Six-week trip to Mexico (page 10 of 12)

Cholula – From the Top of the Pyramid

The pyramid of Cholula isn’t at all like the other pyramids in Mexico: it’s covered in vegetation. A well-maintained path takes us to the top quite easily. The Spanish built the church of "Nuestra Señora de los Remedios" here between 1594 and 1666.

The view of the volcanic massif rising to the west is breathtaking. 😎 On the left, you can’t miss the famous Popocatépetl, standing at 5,426 meters, and to its right, the Iztaccihuatl, which "only" reaches 5,230 meters. In Cholula, we’re already at 2,150 meters above sea level, but these volcanoes tower over us with an extra 3,000 meters, just about 30 kilometers away.

These are the highest points in Mexico after the Pico de Orizaba (or Citlaltépetl), which dominates the Sierra Madre Oriental at 5,636 meters, less than 200 kilometers to the east.

In my first photo, I carefully framed the Popocatépetl and the Iztaccihuatl between the cross and the angels at the entrance of the churchyard. This cross is probably quite recent. The ones the Spanish had erected before building the church were struck by lightning several times—was it the wrath of the indigenous gods?

In this photo, the cross marks the exact saddle between the two volcanoes. That’s where Cortés crossed the volcanic range to reach the valley of Tenochtitlan. Hence the name Paso de Cortés given to the pass, which sits at around 3,400 meters above sea level. The usual route was a bit lower and further north, but Cortés expected the Aztecs to be lying in wait there.

It might leave some people cold, but personally, I find all this history and geography absolutely fascinating. I can easily share in the Spaniards’ surprise and even awe when they first glimpsed the valley of Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) from this pass. Let’s quote Bernal Díaz del Castillo, a companion of Cortés, who wrote the "Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España":

"We were struck with wonder. We said to each other that it all resembled the enchantments told of in the book of Amadis, with those great towers and stone temples rising from the water. Some of our soldiers said what they saw could only be a dream." 😮

If you look closely at this first photo, you’ll notice that the ridges of the Iztaccihuatl are snow-covered, while the Popocatépetl isn’t, despite being 200 meters taller. That’s because it’s semi-dormant—and it’s smoking! It lives up to its name! It even erupted a few weeks after our visit. No big deal, there’s no need to panic—the Popocatépetl has only had about fifteen major eruptions since the Spanish arrived! 🏴‍☠️😮😉

We tear ourselves away from this hypnotic view and turn toward the church. Since I’ve already written novels about Mexican churches, I’ll keep it brief this time: it’s pretty (it was extensively restored in the late 19th century). The interior: magnificent.

Hi there,

You two were lucky to get a glimpse of Popocatépetl. I think it’s usually pretty shy, right? Was that in November? Maybe that view alone is worth the detour to Cholula.

Hello,

You two were lucky to be able to see Popocatépetl. I think it’s usually pretty shy, right? Was that in November? Maybe that view alone is worth the detour to Cholula.

Yes, it was around mid-November. Without a doubt, one of the landscapes that struck me the most. Plus, with all the Mexican context, it was pure joy.

"Worth the detour" is an understatement. Just think about it: - Puebla = the wound inflicted by the French "intervention" in the 19th century - Cholula = the wound inflicted on Mexico by the Spanish conquistadors 500 years ago - The landscapes + the lively atmosphere + the architectural beauty, etc.

All of that packed into such a small area, in a way.

Still in Colonial Mexico!

Still in Colonial Mexico!

I don’t really see what interesting addition you’re making to this post. Just remarks like "I don’t like churches" or "Colonial Mexico doesn’t interest me."

Besides, what’s this definition "Colonial Mexico" in opposition to? Indigenous Mexico? It seems like a pretty narrow definition—these two sides of Mexico aren’t that separate. It sounds like something a travel agent would say:

"We offer the Colonial Mexico package in 7 days (plus one day of relaxation by the pool)… or "We offer the Temples and Indigenous Markets package (guaranteed authentic) in 6 days—with an optional 3 extra days at the beach."

First off, let's start by saying hello!

Still in Colonial Mexico!

Wrong! 😮 There was plenty about pre-Hispanic Mexico in this story—just look at the Cholula pyramid. There are also markets, food, history pages, and I think you’ve got some gaps to fill there! So this travel journal has something for a wide range of readers.

True, it’s missing the "paradise" beaches, but the author warned us, and I’m glad! Mexico isn’t just the Yucatán Peninsula and the so-called Riviera Maya!

Otherwise, I’ll confirm you’re a pain, and that’s putting it mildly! And if you don’t like this journal, nothing’s forcing you to read it—or stopping you from writing your own! 😠

Stay polite yourself—I’d never keep a travel journal out of modesty; my memories are my own.

B ailleur when it suits me, not because YOU TOLD ME TO

Good evening, I’ll go wherever I please, not because you ordered me to.

Hello, I’ll go check it out

That’s the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts don’t add anything except negativity. You don’t keep a travel journal out of modesty? Give me a break—you love bragging all day about how you’ve done this or that trip before everyone else, how you only travel in a certain "standard," etc... You don’t like "colonial" Mexico? Who cares about your tastes—the world doesn’t revolve around you. And spare me the laugh about calling the Yucatán "authentic" when it’s basically Mexico’s money-making machine. You’ve got nerve.

Yeah, the Yucatán is a money-making machine, but I love it there—I adore its pyramids and attractions. For me, vacation goes hand in hand with comfort!

I find this distinction some people make between a “Colonial Mexico” and “Other Mexicos” pretty artificial and, frankly, unproductive. But since it exists, it might be helpful to define what we’re talking about in such discussions.

Personally, I’d say “Colonial Mexico” refers to those regions where the Spanish left the deepest marks during the three centuries before independence. Naturally, we first think of cities most shaped by their architecture. That’s why a guide like Lonely Planet lists “Historic Colonial Cities” (page 27 of the 2019 English edition). Puebla and Oaxaca are on it: they’re the archetypes of the “colonial city” since they were founded by the Spanish—just a few kilometers from the pre-existing Indigenous cities of Cholula and Zaachila, respectively.

Does that mean when you visit Puebla or Oaxaca, you’re missing out on “another Mexico”? No, of course not. Just step outside the city, and you’ll find Indigenous communities. Take the Nahua people, for example—the largest Indigenous group in Mexico. What’s more, it’s in the state of Puebla that Nahua culture is best preserved. Just look at the 2000 census stats (population and Nahua speakers). I’m not dismissing the Maya world, but it’s not the only one!

But here’s the thing: we don’t usually explore the backcountry of Puebla state. There are no famous ruins (aside from Cholula) and, most importantly, no beaches!

Hi Georges,

I find this distinction some people make between a "Colonial Mexico" and "Other Mexicos" quite artificial and ultimately sterile.

This "non-distinction" applies to all of Latin America, which has the greatest blend of modern history: Indigenous, European, and African (Brazil, the Caribbean). Besides, colonial Mexico hasn’t existed since 1821. We should really be talking about Mexico’s colonial legacy.

….. Besides, colonial Mexico no longer exists since 1821. We should then talk about Mexico's colonial legacy.

Of course, strictly speaking.

But we say it that way to keep it short..... I hope all readers know we're not talking about some part of Mexico that, miraculously and mysteriously, remained a Spanish possession!

Cholula – History and Geography

A heads-up for those who might be allergic to history and geography: don’t read on!

As for me, I can’t help but dive into what makes a country "tick," what lies at its core. Especially when it’s a country as fascinating as Mexico. It includes a bit of everything. Today, it’s once again about Cortés’s expedition and those volcanoes. It’s not exactly a trivial matter, you’ll agree!

Since I’ve already talked about it quite a bit, I’ll just add this map of the region from Puebla to Mexico City. I’ve annotated it to highlight 1) how the "valley" of Mexico is surrounded by a series of volcanic ranges and 2) the route taken by Cortés to reach the city of Tenochtitlan (the former Mexico City), in contrast to the easier route crossing the mountains further north but at a lower altitude (which, by the way, is the only proper road axis today coming from the east).

You can clearly see that the entire region is a high plateau. The only areas below 2,000 meters are at the very bottom left of this map. This map is actually just a small part of the central Mexican volcanic plateau.

There you go—I hope some of you will appreciate it. I did spend 2 or 3 hours on this! !

Bravo and thanks a ton +++ for this travel journal—it’s so thorough! We’re planning a trip to Mexico, and all your tips are priceless because they’re already making us dream... We were initially preparing a "classic" circuit in the Yucatán, but after reading your post... we’re tempted to set our bags down a little further west. Looking forward to reading more from you!

Bravo and thank you +++ for this travel journal, it's so comprehensive! We're planning a trip to Mexico and all your tips are precious—they’re already making us dream... We were initially preparing a "classic" circuit in the Yucatán, but after reading your post... we're tempted to set our bags down a little further west. Looking forward to reading more from you!

Thanks to you too! It’s great to know we’re making a difference! 🙂

Hi Georges,

Warning for those who might be allergic to history and geography

I’m one of those who *aren’t*—quite the opposite, in fact! 🙂 I often sprinkle my travel journals with a bit of historical and geographical context, like this one: https://voyageforum.com/v.f?post=7640569;#7640569 But I worry about losing readers. I’m actually writing a third journal about Russia right now, and I’m wondering if I should water down the historical brew—it might taste too bitter to some! 😎

I’ll just add this map of the region from Puebla to Mexico City

What a fantastic job on the cartography and historical geography—complete with contour lines, no less! Bravo! 🙂

at the very bottom and left of this map

Southwest, obviously! 😛

I still put 2 or 3 hours of work into it!

Oh, I know—travel journals are *so* time-consuming. Some people don’t even realize it... 😕

I guess we’re slowly approaching the end of your travel journal!

Great work on the mapping and historical geography, and with contour lines, please! Well done! 🙂

Easy job for a pro. 😉

at the very bottom and left of this map

In the southwest, duh! 😛

Sure. But some people wouldn’t figure it out as fast as you! 😕

I guess we’re slowly nearing the end of your travel journal!

True. Just a few more pages to write before the return flight. 🙂

Neil Young and Cortés – Romantic Distortions

The topic of Indigenous peoples, conquistadors, and the devastation they caused is inevitably recurring when discussing Latin American countries. It’s completely natural to feel a pang in your heart when thinking about what was destroyed, what was lost, and the conditions in which Indigenous peoples are marginalized today.

It’s natural, it’s understandable. I’m moved by it myself, like many other travelers. Nostalgia and regret are fine. But there’s also a tendency to romanticize what Indigenous peoples were really like.

Neil Young’s song « Cortez the Killer » is a perfect example. Let’s set aside the odd habit Anglophones have of using a « z » where there’s an « s » (like « Brazil » for « Brasil »—English and Portuguese). Neil Young said he wrote the song after reading several books. He must not have read them well, or those books were of questionable quality.

Let’s look at the lyrics:

2nd verse: “On the shore lay Montezuma” “On the shore lay (or ‘stood’) Montezuma” “With his coca leaves and pearls” “With his coca leaves and pearls”

Let’s overlook the odd use of « lay » (past tense of « to lie »), which means « lay » (as in, reclining). Why not « stood » = « stood, was standing »?

But there are two glaring historical errors: Montezuma, the Aztec emperor, was not on the shore waiting for Cortés. He never left his capital, Tenochtitlan, to meet the Spaniards on the Caribbean coast where they landed.

Second, coca use was not widespread north of Nicaragua. The Aztecs, however, chewed tobacco.

5th verse: “Hate was just a legend” “Hate was just a legend And war was never known” “And war was never known”

As romanticized distortions of Aztec civilization go, this is hard to beat! The Aztecs were an especially belligerent people. One of the reasons for their perpetual warfare with neighboring peoples was to secure victims for their human sacrifices. It would have been more accurate to say, « And peace was never known »!

And as for hate: the peoples they had subjugated in their empire did not hold the Aztecs in their hearts, as evidenced by how quickly many allied with the Spaniards to attack them.

This romanticization extends to Indigenous peoples of all kinds… or should we say, of all feathers? Once again, it’s the « noble savage myth » at work.

Stay polite yourself—I’d never keep a travel journal out of modesty; my memories are my own

Well, personally, I think everyone’s shown a lot of patience with you, and no one’s been rude. At worst, people just ignore your posts. “Annoying”? Yeah, definitely… and *reaaaally* heavy-handed. Oh, and one more thing: Stop sending me aggressive, unreadable PMs—I won’t reply. Thanks in advance.