"The Other Republics: Five Hundred Years of Being Indian" by Glenn T. Curry in "Encounters" (February 1992, No. 8, pp. 31-33) Almost five hundred years have passed since Christopher Columbus's great voyage permanently and irrevocably linked the continents. During the intervening centuries, constant mixing of peoples and cultures has continued to enrich societies on both sides of the Atlantic. Many of the boundaries between Old and New World groupings have been blurred in the process; yet, some Native American groups have chosen to maintain their separate identities and cultures in spite of pressures from the surrounding societies to adapt and assimilate. As we approach the Quincentenary, it is worth pondering why these groups have remained distinct. Why, after half a millennium, do we continue to be so aware of differences among us? When Columbus set sail, the nation-state was emerging in Europe as the dominant political structure for ordering concepts about world events. The activities of national governments and the rivalries among them became the primary focus of our history books, while other kinds of loyalties and groupings were frequently viewed as backward, pre-modern, and in a process of inevitable decline. This trend notwithstanding, notions of "peoplehood" which do not conform to national boundaries have continued to play a crucial role in societies around the world. The 1990s began with events that demand a renewed awareness of these kinds of ties. Whether in the context of Eastern Europe or in the Middle East, the structures of the nation-state often seem less meaningful and lasting than older loyalties marked by cultural differences and a sense of connectedness to a pre- national past. In the Old World, such loyalties and the conflicts they engender are frequently the result of thousands of years of history. In the Americas, by contrast, most present-day groupings are the direct result of the events of 1492. From this date onward, the most fundamental distinction was between native peoples and new arrivals. This distinction remains crucial through much of the continent, even after almost five centuries of contact, acculturation, and biological mixing. From Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, there are large groups of people who consider themselves and who are considered by neighboring peoples to be the descendants of the original inhabitants of America. Groups such as the Cuna, Quechua, Seminole, or Navaho have maintained their identity as separate peoples and have fulfilled in unexpected ways the early Spanish goal of the Two Republics, Indian and European, separate yet inseparably bound together. Why has this happened? How have these groupings persisted through five hundred years of contact? What, in fact, is an Indian? Answers to these questions vary greatly from place to place within the Americas. However, research on the Indians of Middle America and the Andes suggests a number of themes that may illuminate some of the basic characteristics of the kinds of ties that are most frequently termed ethnic. Students of Spanish American society have long recognized that "Indian" is a social, rather than racial, category. In many regions Indians and non-Indians share substantially the same genetic heritage, resulting from early and continued intermixture. An awareness that physical characteristics are not the determining factor has frequently led observers of particular settings to attempt to define Indians in terms of less complete acculturation than their non-Indian neighbors. Indians were viewed as people whose culture--language, customs--was rooted in their pre-Columbian past. The difficulty in this approach lies in the numerous examples of acculturation which have not resulted in any appreciable weakening of the boundaries between Indian and non- Indian society. Instances in which such boundaries have been maintained and, indeed, strengthened despite almost total disappearance of cultural differences, have been described in contexts as distant as eighteenth-century Colombia and twentieth- century Guatemala. Furthermore, in most cases children of marriages between members of different groups have not resulted in the formation of intermediate categories. To the extent that intermediate groups exist, they usually represent gradations within the non-Indian community. An individual may be perceived as "more or less" white or Hispanic. One is either an Indian or not. A further problem with the outside observer's use of cultural criteria to determine who is an Indian is the degree t which such criteria may change over time. Careful research has shown in many cases that typical "Indian" cultural elements, such as costume or music, are in fact Spanish in origin. Although the use of an Indian language is one marker of Indian status which can safely be assumed to be pre-Columbian in origin, it is not a crucial determinant. In nineteenth-century Cundinamarca, Colombia, Indians spoke only Spanish: in parts of Bolivia, on the other hand, Aymara is the first language of both Indians and most non-Indians alike. Clearly, being Indian is not simply a case of being less acculturated or less advanced along the path toward assimilation into "modern" society. Rather, Indians, like members of ethnic groups everywhere, seem to be defined in terms of their own sense of a shared past. This past centers on membership in a community which is viewed as having historical roots in pre-Columbian times. Indians who permanently leave their own communities almost invariably cease to be viewed as Indians. Moreover, this perception generally remains even if they move only to another Indian community. Indian communities often maintain the invisible boundaries which separate members from non-members through a complex ritual and symbolic system. These systems use a variety of means to maintain relative internal equality and solidarity. This, rather than any pre-Columbian cultural pattern, seems to be the origin and purpose of many of the features frequently described as typical of particular Indian cultures. Indeed, many such ethnic markers are most strongly emphasized during periods of especially strong pressures toward assimilation. Typical of this tendency is the situation described for two Mayan communities in Guatemala, where substantial acculturation was accompanied by increasing insistence on maintaining some few markers of the ethnic boundary, such as the wearing of traditional sashes. Similarly, in the area of Tlaxcala and Puebla, Mexico, Nahuatl is turning increasingly into a language of ethnic solidarity. As Indians come into increasing contact with outsiders, they are consciously using their language as an effective means of strengthening the ethnic boundary. Hispanisms, which previously accorded their users preferential status, are being expunged from the language at the same time that honorifics--which establish social distance among Nahuatl speakers--are declining in use. Nahuatl is most frequently used in situations which relate to ethnic solidarity-- to directing obscenities at outsiders, in compadrazgo ceremonies, and in terminology related to drinking. Interestingly, the consumption of pulque has also become a self-consciously utilized ethnic marker. If cultural differences are tools for marking ethnic differences, the question arises as to why the ethnic boundary is so scrupulously maintained. Several explanations have been posited. These include the assertion that the boundaries among ethnic groups are enforced by dominant groups as a means of supporting systems of economic exploitation. In this explanation, ethnic awareness is seen as the outcome or by- product of colonialism and as a means of continuing systems of internal colonialism. It is true that Indians have in most contexts been subordinate to Hispanics or Ladino groups. Indeed, in many areas the term indio is expressly used to describe a person who lacks sophistication, or money, or native intelligence. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why pressures from the dominant culture are an insufficient explanation for the persistence of ethnic distinctions. First, there are numerous historical examples of situations in which dominant groups have failed in their efforts to enforce racial or ethnic categories. Much has been written about the inability of Spanish administrators to create a workable system of keeping Indian and non-Indian societies separate. Furthermore, there are an increasing number of situations in which Indians maintain or even strengthen their identity despite attaining economic equality with their Hispanic neighbors. One of the most striking of these cases is provided by the Zapotecs of Juchitlan, Mexico. Because non-Indians have only recently begun to represent an important part of the population of this town, the Zapotec have been able to establish and maintain a dominant position. In this case ethnicity is used by the Indians to reinforce their own status. One's "performance" as a Zapotec is judged on the basis of several cultural criteria: use of language, knowledge of Zapotec history, and ability to perform dances. All of this is voluntary: Zapotecs who visit Mexico City readily adopt the national style when it is convenient to do so. An alternative economic interpretation of the endurance of Indian groupings asserts that ethnic awareness, rather than being imposed by external forces, is an internal response to other pressures. According to this explanation, Indian communities closed themselves off from contact with the world beyond because of perceived economic threats from Hispanic society. There is no doubt that this explanation is valid in a number of instances occurring at various historical junctures. In a study of the Tetzal Rebellion of 1712, Robert Waserstrom demonstrated how increasing exploitation strengthened Maya self-identification. Manning Nash posited that the "closed corporate community" emerged during the nineteenth century to protect Indians from increasing exploitation, and a similar reaction to perceived exploitation has been described for the Kikchi and Mopan of southern Belize since World War II. Like the assertion that ethnicity is imposed by dominant groups, this explanation suggests that ethnicity is primarily a result of economic factors. Indians who had equal access to material goods would no longer have reason to assert their separateness. Again, the example of groups like the Zapotecs suggests that being Indian is an option chosen by individuals who may occupy a range of economic levels. It is important to distinguish between the continuity of ethnic groups on the one hand and the individual's choice to maintain ethnic identification on the other. Just as the markers of ethnicity may change over time, so the size and influence of ethnic groups may also change as a result of individuals' decisions about the advantages or disadvantages of membership. If the costs of being Indian are perceived to be greater than the rewards, individuals may choose to pass into other, non-Indian, categories. Yet, the ethnic body can persist so long as there is a minimum membership and community structure. Ethnicity is maintained because membership in an ethnic group offers some individuals more advantages than disadvantages. What are these advantages? Some reasons for maintaining ethnic identity can be understood by examining non-economic factors. Indians may choose to remain Indian because doing so provides important non-economic rewards which modern, national culture cannot offer. Human needs, such as membership in a group, community solidarity, and a sense of being linked to a historical past may best be fulfilled by the assertion of membership in a particular ethnic group. Through the maintenance of traditions, ceremony, customs, costumes, or language, the ethnic bond seems to respond to near-universal yearnings. As the quincentennial of the Columbian voyages draws near, would events demand a reconstruction of our mental image of world geography. One part of this will be a rediscovery of the power of the older and more complex kinds of loyalties and conflicts which are best described in terms of ethnicity. A world that had been interpreted in terms of nations and "blocs" will be re- imaged as a mosaic of groupings with boundaries which are fluid and which almost never correspond to national borders. As we struggle toward this new understanding, an appreciation of the resilience and persistence of Indian communities within the Hispanic world may provide some insight into the nature and power of ethnic bonds everywhere. Reprint permission granted by the publisher.