No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2022
This article presents a social history of the Coalición de los Pueblos Mixtecos Oaxaqueños (Coalition of Mixtec Oaxacan Communities, CPMO), a grouping of mutual-aid associations formed by Indigenous migrants in Mexico City during the middle of the twentieth century. It draws on the coalition's archives to demonstrate how years of migration to Mexico City eroded traditional inter-village conflicts and created the conditions for a broader ethnic identity among Mixtec migrants in the capital. In addition, the coalition's collaboration with the federal government's Instituto Nacional Indigenista (National Indigenous Institute, INI) challenges common depictions of Indigeneity and modernisation as being inherently antagonistic with one another. The coalition's collaboration with the INI led its members to more consciously and visibly identify with their Indigenous roots; they had to become more Indigenous in order to become more modern.
Este artículo presenta una historia social de la Coalición de los Pueblos Mixtecos Oaxaqueños (CPMO), una agrupación de asociaciones de ayuda mutua formadas por migrantes indígenas en la Ciudad de México a mediados del siglo veinte. Se basa en los archivos de la coalición para demostrar cómo años de migración a la Ciudad de México fueron diluyendo conflictos tradicionales entre comunidades y crearon las condiciones para una identidad étnica más amplia entre los migrantes mixtecos en la capital. Además, la colaboración de la coalición con el estatal Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI) desafía descripciones comunes de que tanto la indigeneidad como la modernización son inherentemente antagónicas entre sí. La colaboración de la coalición con el INI llevó a sus miembros a una identificación más consciente y visible con sus raíces indígenas; tuvieron que hacerse más indígenas con el fin de volverse más modernos.
Este artigo apresenta a história social da Coalizão das Comunidades Mixtecas de Oaxaca (CPMO), um agrupamento de associações de ajuda mútua formadas por migrantes indígenas na Cidade do México em meados do século vinte. O estudo se baseia nos arquivos da coalizão para demonstrar como os anos de migração para a Cidade do México corroeram os conflitos tradicionais entre as aldeias e criaram as condições para uma identidade étnica mais ampla entre os migrantes mixtecas na capital. Além disso, a colaboração da coalizão com o Instituto Nacional Indígena (INI) do governo federal desafia representações comuns de indigenismo e modernização como sendo inerentemente antagônicas entre si. A colaboração da coalizão com o INI levou seus membros a se identificarem de forma mais consciente e visível com suas raízes indígenas; eles tiveram que se tornar mais indígenas para se tornarem mais modernos.
1 See Eric Rutkow, The Longest Line on the Map: The United States, the Pan-American Highway, and the Quest to Link the Americas (New York: Scribner, 2019).
2 For overviews on debates, see Mae Ngai, ‘Immigration and Ethnic History’, in Eric Foner and Lisa McGirr (eds.), American History Now (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2011), pp. 358−75. For transnational studies of immigration from Oaxaca, see Laura Velasco Ortiz, Mixtec Transnational Identity (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 2005); and Lynn Stephen, Transborder Lives: Indigenous Oaxacans in Mexico, California, and Oregon (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007). The issue of rural-to-urban migration in Mexico has been the subject of a large number of studies by anthropologists and sociologists since the 1960s and 1970s. Some key works include Lewis, Oscar, ‘Urbanization without Breakdown: A Case Study’, Scientific Monthly, 75: 1 (1952), pp. 31−41Google Scholar; Larissa A. de Lomnitz, Cómo sobreviven los marginados (Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1975); Lourdes Arizpe, Migración, etnicismo y cambio económico: Un estudio sobre migrantes campesinos a la Ciudad de México (Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1978); more recently, Sandoval-Cervantes, Iván, ‘Navigating the City: Internal Migration of Oaxacan Indigenous Women’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43: 5 (2017), pp. 849−65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and M. Bianet Castellanos, Indigenous Dispossession: Housing and Maya Indebtedness in Mexico (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2021). Despite the wealth of ethnographic studies, the subject lacks archival research conducted by historians.
3 For a few key works where this approach has been applied, see Nancy Foner, From Ellis Island to JFK: New York's Two Great Waves of Immigration (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000); Jesse Hoffnung-Garskof, A Tale of Two Cities: Santo Domingo and New York after 1950 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008); Mark Wyman, Round-Trip to America: The Immigrants Return to Europe, 1880–1930 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993); and Freddy González, Paisanos Chinos: Transpacific Politics among Chinese Immigrants in Mexico (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2017). The article draws from Stephanie Newell in its definition of cultural politics as the ‘way that culture − including people's attitudes, opinions, beliefs and perspectives, as well as the media and arts − shapes society and political opinion, and gives rise to social, economic and legal realities’. (Stephanie Newell, ‘What is Meant by Cultural Politics?’, DirtPol, 1 April 2014, available at https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/dirtpol/2014/04/01/what-is-meant-by-cultural-politics-by-prof-steph-newell/, last access 11 Nov. 2021.)
4 Kearney, Michael, ‘Transnational Oaxacan Indigenous Identity: The Case of Mixtecs and Zapotecs’, Identities, 7: 2 (2000), pp. 173−95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 The meaning of indigenismo has varied over many years; here it refers to the attempts by the state to integrate Indigenous populations into the modernising process, an elevation in the role of Indigenous communities in Mexican history, and a stronger emphasis on cultural markers as opposed to racial categories. See Alan Knight, ‘Racism, Revolution, and Indigenismo’, in Richard Graham (ed.), The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870−1940 (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1990), pp. 71−103; and María L. O. Muñoz, Stand Up and Fight: Participatory Indigenismo, Populism, and Mobilization in Mexico, 1970−1984 (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 2016).
6 The INI was created in 1948 as the main federal agency responsible for Indigenous matters. See Stephen E. Lewis, Rethinking Mexican Indigenismo: The INI's Coordinating Center in Highland Chiapas and the Fate of a Utopian Project (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2018). The intellectual origins of the INI are traced in Paula López Caballero, ‘Anthropological Debates around the Indigenous Subject and Alterity’, in Paula López Caballero and Ariadna Acevedo-Rodrigo (eds.), Beyond Alterity: Destabilizing the Indigenous Other in Mexico (Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 2018), pp. 199−221. In some cases, the negative criticism of the INI asserted that national governments did not respect the integrity and autonomy of Indigenous cultures and that indigenismo projects simply were intended to assimilate Indigenous communities into the nation-state for economic and political reasons mainly beneficial to the state. For criticism, see Arturo Warman, Margarita Nolasco, Guillermo Bonfil, Mercedes Olivera and Enrique Valencia, De eso que llaman antropología mexicana (Mexico City: Editorial Nuestro Tiempo, 1970).
7 Ronald Spores and Andrew K. Balkansky, The Mixtecas of Oaxaca (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2013), pp. 16−20; Peter Guardino, ‘Connected Communities: Villagers and Wider Social Systems in the Late Colonial and Early National Periods’, in Caballero and Acevedo-Rodrigo (eds.), Beyond Alterity, pp. 61–83.
8 Raúl Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca: Un testimonio y documentos para la microhistoria de San Juan Achiutla y la Mixteca Alta en el estado de Oaxaca (Mexico City, 2010), p. 295 (this book was self-published). Earlier statistics can be found in Léon Diguet, ‘Le Mixtécapan’, Journal de la société des américanistes, 3: 1 (1906), pp. 17−18.
9 Lewis, Rethinking Mexican Indigenismo, p. 18. Currently the Mixtecs constitute one of the 15 major ethnolinguistic groups in Oaxaca, a state which boasts the largest Indigenous population in Mexico.
10 Spores and Balkansky, The Mixtecas of Oaxaca, p. 143. Also found in Pioquinto, Donato Ramos, ‘Migración y cambios socioeconómicos en la comunidad de Zoogocho, Oaxaca’, Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos, 6: 2 (1991), p. 337Google Scholar.
11 Aspects of these circumstances can be found in a recent study on female migrants from Oaxaca in Sandoval-Cervantes, ‘Navigating the City’.
12 Philip Adams Dennis, Intervillage Conflict in Oaxaca (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987), pp. 39−41.
13 Kevin Terraciano, The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca: Ñudzahui History, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), p. 227.
14 Kearney, Michael and Nagengast, Carole, ‘Mixtec Ethnicity: Social Identity, Political Consciousness, and Political Activism’, Latin American Research Review, 25: 2 (1990), p. 72Google Scholar.
15 Guardino, ‘Connected Communities’, p. 67. For the conservative and provincial character of the area, see Benjamin T. Smith, The Roots of Conservatism in Mexico: Catholicism, Society, and Politics in the Mixteca Baja, 1750–1962 (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2012), p. 2.
16 Moisés de la Peña, Problemas sociales y económicos de las mixtecas (Mexico City: INI, 1950), pp. 7−10. Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, p. 22.
17 Ian Scott, Urban and Spatial Development in Mexico (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 1982), pp. 235–8.
18 For specifics on the Bracero Programme in Oaxaca, see Lynn Stephen, Zapotec Women: Gender, Class, and Ethnicity in Globalized Oaxaca (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005), p. 36. For Ruiz Bautista's experience as a bracero, see Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, pp. 113−17.
19 For overviews on agriculture, see Jesús Carlos Morett Sánchez, Reforma agraria: Del latifundio al neoliberalismo (Mexico City: Plaza y Valdés, 2003); Joseph Cotter, Troubled Harvest: Agronomy and Revolution in Mexico, 1880−2002 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003).
20 Stephen Niblo, Mexico in the 1940s: Modernity, Politics, and Corruption (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1999).
21 David Cymet, From Ejido to Metropolis, Another Path: An Evaluation on Ejido Property Rights and Informal Land Development in Mexico City (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), p. 23.
22 De la Peña, Problemas sociales y económicos de las mixtecas, p. 52. For more on academic studies of the area, see Caballero, Paula López, ‘Domesticating Social Taxonomies: Local and National Identifications as Seen through Susan Drucker's Anthropological Fieldwork in Jamiltepec, Oaxaca, Mexico, 1957–1963’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 100: 2 (2020), pp. 285−321Google Scholar.
23 Butterworth, Douglas, ‘Rural−Urban Migration and Microdemography: A Case Study from Mexico’, Urban Anthropology, 4: 3 (1975), p. 66Google Scholar.
24 Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, p. 17.
25 Butterworth, ‘Rural–Urban Migration’, p. 266.
26 De la Peña, Problemas sociales y económicos de las mixtecas, p. 253.
27 Ana María Goldani, ‘Evaluación de los datos de la población total y de la población inmigrante captados por la encuesta’, in Humberto Muñoz, Orlandina de Oliveira and Claudio Stern (eds.), Migración y desigualdad social en la Ciudad de México (Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1977), pp. 43−7.
28 Enrique Valencia, La Merced: Estudio ecológico y social de una zona de la ciudad de México (Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 1965), p. 240.
29 Goldani, ‘Evaluación de los datos de la población’, p. 133.
30 Oaxacans, although not one and the same as Mixtecs, generally comprised 10 per cent of Mexico City's migrants. See ibid., p. 132.
31 Ibid., p. 40.
32 Claudio Stern, ‘Cambios en los volúmenes de migrantes provenientes de distintas zonas geoeconómicas’, in Muñoz et al., Migración y desigualdad social, p. 118. There were slightly more men who migrated, however there is only a small difference between the number of men and women who migrated to Mexico City.
33 For Michoacán, see Robert V. Kemper, Migration and Adaptation: Tzintzuntzan Peasants in Mexico City (Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 1977). For Jalisco, see David Fitzgerald, ‘Colonies of the Little Motherland: Membership, Space, and Time in Mexican Migrant Hometown Associations’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 50: 1 (2008), pp. 145–69.
34 Douglas Butterworth, ‘Selectivity of Out-Migration from a Mixtec Community’, Urban Anthropology, 6: 2 (1977), pp. 132−4; Carlos Orellana, ‘Mixtec Migrants in Mexico City: A Case Study of Urbanization’, Human Organization, 3: 32 (1973), p. 275.
35 The early history of migration from San Juan Achiutla is found in Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, p. 107–108. The trip is detailed in ibid., pp. 109−10. In terms of his occupation, Ruiz Bautista accompanied a fellow Mixtec migrant in Mexico City to a warehouse (bodega) where they would pick up an assortment of clothes and sell them together in different locations in El Centro and La Roma.
36 Orellana, ‘Mixtec Migrants’, p. 278. A similar finding is documented among migrants from Zoogocho who settled near the airport in Mexico City. See Ramos Pioquinto, ‘Migración y cambios socioeconómicos’, pp. 335−6.
37 David Fitzgerald, ‘Colonies of the Little Motherland’, pp. 145–69; Arizpe, Migración, etnicismo y cambio económico; and Kemper, Migration and Adaptation.
38 ‘Editorial’, Monte Alban, 31 Oct. 1965, p. 3.
39 Manuel Hernández Hernández, ‘Los 15 años de la CPMO’, Monte Alban, 30 Nov. 1966, p. 1.
40 In one example of those controversial methods, Caso's dating of Zapotec artefacts led to his postulation of dates and eras that were widely disputed by other archeologists. In addition, his claims of strong Zapotec rule or hegemony over neighbouring areas were also criticised in the years he was active. See Ernesto González Licón, ‘Social Inequality at Monte Albán Oaxaca: Household Analysis from Terminal Formative to Early Classic’, unpubl. PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, 2003. For more on Caso's connection to the early formation of the CPMO and its decision to collaborate with the INI, see Hernández Hernández, ‘Los 15 años de la CPMO’; and Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, p. 183.
41 ‘CPMO pugna incesantemente por mejorar los pueblos de la Mixteca y otras regiones de Oaxaca’, Monte Alban, 31 Jan. 1966, p. 1.
42 Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, p. 154.
43 Ibid., p. 259.
44 Douglas Butterworth, ‘Two Small Groups: A Comparison of Migrants and Non-Migrants in Mexico City’, Urban Anthropology, 1: 1 (1972), p. 42.
45 Douglas Butterworth and John K. Chance, Latin American Urbanization (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 143.
46 More specifically, there were members of the INI who adopted a Marxist approach to the Indian question and consequently rooted their analysis more firmly in class relations. Ricardo Pozas was an example of a Mexican anthropologist who advocated for such an approach. See Lewis, Rethinking Mexican Indigenismo, pp. 32−3. See also Manuel M. Marzal, Historia de la antropología indigenista: México y Perú (Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, 1993); Sylvia Bigas Torres, La narrativa indigenista mexicana del siglo XX (Guadalajara: Editorial Universidad de Guadalajara, 1990); and David A. Brading, ‘Manuel Gamio and Official Indigenismo in Mexico’, Bulletin of Latin American Research, 7: 1 (1988), pp. 80–1.
47 For a recent discussion of the CCI centres, see Alan Shane Dillingham, Oaxaca Resurgent: Indigeneity, Development, and Inequality in Twentieth-Century Mexico (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2021), pp. 39–47.
48 See Warman, De eso que llaman antropología mexicana; Guillermo Bonfil Batalla, ‘Admitamos que los indios no nacieron equivocados’, in Instituto Nacional Indigenista, INI, 30 años después: Revisión crítica (Mexico City: INI, 1978), pp. 149–71.
49 Lewis, Rethinking Mexican Indigenismo, p. 8, p. 265.
50 ‘Ciclo de conferencias inaugurado por Dr. Alfonso Caso’, Monte Alban, 30 June 1966, p. 6. For background on the influence of Franz Boas in Mexico, see Alexander Dawson, Indian and Nation in Revolutionary Mexico (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 2004), pp. 6−9. A similar experience in the Papaloapan Basin area was found by Diana Schwartz, who views Indigenous modernisation as a practice that solidifies the category of ‘Indigenous’ while maintaining an elusive definition. Diana Lynn Schwartz, ‘Displacement, Development, and the Creation of a Modern Indígena in the Papaloapan, 1940s–1970s’, in Caballero and Acevedo-Rodrigo (eds.), Beyond Alterity, p. 237.
51 For an example, see ‘Informe anual de actividades de la Coalición de los Pueblos Mixtecos Oaxaqueños’, Monte Alban, 30 Nov. 1967, pp. 1−2.
52 ‘Los 15 años de la CPMO’, Monte Alban, 30 Nov. 1966, pp. 1−3.
53 Both quotes can found in Douglas and Chance, Latin American Urbanization, p. 144.
54 Josefat Hernández Reyes, ‘El indígena oaxaqueño y sus problemas’, Monte Alban, 30 June 1966, p. 2.
55 Feliciano Morales Cruz, ‘Tu no eres indio’, Monte Alban, 31 Oct. 1965, p. 6.
56 Carlos Bences, ‘El Dueño’, Monte Alban, 28 Feb. 1966, p. 6.
57 Manuel Hernández Hernández, ‘Histórico informe de Dr. Manuel Hernández Hernández en el aniversario de la Coalición de los Pueblos Mixtecos Oaxaqueños’, Monte Alban, 30 Nov. 1965, p. 1.
58 Kearney, ‘Transnational Oaxacan Indigenous Identity’; Spores and Balkansky, The Mixtecas of Oaxaca, pp. 221−3; Ortiz, Mixtec Transnational Identity.
59 Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, p. 114.
60 Butterworth, ‘Two Small Groups’, p. 39.
61 Kearney and Nagengast, ‘Mixtec Ethnicity’, p. 65. The PRI is a Mexican political party that was founded in 1929, first as the Partido Nacional Revolucionario (National Revolutionary Party, PNR), then as the Partido de la Revolución Mexicana (Party of the Mexican Revolution, PRM) and as the PRI in 1946. The PRI would hold on to power as the ruling party until 2000.
62 Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, p. 186.
63 Lewis describes cultural promoters as ‘bilingual indigenous cultural brokers’ drawn from native communities and utilised to negotiate INI development policies in education, road construction, agriculture and public health in their home communities. Although there are examples of antagonistic relations concerning road construction and electrification projects, cultural promoters tended to experience more controversy and tensions in educational and medical settings. See Stephen E. Lewis, ‘Mexico's National Indigenist Institute and the Negotiation of Applied Anthropology in Highland Chiapas, 1951–1954’, Ethnohistory, 55: 4 (2008), p. 610. For more background on cultural promoters, see A. S. Dillingham, ‘Indigenismo Occupied: Indigenous Youth and Mexico's Democratic Opening (1968–1975)’, The Americas, 72: 4 (2015), pp. 549−51.
64 Serafin Bazan,‘¿Qué es la Coalición de los Pueblos Mixtecos Oaxaqueños?’, Monte Alban, 31 Dec. 1965, p. 1.
65 Roderic Ai Camp, Mexican Political Biographies, 1935−2009 (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2011), p. 353.
66 CPMO, Resumen de labores de la Coalición de los Pueblos Mixtecos Oaxaqueños, durante su ejercicio social (Mexico City: CPMO, 1966), pp. 3−5.
67 Ibid., p. 138.
68 Hernández Hernández, ‘Los 15 años de la CPMO’, pp. 2−3.
69 CPMO, Resumen de labores, pp. 145−6.
70 ‘Acto de gran emotividad fue el XVII aniversario de la Coalición de los Pueblos Mixtecos Oaxaqueños’, Monte Alban, 30 Nov. 1969, p. 1. CONASUPO was created in 1962 as a state-led agency responsible for purchasing local crops and selling basic staples (corn, milk, cooking oil) at a low, fixed rate.
71 Ruiz Bautista writes about his thoughts from this period in his memoir, Camino por la Mixteca, pp. 120−1.
72 Camp, Mexican Political Biographies, p. 353.
73 See Bess, Michael K., ‘Revolutionary Paths: Road Building, National Identity, and Foreign Power in Mexico, 1917−1938’, Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, 32: 1 (2016), pp. 56–82;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lewis, Rethinking Mexican Indigenismo, pp. 35−6.
74 Letter from Rutilio Ruiz Hernández to Raúl Ruiz Bautista, 22 June 1949, Personal Archive of Raúl Ruiz Bautista (hereafter PA/RRB). Ruiz Bautista's personal archives have been deposited in the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (National Autonomous University of Mexico, UNAM)'s Biblioteca Nacional (National Library) and digitally uploaded to Open Library. The author has consulted the papers from both locations. Digital archives are available at https://openlibrary.org/works/OL15824306W/Camino_por_la_Mixteca, last access 11 Nov. 2021.
75 Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, p. 138.
76 Letter from Raúl Ruiz Bautista to Vicente Arias, municipal president of Teposcolula, Oaxaca, 3 Jan. 1950, PA/RRB.
77 Letter from Rutilio Ruiz Hernández to Raúl Ruiz Bautista, 3 July 1951, PA/RRB.
78 Internal Memo by Rutilio Ruiz Hernández, 6 Oct. 1951, PA/RRB.
79 Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, pp. 293−4. More recently, historian Benjamin T. Smith has pointed the exploitive use of the tequio in road-building projects. While there was no explicit record of this in Ixtapa, it is possible forced labour was used in clearing out rocks and debris to make the road. See Benjamin T. Smith, ‘Communal Work, Forced Labor, and Road Building in Mexico, 1920−1958’, in David Nugent and Ben Fallaw, State Formation in the Liberal Era: Capitalisms and Claims of Citizenship in Mexico and Peru (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 2020), pp. 273−98.
80 Letter from Rutilio Ruiz Hernández to municipal authorities of San Juan Achiutla, 3 Oct. 1951, PA/RRB.
81 Letter from Rutilio Ruiz Hernández to Raúl Ruiz Bautista, 21 March 1953, PA/RRB.
82 Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, p. 125.
83 Ibid., p. 205.
84 Ibid., p. 217, p. 234.
85 See, for example, ‘Vanguardia Progresista de San Juan Achiutla en el D. F. Solicitud de Licencia con folio 3584, Oficina de Espectáculos del DDF’, 30 May 1957, PA/RRB.
86 Letter from Vanguardia Progresista de San Juan Achiutla en el D. F to Rutilio Ruiz Hernández, 6 Dec. 1962, PA/RRB.
87 Letter from Raúl Ruiz Bautista to Rutilio Ruiz Hernández, 27 April 1955, PA/RRB; Letter from Rutilio Ruiz Hernández to Raúl Ruiz Bautista, 19 Nov. 1962, PA/RRB.
88 Letter from Rutilio Ruiz Hernández to Raúl Ruiz Bautista, 14 Jan. 1959, PA/RRB.
89 Lewis, Rethinking Mexican Indigenismo, pp. 175−9.
90 Ruiz Bautista, Camino por la Mixteca, pp. 219–20, pp. 229–31.
91 The opening and road details can be found in ‘Speech of Rutilio Ruiz Hernández’, 18 March 1963, PA/RRB.
92 See Stephen, Transborder Lives, pp. 63−6.
93 Jones, John Paul, Roberts, Susan M. and Fröhling, Oliver, ‘Managerialism in Motion: Lessons from Oaxaca’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 43: 4 (2011), pp. 633−62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
94 For an overview that includes Oaxaca, see Fox, Jonathan and Bada, Xochitl, ‘Migrant Organization and Hometown Impacts in Rural Mexico’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 8: 2/3 (2008), pp. 435–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
95 Butterworth, ‘Selectivity of Out-Migration from a Mixtec Community’, p. 130; Orellana, ‘Mixtec Migrants in Mexico City’, pp. 275−7.