Alameda Native History Project

Year: 2022

  • Unceded Indigenous Territories in the Contiguous United States

    My History Is American History

    Honor the Treaties

    Indigenous Land Back

    More views:

    Northwest
    Southwest
    East Coast
    Texas Area
    Great Lakes Area

    Unceded Indigenous Territories in the Contiguous U.S.

  • Alameda Shellmounds Presented in Augmented Reality

    Alameda Native History Project releases a new Alameda Shellmound Map Model to show the capability of Augmented Reality, when it comes to virtual classrooms, and independent & remote learning. And to showcase the direction of education, and uses for technology, as we progress further into the 21st Century.

    This map is appropriate for use in a K-12 setting; and represents the Alameda Shellmounds, as seen by N.C. Nelson. [“Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region”, Nelson, 1909] This map model was created by Gabriel Duncan, and it was stylized using Adobe Aero.

    Adobe Aero is a free program by Adobe, Inc., available for iOS and Android.

    Alameda Native History Project is not sponsored by, or receiving money from Adobe. This is not a paid product placement. This is an example of how to use the tools already available to you, for free, to make really cool stuff for your class or presentations.

    For more information about this model, or how to get a copy, email the Alameda Native History Project.

    info@AlamedaNativeHistoryProject.com

  • Indigenous-Led Research Project Creates Restoration of Historical Landmarks (Shellmounds) in the San Francisco Bay Area

    The Alameda Native History Project project presents a map of the three Alameda Shellmounds, as seen by N.C. Nelson in 1907, restored and presented in the present-day landscape.

    For the first time ever, the Shellmounds of Alameda are being visualized, and presented as a physical, tangible land feature.

    The purpose of this map is to:

    1. Acknowledge that Alameda was a place were local Ohlone communities came to bury their loved ones;
    2. Illustrate the large size and scale of shellmounds, in general;
    3. Visualize a theoretical landscape where the Alameda Shellmounds were preserved;
    4. Fill the gaps made by Alameda Museum’s lack of accurate or meaningful information about the First Alamedans: Ohlone People.
    Alameda Shellmounds Webmodel

    https://nativehistoryproject.org/geo/alameda-shellmounds-webmodel/

    These restored historical land features, and this 3D map represent a milestone in the Alameda Native History Project’s research.

    But this is just a small piece of a larger story developing at the Alameda Native History Project. There’s more.

    Stay tuned.

  • The Alameda Shellmounds Map: The First Alamedans

    Created using derivatives of open-source data, including (but not limited to) USGS, NOAA, USCG, NASA, Google Earth. Analyzed, processed, and produced by the Alameda Native History Project, using open-source software available to anyone with a smart phone, and the most basic computer.

    Why did the Alameda Native History Project create these maps?

    Necessity

    The first map created by the Alameda Native History Project was the geographicaly-conformed (or “geo-conformed”) version of N.C. Nelson’s historic 1909 Map of the San Francisco Bay Region Showing Distribution of Shell Heaps. This 20th Century version of Nelson’s map was painstakingly converted, and conformed, to 21st century Geographic Coordinate Systems.

    Geo-conforming Nelson’s map made it possible to accurately plot the coordinates marked on Nelson’s map; and perform Present Day Observations of the Bay Area Shellmounds.

    The San Francisco Bay Area Shellmound Map now has over 300 confirmed locations. The accuracy of this map has improved considerably over time; and the research version is now accurate to within 100 feet.

    This was because maps like those featured by the Stanford University’s Spatial History Lab were little more than photocopies of the original coastal surveys, with graphic overlays.

    While this might be impressive to some, the lack of any real functionality or new information derived from this kind of exercise was underscored when I tried to find/use this information in the context of the Shellmounds of Alameda.

    Stanford University, Spatial History Project
    1909 N.C. Nelson Map of the San Francisco Bay Region Showing Distribution of Shellheaps

    This made it necessary to recreate a map of the historic shoreline of the San Francisco Bay Region, and hand-plot more than 300 shellmounds, just so I could view these maps and take screenshots of them to share with you. All in an effort to show you where the Shellmounds of Alameda are.

    Clarity

    Reproduction of Whitcher’s Survey.

    The same geo-conformance process was applied to an historic map of Alameda, which has become the Alameda Museum’s sole reference concerning the shellmounds of Alameda: Imelda Merlin’s “Alameda: A Geographical History”. This book is a Geology Master’s Thesis, by Imelda Merlin, who lived and died in Alameda, California.

    The fact that Merlin was an Alameda resident; and that Alameda Museum owns the copyright to the book should be immaterial to the generally dubious nature of a photo-copied map, with hand-drawn notations.

    In spite of the fact that Imelda Merlin was a student at the University of California, Berkeley, it appears that the most relevant information created by N.C. Nelson–for the archaeology department of the same university–was avoided altogether by Imelda Merlin in her work.

    For the aforementioned reasons, it was determined that Imelda Merlin’s work merited careful scrutiny and interrogation.

    Because, at this point, I already had two other sources of location information compiled for the Alameda Native History Project:

    1. Public Records Aggregate

    Any mention of Alameda Shellmounds in the following archives/libraries/collections:

    • All references to the Alameda Shellmounds at the Alameda Free Library:
      • this includes references in the Historic Alameda Newspaper Archives, and the “Alameda Historic Reels”;
      • as well as Clipping Files, Alameda Historical Society Card Catalog [Defunct];
      • Library Catalog, and Special Collections.
    • Online Newspaper Archives, Indexes
    • Online Finding Aids
    • Genealogy Websites, National Archive, and More.

    References were logged, and copies of the documents were saved. Then the documents were analyzed, information was extracted, and processed to produce an aggregated list of locations of the Alameda Shellmounds–according to explicit references in these sources.

    Then the locations were geocoded, and plotted to create a map that … I don’t even know what to call. “Shellmounds Mentioned in the News”? “Historic Shellmounds”?

    “Public Records” is not a very attractive label; but it might be the best label for that layer on the Alameda Shellmounds Map. [So, in case you ask “What is the Public Records Layer on the Alameda Shellmounds Map”, now you know.]

    2. Nelson’s Map of the SF Bay Region Shellmounds

    Like I said, this was the first map I painstakingly recreated. So, therefore, I had the locations Nelson marked within Alameda.

    When I analyzed the base map printed in Imelda Merlin’s book, I was able to use these sources to help conform Merlin’s base map with current Geographical Coordinate Systems, so I could plot the positions marked in the Imelda Merlin layer in the Alameda Shellmounds Map.

    I used innumerable copies of maps, surveys, photographs, and other visual representations of Alameda, from 1880 to 1910 to help conform the “Whitcher Survey” referenced in Merlin’s Map. I was never able to find a true copy of the “Whitcher Survey”. The survey is not at City Hall–as Merlin’s book states–or in the Alameda Free Library. The Museum did not have it, at last check.

    I also looked to see if any map copy provided by the official website of a University, or Government Institution, or the publisher itself, or a credible archive, actually included similar shellmound positions during the time Merlin’s map was created.

    TL;DR: they do not. Not even the Land Grant Case Maps, or the legit Combined, Drafted, or Official Coastal Surveys of that time, have even a hint of a shellmound anywhere. (I even tried to find a copy of the coastal survey used in a well-known documentary about the Shellmounds of West Berkeley, but was unable to track down the file before publication.)

    However, even though Merlin’s map diverges from the Official Historical Record, she did capture something in her hand-drawn sketch: all of the dots on her map correspond to places where Ohlone graves have been found.

    In spite of the fact Merlin calls the First Alamedans “Miwok”–instead of Ohlone. In spite of the fact that Merlin doesn’t even mention the map in the actual narrative (or “text”) of her book. In spite of the fact that the map was published in her thesis (which was then published a few years later, in a book) without any references, or citations–aside from the coast survey base map.

    Somehow, she manages to highlight the same places I have located using mentions of Ohlone graves and Native American remains found in historic Alameda newspapers. Many of these discoveries happened decades after the publication of Merlin’s work. …Which could indicate that these discoveries are coincidences, rather than correlations.

    It makes sense that the discovery of human remains would be carefully guarded; only mentioned in whispers between Alameda insiders, and related professionals. Certainly, the newspaper would be encourage to leave anything like that out. … At least until the houses were sold.

    It’s not hard to have editorial control when real estate companies were the primary revenue sources for local Alameda newspapers. Furthermore, the Redline wars in Alameda were brewing long before residents voted to approve Measure A, in 1973.

    In a “closed”, racist, housing economy, where BIPOC are excluded, and declining property values could be caused by even a whisper of non-white interest in a neighborhood: the prevalence of bones underfoot could undermine the appeal of an entire city.
    Historic Redline Map showing Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda

    Alameda was probably a place where the surrounding Indigenous communities would come to bury their dead.

    When you take into account historic newspaper articles like the one below (from 1893;) and the preponderance of subsequent articles concerning Native American Graves and Remains found, and then plot those locations into their own map, you get a layer of “Remains & Relics Found”.

    While it is the Euro-Centric imperative to determine a single point; and explicit boundaries: the size and nature of the shellmounds was as much a mystery to these colonizers as it is to us today. For different reasons though.

    Early anthropologists, archaeologists, and ethnologists lacked the imagination necessary to make the logical leaps necessary to recognize the purposefully obscure nature of our infrastructure, or decode the metaphors we left in notes and drawings for our friends.

    Because of this, and because white people destroyed as much of our stuff that they possibly could (on purpose [I don’t know why]), we are now–in many cases–left with the remnants of remnants.

    Because the records concerning these events, and the mere existence of the massive burial grounds under the City of Alameda, and the cities of the rest of the San Francisco Bay Region have been actively concealed, and suppressed, this story has remained untold.

    “Alameda’s Indian Mounds“, published in The San Francisco Examiner, on Sunday, March 26, 1893:

    “When the progressive Alamedan decides to build a home of his own on a section of the encinal that have been allotted to him by his favorite real estate dealer…

    “He does not order work suspended when the excavators, who have undertaken the task of building his prospective basement, run across a well preserved skeleton or turn up a hideous looking skull.

    “He has become used to such things and he knows…

    “in all Alameda there is scarcely a square yard of ground that does not harbor the crumbling remains…”

    The pieces of the puzzle can still be found.

    And so, Nelson’s Map, Merlin’s Map, and the Public Records map were offered as three separate layers of the Alameda Shellmounds Map; so that you may also discover and analyze the similarities and differences between the locations, yourself.

    The other layers mentioned, such as “Remains & Relics Found”, and more are also available to view using the layers panel of the Alameda Shellmounds Map.

    As our records continue to grow, and new information found, the map and this site continue to grow as well.

    Aesthetic &
    Availability

    Let’s face it: no one wants to look at nth generation copies of copies.

    I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of trying to squint, and adjust brightness, contrast, and gamma until I can barely almost read the most important part of this chapter….

    I want to look at a webmap of the San Francisco Bay Area Shellmounds. I need my experiences to be more interactive, and offer more than an empty citation to a book I can’t even find anymore. I want to see a scan of the book. And read the citation myself.

    But even that’s not enough. I find myself getting triggered by the language of these old, dead, white men that I just want to fight.

    Most of these narratives are written from an all-white perspective, often using racial slurs, and offensive descriptions. For the past 74 years, the Alameda Museum has furthered the “gentle savage” myth that permeated Victorian Era culture in America. And continues to push the idea that Ohlone people just disappeared from Alameda, and the Bay Area, entirely.

    It’s been the same narrative since “time immemorial”. (Even that phrase is from a white-washed narrative meant to pander to a White Gaze that isn’t even a majority anymore.)

    California History, when it comes to Indigenous People, is broad, at best. Very little space or effort is given to properly naming, or describing Native Americans, how they looked, where they lived, what they ate….

    Most textbooks will even allude to American Indian relationships with White People as something symbiotic; and leave this chapter of history conveniently blank, to make room for the concept of Manifest Destiny.

    The history that we are being taught has specifically avoided the policy of indigenous extermination enacted by a California Governor in the late 1800’s; California’s military support of Indian Wars in Oregon in the early 1900’s; or, how Los Angeles stole water rights from Tribal Nations in the Central Valley and has helped to destabilize the California ecosystem, with devastating effects.

    We are not taught about this.

    We have instead been dazzled by trains, bridges, and pretty houses with gardens, like babies with a ring of keys.

    California is the most diverse state in terms of Tribal Nations, with over 300 Indigenous Languages Spoken in California, alone. We are astronomers, conservationists, artists, engineers, doctors, and so much more. Our stories and contributions matter.

    Ohlone people still live in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area could use your help in fighting for federal recognition.

    The Native American, Indigenous People that you speak of like they went extinct in the 1800’s; those people are my great-grandparents.

    The first step in justice for Indigenous Californians is recognizing us.

    This is why it’s important to update the aesthetic of Historical Curation, and Exhibition Design, to utilize the tools we have in the 21st Century to reach learners everywhere, using the interactive multimedia methods they use and engage everyday.

    Alameda Shellmounds Map

    San Francisco Bay Area Shellmounds Map

  • Bay Area Shellmound Map

    Alameda Native History Project’s map of the Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Area is available now.

    This map is based on N.C. Nelson’s “Map of the San Francisco Bay Region Showing Distribution of Shellheaps”, which was published in 1909. This map, represents the first-hand observations of shellmounds during N.C. Nelson’s survey of the San Francisco Bay Area. taken between 1907-1908.

    Excerpt of map, emphasis on map legend, showing “Present”, “Partial”, and “Destroyed” shellmounds. These symbols are more prevalent in the North Bay.

    Each marker on the SF Bay Area Shellmound Map represents a shellmound which Nelson marked as “present”. These mounds appear as solid dots in his map. Nelson also noted mounds which were partially present, as well as shellmounds he was told used to exist in the past.

    It’s important to note that–in Nelson’s paper, “Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region”, and similarly in many other publications of the time–archaeologists were engaged in what they considered “Salvage Archaeology“.

    During the time that these scientists were ignoring the California Genocide, and Indian Wars, archaeologist, anthropologists, linguists, and ethnologists all decided that Native Americans were extinct; and that graves and other Native American Cultural Resources should effectively be raided, before they were destroyed by the encroaching colonizers, or gluttony of their civilization.

    Notable shellmounds, like the Emeryville Shellmounds, Alameda Shellmounds (near Mound Street), and the Drake’s Bay Shellmounds were being studied during their destruction.

    Schenck wrote the “final” report on the Emeryville Shellmound. These are two pictures from that paper.

    The Bay Area had over 425 shellmounds. Though many of them were already gone by the time Nelson conducted his survey of the SF Bay Area.

    The Alameda Native History Project’s “Map of the Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region” features 315 shellmounds, and unparalleled specificity within 100 feet.

    This map is offered to the public in an effort to:

    • Educate the public about the prevalence of shellmounds in the San Francisco Bay Area;
    • Present “Native Land”, and “Indigenous Land” as something tangible, and literally all around us;
    • Help illustrate colonization’s impact on Indigenous Landscapes, and Native American Cultural Resources, such as Sacred Sites, and Shellmounds–which are actually cemeteries;

    Most of all, this map is made available to provide actionable information which the public can use to help “Save the Shellmounds”, and advocate for Sacred Lands which have been shrouded in secrecy since the passage of NAGPRA.

    The Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act was supposed to help protect land, by providing a Notification and Consultation process to Tribal Nations.

    But the law effectively prevents the public from being told about the true scope, nature, and importance of Tribal Cultural Resources.

    NAGPRA also allows development to continue under any circumstances, as long as a mitigation plan is presented and approved, according to the CEQA process.

    However, when one actually reads the CEQA filings related to projects on Sacred Lands, you can’t help but notice the majority of these projects are approved without any input from Tribal Nations, at all.

    Because there is no legal avenue for protecting land if you are not the Most Likely Descendant, as determined by the California Native American Heritage Commission….

    And, because the public is barred from learning about the Nature, Scope, Location, Use, or any other information regarding Tribal Cultural Sites, Items, Graves, etc. it is virtually impossible for the public to advocate for the conservation, and preservation of Sacred Lands. Much less learn why these sacred sites are important, and should be preserved.

    The blackout on this information also affects the ability of cities to participate in goodwill building, like re-zoning areas for open space to be returned to Tribes; or educating their citizens about the first inhabitants of this area, and the importance of preserving these heritage sites.

    The Map of the Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region is just one tool in the Land Back Toolbox.

    [mapsmarker map=”47″]

    Full-screen Map of the SHellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region

  • Lecturing in a Museum Which Doesn’t Represent You

    An Open Letter to Reverend Michael Yoshii, and Serena Chen, two of the lecturers set to speak in the Alameda Museum’s “Virtual Speakers Series”, for AAPI Heritage Month Lecture Series tomorrow, Monday, May 23, 2022.

    Here’s the flyer:
    Alameda Museum AAPI History Month Virtual Speak Series Flyer, links to AlamedaMuseum.org

    Background: I tried to call Lillian Galedo, but I wasn’t able to reach her for comment. I sent letters to both Reverend Michael Yoshii, and Serena Chen.

    Serena Chen responded by giving me a call, and we had a conversation that touched on this subject, as well as much more about Chinese-American History, Japanese-American History, Serena Chen’s work in passing smoking laws in the Bay Area, as well as her advocacy for the preservation of Angel Island Immigration Center.

    Reverend Michael Yoshii hasn’t gotten back to me yet, re: the letter. But I know that he’s received it. And I actually asked him a lot of questions.

    The reason why I wrote to these people, is because:

    I am a researcher in the city of Alameda. And, my primary focus is on the Native American History of Alameda. However, it was impossible for me to research this topic and not notice the lack of representation of any non-white historical Alamedans at
    the Alameda Museum.

    This bothers me, because my interest in history is not bound to my own ethnic group; and I believe that history’s lessons are infinitely more important, and more valuable than hiding the misdeeds of a city. And that, the truth of what happened to us, Alameda’s nonwhite citizens, is better aired out, discussed, and reconciled. I think that hiding these chapters of our history only creates more animus, and sets us up for future conflicts we don’t even know why we fight.

    05/18/2022 ANHP Letter to Serena Chen, and Rev. Michael Yoshii

    In my letter to the Reverend Yoshii, I asked him specifically:

    How does it make you feel that Alameda Museum does not have any permanent exhibits about the Japanese-American experience in Alameda?

    Does it bother you that the businesses, homes, wealth, and anything valuable (like family photos, heirlooms, and other precious things), that you, your family, and your compatriots had to abandon, or have taken away, aren’t even mentioned at all in Alameda’s official history?

    If the Alameda Museum were to create a permanent exhibit featuring Japanese-American History and Experiences in Alameda, what would you like to see reflected about your own history, heritage, culture, and contributions to the City of Alameda?

    In my letter to Serena Chen:

    I mention that I found things about the Chinese Pioneers in Alameda that I thought were really cool. And was excited to share with her, and people interested in Alameda History.

    But, in both letters, I invited them to consider addressing the lack of representation of their history, heritage, and culture in the Alameda Museum.

    After all, Serena Chen, Rev. Michael Yoshii, and Lillian Galedo, will all be lecturing at the Alameda Museum, which has no permanent exhibit to AAPI History.

    So, as soon as their voices fade, so will any representation or mention of their histories, heritage, or cultures. Histories which are rich, interesting, and worthy of being shared just as much as the white, victorian-obsessed history that Alameda Museum chooses to share–at the price of excluding all BIPOC people.

    I’d like to invite you tune in to watch and learn; support Serena Chen, Lillian Galedo, and Michael Yoshii, as they share their family history, and experiences with us; and advocate for meaningful representation of AAPI heritage, and history in the form of permanent exhibits in the Alameda Museum.

    Alameda Museum
    Virtual Speaker Series
    AAPI Heritage Month
    Feat. Serena Chen, Lillian Galedo, Reverend Michael Yoshii
    Monday, May 23, 2022
    7:00 – 8:30 PM
    Event on Zoom
    Link to Event Info @ AlamedaMuseum.org
    Link to Event Registration @ Zoom.us

    Letters:

    ANHP-Letters-AAPI-Heritage-Month-Alameda-Museum-CHEN-and-YOSHII-05182022Download

  • Alameda Museum: 74 Years of White History?

    The Alameda Museum was founded in 1948; seventy-four years ago. It is a public institution, which is dedicated to fostering public interest in the history of Alameda.

    The mission of the Alameda Museum is three-fold:
    1. To accumulate, catalog, conserve, and display appropriate documents, photographs, objects, and artifacts relating to the city and its residents;
    2. To foster the preparation and publication of materials relating to the history of the city and its residents; and,
    3. to provide educational opportunities and experiences relating to the history of the city and its residents.
    In these 74 years, the Alameda Museum has focused almost exclusively on a few things in Alameda’s history:
    • The Victorian Era Colonization of Alameda, including:
      • Historic Alameda Home and Garden Tour
      • Historic Architecture
    • Railways:
      • Trans-Continental Railway Terminus (Western Pacific Railroad)
      • Narrow Gauge Commuter & Regional Railways
    • Neptune Beach – often referred to as the “Coney Island of The West”
    • [Sterilized] Biographies of People Who Lived In Alameda:
      • Exclusively white people;
      • Almost exclusively rich;
      • Often responsible for racist or discriminatory policies, or just went on record (themselves) as having racist beliefs;
      • Sometimes donors to the museum;
      • Furthers the idea of White Exceptionalism, while excluding everyone else.
    Alameda Preservation Society newsletter, featuring story about the “History of the Alameda Legacy Home Tour”. The Alameda Preservation Society, Architectural Society, and Alameda Museum are inextricable from each other.

    On its face, Alameda is being billed as the Bay Area’s “playground of the rich”, a “Garden Island Paradise”, the “Coney Island of the West”….

    Advertisement for Neptune Beach, in Alameda, California
    A place held as a shining example of Western Conquest,
    The pinnacle of [White] Society.

    The embodiment of “manifest destiny”, proof of divine providence; and vindication for everything America did in the name of White Supremacy, and the freedom to believe in White Exceptionalism.

    Bathers on Neptune Beach
    Neptune Beach Postcard
    This is the paradise white people had to build, to justify everything.

    Because, if the “Second Great Awakening” was just a lie; and white people weren’t chosen to rape, pillage, and burn every village they encountered…. If God didn’t give them a pass for enslaving other humans, or any of the other atrocious shit Protestantism, or Christianity, or whatever says “He” gave them a pass for… that means something unimaginable. And white people would never have had to deal with it, if they had just killed us all. But they didn’t.

    And, the short-term thinking behind a blitzkrieg that left people alive is coming home to roost now. Because we are still alive. And the affects of white terror, and the attempted genocide, exclusion, abuse, and torture of human people has never been fully addressed by white people. In fact it makes them really fucking uncomfortable. It should.

    It’s easier to exclude us from history when no one’s around to tell the story. White people certainly haven’t talked about it. So, it never happened, right?

    Dedication of plaque at Lincoln Park (1909). Ishi, the last Yahi, is seen (center) with Alfred Kroeber, and T. Waterman. In a few months after this picture, Ishi would die from colonizers’ Tuberculosis.

    This fantasy “Victorian paradise island” narrative continues to be presented, despite the obvious cracks in its alabaster facade. Despite the sustained objections to Alameda Museum’s focus on only white, colonial history, and the museum’s neglect & omission of non-white history during any month which isn’t an [AAPI/Black/Indigenous/…] History Month.

    But, the Alameda Museum Displays Native American Artifacts….

    It’s true that the Alameda Museum has Native American Artifacts. Some of these are actually Ohlone Grave Goods, stolen from the shellmound on Mound Street. (And all of them were mis-attributed to “a branch of Miwok”.)

    Native American exhibit on display at Alameda Museum. Many of these artifacts are stolen grave goods, which were mis-attributed to the Miwok Nation (not even correctly to Coast Miwok), instead of the Ohlone Tribal Nation, who actually were the First Alamedans.

    Let’s be honest, though: a collection of mortars and arrowheads, and a picture of the dedication of the plaque at Lincoln Park to the people found in the the Shellmound at Mound Street, doesn’t really cover the story.

    The Alameda Museum isn’t capable of answering questions about the Native American Artifacts they have on display, much less the history of anyone else. So, they refer people immediately to the Alameda Free Library any time there is a query on this topic, or pretty much any other topic that isn’t Alameda’s White History.

    Shellmounds are cemeteries. The plaque in Lincoln Park has a number of Native American remains recovered and used to pave Bay Farm Road: 350.

    When you call the Alameda Museum to ask about the shellmounds, the “alameda indian mounds”, you might get someone who actually tells you that shellmounds were trash heaps. Which is so shockingly ignorant, you have to ask if you’re really calling a museum.

    The Alameda Museum has no mention of this event, or the practice of using shellmounds to fertilize the gardens that Alameda was so famous for.

    Even the gardens at the Meyer Home, which is owned and curated by the Alameda Museum, were fertilized using Ohlone remains from the Shellmounds of Alameda.

    Meyers House with plaque.

    The Meyer Home, sits on an estate with four buildings.

    One of which has exhibits dedicated to architectural salvage, and building design. There is another building (almost an accessory dwelling unit) which serves as an art gallery. And yet another adobe-like structure which held more objects from expeditions in Africa, and other things which rich white people in the Late 19th, and Early 20th Centuries would collect as “curios”.

    The author would like to note that the abundance of objects, like: furniture, architectural salvage, dolls, toys, fashion accessories, the Kitchen Display & Lady’s Study, and more; which clutter the Alameda Museum belong in, and would be marvelously curated in a house.

    Seems like a lot of unnecessary work to recreate and maintain the facsimiles of rooms in a house, when the Meyer House is available as a museum itself; the way the USS Hornet – Sea, Air and Space Museum is an aircraft carrier; and the Air Naval Museum is an air terminal.

    This would actually give the Alameda Museum the space to focus on curating the City of Alameda’s History beyond just its founding, and Victorian Era.

    Alameda Black, AAPI, and Indigenous History Have More Parallels than Intersections

    In the context of the Alameda Museum: our representation is limited to brief, tokenized explanations of our existence, without the revelation of Alameda’s history of racism and discriminatory practices. These recognitions and acknowledgements only come once a year, during our respective “History Months”.

    Even though the Alameda Museum Lecture Series invites people to lecture on their personal experiences, heritage, history, and culture, there are still no permanent exhibits to nonwhite history. So, when the echoes of our voices fade from the walls of the Eagle Hall, so does any representation of us and our existence throughout Alameda history.

    We’ll circle back to this.

    The Alameda Museum is not the only museum which exists in the city.

    There are four other museums:
    • The Pacific Pinball Museum
    • California Historical Radio Society Museum
    • USS Hornet – Sea, Air and Space Museum
    • Alameda Naval Air Museum

    Here’s how their multicultural representation breaks down….

    I was actually really surprised by the positive representation in the Air Naval Museum. I really enjoyed listening to some KDIA playlists I found through the California Historical Radio Society. And the inclusion of the Walking Ghosts of Black History into the USS Hornet’s programming is awesome, and a long time coming.

    Pacific Pinball Museum

    I found out “#pinballsowhite” is a thing. And, pinball does use a lot of racist, and sexist imagery. I’m not sure what I was expecting to find, but the answer is “racist”. Pinball has historically used racist, and offensive images.

    California Historical Radio Society Museum

    I found an article about KDIA Boss Soul Radio. Which is really cool. And I was surprised to find this information. But music is black af. I don’t care what you think about Elvis, or the Beatles, or Bob Dylan, they all stole that shit from Robert Johnson.

    USS Hornet – Sea, Air and Space Museum

    Recently, during the month of February, Black History Month, of 2022, the USS Hornet hosted three exhibits by The Walking Ghosts of Black History. These exhibits were on the hangar deck–next to the Apollo Mission stuff–and featured:

    1. African American Medal of Honor Recipients
    2. Outstanding African American Achievements in the United States Military
    3. African American Military Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Program Participants [think: NASA; like Katherine Johnson, and Guy Bluford.]

    This isn’t the first time the Hornet has hosted The Walking Ghosts of Black History, either. It almost makes up for the fact that The Hornet has almost no black representation, normally. (They do have a whole section for Japanese-Americans who served during the war, however. Which is actually really intense, and the most reverent section of the entire ship, IMHO.)

    Alameda Air Naval Museum

    The Alameda Air Naval Museum is devoted to the history of the Alameda Naval Air Station. I was actually worried I wouldn’t find anything about Black People or African American History, because the USS Hornet didn’t seem to have anything the first time around.

    But I found a really nice obituary, and biography, of Clifton Wainright. Clifton was employed at the Alameda Naval Air Station as a Program Manager, and Flight Test Engineer. He was also the first black All City quarterback and the first black Oakland Tribune “Athlete of the Year”.

    Overall, I was pretty impressed by the thoughtful and meaningful efforts to curate inclusive, and relevant history, and happy that I found what I did. I actually learned a lot.

    Representation isn’t just showing a face or a picture, it’s recognizing the contributions of that person, and their excellence and achievements, in their field.

    These bits of history from other museums stimulated my curiosity, and fascination. I want to learn more about Alameda History:

    I want to see what the Chinese Gardens looked like, as a model. I want to be introduced to their garden designs, crop management practices, and the vegetables they grew to feed Alameda.

    I want to see a wall with portraits of the African American families who came to Alameda around the passage of the 13th Ammendment for the Abolition of Slavery. And I want to see their kitchens, fashion accessories, fancy dress, architectural salvage, and business displays, too.

    I want to know about the BVs, and the housing on the former Alameda Naval Air Station. I want to know if the Alameda Housing Authority was really liquidated to pay for the Chuck Corica Alameda Municipal Golf Course.

    Cover art regarding the June 1966 “camp-in” at Alameda’s Franklin Park, by Mabel Tatum, and the Citizen’s Committee for Low-Income Housing, to protest the eviction of hundreds of families from an Alameda Housing Authority housing project, without re-location assistance, or placement at another Alameda Housing Authority property. [Because the other housing projects were White-Only.]
    I yearn for an Alameda Museum which is inclusive, accurate, and fair. And I think it’s their duty, as a public institution, to provided history relevant to all Alamedans.

    I want to be super clear here: this has nothing to do with the fact the Alameda Museum is volunteer-run. The Black Panther Party For Self Defense was also volunteer-run. The Alameda Native History Project is also volunteer-run.

    The issue is that the Alameda Museum is supposed to be a city museum. It is supposed to curate and present to us the history of Alameda. Not just a small slice of some zealously over-idealized fantasy of an island that did not exist the same way for People of Color.

    The issue is that the Alameda Museum has excluded us. All of us.

    And when you actually look at the history of Alameda, you can see why: Alameda was a town full of really racist white people, who definitely did not want to de-segregate housing; and who have reaped all the benefits and rewards of the discriminatory policies laid by the founders of this island, and re-inforced subsequently by acts of the City Council up until … when? The 1990’s? Some people would say it’s till happening.

    Why Making Marginalized People Do The Work You Never Did, Isn’t the Win You Think It Is

    Picture of the “Clinton Family Exhibit” at the Alameda Museum, in 2018. This exhibit was the first mention of African American History in the 70 years Alameda Museum has existed. This exhibit was supposed to be permanent when it was installed; however, there are no pictures or mentions of this exhibit today, four years later. [Picture taken by Rasheed Shabazz.]

    The Alameda Museum was open for 70 years before they offered a single “permanent” exhibit on African-American History, in 2018.

    At this time, George Gunn, was celebrating his 47th year as Curator of the Alameda Museum. (His first day was March 20, 1971, according to an Alameda Museum publication.) So, this would also mark the first time in 47 years of curating Alameda History that he’s ever actually curated the history of nonwhite Alamedans.

    Though, if you visit the museum’s website, you will notice this exhibit isn’t listed anywhere. In fact, the only reporting on the existence of this exhibit is from Rasheed Shabazz, in 2018. Probably because he did all the work of getting the exhibit installed.

    The reason this exhibit even existed was because it was a half-hearted attempt to address the extensive, and documented history of racist actions and policies committed or enacted by the City of Alameda–specifically racial housing discrimination, and forced re-location of Alameda’s Black Families–

    And to respond to direct criticism of Alameda Museum’s Curator, George Gunn, as someone who is uninterested in curating anything other than white, colonial, history–to the point of excluding the history of any other group of people, and obstructing research by people of color, by gatekeeping, and denying that materials on anything other than Alameda’s White History even exists within the Alameda Museum’s Archive.

    Other authors ignore–or are ignorant of–Black Alamedans, and choose to focus primarily on architectural preservation. George Gunn, curator of the Alameda Historical Museum’s book Documentation of Victorian and Post Victorian Residential and
    Commercial Buildings, City of Alameda, 1854 to 1904, painstakingly compiles Alameda housing records, yet does not include the lost homes of the Hackett brothers at 1608
    Union and 1828 Grand St.

    Rasheed Shabazz, “Alameda Is Our Home”, 2013, University of California Bachelor’s Thesis in African American Studies, Social Science.

    In fact, George Gunn’s unresponsive, and dismissive treatment of the research into Alameda’s nonwhite history by people of color has been noted by several historians, and researchers. Take this other quote from Rasheed Shabazz’s Tumblr account (DaSquareBear):

    In 2012, i visited the Museum when i started my research. I asked the curator, George Gunn, if the Museum had materials related to African Americans in Alameda. He mentioned the Clintons, but directed me to the library instead.

    On February 10, 2018, during my first Black Alameda Walking Tour, we stopped at the Clinton home. An heir of the family told me that they had donated materials to the museum.

    I visited that afternoon. The material was in four boxes. Gunn showed me the materials. When he showed me the glasses and told me, “They were of substance…. they had nice things.”

    I replied, “They lived. That makes them of substance.”

    Rasheed Shabaz, March 10, 2018, via Tumblr

    Rasheed Shabazz wrote “‘Alameda Is Our Home’: African Americans and the Struggle for Housing in Alameda, California, 1860-Present“, for his bachelor’s thesis. It’s extraordinarily researched. Has a great voice, and measured perspective. It deserves to be re-published, and celebrated, just like Imelda Merlin’s “Alameda: A Geological History”. Except Shabazz’ work is better, because it’s actually about the people of Alameda.

    This seems to be the only research, or work published on Alameda’s African-American History, where African-American History is the sole focus. And the first mention of the African-American, or Black History, of Alameda, by the Alameda Museum, in its entire existence.

    This work was also created without the help of the Alameda Museum.

    Because of curator George Gunn’s obstruction, it’s sadly notable that Shabazz did not have access to the Alameda Museum’s archives–a trove of primary sources, and relevant artifacts–while he researched the history of Alameda. This means that there are more materials, and stories, which are actively being excluded from Alameda’s history by (of all institutions) the Alameda Museum.

    Not only did Shabazz finally gain access to some of the materials he was looking for, the Alameda Museum made him a Director, and Shabazz holds walking tours, and organizes lectures on Black History every February.

    But is this really a win? A seat at the table where you can’t eat; and the “privilege” of doing their work for them? There is no African American exhibit, anymore. That’s a back-step. The Alameda Museum still has no meaningful representation of any other group. And Shabazz has fallen silent on these issues since becoming a Director at the Alameda Museum.

    This raises uncomfortable memories, and even more uncomfortable questions. As someone who used to be “invited” to take part in the annual “Thanksgiving Show” at a radio station, somewhere in the North Bay, I know what being the token person of your race feels like. And I have been placated by shallow buy-ins, and bald-faced lies, as a youth organizer.

    So, when I see Rasheed Shabazz’s name and face on flyers. Hear his voice speaking in lectures. Then watch, as the Alameda Museum quietly removes the Clinton Family exhibit, and relegates Shabazz to Black History Month only. And all the energy and movement behind representation suddenly stop…. It looks like the usual pattern of pacification and superficial conciliation.

    What can you do to help?

    Call the Alameda Museum: (510) 521-1233

    Let them know that 74 years of focusing exclusively on White History is enough.

    Email the Alameda Museum

    Send them questions about your own history, culture, and heritage. Ask them where African American people, Asian American, and Pacific Islanders were during the time of the Victorian Era, and how come nonwhite people are excluded from permanent exhibits.

    Call Alameda Museum Curator, George Gunn: (510) 521-0802

    Invite him to retire.

    UPDATE: George Gunn has retired. Apparently, the Alameda Native History Project was one critic he did not survive.

    Four or five moments – that’s all it takes.

    Deadpool
    Rasheed Shabbaz reached out to me to let me know that he was personally bothered by some of the comments I made here.

    I agree with him, and am glad that he reached out to me; because, now I understand. So, I think I need to make this absolutely clear to the reader:

    In my criticism of the Alameda Museum, I did note the circumstances surrounding Shabbaz’s election to the Alameda Museum Board of Directors. What I failed to mention is that Rasheed had tried to join the board two times before; and was stonewalled. I also failed to tell you that it’s a big deal he’s even on the board because of Alameda Museum’s 74 Years of Unassailed Whiteness.

    Rasheed Shabbaz worked hard to get where he’s at. His work deserves to be given the same attention and adoration that works by Evanosky and Merlin receive. Rasheed’s advocacy, and organizing for the renaming of Jackson Park was the engine that turned it into Chochenyo Park. Rasheed’s growing list of accomplishments and contributions cannot be understated.

    As such, I do not want you to come away with the impression that Rasheed Shabbaz is anything less than brilliant, and committed.

    What this paper is commenting on is the Alameda Museum, and speculating on whether or not letting Rasheed Shabbaz join the board was not done because he was the only black person around, but because Alameda Museum realized its exclusion of BIPOC people could not continue any longer, and they would have to integrate, because their exclusionary practices were coming to light, and beginning to make Alameda Museum look bad.

    After all, how can you really turn down a qualified candidate for director when there’s no limit on how many qualified directors the Alameda Museum can have?

    Whether or not Rasheed Shabbaz actually performs the duties, posesses agency, or authority, or is just there for show was not the question I was asking. I was really asking whether Alameda Museum had any intention of actually focusing on any nonwhite history beyond Black History Month, AAPI History Month, etc.

    It’s my opinion that the Alameda Museum’s conduct in excluding BIPOC has been racist as fuck. And I wonder how hard Rasheed has to fight to get anything done.

    If there are false promises like, “oh, just help us catalog the collection, then we’ll work on ‘your thing’;” or, “just help us with this history month”, then we’ll get to you; then it’ll happen; “we’ll get to whatever you’ve got going on.”

    I know this is stuff he can’t comment on because he is a board member. And it’s kind of unfair to talk about this while he can’t really say anything. But maybe that’s a symptom of the problem, and not really a personal jab.

    Maybe I’m saying, just because Rasheed is a member of the board, and head of a committee, doesn’t mean the board is going to suddenly vote for everything he pitches. I’m not saying he doesn’t have agency. I’m saying the board didn’t elect him twice before, what makes any of us think they’re going to suddenly vote for his plans and ideas–no matter how well thought-out and presented they are.

    Because I can guarantee he’s tried to change the exhibits (for the better) at the Alameda Museum on at least two occasions; and one of them was after he was elected.

    And the placation and silencing that I spoke of is par for the course in Non-Profit Politics.

    But, yeah, Malcom X did have some shit to say about the Million Man March; and his perspective on the march being rebranded and reappropriated, denatured, and watered-down is the example I am pointing to. Am I trying to attack the character of, or indict the one person who is the most qualified to actually be on the board? Absolutely not. I’m saying that this looks like some sus nonprofit board shit that white people pull when they have no intention of actually doing anything more than looking good and pretending to be inclusive; while at the same time setting someone up to be the scapegoat for how come this sudden inclusion didn’t work.

    Full disclosure: the Alameda Native History Project has also been having significant issues gaining access to Native American, and Alameda Historic Collections since 2019, when this project began. Though my personal inquiries into this topic began in the early 90’s, when I was a child, and I just never gave up. [And I never will.]

  • 3 Ways Public Art Promotes Pan-Indian Confusion

    While being billed and paid for as an “homage to the gentle savages which once roamed the coasts and hills of this area thousands of years ago”:

    Many of the images presented to you as “Native American Art”, and installed in places like Parks, Malls, Skate Parks, and other Public Spaces, and “Public Arenas”, are actually the romanticized interpretations by (a) someone who is not Native American and, (b) does not know enough about their subject matter to truly allegorize the sacred dances, symbols, and objects they attempt to vivify.

    The result is a vitiated version of true Native American Cultural Representation Through Art. An impoverished image of who we are, and our physical connection to The Earth; The Animals; Our Ancestors; And All Of Us.

    These images are created with the “understanding” that Native Americans are gone. That we no longer live in a physical sense.

    We take up space in the imaginary place the artist has created. In the place with forests, and mesas; and lakes; and horses; and deer; and the Wolf howling at the Moon; and Iron Eyes Cody.

    It’s probably the same place in your head….

    The same place where “Indian Blankets” are half off. Where you can buy your own “Native American flute” out of a bucket at the door. Next to the Cigar Store Indian; and the “You Are On Stolen Land” t-shirts.

    These images don’t just affect you. They affect us.

    One: It Makes Us Forget Who We Are

    Aside from beating us down by starvation literally; economically; educationally; culturally; and spiritually: these images help erase our sense of individuality in both Tribal and Personal identities.

    We are enshrouding ourselves with the stereotypes they created for us.

    We are letting them convince us that this is who we are. That we don’t exist unless we conform to these images. Their idea of “American Indians”, “Gentle Savages”, “Proud Chiefs”, and “Sexy Squaw”. Those are Halloween costumes.

    We’re convincing ourselves that, unless we aren’t beading, or praying, or posting performative “Indian” [stuff] on social media that we aren’t Indians. That we don’t exist without the identities they try to place on us.

    But we do. And that’s the First Way Public Art Promotes Pan-Indian Confusion: It makes us forget who we are.

    Like, who we really are.

    Two: Pan-Indian Images, Made By Non-Native Artists, Shut Out Contemporary and Authentic Native American Art and Voices (and create false subject matter experts, who only perpetuate the myths of colonization.)

    The artists who rendered these images we see in public become considered subject matter experts, and go on to create more “culturally appropriate” or “culturally inspired” artwork for architects, corporations like tech companies, and more city governments, and municipalities.

    These works of art are now cited as “Native American works”; and referred to as historically & culturally accurate representations of people–who are very much real, and alive, today–as though they were no longer here.

    They contribute to the myth that we’ve just disappeared, somehow.

    This is effectively re-colonizing these places with attenuated versions of us; homogenized stereotypes of the “Indians of California”. Representing the sanitized beginning, middle, and end of an entire civilization that “wasn’t” murdered, buried in mass graves; and pulverized, to be hidden in the very cornerstones of the institutions designed to govern them out of existence…. And yet, still came out fighting like Schrödinger’s Cat

    These works of Public Art help to indoctrinate new generations into the Myth of The Colonization of California. The one where we all just simply disappeared; were “killed by the Spanish”; or “became Mexicans.” …That California was open, lush, and willing.

    This not only prevents true Native American Artists from being featured, or recognized in their own homelands. But, the popularity, and entrenched nature of Public Art (something that’s usually made of steel, or metal, and set in concrete), literally cements these images in the public eye; helping to gloss over, and tune out the real history, living voices, and work of contemporary Native Americans as people and artisans. In favor of the commercialized, white-washed, Pan-Indian images and stereotypes that stalk us everywhere we go.

    We have to stop considering non-native people as the gatekeepers of Native American culture, or the experts on our lives, and lived experiences.

    Three: Works of Public Art Do Not Absolve Governments of Their Duty to Recognize and Honor Native American People

    Public Artwork concerning Native American People should do the following:

    1. Never be a sculpture of a Native American person, unless it was actually made and designed by a Native American person, or a person of Native American Descent.
    2. Be built/created/assembled by Native American people;
    3. In print: acknowledge the Native American Genocide, California Genocide, or the Mass Murder and Removal of Native Americans for the Exploitation of Their Land and Natural Resources as the reason why the viewer is standing in an outdoor mall, and not a lush field–with rivers, fresh air, salmon, and singing forest animals–today;
    4. Recognize the People Whose Land We Are On by Name, and the name of the Tribal Nation as it may appear in Treaty;
    5. Recognize that Public Art cannot undo the past, but it is a way that we can all remember our history, honor our ancestors, and heal together from the sins of our fathers.

    Public Art is a component, and not the whole solution.

    These things should be employed in concert with serious policies of Native American Inclusion & Acknowledgment, like:

    • Native American Representation in City Government, City Events, City Planning
    • Renaming of Some Parks, Streets, Schools, and Other Public Buildings/Spaces
    • Establishing Historical Sites and Districts
    • Rehabilitating, Maintaining, and Protecting the Local Environment
      • Consider doing these things in a sustainable way, with native plants, non-neonicotinoid pest control, and by eliminating nitrogen (fertilizer) run-off.
    • Specifically Prohibiting Development in “Restricted Resource Zones”
    • Actively soliciting local Native American people, artists, and historians, for input and education about their history.

    Just for starters.

    Stay tuned….

    Links in this Article/More Reading:

    https://alamedasun.com/news/new-public-art-place-north-shore

    https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/true-story-pocahontas-historical-myths-versus-sad-reality

  • Ohlone: The First Alamedans, “Were Not a ‘Branch of Miwok Indians’”

    When “The Spanish” came to the San Francisco Bay Area, they called all of the people who lived here “Costanoans”; and promptly killed, and corralled them into the California Missions; then began to colonize the land by bringing cows, catfish, eucalyptus, and other foreign plants and animals.

    The primary language for the Mission San Jose was Miwok.

    Miwok was a common language for most missions in the San Francisco Bay Area. But, Coast Miwok is the name of just one Tribal Group in the Northern Bay Area. In fact, Coast Miwok and Miwok consider themselves as distinct Tribal Groups of their own; and should not be confused with one another.

    Richard Levy’s 1978 essay, entitled “Costanoan”, and featured in the California Volume of the Handbook of North American Indians, edited by Robert F. Heizer… has been widely relied upon since its publication. Despite its obvious errors, and out-dated nature. [For instance, the term “Costanoan” was already beginning to fall out of style. It was recognized as a blunt umbrella term for an entire region, which is actually diverse af.]

    Before Richard Levy’s 1978 “Costanoan” Essay was published, J.P. Harrington had already come through the Bay Area–in 1921–to document and study California Native American Languages. This is where Harrington documented the existence of a language called “Chochenyo”; and recorded it separately from the known Miwok Language.

    In fact, it was Harrington, in 1921, who first recorded the phrase, “Yo soy lisjanes.” Words spoken by Jose Guzman, the last Chochenyo speaker, and “Captain” of what was then known as the “Verona Band of Indians” by white people.

    But the Verona Band was just a small part of a larger group known collectively today as Ohlone People.

    It was noted, then–in 1921–that these languages (Chochenyo and Miwok) somehow fit into the “Penutian” Language Tree; and that a completely different group of people from the South-West of the Delta Area around Byron (ostensibly, the “other side” of Mount Diablo) spoke a Yokutian dialect.

    In fact, from the work leading up to Richard Levy’s 1978 “Costanoan” Essay, the following facts were already established, peer-reviewed, and easily discoverable by scholars such as Levy, and Alameda’s Imelda Merlin–who was a UC Berkeley student herself, and within easy counsel of Kroeber, now infamous (and former) head of the UC Berkeley Anthropology Department, and Phoebe A. Hearst Museum….

    Anyway, these established facts were:

    • There is a group of Yokutian-speaking people who live on the East Side of Mount Diablo, up to at least the “Byron Delta Area”, probably spanning farther east toward the Sierra Foothills–joining the rest of the Yokutian-speaking area;
    • Neither Miwok, nor Chochenyo languages were related to the Yokutian-speaking Tribal Group in language, and diverged in custom;
    • The aforementioned group of people were errantly included under the term “Costanoan”, despite the obvious differences in language, religion, and culture;
    • Miwok is a language, and also a Tribal Group;
    • Coast Miwok and Miwok are two different Tribal Groups;
    • Chochenyo is a separate and distinct language from Miwok, spoken by at least one East Bay Tribal Group that has called themselves the “Lisjanes”–and been called the “Verona Band”, among other names;
    • Both Miwok and Chochenyo are linguistically related to each other, as branches, not as derivatives of one or the other.

    The detrimental effects of Richard Levy’s work have undermined the fundamental understanding of the Indigenous Bay Area landscape, reducing it to something uniform, monolithic. The historical narrative Levy pushes in this work is out-dated; even for the time it was published.

    It should also be noted that Levy’s work presented several claims, conclusions, and information that simply wasn’t corroborated or supported by citations, or other evidence.

    In spite of these facts, the “Costanoan” essay is still relied upon by Park Services, City Governments, Developers, (and more,) today.

    Levy’s work has been heavily relied upon for a number of reasons:

    1. It was published in what is still considered to be one of the most authoritative volumes to this day: The Handbook of North American Indians;
    2. It’s short;
    3. It has pictures.

    The map included with Levy’s essay was heavily relied upon up until the seemingly arbitrary placement of markers, and borders were pointed out.

    But let’s be clear. The difference in time between when these papers were published in academic journals, and when they get published in books, like “The Indians of California: A Source Book” is notable enough for me to point out that the public side, and the interior, academic, research side of the the anthropology/archaeology/ethnology department are completely different. They move at completely different speeds.

    And students/student-researchers are privy to material that just isn’t available to anyone outside of that institution.

    So let’s shift gears to look at yet another scholar.

    This one probably shouldn’t even be cited as a reference for Alameda Native History, anymore–given lack of credible citations and research regarding what she termed as “Aboriginal Settlement”.

    Her name is Imelda Merlin, and her thesis was published as a book in 1977 as “Alameda: A Geographical History”.

    This book has been referred to as the Alameda “historical bible“.

    However, Merlin’s thesis is actually dated in 1964–thirteen years before publication of her book. The thesis was submitted for partial satisfaction of the requirements for a Master’s Degree in Geology.

    Should I point out that Geology is not archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, or “ethnology” in any recognizable form? Because Geology is the study of the Earth. You know, like rocks, and how mountains were formed.

    In the second chapter, “Aboriginal Settlement” [p. 16], Merlin presents a brief history of “man’s” occupation of the area now known as Alameda.

    Here, Merlin refers to Ohlone People (known then, at least, as the Lisyan, Costanoan, and Verona) as a “branch of the Miwok tribe”. The citation for this claim refers to the unpublished, personal correspondence of Robert F. Heizer. It is unknown whether Merlin claims Robert F. Heizer shared this information during the interview, listed the bibliography; or whether there is a letter in Robert Fleming Heizer’s correspondence file that says this.

    But, remember the name Robert F. Heizer (aka “R. F. Heizer”) because he’s all over this.

    Merlin did not cite any academic research paper, archaeological or ethnographical reports to support her assertion that Heizer said this; in spite of his own work–contrary to the preponderance of academic papers that Heizer compiled and published, himself.

    If the interview in the bibliography was performed by Merlin, as the interviewer, how come she didn’t include the transcript? If the interview wasn’t performed by Merlin, who was it performed by? What was the date of the interview?

    Is the Heizer interview in the bibliography the ‘(Heizer, Personal correspondence)’ that Imelda Merlin refers to?

    [Please, don’t get me started on the maps.]”

    Me, This Article
    Yes, I honestly expected Imelda Merlin, in the 13 years between submitting her thesis, and publishing it as a book, to fix some of these issues. I expect anyone who has that much time between writing and printing, to have edited the […] out of their manuscript.

    This is troubling for a number of reasons; not the least of which is that Heizer (most probably) didn’t say that.

    Merlin’s assertion that the unnamed tribe of Alameda, and its adjacent lands was “now thought to be”, a “branch of miwok” really flies in the face of what Archaeologists, Anthropologists, and Ethnologists actually believed.

    J.P. Harrington’s 1921 Linguistic Survey of the Niles/Pleasanton area was well-known, and continues to be the authoritative reference concerning Ohlone People from Mission San Jose, and descendants, and family of Jose Guzman. Harrington’s work (as already mentioned in length) makes a clear distinction between the Chochenyo, and Miwok language; as well as Miwok and the “Lisjanes”.

    In 1955, Alfred Kroeber, and Robert F. Heizer, had already written “Continuity of Indian Population in California From 1770/1848 to 1955”. This work specifically distinguishes between “Miwok” and “Costanoan” people who appear in the Mission Rolls.

    This was, of course, after publication of Robert Heizer’s 1951, “Indians of the San Francisco Bay Area”, in the Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties (Bulletin #154); which made it clear:

    The San Francisco peninsula, western Contra Costa County, and Alameda and Santa Clara Counties were the home of the Costanoan tribes.”

    First paragraph of the Preface to the “Indians of the San Francisco Bay Area”, Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties. Bulletin 154, Division of Mines, Ferry Building, San Francisco, 1951.

    Mind you, “Costanoan” territory started out as the whole of the San Francisco Bay Area, and then kept getting smaller, and more defined, until it became the area we now associate with Ohlone Territory.

    Ohlone Territory is the area from Yelamu, to Huchiun Aguasto, from below Ssalson, to way far down, past Carmel, and well into the Santa Cruz Mountains.

    In Merlin’s second Heizer citation, “The California Indians”, we are brought to what was considered the sequel of….

    The undisputed authority on the California Indians, A.L. Kroeber, heads the list of outstanding anthropologists whose writings have been selected to appear in this book.

    Here, then, for the first time since the appearance, many years ago, of A.L. Kroeber’s Handbook of the Indians of California (Smithsonian Institution, 1925) is a book which covers the material and social cultures, the archaeological findings, and a wealth of other materials on the Indians of California.

    Dust cover of “The Indians of California: A Source Book”, Compiled and Edited by R. F. Heizer and M. A. Whipple, Fourth Printing, 1962, Cambridge University Press, London, England

    The Handbook of the Indians of California, mentioned above, was also edited by Robert Heizer (aka “Robert F. Heizer”, aka “Robert Fleming Heizer”.)

    So, Heizer is all over this stuff. As an editor, and a contributing author.

    Of all the works bearing Heizer’s name, the “Indians of California” took pains to specify, exactly, the relationships of the Tribal Groups of California with each other.

    This came out in the form of maps, data tables, and hundreds of pages of narrative.

    Population “Table 1” Showing Costanoan and Miwok as separate Groups
    Mentioning Dances Miwok Received from Costanoans
    “Map 1” Penutian Language Family List, Showing Costanoan and Miwok as different Languages
    Three examples of Miwok and Costanoan Tribal Groups mentioned as separate, and distinct groups. Figure 1 shows a population “Table 1” with Costanoan and Miwok separate. Figure 2 mentions that certain Miwok dances were received from Costanoan Groups, from the Kuksu Big Head cult, specifically. Figure 3 shows “Map 1”, and gives a “Penutian Family” language list, showing Costanoan and Miwok as separate branches of the Penutian Language Family.
    Despite some of the most “authorative”, widely publicized, even celebrated source material on the “Indians of California” at her finger-tips.

    In her own citations.

    Somehow….

    Merlin writes:

    Man was present on the shores of San Francisco Bay at least 3500 years ago according to Carbon-14 tests made of shellmound material (Gifford, pp. 1-29). Since at least one mound has revealed a layer of skeletal material below the present ground level, in much the same way as did the Emeryville mound, presumably Indians now thought to have been a branch of Miwok Indians, (Heizer, personal correspondence) occupied the Encinal as early as they did the adjacent areas.”

    “Alameda: A Geographical History”, Imelda Merlin, 1977, Friends of the Alameda Library, Alameda Musuem, Alameda, California, [p.16]

    The most important fact here is that the word “Costanoan” isn’t mentioned at all.

    “Well, that’s what people thought in 1964.” Was one reply, when I brought up this in recent conversation with Valerie Turpin, VP of the Alameda Museum Board.

    But it isn’t the Miwok who people thought occupied the Encinal as early as they did the adjacent areas.

    In 1964, people thought Native Americans from the San Francisco Bay Area were called “Costanoans”. People already knew that Costanoans were different, and distinct from Miwok, Pomo, Delta Yokuts, and all the rest of the “Indians of California”.

    I expressed my confusion as to why Imelda Merlin would be so wrong. I shared with Turpin the breakdown of Merlin’s sources, including the “most authoritative” sources by A.L. Kroeber, and Robert F. Heizer.

    I also mentioned other work, which was published, just one year after Imelda Merlin’s book was published. It’s called “The Ohlone Way”.

    Malcom Margolin wrote, or contributed, to three of the most famous books about Native Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area:

    • The Ohlone Way
    • The Way We Lived
    • Life in a California Mission (Introduction)
    These are non-fiction narrative books; collections of stories, and songs; not academic research papers, or post-graduate theses.

    Even though they’re made by a white man, for a white audience, Margolin’s work was the kind of stuff that brought solace, as I pined for home. Oh yeah, and the references to Margolin’s work can be found in Park Service Project Plans, CEQA filings, Berkeley City Council Briefs, etc.–right next to the references to Levy, and Heizer we’ve already covered, above.

    Certainly, Margolin would be a fine resource to consult, when curating an exhibit on the First Alamedans, and the way they lived.

    More recent events have brought the fact that Alameda is Ohlone land into the forefront of the conscious of almost every person who lives here.

    Those, of course, were the visible protest actions against housing development in West Berkeley [which isn’t where the shellmound actually is]; and, before that, the takeover of Wintun/Patwin land, in Vallejo, by an activist who was the self-proclaimed “chairwoman” of the corporation known as the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan, INC, which claimed to be a forgotten Ohlone Tribe.

    In reality, Corrina Gould was a rogue “fallen member” of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area; who refused to go back home, even though Muwekma offered her enrollment in the tribe.

    Despite the bad optics, and the confusion, we now know that, “Ohlone People are The Native American People From the San Francisco Bay Area”.

    Because of all of this “awareness”, a City of Alameda park was renamed to “Chochenyo Park”, in recognition of the Ohlone language spoken in the Alameda area.

    The City of Alameda even voted to donate city funds to the Sogorea Te Land Trust, a purportedly Ohlone Land Trust, using the Wintun name for Glen Cove, in Vallejo… and has no affiliation to any Tribal Government, whatsoever. [FYI: Nonprofit corporations cannot be Tribal Governments because the exercise of Tribal Sovereignty is not a “Charitable Purpose”.]

    The City stopped short of issuing a Land Acknowledgement, though.

    But this seems like enough for the Alameda Museum to take notice, and update their website, and exhibits.

    But the issue still lingers:

    Why didn’t the Alameda Museum vet Imelda Merlin’s book?

    Why didn’t they check the citations?

    When asked why the Alameda Museum only relied upon this one resource for their information (Imelda Merlin’s book), I was told that they are simply sharing the information the Museum was given when the Native American Grave Goods from the Alameda Shellmounds were transferred from the possession of the Alameda Free Library, to the Alameda Museum, sometime in the 1970’s.

    But what about the ethical, and legal duties behind possessing, and curating, Native American Grave Goods?

    What about:

    1. Proper identification of the Native American Grave Goods, and Native American Artifacts in the Alameda Museum’s possession?
    2. Proper attribution of Native American Grave Goods, and Native American Artifacts to the correct Tribal Group?
    3. Asking the Native American Tribes for permission to possess the Native American goods and objects already in their possession?

    I mentioned the prosecution of David van Horne, and how he was ordered to return the Native American Grave goods as a function of law. And how pursuant suits have ended in order to return the goods to the tribe’s possession “just because that’s the law.”

    I let Valerie Turpin know that simply possessing the Native American Grave Goods without permission put them in violation of the NAGPRA laws.

    She told me that the Museum had reached out to a few groups, and was working on that. I asked her if the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan, INC. was one of the groups, and informed her that I’m now the CEO of that corporation; as of January 2022.

    I told Valerie that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area is the actual Ohlone Tribe of this area: Named In Treaty.

    But that the California Native American Heritage Commission is the proper authority to contact, to determine who the Most Likely Descendants are, for the things in the Alameda Museum’s possession.

    When it came to discussing “help”; voluminous reminders that the Alameda Museum is entirely run by volunteers, I just have to get this out of the way:

    1. Museums are supposed to be an authority on their subject.
    2. We expect museums to verify the authenticity and provenance of their exhibits before curating them.
    3. Being “volunteer run” should not be an excuse for why the Alameda Museum’s exhibits are less credible than a 4th Grade Science Fair Project.

    What did I want to do to help?

    When the Alameda Museum and I first met: I offered to scan the entire card catalog with our production scanner that scans at 130 Pages Per Minute. This was just because I wanted to find what I was looking for; and scanning the entire catalog seemed like a win for both of us. I specifically mentioned that it would be a good time, then, because of the COVID-19 Lockdown, and this extended period of free time.

    I never heard back on that offer. [I didn’t think the Alameda Museum took me seriously.]

    But, I remembered. And, when I brought it up, I learned that the Alameda Museum Card Catalog had been entirely scanned, and was now in a database. That database, while not public (and still being worked on), was available to be searched only in the Alameda Museum.

    So I basically asked how come the Alameda Museum didn’t just search its own database. Turpin asked me if I would help research.

    I responded that the Alameda Museum has the only holdings on this subject that I haven’t seen. They (the museum) probably have the only remaining primary sources regarding this subject. And, that, once they locate their materials, that I (of course) would be able to cross-reference that with everything that I already have, and have put together.

    Then she asked if I made that map of the shellmounds in Alameda.

    Yeah.

    Valerie mentioned the problem. The problem that these artifacts could be taken and locked away from the world’s view forever. And I really understand that fear. Because I feel it, too. As a lover of history. As an inquiry-based, tactile, experience-seeking, life-long learner.

    I told her the California Indian Museum had the same problem. But they solved it. By “inviting contemporary Native Americans to come and make some contemporary Native American stuff.” The whole museum is filled with it. It’s in Sacramento, California. And it’s beautiful.

    We left it there.

    But here is the link to the California State Indian Museum.

    Stay tuned to find out what happens next.

    NOTE: This article was amended to include a brief mention of the California State Indian Museum’s solution to the idea that Native American Grave Good, Artifacts, Objects, Resources, and Other Things could simply be “locked up” and “no one could see them.” Because these Native American Artifact Laws do have a chilling effect on the activities of Museums.

  • Alameda’s Racist History: If You Won’t Share Ours, Give Back Our Artifacts

    “Alameda Museum: / If you won’t share our history, give our artifacts back / Celebrate the First Alamedans just / as much as your Colonizer Heroes. / Alameda’s Racist History” Title art for @AlamedaNativeHistoryProject on Instagram.com.

    Alameda is a model colonial city. Their Victorian houses, and expansive gardens have been written about for hundreds of years. Regular Alameda Garden Tours, and Alameda Legacy Home Tours extoll the virtues of Alameda’s First Colonizers.

    These historical celebrations routinely leave out facts, such as,

    “This garden was fertilized by using human remains found in one of Alameda’s three shellmounds.”

    Or,

    “This sidewalk was constructed using one of the over 350 Native American bodies found in the ‘Sather’s Mound’.”

    The Alameda Museum is exclusively devoted to commemorating and memorializing Alameda’s White History, while simultaneously ignoring and minimizing the existence and contributions of people of color; and the atrocities committed by those who are purported to be such heroic goliaths of Alameda History, today.

    This is all done in the shadows of people like Rasheed Shabazz, someone who had to trace his own Alameda Legacy to bring us Black Alameda History, which was never touched upon, or even considered by an all-white museum staff, and curation team. [

    Sure, the Alameda Museum invites us to search their archives. But the word “search” belies the onerous nature of digging through files and card catalogs which aren’t actually indexed or organized in any useful way.

    People always offer us the chance to do their work for them, like it’s a favor to us.

    But let’s be clear: an archive that isn’t indexed or organized is trash.

    The real issue here, is that the Alameda Museum has existed for so long without ever: (a) indexing their holdings; (b) focusing on anything other than Alameda’s White History; or (c) ever asking for permission to possess the Native American Funerary Objects, and Grave Goods in their possession….

    The issue of Alameda Museum’s possession of Native American Grave Goods and Funerary Objects is especially salient considering their absolute lack of respectful handling of the Historical Events Surrounding the Sather’s Mound, and the Destruction and Morbid Uses for Alameda’s Shellmounds.

    Simply put;

    Alameda Museum, if you’re not going to engage the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, ask for permission to possess their artifacts, and present respectful, and responsible, information regarding the First Alamedans: then you don’t deserve to possess their artifacts.

    Stay tuned for more.