In contrast to the sixteenth century, which saw the grafting of a Spanish elite onto existing Indian societies, the seventeenth century saw a unique Mexican society emerge, an amalgam of previous cultures. Urban markets, mines, Spanish tribute demands, and a decline in the Indian population led to a relative decline in production for one’s own consumption. There was a concomitant increase in the acquisition of goods through tribute, barter, and, increasingly, cash or credit.43
During the early seventeenth century, the indigenous population decline continued, especially in central Mexico. Indigenous communities were impacted by the Spaniards appropriating Indian land, the spread of grazing animals that fed on Indians’ crops, and Indian males having to work to fulfill their repartimiento obligation rather than producing food for their own community.44
As a result of Indian population decline, in central Mexico large expanses of cultivated land were abandoned. Near towns, Spaniards moved onto vacated land and began producing wheat, corn, and fruit. Beyond these farms, Spaniards often raised sheep and cattle. Luis de Velasco, who served as viceroy from 1590 to 1595, commented on the interplay between a declining Indian population and increasing Spanish demand:
The number of Spaniards grows apace each day; the resultant increase in importance of harvest lands and public works and building projects, secular and ecclesiastical, coupled with the alarming shrinkage of the native population, makes it extremely difficult to support so large a structure with so small a labor force.45
By the 1620s, the Indian population had begun to increase again since Indians had developed some immunity to European-introduced diseases. The surviving indigenous population could abandon marginal lands and plant only the best Indian-held land. Indian productivity also increased as they incorporated Spanish elements into their productive system. This population recovery came too late to prevent the Europeanization of Mexico. Rather than remaining a predominantly Indian nation, such as Guatemala or Bolivia, Mexico emerged as a predominately European and mestizo nation.46
In 1632, the repartimiento was abolished except in mining districts. By then, no major social group remained dependent on that institution. Humanists saw forced labor as wrong and abusive. The repartimiento led to a decrease in tribute paid to the Crown since many indigenous peasants left their community, temporarily or permanently, in favor of the hacienda, mine, and city to avoid repartimiento service. There, wages exceeded those paid for repartimiento labor. At the same time, an increasing number of mixed-race individuals began working on haciendas, lessening the demand for repartimiento labor.47
The end of the repartimiento reflected the Crown’s declining power. Control of Indian labor passed from the hands of royal officials, who administered the repartimiento, to employers who became the workers’ master, legislator, and judge. This shift to wage labor favored large growers since they had access to the cash needed to attract new workers by loaning them money. Laborers often remained on Spanish-owned estates because they needed wages to pay taxes or because they lacked any other attractive option. Often what passed as wage labor had little to do with cash. Landowners would provide the means of subsistence—food rations, housing, and the right to sow a plot of land—in exchange for an Indian’s labor. With the possible exception of an initial loan, cash might never change hands.48
World History
