-ER) caja 1628, exp. 2. The verb is significant here, in that the passage indicated not that Indians might have incorporated themselves, but that they would have been incorporated by “particulares.” See also “Informe del Visitador Especial,” pp. 26–29.

²⁶ La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, p. 38.

²⁷ Schools included the Escuela Benito Juárez, the Anexa a la Normal, Escuela Práctica de Industrias de la Facultad de Ciencia Químicas, Escuela Técnica de Constructores, the Instituto Técnico Industrial. La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, pp. 37, 51. See Ramírez, R., “Finalidades que persiguen el Departamento de Enseñanza Rural y Primaria Foránea,” 15 July 1931, p. 21.Google Scholar AHSEP-ER caja (1099) 1724, exp. 6. See also Beltrán, Aguirre, Teoría y Práctica, p. 99.Google Scholar

²⁸ Puig requested that each state governor send 10 Indian students for the school. La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, pp. 27–28, 45–48.

²⁹ The Casa was declared officially opened on 1 January 1926. See Enrique Corona to R. Ramirez, 26 March 1926. AHSEP-ER caja 628, exp. 11. Corona notes that the Inspector from Uruapan, Mich, sent primarily mestizos. Stephen Lewis notes that all of the “Indians” from Chiapas were from the larger towns, and all were eventually rejected as mestizos within the first three months of the schools’ operation. See Lewis, “Collective Psychological Experiment,” p. 14.

³⁰ This passage refers specifically to a group of Huichol students. La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, pp. 59–60. Photos of these students arriving at the school would later be used along with another taken after their transformation to show the powerful influence of the Casa on these students. See Lewis, , Collective Psychological Experiment,” p. 14.Google Scholar See also Loyo, , “La empresa redentora,” p. 106.Google Scholar

³¹ All told, by May 1926 the school reported an enrollment of 143 students. Many Indian communities resisted recruitment efforts out of a fear that students would not return home or that they would be forced into the military. Others wished to keep these youths to work in local agriculture and to keep them from learning the language and customs of their oppressors. See “Informe” for the Casa, June 1926. AHSEP-ER caja (1327) 1400, exp. 11.

³² Loyo, , “La empresa redentora,” pp. 106–107.Google Scholar Lewis notes that there were similar problems in getting Indian students in Chiapas, Mayos and Yaquis in Sonora, Cora and Huichol in Nayarit, Otomí in Querétaro, Tarascans in Michoacán, and Maya of Quintana Roo. Lewis, , “Collective Psychological Experiment,” pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

³³ Since the school suffered a more than 30% attrition rate, this is not that surprising. Director, Educación Federal in Tepic, Nay, to Corona, 1 March 1926, and 12 July 1926. AHSEP-ER, caja 1628, exp. 1. See also Corona to Jefe, Escuelas Rurales, 18 November 1927. AHSEP-ER, caja 1628, exp. 2.

³⁴ See Director, Educación Federal in Tepic, Nay, to Corona 1 March 1926, pp. 1–2. AHSEP-ER, caja 1628, exp. 1.

³⁵ See letter from Dr. Santiago Ramírez, to Corona, 16 March 1931, describing a series of anthropometric studies he completed on a group of eight Otomí students to determine if they were truly Indian. He concludes that five are, but that the rest are not. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 7. Alan Knight argues that these types of practices show the persistence of racial ideologies in the post-revolutionary period. See Knight, , “Racism, Revolution, and Indigenismo,” pp. 86–100.Google Scholar

³⁶ This took place in 1926. See Corona to Ignacio Ramírez (Jefe de Escuelas Rurales), 16 August 1926; Ramírez to Corona, 27 August 1926; Corona to Ramírez, 14 September 1926. AHSEP-ER, caja (859)1658, exp 1.

³⁷ Sometimes the cultural studies were also justified as an opportunity to popularize national folk practices. See, for example Dr. Alejandro Cerisola (Sub-Secretary of the SEP) to Corona, 1 October 1931. Cerisola asks Corona to facilitate a visit by Dr. Rubín Borbolla (Jefe, Dept. de Antropología, Museo Nacional) to do some physical anthropology tests at the Casa. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 4. See also Alfonso Pruneda (Jefe, Dept. de Bellas Artes) to R. Ramírez, 12 August 1931. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 8.

³⁸ Contemporary educational inspectors regularly defined communities as Indian or mestizo on purely linguistic grounds, changing the definition of communities from Indian to mestizo once a sufficient number of inhabitants spoke Spanish. See various reports on San Francisco de la Tables, in Municipio de Chapa de Moto, Méx., AHSEP, Dirección General de Educación Primaria en los Estados y Territorios, EdoMex. caja (6288)6, exp. 11. See also reports on Yeche, Municipio de Jocotitlán, Mex, AHSEP, Dirección General de Educación Primaria en los Estados y Territorios, EdoMex., caja (6288)6, exp. 22. See also reports on Cacalomacán, in Municipio de Toluca, AHSEP, Dirección General de Educación Primaria en los Estados y Territorios, EdoMex., caja (6288) 6, exp. 36.

³⁹ The most commonly occurring Indian languages were Tarahumara (22), Nahuatl (28), Zapotee (10) Huastec (15) and Maya (11). In a later census in October 1931, the school had 212 students, 183 of whom were bilingual, and 29 only Spanish speaking. As always, Corona also noted a small number of mestizos (14) in the school. Corona reported these statistics on the Casa on 3 May 1926. During its seven year span, enrollment varied between the low of 143 and about 220. AHSEP-ER, caja (859)1658, exp. 1. See also Enrique Corona, Informe for the Casa, 31 October 1931. AHSEP-ER, caja (1327)1400, exp. 11.

⁴⁰ Among the reasons he found for occasionally expelling groups of students was that they were “disruptive,” spent too much time enjoying themselves in the city, uninterested in struggling “for the emancipation of our rural classes,” or that they had been discovered to be mestizos, sometimes after many months in the school. It is also important to note that many of the expelled students were classified as Indians, and that the deployment of the mestizo label may have been a limited strategy to further justify an expulsion. Corona reported expelling five students, four of them mestizos, on 23 November 1926. AHSEP-ER, caja (859) 1658, exp. 1. See also Corona’s justification for expelling several other students, 13 Nov 1928. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 47.

⁴¹ The first class included thirty-one monolingual Spanish-speaking students who Corona determined to be pure Indians. La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, p. 45-48

⁴² My use of the term “ethnicity” here is derived from the contemporary use of ethnicity among anthropologists. Ethnicity is understood as a subjective identity, which defines a group (usually in opposition to another group) according to shifting linguistic, cultural, social, political, and (sometimes) geographic boundaries. Race, on the other hand, is usually meant to refer to an essential biological category. For a discussion of ethnicity, see Stephen, Lynn, “The Creation and Re-creation of Ethnicity: Lessons from the Zapotee and Mixtee of Oaxaca,” Latin American Perspectives 23:2 (Spring 1996), pp. 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ See Corona’s Informe for the Casa, 5 November 1930, p. 5. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 34.

⁴⁴ La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, pp. 64, 72, 76, 110–116. See also Beltrán, Aguirre, Teoría y práctica, pp. 100–101.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ This focus on material factors and shift away from racial determinism was ambiguous, in that it sometimes retained racial overtones. It was also a fairly common practice among anthropologists and eugenicists. See, for example, Stepan, , Hour of Eugenics, pp. 145–153.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Federal inspectors regularly described students on both grounds, but sometimes tried to explain away any signs of civilization in the students on the grounds that they were clearly of “raza pura.” See Inspector J. Téllez, from Puebla de Zaragoza, Pue to Ramírez, recommending two students for admission, 15 May 1926. AHSEP-ER, caja 1628, exp. 1.

⁴⁷ Altamirano to Ignacio Ramírez, 28 January 1927. AHSEP-ER, caja 1628, exp. 1.

⁴⁸ Ignacio Ramírez to Manlio Fabio Altamirano, 3 February 1927. AHSEP- ER, caja 1628, exp. 1.

⁴⁹ Corona, from the Casa’s 1930 Informe, December 1930, p. 11. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 34. See also Letter from Corona to the Director of Misiones Culturales, 18 January 1929, p. 1–5. AHSEPER, caja 6214, exp. 24.

⁵⁰ “Informe del Visitador Especial,” p. 29.

⁵¹ SEP Memoria, September 1936-Ag. 1937, Tomo 1, (Mexico, 1937), p. 401. See also Basauri, Carlos to Bassols, Narciso, “Proyecto de Organización de la Comision de Investigaciones Indias para 1932,” 2 Dec 1931, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar AHSEP-ER, caja 1327, exp. 3.

⁵² Corona called the Casa “one of the essential bases which will in the future help to shape the national soul.” Corona, Informe on the Casa for 1930, pp. 9–11. AHSEP-ER caja (1327)1400, exp. 7.

⁵³ See Informe of the Inspector General of the SEP, Prof. Braulio Rodríguez, of his visit to the Casa, submitted 4 May 1931. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 17. See also Census Taker Agustín Rocha Saavedra (Jefe de Agents) to R. Ramírez, 30 June 1930. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 6. See also Samuef Ramos (Oficial Mayor, Dept. de Escuelas Rurales) to Oficial Mayor, Sec. de Relaciones Exteriores, 21 Nov 1931, reporting a story on the Casa, which appeared in a Munich periodical in November 1931, by Dr. H. Hulsenbeck, titled in German, “Vom Wilden Indianer zum Mexikanishen Gentleman,” AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 3. This is not unlike the larger Indigenista practice of seeing Indian cultures as only useful for their museum value, detailed by Warman, Arturo and others in De eso que llaman antropología mexicana, (México: Ed. Nuestro Tiempo, 1970).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ In its early years Corona and Puig sought to use the school to encourage the “inclinación por las artes industriales características de su raza.” La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, p. 38.

⁵⁵ La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, pp. 82, 86–87.

⁵⁶ Such was clearly the case in 1929, when after seeing the artwork of the students, the Sección de Bellas Artes solicited 280 water color paintings by students from the Casa for an Exposition in Liver-pool, UK. Corona, Informe for the Casa, 17 October 1929, p. 3. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 13.

⁵⁷ From the “Teatro de Títeres” of the CEI in December 1929. Another public theatrical event took place on 12 January 1929, where students gave speeches, read their poems, sang, and even performed a Jarabe Tapatío. Another event was held on 29 November 1930 where students performed the following: Alocuciónes y recitaciónes, Baile de Jícaras, Canciones Mexicanas, music and songs, ritual dances, and a comedy play written by the students. Pamphlets for all events are found in AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 4.

⁵⁸ For the kinds of folk markers that students accessed, see, for example, Galvan, Manuel Hernández, “Ranchero’s Psychology,” Mexican Folkways 2:8 (August-September, 1926), pp, 6–8,Google Scholar and de Mendizábal, Miguel O., “Los Cantares y la Música Indígena, las Canciones y Bailables Populares de México,” Mexican Folkways 5:2 (April-June 1929), p. 120.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ It was thus not unusual for journalists to write in racially charged terms even when commending the students and the school See, for example, newspaper articles reproduced in the monograph on the school. La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, pp. 67, 88.

⁶⁰ Failures were simply a reflection of individual bad characters, students who did not fit the rigorous needs of the school, and the pressures of a home life which at times could not do without another set of hands. Paradoxically, students who ran away were sometimes expelled as a result. See Corona to Ramirez, 14 May 1926. AHSEP-ER, caja (859)1658, exp. 1. Loyo, , “La empresa redentora,” pp. 109–111.Google Scholar

⁶¹ La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, pp. 59–60. Interestingly, a photo of these students arriving at the school would later be used along with another taken after their transformation to show the powerful influence of the Casa on these students.

⁶² An early and striking example of this came with the monograph on the school that was published in 1927. Titled La Casa del Estudiante Indígena 16 meses de labor en un experimento psicológico colectivo con indios, febrero de 1926–junio de 1927, it won the grand prize at the Hispanic American Exposition at Sevilla a year after its publication. The transformations of the students (read successes of the school) were established through three means; text composed by Corona and Puig, extracts from newspaper articles referring to the work done in the school, and a range of fascinating photographs of the students (these were also made available to members of the press for wider publication). Each of these mediums allowed Corona to record the successful transformations of his students. Most strikingly the photos (reminiscent of the before and after photos commonly used in advertising) showed the impoverished communities that the students left behind, the sorry state in which they arrived at the school, and the new men that had been created so quickly. See also Corona’s Informe on the Casa, October 31, 1931. AHSEP-ER, caja (1327)1400, exp. 11.

⁶³ See Corona to Ramírez, quoting proclamation by Profesores Normalistas Antonio Gutiérrez and Francisco Torres, prefects of the school, 15 December, 1926. AHSEP-ER, caja (859)1658, exp. 1.

⁶⁴ Corona, Informe on the Casa, December 1930, p.12. AHSEP-ER, caja (1327)1400, exp.10.

⁶⁵ Corona, Informe on the Casa, December 1930, p. 12. AHSEP-ER, caja (1327)1400, exp.10.

⁶⁶ Corona to the Director of Misiones Culturales, 18 January 1929, p. 1–5. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 24.

⁶⁷ Corona, Informe on the Casa for )930, pp. 1–9. AHSEP-ER caja (1327) 1400, exp. 7. See also Corona’s Informe on the Casa, October 31 1931. AHSEP-ER, caja (1327) 1400, exp. 11. See also Informe of the Inspector General of the SEP, Prof. Braulio Rodríguez, of his visit to the Casa, 25–30 April 1931, submitted 4 May 1931, pp. 3–6. AHSEP-ER. caja (849)1474, exp. 17.

⁶⁸ Ramirez paraphrased Calles’ words here, in a letter which also reiterated the need to spend resources more effectively. R. Ramirez to Sub-Secretary of the SEP, 27 October 1930. AHSEP-ER, caja 1624, exp. 36.

⁶⁹ “Las razas indígenas de México son fuertes y bien organizadas—discurso de Gral. Plutarco Elías Calles,” Crisol. Revista de Crítica (February 12, 1929), p. 36. Biblioteca Miguel Lerdo de Tejada, Archivos Económicos, 104148.

⁷⁰ Newspaper accounts of the school regularly commented that the Casa had “demonstrated the adaptability and aptitude of the Indian for assimilation,” and that the Casa had “provided good results.” See, for example, “Internados Regionales para Indios,” El Nacional (December 15, 1931); “Nuevo Centro de Indígenas,” El Nacional (October 28, 1931); “La Condición de las Razas Indígenas en México es la Misma que tenían in 1811” Excelsior (July 18, 1931). All citations from Biblioteca Miguel Lerdo de Tejada, Archivos Económicos, 104148.

⁷¹ See article in the Munich Illustrated Press in November 1931. Provided in letter from Samuel Ramos (Oficial Mayor, Dept. de Escuelas Rurales) to Oficial Mayor, Sec. de Relaciones Exteriores, 21 Nov. 1931. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 3.

⁷² He suggested moving the school to a rural location where it could have a stronger agricultural emphasis, more courses focused on rural living, a strong emphasis on bringing students from the most remote Indian communities, and better funding from the SEP. Informe of the Inspector General of the SEP, Prof. Braulio Rodríguez, of his visit to the Casa, 25–30 April 1931, submitted 4 May 1931, pp. 10–11. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 17.

⁷³ Rodríguez, of his visit to the Casa, 4 May 1931, pp. 1–6. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 17.

⁷⁴ Rodríguez, of his visit to the Casa, 4 May 1931, p. 3 AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 17.

⁷⁵ See Census Taker Agustín Rocha Saavedra (Jefe de Agentes) to R. Ramírez on June 30, 1930. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 6.

⁷⁶ Rocha Saavedra to R. Ramírez, June 30, 1930. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 6.

⁷⁷ Braulio Rodríguez was particularly impressed by these activities, indicating the enthusiastic participation of students from the school in community activities and in their student government, which created “good moral discipline, based in self-government.” See Rodríguez, on his visit to the Casa, 4 May 1931, pp. 3–10. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 17. Corona was effusive about the athletic abilities of students in the school, noting their many victories in City competitions. See Corona, Informe for . January 31, 1932 to May 1932, 7 June 1932, p.14. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 41.

⁷⁸ See Corona, Informe for the Casa, 30 April 1929. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 13. See also Ramírez, R., “Finalidades que persiguen el Departamento de Enseñanza Rural y Primaria Foránea,” 15 July 1931, p. 21–22.Google Scholar AHSEP-ER, caja (1099)1724, exp. 16. Even as he prepared to close the school and was seeking out reasons for doing so, Rafael Ramírez complemented the functioning of student societies. See Chief of the Department of Rural Schools to Director, Casa, May 12, 1931. AHSEP-ER, caja (1327)1400, exp. 11.See also R. Ramirez to Corona, 12May 1932. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 12. Corona also routinely praised the Sociedad Netzahualcóyotl and the Sociedad Estudiantil Cuaufhémoc, which organized “fiestas patrias” among other things, noting that they functioned well and provided much intellectual stimulation. See Corona, Informe on the Casa, 30 April 1929. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 13. One of the basketball games coincided with a Mother’s Day Celebration on 10 May 1930. Interestingly the trophy for the game was the Copa “Fray Bartolomé de las Casas.” AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 4.

⁷⁹ Corona, Informe for the Casa, 31 October 1931, p. 7. AHSEP-ER, caja (1327)1400, exp. 11.

⁸⁰ Corona, Informe for the Casa, 11 November 1929. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 13.

⁸¹ Corona, Informe for the Casa, 31 December 1929, pp. 4, 7. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 13.

⁸² La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, p. 132

⁸³ La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, pp. 140–142. See also Corona, Informe for the Casa, 5 November 1930, pp. 5–6. In the Informe he notes the staging of the play “Cuauthémoc” in the Parque de Juegos. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp.4. See also AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 34.

⁸⁴ Corona, Informe for the Casa, 25 October 1929. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 13. See also Corona, Informe for the Casa, 31 December 1929. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 13.

⁸⁵ Corona, Informe for the Casa, 30 April 1929. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 13. See also Ramirez, R., “Finalidades que persiguen…,” 15 July 1931, pp. 21–22.Google Scholar AHSEP-ER, caja (1099) 1724, exp. 16.

⁸⁶ See Scott, James, Domination and the Arts of Resistance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 70–107.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Sayer, Derek, “Everyday Forms of State Formation: Some Dissident Remarks on ‘Hegemony,’” in Joseph, and Nugent, , eds., Everyday forms of State Formation (Durham: Duke University Press, 1994), p.374.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Corona, Informe on the Casa for 1930, pp. 9–11. AHSEP-ER caja (1327)1400, exp. 7; Corona, Informe for the Casa, December 1930, p.3. AHSEP-ER, caja (1327)1400, exp. 10.

⁸⁹ Highlighting the importance of this task, Calles commented to one class that “I expect that you will go to your villages with a deep love for the mission to which you have been entrusted, to stand before your racial brethren and work with the government so that the Mexican masses, like us and like you, may enjoy a little good fortune on the land. Those of you who would abandon your task would be a criminal, a traitor to your race, and a traitor to Mexico.” “Las razas indígenas de México son fuertes y bien organizadas—discurso de Gral. Plutarco Elías Calles,” Crisol. Revista de Crítica (February 12, 1929), p.36.

⁹⁰ Corona, reporting on the Casa, December 1930, p.2. AHSEP-ER 1327/1400/10.

⁹¹ Corona, Informe for the Casa in 1930, December 1930, p. 12. AHSEP-ER 6214/34.

⁹² Some of the positive comments noted that they had gained the cooperation of the locals, were good disciplinarians, social leaders and models, showed initiative, were hard workers, displayed irreproachable moral conduct, and were well accepted in the community. Failures came from hostility in the community, lack of cooperation, lack of aptitude for teaching, and laziness. Enrique Corona, Casa del Estudiante Indígena Informe for the first half of 1932, 31 May 1932, pp. 15–25. AHSEP, ER (849) 1474/41.

⁹³ Corona, Informe for the Casa, January 31, 1932 to May 1932, signed 7 June 1932, p.18. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 41. For León's later work, see Loyo, p. 120–121.

⁹⁴ This appeared in several Informes on the Casa between 1930 and 1931. See, AHSEP-ER, caja (1327)1400, exp. 7.

⁹⁵ R. Ramirez to Sub-Secretary of the SEP, 27 October 1930, pp. 1–2. AHSEP-ER, caja 1624, exp. 36. See also R. Ramírez, Informe for Escuelas Rurales, 1 September 1932–31, July 1933, 8 August 1933, p. 3. AHSEP-ER caja (1099)1724, exp. 2.

⁹⁶ “Informe del Visitador Especial,” p. 70.

⁹⁷ “Informe del Visitador Especial,” p. 30.

⁹⁸ In other regions it ranged from 1600–1900 pesos, at the Casa it was over 10,000 pesos per student. “Informe del Visitador Especial,” pp. 71–72. Aguirre Beltrán notes that the school cost more than a million pesos and only 114 finished their studies. See Aguirre Beltrán, p. 100.

⁹⁹ It had broken windows, crumbling walls, and other serious infrastructure and hygiene problems. These conditions had long been a problem for the school; the problems of disrepair due to a lack of funds and its location in a rather impoverished and unsanitary neighborhood had been a source of criticism for years. See Loyo, pp. 107–108. See also Lewis, , “A Collective Psychological Experiment,” p. 13.Google Scholar Given his concern for class struggle, he also questioned the legitimacy of the assimilationist mission of the school. He argued for class-consciousness rather than incorporation. “Informe del Visitador Especial,” pp. 29–53, 59.

¹⁰⁰ “Informe del Visitador Especial,” p. 68.

¹⁰¹ “Informe del Visitador Especial,” pp. 65–67.

¹⁰² “Informe del Visitador Especial,” pp. 63–65. Interestingly, while many students failed as teachers, the Casa and the Internados Indígenas (which followed its closure) produced many young teachers who would go on to play prominent roles in their home communities. Through the Rural School, and later the Departamento Autónomo de Asuntos indígenas and the Instituto Nacional Indigenista, students such as Ignacio León and Patricio Jaris (Tarahumara students in the Casa), would come to act as key intermediaries between their communities and the state. See Loyo, , “La empresa redentora,” p. 120–121;Google Scholar la Peña, Guillermo de, “La ciudadanía étnica y la construcción de los indios en el México contemporáneo,” Revista Internacional de Filosofía Política (December 1995), p. 120.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ramírez, R., in the SEP Informe for 1 September 1932 to 31 July 1933, 8 August 1933, p. 3.Google Scholar AHSEP-ER, caja (1099)1724, exp. 2.

¹⁰⁴ Informe General de las iabores de 1933, August 1933, pp. 14, 19–20. AHSEP-ER, caja (1099)1724, exp. 2.

¹⁰⁵ Lewis, , “A Collective Psychological Experiment,” pp. 16–17 Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Loyo, , “La empresa redentora,” pp. 112–113.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See Corona, Informes for the Casa, February 1931, March 21, 1931.

¹⁰⁸ Loyo, , “La empresa redentora,” p. 123.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ The accusation that Corona was a Porfirian despot was made repeatedly. See Letter to the “Alianza de Comunidades Agrarias de la República"(ACAR), from Francisco Valenzuela and Panfilo Piñeda, of the Comité de Defensa de la Alumnos de la CEI,” 7 May 1932. Both students were among those that Corona expelled. See also letter from Filoberto C. Real and José Torres Rojas (both of the ACAR) to the SEP, 9 May 1932. AHSEP-ER, caja (849) 1474, exp. 44. See also Lewis, , “A Collective Psychological Experiment,” p. 27.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ “Lista de Quejas presentados por un grupo de alumnos insubordinados de la CEI, ante el C. Secretario de EP, el 24 de mayo 1932.” Some of the complaints, such as the fact that they had to wash and iron their own clothes, seemed less serious. AHSEP-ER, caja (849) 1474, exp. 13.

¹¹¹ Fifty-six of the students who signed the petition would later claim that they did not realize what they were signing, and disavow any part in the protest. See petition attached to letter of 9 May from from Filoberto C. Real and José Torres Rojas of the ACAR to the SEP. See also four letters dated 28 July 1932 to the SEP. AHSEP-ER, caja (849) 1474, exp. 44.

¹¹² For the students he interviewed, see “Informe del Visitador Especial,” pp. 57–58.

¹¹³ Beltrán, Aguirre, Teoría y práctica, p.l00.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Corona, Informe for the Casa for January 31, 1932 to May 1932, 7 June 1932, p. 12–13. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 41.

¹¹⁵ Corona to R. Ramírez, 27 May 1932. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 21.

¹¹⁶ This appeared on page 4 of the letter from the students. Corona to R. Ramírez, 27 May 1932. AHSEP-ER, caja (849)1474, exp. 21.

¹¹⁷ SEP, Informe General de las labores de 1933, August 1933, pp. 19-20. AHSEP-ER, caja (1099)1724, exp. 2.

¹¹⁸ “Informe del Visitador Especial,” pp. 57–58.

¹¹⁹ As individuals taking part in the process of policy formation, they could dialogue with the state from within. Given the fundamental weakness of the Mexican State during the 1920s, these students were in a much stronger position to redefine the process of incorporation than students would be in later years. The concept of negotiating rule, deployed with increasing frequency by scholars seeking to understand state formation in Mexico, is useful in interpreting the actions of students in the Casa. In this sense, the students—as Christopher Boyer recently argued for agraristas in Michoacán—were able to “recast revolutionary ideology” to serve their own ends. See Boyer, Christopher R., “Old Loves, New Loyalties: Agrarismo in Michoacán, 1920–1928,” Hispanic American Historical Review 78:3 (1998), pp. 413–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the idea of negotiating rule, see also Vaughan, , Cultural Politics, pp. 4, 8–9;Google Scholar Punteli, Jennie, “With All Due Respect: Popular Resistance to the Privatization of Communal Lands in Nineteenth-Century Michoacán,” Latin American Research Review 34:1 (1999), pp. 92–99,Google Scholar and various essays in Joseph, Gilbert and Nugent, Daniel, eds., Everyday Forms of State Formation (Durham, 1994),Google Scholar especially Rockwell, , “Schools of the Revolution,” pp. 188–195.Google Scholar Others argue, however, that accommodation to the revolutionary agenda was principally an effort to advance local agendas, and did not generally reflect genuine support of the revolutionary state’s agenda. See, for example, Bantjes, Adrian A., “Burning Saints, Molding Minds: Iconoclasm, Civic Ritual, and the Failed Cultural Revolution,” in Beezley, William et al, eds., Rituals of Rule, Rituals of Resistance: Public Celebrations and Popular Culture in Mexico (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 1994), pp. 261–284.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Gayatri Spivak warns against such temptations, arguing that powerful agents of the state (in this case Corona, Ramírez, et al) obviate subaltern speech. In this, she argues that even those intellectuals who express sympathy for subaltern agendas speak from power, and thus define and manipulate the words and actions of subaltern actors. Similarly, James Scott argues against interpreting the participation by subaltern actors within the system as much more than simple efforts to work the system towards individual ends. Scott does accept that over time constant negotiation can change the system. Vaughan also notes the importance of distinguishing “between tactical profession and real appropriation,” particularly vii a vis expressions of enthusiasm for the nation. These warnings cast light on the meanings of student speech, but in the unique circumstances of the school its students not only spoke in important ways, but their speech also contributed to a reconfiguring of the terrain upon which Indian-State relations was constituted. See Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in Nelson, Cary and Grossberg, Lawrence, eds., Marxism and the interpretation of Cultures, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), pp. 271–313;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Scott, , Domination and the Arts of Resistance, pp. 70–107;Google Scholar Vaughan, , Cultural Politics, p. 19.Google Scholar

¹²¹ See, for example, “Las razas indígenas de México son fuertes y bien organizadas—discurso de Gral. Plutarco Elías Calles,” Crisol. Revista de Crítica (February 12, 1929), p. 36.

¹²² See, for example, declarations in La Casa del Estudiante Indígena, pp. 132–136.

¹²³ The decision to promote Indian languages was not widely supported within the SEP, but students from the school seem to have understood it as crucial to the educational process. Years later, former students from the Casa would persist in arguing that this was one of the most important missions of the school—that the education of students in a context where their local vernaculars were preserved was an essential part of creating teachers who could succeed in the field. Interestingly, functionaries from the PNR also recognized the value of the Indian languages spoken in the school, and they used the students in the school to translate into their own languages a number of compositions of a civic and cultural nature. Corona, Informe for the Casa, 5 November 1930, p. 5. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 34 See also Loyo, pp. 113–114. See also Petition signed by 34 former students of the Casa, grouped together as the “Comité Pro-Casa del Estudiante Indígena” December 1934. AHSEP-ER, caja (1328) 186, exp. 2. On the opposition within the SEP to the use of vernaculars, see Circular by Dir EDFED in Puebla, 21 June 1927, pp. 1–3, AHSEP ER, caja 1796, unclassified. See also Rockwell, p. 196.

¹²⁴ On the other hand, Corona did support the “Indian Language Clubs” which served as a means for students to preserve and promote the use of their vernaculars within the school. According to Corona, these clubs were organized and run by the students, meeting once a week. Corona, Informe for the Casa, 25 October 1929. AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 13. See also Corona, , Informe for the Casa, 31 December 1929, p. 3.Google Scholar AHSEP-ER, caja 6214, exp. 13.

¹²⁵ Students for these schools were chosen on the basis that they “constitute an ethnic and geographic group … of the same race, the same language, and the same standard of living.” In selecting these criteria, the Department recognized, essentially for the first time, that each distinct culture had to be accommodated in order to facilitate the educational process. See Chief of Escuelas Rurales Federal Director of Education, 21 December 1928, pp. 1–4. AHSEP-ER, caja (984)1609/1475, exp. 8. See also Program for the Creation of the “Centros de Educación Indígena,” 1932, p. 2. AHSEP-ER, caja (1099)1724, exp. 2. See also Ignacio García Tellez (Secretary of the SEP), Acuerdo #2409, 23 April 1935, pp. 1–2, AHSEP-ER, caja (1328)186, exp. 2. See “Juntas de los Directores de Educación Federal de los Estados de Yucatán, Campeche, Tabasco, y territorios de Quintana Roo, en la Ciudad de Merida, Yuc,” 21 October 1935. AHSEP-ER, caja (189)1331, exp. 11. See also Informe for Escuelas Rurales for 1934–35, 20 July 1935, p. 22. AHSEP-ER, caja (1331)189, exp. 5.

¹²⁶ Corona, Informe for the Casa in 1930, December 1930, p. 11. AHSEP-ER 6214/34.

¹²⁷ Moreover, maintaining local languages and cultures through the process of education created the possibilities for local communities to play a more significant role in determining the curriculum of the school. This would offer the possibility for challenging what Knight criticizes as the generally non-Indian formulations of the “Indian problem.” Knight, “Race, Revolution, and Indigenismo,” pp. 76–77, 86. In at least one case, the Yaqui Internado in Sonora seems to have had some success and gained support from the community in its (short-lived, as it was) decision to hire Yaqui teachers, focus on Yaqui History, paint murals supporting Yaqui culture in the school, and an emphasize the Yaqui language. See Vaughan, , Cultural Politics, pp. 155–156.Google Scholar