"In 1910, Mexican citizens violently rejected dictator Porfirio Diaz. Over the course of more than three decades, Diaz had isolated Mexico's popular classes in regions like Jamiltepec, Oaxaca. In this region, the majority indigenous population joined the revolutionary army and demanded citizenship rights, restoration of communal land, and control over their own pueblos. Jamiltepec's Afro-Mexican residents shared many of these goals and revolted against Diaz as well. They fought to preserve the autonomy of their pueblos, the ability to choose their own elected officials, and the cotton economy that allowed farmers to support their dependent families. Interestingly, even though these two groups of citizens in this isolated coastal region shared similar grievances, they backed different revolutionary factions and fought against one another. Onlookers at the time assumed that racial difference explained these decisions. Scholars working later in the twentieth century incorporated these assumptions into their interpretations of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary violence that plagued the region for decades. This dissertation seeks to understand the root causes of this antagonism by examining how residents of Jamiltepec constructed race and ethnicity in their everyday lives during the nineteenth century. Evidence from the region challenges assertions that Afro-indigenous relations were inherently and historically antagonistic. Afro-Mexican and Mixtec jamiltepecanos at different times did fight on opposing sides in Mexico's numerous nineteenth century wars. They allied against one another for instance during the independence war and the political conflicts in the immediate aftermath of nationhood. However, on many other occasions jamiltepecanos from both groups joined together to defend the cultural authority of the Catholic Church, the country from a foreign invasion, or pueblo land and resources. In fact, examples from local, state, and national archives suggest that race and ethnicity played little, if any, role in which side one chose during the nineteenth century. Residents nevertheless maintained separate communities and identities in their private lives. Jamiltepecanos essentially developed an informal system of identity whereby geographic location, linguistic ability, and cultural practices demarcated race nearly as much as one's physical characteristics. At the same time, Mexico's elite journalists, scholars, and politicians attempted to silence Mexico's ties to Africa. Race and ethnic identity did intersect with notions of citizenship, regional and national politics, and the economy. After the end of the colonial caste system, Afro-Mexicans in the region downplayed race and stressed citizenship when stepping into the public sphere. Mixtecs, in contrast, emphasized their indigeneity and sought to maintain separate "republics" as their ancestors did for three-hundred years during the colonial era. Residents from both groups sought to protect pueblo autonomy, and they mobilized politically in support of national candidates who they believed would help them achieve these goals. Finally, nineteenth century investors worked to restore Mexico's economy after independence, but political instability, foreign invasions, civil war, and natural disasters prevented them from attaining this goal until the 1870s. By this point, the experiences of the cotton-producing Afro-Mexican costenos differed sharply from their indigenous counterparts who lived in the mountains. Mixtecs lost control over land and resources at an alarming rate, but Afro-Mexicans in comparison leveraged inexpensive cotton in exchange for protecting their communities. Thus, the ethnic and racial violence during the 1910 Revolution reflected this socio-economic transformation and had roots in the late nineteenth century."--Pages ii-iii.