Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Members unveiling first Trail Marker in their language, Čočeño (Chochencyo), at Coyote Hills Regional Park (aka Máyyan Šáatošikma)
On Sunday, November 27, 2022, we gathered at Máyyan Šáatošikma (aka Coyote Hills Regional Park, in Fremont) to witness the unveiling of the first of 35 trail markers, redesigned, and translated into Čočeño (Chochenyo).
Čočeño is the official language of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, once recognized as the Verona Band of Indians, and comprised of all of the known surviving American Indian lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace their ancestry through the Missions Dolores, Santa Clara, and San Jose.
It was through the work of J.P. Harrington, and Ohlone Ancestor Jose Guzman, that the Čočeño language was preserved, and survived centuries of attempted erasure.
The renaming of these 35 trail markers–which account for all of the trail markers in the Coyote Hills Regional Park–are the culmination of decades of (continuing) partnership with the East Bay Regional Park District.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area is a bonafide tribe, with more than 600 enrolled members. Muwekma holds elections for their leaders, who are now Charlene Nijmeh (Chairwoman), Monica Arellano (Vice Chairwoman). Muwekma has a strong Tribal Council, made of elders and enrolled members; without whom the re-awakening of the Čočeño language, and traditions, such as almost-forgotten dances, would not be possible.
As supporters of Tribal Sovereignty, of Ohlone People’s struggle for recognition, for Land Back, and those who wish to Decolonize, and Rematriate The Land: Remember that Muwekma is a bonafide tribe–and not a corporation, like the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan “Nation”, INC.; or the Sogorea Te Land Trust.
The important distinction between these groups is that Muwekma has been here since time immemorial. That Muwekma can trace its lineage in the San Francisco Bay Area back to at least 7,000 years ago. That Muwekma accounts for hundreds of Ohlone People. That Muwekma holds regular elections, and–most importantly–Muwekma can back all their claims with extensive documentation, including pictures going back to at least the 1930’s.
Picture of Jose Guzman in Niles, California; taken 1934. Unknown Photographer.
Resources for Supporting the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area:
New Tonarigumi: Alameda Historic Japantown Markers
Alameda Historic Japantown Plaque and Marker at the Buddhist Temple of Alameda (2325 Pacific Ave, Alameda, CA 94501)
First picture at the Alameda Buddhist Temple; second picture at the Alameda Marketplace.
Alameda Historic Japantown Plaque and Marker at Alameda Marketplace (1650 Park St, Alameda, CA 94501)
These historical markers and plaques are dedicated to the Japanese, and Japanese-American, residents of the City of Alameda, who endured dispossession, displacement, and internment, during World War 2…. Only after enduring the intense racism and discrimination of White Alameda for decades before.
Note: I cannot share the images, or words used in Historic Alameda Newspapers to show you how strong White Alameda’s racist and hateful vitriol of Japanese (and Chinese) immigrants was; because these images and words are so offending as to be considered harmful material still to this day.
But it’s fair to say that non-white immigrants were never welcomed here, in the City of Alameda–nor were these immigrants ever allowed peace, quiet enjoyment, or credit for the awesome contributions they made to the development and advancement of the City we see today.
We can never forget the injustices the American government has imposed upon every single non-white group of people to ever exist within this country.
While white people love to point out that a very small group of them came forward to protect Japanese land and property from seizure and destruction, it’s the majority of white Americans who wholeheartedly supported the separation and internment of Japanese and Japanese-American people.
So, when we start having a real conversation about land back and honoring the Ohlone people of this place, I want you to include all Ohlone people and not just Sogorea Te Land Trust, and Corrina Gould—organizations which demonstrably only account for a very small fraction of the total Ohlone population living today.
It’s a shame that the Alameda Museum had no part in this project, at all.
But I want to congratulate the City of Alameda, and Downtown Alameda Business Association, for actually including the voices, perspectives, and participation of the the Japanese-Americans who were actually affected by these racists policies and laws.
As we continue forward in healing from the injustices and injuries of America’s racist past, the participation of those people who were actually affected by these shameful periods should be critical, tantamount, and–indeed–inextricable from the memorials, contrition, and reparations still to come.
Map of Alameda Japanese American Businesses of 1940. Map credit to JapantownAtlas.com.
We sent out numerous letters to City of Oakland Officials, today. [Here’s the contact list we used.] This is what the letter said:
Alameda Native History Project 2201 Shoreline Drive #6334 Alameda, California 94501 (510) 747-8423 info@alamedanativehistoryproject.com
October 31, 2022
Oakland City Council Oakland City Hall 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza Oakland, CA 94612
-VIA EMAIL-
Re: Proposed Cultural Conservation Easement at Joaquin Miller Park (Agenda Item #1022-0849)
Dear City Council Members, and Staff,
I am writing to ask you to include all Ohlone people in the planning and consultation for the proposed cultural easement at Sequoia Point, in Joaquin Miller Park. Currently, there are only plans recognizing one Ohlone tribal group, the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.
However, if Sequoia Point is to be treated as a Tribal Cultural Resource, then Tribal Consultation should take place with all of the Ohlone tribal groups. I know that you are familiar with Tribal Notification Requirements; so it’s especially dismaying that Tribal Consultation was not solicited from any or all of the groups in the Native American Heritage Commission’s Tribal Consultation Lists.
These groups include, but are not limited to:
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Confederated Villages of the Lisjan
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
Indian Canyon Mustun Band of Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area
Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Granting exclusive rights to use, and access, a Tribal Cultural Resource, as an easement in perpetuity, without consulting with other real parties in interest ( i.e., these other tribal groups) is a serious mistake that does not have to be made.
Please reach out to other affected tribes before granting exclusive rights to their land.
Sincerely,
Gabriel Duncan
Alameda Native History Project 2201 Shoreline Drive #6334 Alameda, California 94501 (510) 747-8423 info@alamedanativehistoryproject.com
Now that initial excitement over the announcement of a proposed cultural easement for Ohlone people at Sequoia Point (5-acres in Joaquin Miller Park) has died down, it’s time to do the actual work of looking at the legislation proposed to Oakland City Council Members, and deciding if this really is a just, and equitable “Land Back” project.
While Sogorea Te Land Trust spokesperson, Corrina Gould, is also the alleged Tribal Chairperson of a corporation known as the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.–we noticed that Corrina’s group was the only Ohlone tribal group consulted with while developing a cultural easement that is meant to benefit all Ohlone people.
Other tribal groups which claim Joaquin Miller Park – Sequoia Point, as part of their Tribal Homeland include:
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
Indian Canyon Mustun Band of Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area
Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
So why weren’t these other tribes contacted, and invited to take part in the development of a cultural conservation easement for their land?
All of the tribal organizations listed above have documented ties to “bands of Indians”, and full-blooded Indian acenstors who appeared on Indian Censuses in the late 1800’s, and early 1900’s–which is a requirement to prove ancestry/degree of Indian Blood, and also petition the Bureau of Indian Affairs for Federal Tribal Recognition.
If added to the list above, Corrina Gould’s company, the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan “Nation”, INC. would be the newest and least documented tribal group.
The Ohlone Indian Tribe would be the second newest organization–but this corporation was founded specifically to accept the deed to the Ohlone Cemetery in Fremont, California. The Ohlone Cemetery was probably the first parcel of land back given to any Native American tribe by the Catholic Church (…ever.)
In fact, out of all of the tribes listed above, most of these tribes have their own Land Trusts, including the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, which is currently the only federally recognized California coastal tribe between Sonoma and Santa Barbara. As such, Indian Canyon enjoys their own tribal land base, and Federal Land Trust.
This begs the following questions:
Why haven’t any of these other (arguably more legitimate) Tribal Organizations been contacted?
Who is Sogorea Te Land Trust really trying to return land to?
Because, right now, it appears that Corrina Gould is engaging in a form of self-dealing, in awarding her own corporation an easement in a transaction that she should be barred from negotiating because of her clear Conflict of Interest.
The onus to perform due diligence in reaching out to other tribal groups; exercise a duty of care to ensure these tribal group’s right to consultation (and participation) falls squarely on the City of Oakland.
However, as a land trust, which has no official Tribal Affiliation in their bylaws, or articles of incorporation, it seems incumbent upon Sogorea Te Land Trust to reach out to the tribes they claim to be working (in a fiduciary capacity) towards the return of land for…. And invite them to participate in a project that is meant to benefit them.
This is Sogorea Te Land Trust’s duty to Ohlone People; as an organization which claims to work for Ohlone people as their “clients” (for lack of a better term.)
Excluding these other tribal groups from consulting with the City of Oakland is a violation of well established (and accepted) rules and procedures provided, in part, by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatration Act, AB52 (Tribal Consultation), and the California Public Resources Code–which all require Cities and Lead Agencies (in this case, Sogorea Te Land Trust) to contact the Native American Heritage Commission to receive a list of tribal organizations they must request consultation from before proceeding with proposed project or plans on public lands. (Like a city park.)
More importantly, this is a complete disregard for the Tribal Protocol that Corrina Gould has been so vocal about.
Which is ironic considering the fact Gould hasn’t consulted any other tribes in the creation of this proposed easement at Sequoia Point.
In fact, it looks like other Ohlone tribes are being actively excluded by Corrina Gould, in order for her to engage in what looks suspiciously like Self-Dealing, and Fraudulent Behavior.
We know that Tribal Outreach and Consultation has not occurred, or even been attempted, because “tribal consultation” is conspicuously absent from the Agenda Report & Legislation for the proposed easement; along with any mention of Oakland City Staff, or STLT’s efforts to reach out to other tribes who are affected by, and are real parties in interest to, the cultural conservation easement proposed at Joaquin Miller Park, in Oakland.
Hopefully the Oakland City Council will put a hold on their vote on the Cultural Conservation Easement, in order for the City of Oakland and Sogorea Te Land Trust to actually consult with all the local Ohlone tribal groups, and bar Corrina Gould from engaging in negotiations on behalf of Sogorea Te Land Trust which she obviously has a deep, and personal, conflict of interest in.
This is an excerpt of a letter sent to ARPD’s Amy Wooldridge, the Alameda Recreation and Parks Department Director; as well as City of Alameda Mayor Marilyn Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Malia Vella; and Council Members: Tony Daysog, Trish Herrera Spencer, and John Knox White [who made the original announcement concerning the indigenous land management of property on Main Street, between Stargell and Singleton.]
Hey Amy,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I wanted to address two things.
1. The Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC. is not a Tribal Government; it is a nonprofit corporation.
The name of the true Ohlone Tribe of this area is the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Muwekma has been known as “Costanoan”, the “Verona Band”; and they have self-identified as “Yo soy lisjannes” [“Chochenyo Field Notes”, Harrington, 1921]. Additionally, the present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is comprised of all of the known surviving American Indian lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace their ancestry through the Missions Dolores, Santa Clara, and San Jose; and who were also members of the historic Federally Recognized Verona Band of Alameda County. [Muwekma.org; as well as both their BIA petitions for federal recognition.]
Federal Recognition could help Muwekma in the following ways, as they relate to ARPD, and the City of Alameda’s relationship with CVL:
A Land Base would be established for Muwekma in the Bay Area,
This may include ANAS/FISC Alameda property; and other open space in the City of Alameda.
Land Banks held by agencies like the East Bay Regional Park District will be transferred to Muwekma
Muwekma would be endowed with the Legal Standing required to bring suit for the cessation of excavation, destruction and/or development of Tribal Cultural Resources in the City of Alameda–
And, this might leave ARPD and the City liable, should they irrevocably devote land and resources to a corporation that is not actually a tribal government (please be careful, because we need our Parks and Rec Department; it would suck if they lost funding because it was reappropriated as restitution, or a settlement.)
Theoretically, there should also be a conveyance from Sogorea Te Land Trust to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area at this point–as Federal Recognition would render the necessity/mission of a land trust to hold land for an unrecognized tribe moot.
Aside from the factual issues with recognizing a corporation less than 5 years old as a Tribal Government; there is the political consideration.
Muwekma is a tribal nation that is trying to regain federal recognition. One of the most crucial elements they must prove in their petition is that Muwekma has existed as a continuous group since the last time they were recognized as a tribe; and that the tribal governance structure has retained its political influence on said group. This has been extremely difficult for them to plead at the level the BIA requires. And several prominent politicians have spoken out against what they believe is an arbitrary and capricious refusal by BIA to reconsider Muwekma’s petition for tribal recognition. [This is on top of previous judicial opinions also in favor of reconsideration.] But, there is another way that Muwekma can regain Tribal Recognition; and that is by an Act of Congress.
However, to affect this action, Muwekma must have a broader political influence beyond its own membership. This means they would have to gain wider public support for their cause, in order to effectively encourage congressional representatives to introduce legislation renewing Muwekma’sTribal Recognition.
I believe that the City of Alameda, and ARPD’s public endorsement of the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC. as an Ohlone tribe is an error which is detrimental to the rights and struggles for recognition and sovereignty of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area insomuch that it lends false validity to a corporation that is fraudulently portraying itself as a Tribal Nation to benefit a small group of people over the needs of thousands of bonafide Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Members.
It also contributes to the erasure of all of the people whose ancestors were ground up to pave Bay Farm Road; grade former train tracks in Jean Sweeney; and fill marshland around Krusi, and Harrington Parks, among others.
It is for these reasons that I strongly suggest ARPD, and The City, reach out directly to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area before you consider doing anything else.
2. Ongoing Contamination of Soil and Groundwater At or Near Linear Park (On Main Street, between Singleton and Stargell)
I’m concerned about the most recent Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment data regarding Benzene and Naphthalene found in ground water samples around this site. These chemicals were found in 2021 data, and no mitigation activities have occurred, as this site is now open and being investigated. It’s reasonable to assume that groundwater contamination is transient, and could affect Linear Park because it has a drainage ditch well below the surface of the surrounding land, including all sites appearing on the map below. This is the same drainage ditch Tule grows in now.
Additionally, I would like to note that Linear Park itself has been subject to contamination from leaking underground storage tanks (UST’s); which contained gasoline, diesel, lubricating oil, waste oil, and other hazardous materials; which released harmful chemicals, including the two listed above (among others), into the soil and groundwater directly upon the property now referred to as Linear Park.
There are also 26 points within 1,000 feet of Linear Park which have been affected by soil and groundwater contamination, much of the land surrounding Linear Park are subject to Land Use Restrictions expressly against digging/excavating, or using groundwater. Some of these Land Use Restrictions prohibit Schools or Housing from being built on those parcels because of the risk to human health (specifically to children.)
Additionally, there is the existence of the Toxic Marsh Crust, which lies 4-18 feet below the surface of any given point on the map presented here, and presents an unknown and unmitigated hazard to any plant or animal for the foreseeable future. For your reference, the highest water level sampled for this area was given at 3 feet below ground surface (BGS); and the drainage ditches are at least four feet deep.
Please find the attached PDF “CLOS_L_2002-01-14.pdf” which is a letter from the Alameda County Healthcare Services Agency, Environmental Services, Environmental Protection, Hazardous Material Specialist Eva Chu, addressed to the City of Alameda. This document details the contamination at the point where the tule grows in Linear Park, at Singleton and Main Street. This letter notes current concentrations of hazardous materials, and examines how the underground storage tanks were removed, and the land treated.
On top of the soil used for backfill being contaminated, polluted groundwater pumped from the site was sprayed onto the soil to suppress dust during work… further contaminating an area that was supposed to be cleaned.
All of this points to:
A strong possibility that the soil and groundwater harbor contaminants dangerous to humans;
The certain necessity to test soil and groundwater in this area to determine its safety.
Furthermore, certain safety plans must be created before digging, trenching, or groundwater may be used. The attached report also states that the corrective action for this parcel must be reviewed if land use changes.
Currently this land is technically wetland and flood mitigation for tidal surges which typically flood this area. The proposed use: to grow plants for food, clothing, and medicine to be consumed, inhaled, smudged with (,etc.); is clearly a much different use[–for human consumption vs. flood mitigation]. Therefore the re-evaluation of these parcels is not just a good idea, it is an enumerated necessity, according to Hazardous Materials Specialist Eva Chu.
Please find the attached “Map Showing Past & Present Contamination in City of Alameda Proposed ‘Indigenous Land Management’ Parcels”
It is for these reasons that I strongly object to letting anyone manage any part of, or consume any thing from Linear Park–at all–until the question of contamination has been thoroughly examined, and competently settled.
Thanks for your attention to these matters. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me.
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
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:
To accumulate, catalog, conserve, and display appropriate documents, photographs, objects, and artifacts relating to the city and its residents;
To foster the preparation and publication of materials relating to the history of the city and its residents; and,
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:
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 BeachNeptune 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.
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:
African American Medal of Honor Recipients
Outstanding African American Achievements in the United States Military
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 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.
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.]
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:
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;
It’s short;
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 GroupsMentioning Dances Miwok Received from Costanoans“Map 1” Penutian Language Family List, Showing Costanoan and Miwok as different LanguagesThree 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:
Proper identification of the Native American Grave Goods, and Native American Artifacts in the Alameda Museum’s possession?
Proper attribution of Native American Grave Goods, and Native American Artifacts to the correct Tribal Group?
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:
Museums are supposed to be an authority on their subject.
We expect museums to verify the authenticity and provenance of their exhibits before curating them.
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.
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.
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.
Anthropology, Archaeology, and Ethnology have always been competitive fields. In the East Bay, Native American Graves Consulting is a booming, and exclusive business.
And, the documented existence of the Ohlone people, who have occupied the East Bay continuously, for thousands of years, hinges upon the information locked away behind paygates; only being referenced by Developers, and City Attorneys.
The exclusivity of this information has been exploited for money. And used to bolster false claims of sovereignty.
Cover
Page 28
Page 180
Page 252
Page 279
But, let me be clear:
The only reason you have this information is because you robbed our ancestors’ graves.
On a very basic level–without being reductive–these academic papers; all of the information; tangible and non-tangible things that have been developed, derived, or created from the desecration of our ancestors….
All of that still belongs to us.
” A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810″
This map was really hard to conform using present-day landmarks.
Not only has sea-level risen considerably in the past 112 Years; but much of the coast line noted in the Coastal Survey has eroded, or used as fill, to erase much of what was open water along the San Francisco Bay Area Shorelines.
This is something that was especially noted in later studies of Bay Area Shellmounds: the possibilty that a mound which had been observed in 1908, was probably lost to the sea by erosion, before the 1970’s and 1980’s.
The changing topography of the Coasts, rising sea level, and dredging and landfill (among other things) have made it futile to argue about some places, like West Berkeley; where no one has a good idea of where the West Berkeley Shellmound actually was, despite the address of Second & Hearst given to it.
People would rather argue over the location of Strawberry Creek, and it’s accompanying marsh instead of taking another hour or two to just read the studies, and find the specific location.
Other mounds did not have the luxury of being named specifically. For instance, the Fernandez site, a shellmound situated in the Rodeo, California area, a little South-West of Martinez, California did have a partial coordinate address mentioned. But, when the coordinated are viewed, the location hovers over the waters off San Pedro Point.
There is also another mound, which was located in the bay, around where Midshipman Point is, which is just gone. No mention of whether the mound was actually standing in 1908, whether it was covered by water, or used to fill the area south of California State Route 37, where it meets the Lakeville Highway.
Furthermore, trying to rectify Nelson’s map to the shoreline of the interior of the San Francisco Bay Area was even more difficult, considered about half of the shorelines are artificial. That is: the shorelines have either been filled or dredged, and do not match the historic shorelines. This made it very hard to judge the specificity of the locations of the shellmounds mapped by Nelson.
Nelson (1909) Map, rectified to Present Day Map of San Francisco Bay Region.
But, by using 29 control points, I’ve managed to rectify the map to the best of my ability.
