Acorn Granaries are traditional California Native food storage systems.
Granaries were made all over California. – The acorn was one of the single most important food items in California.
“Hanging Basket” stores acorns off the ground. – Some tribes built platforms to perch granaries atop of. But not all granaries were suspended.
Material defines shape. – Some granaries are made with twisted stems, blades, and vines to form a Coil Basket (or “Birdnest” design. ) Others are made with small bushells of wild grass and thatched into an “Inverted Basket” (or, Thatched-Cone Design.)
Holds acorns overwinter. – An Acorn Granary must be resilient enough to hold Acorns over the winter. Repaired and reused over many seasons.
Basket-in-shell design. – Every granary is created with an outer shell made from strong, natural material resistant to animals and insects.
Hands-On Learning Experience and Cultural Exchange
Learn about the different plants used to make Acorn Granaries; and how pests were managed before GMO and RoundUp.
Learn how to split willow to make reeds, experiment with creating the different kinds of Acorn Granaries. Strategize how to keep out squirrels, crows, and other hungry critters!
Each week will have a different focus, as we move through the steps of Acorn Granary Construction, and preparing for the harvest.
From splitting willow to making various cordage, and thatching wild grass: We will work with a mix of materials old and new. And also address the non-native plant and their uses in construction and pest management.
Most of the material gathering will take place at the Indigenous Land Lab, and the processing of cordage, thatching of wild grasses, and splitting willows will happen in town, during the Granary Construction.
This is meant to be a very mellow and open-ended process that frankly invites a little bit of creativity, and welcomes a contemporary breath of fresh air.
And we’re also open to this process taking longer than a month.
Here’s a ballpark timeframe for construction and harvest preparation.
June-July: Gather Materials and Build Acorn Granaries
August-September: Continue to prepare for Harvest, Monitor Oak Trees
The main goal here is to be totally ready by the time the acorns start to fall!
This is why we’re creating the granaries now: So we can harvest, sort, and pack our acorns into these granaries as efficiently as possible.
But, we also want to give ourselves the greatest chance of success by using multiple granaries of varying construction materials and methods. This will also give us some data to analyze and use to plan for next year!
Nothing about this is an act of charity, or legitimate “return” of native land. The fact that the property being purchased is a 2.2 acre parking lot–instead of a real shellmound–is kind of embarrassing; especially because these headlines are so wrong.
Just because the City of Berkeley City Council voted on an agenda item with the title:
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance authorizing the City to acquire the portion of the West Berkeley Shellmound located at 1900 Fourth Street and also authorizing the City to transfer that property to the Sogorea Te Land Trust, thereby returning the land to the Ohlone people.
Does not mean that land is actually being returned to Ohlone people.
It’s a conclusory statement based on the bandwagon fallacy: that donating money, creating cultural easements, and transferring property to the Sogorea Te Land Trust benefits Ohlone people.
And this false equivocation between a non-Ohlone organization, and “The Ohlone People” is dangerously close to the impersonation of a tribe. Especially when the transfer of money, property and benefits meant for the enjoyment of an Ohlone Tribe goes to an organization which is neither a Tribe, nor Ohlone.
2. The City of Berkeley did not Buy the West Berkeley Shellmound
The City of Berkeley only chipped in about $1.5 Million worth of City Money. That’s less than 10% of the total purchase cost of the West Berkeley Parking Lot–which is $27 Million Dollars.
I just want to note that the Valuation for the land at 1900 4th Street, which are two parcels [57-2101-1-3, and 57-2101-5], is currently $9,690,000.00 (or $9.69M).
…And also let you know that the valuation for this property jumped between 2022, and 2023; from a combined (Land + Improvements) value of $1,306,140, to its current, $9,690,000. That’s a difference of $8,383,860 in value, in just one year. I’m not sure if this has to do with $60K worth of delinquent property taxes being paid in December 2023. But there hasn’t been any obvious change on the ground which would indicate a higher valuation.
All of this is to say that a purchase cost of $27 Million Dollars is way more than what the land is worth.
So, there’s actually a really good chance the inflated cost of the property includes legal fees and losses involved in the decade long struggle of the property.
And, if that’s true, this is much more of a win for the developers than it is for anyone else. Like, $18 Million Dollars more.
3. Sogorea Te Land Trust is Not An Ohlone Tribe or Organization
Sogorea Te is not even an Ohlone word. Sogorea Te is a place name for Glen Cove, in Vallejo, which is currently Wintun and Patwin Territory.
Sogorea Te Land Trust is a non-profit Land Trust that’s supposedly gathering money to purchase [Ohlone] land to return to indigenous people; support “rematriation”; and create urban gardens, and community centers.
However….
None of the money Sogorea Te Land Trust has raised, has benefited any actual Bay Area Tribe.
The only group benefitting from the Sogorea Te Land Trust’s work seems to be a corporation posing as a Tribal Government, the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.
But the fact that:
Sogorea Te Land Trust is so often being confused with an Ohlone Tribe, or representing an Ohlone Tribe; and the fact that,
Sogorea Te is now accepting land on behalf of “the Ohlone people”; and the fact that,
Sogorea Te Land Trust is not correcting this misidentification, false equivocation, or,
Making it clear that the Sogorea Te Land Trust is not an Ohlone tribe, and does not speak for one…
Means that the Sogorea Te Land is getting closer and closer to impersonating a tribe, or at least benefitting from the false impression that the Land Trust is an Ohlone Tribe or Ohlone Tribal Organization–which it is not.
4. The West Berkeley Shellmound is not “endangered”
It’s destroyed.…
But it’s easier for people to believe they are helping to “undo”, or “right centuries of wrong” by allowing a Land Trust to purchase an insignificant piece of what’s left of the West Berkeley Shellmound.
Wallace, W.; Lathrap, D. (1975) Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Vol. 29, “West Berkeley (CA-Ala-307): A Culturally Stratified Shellmound on the East Shore of San Francisco Bay” https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4616g044
I would argue: the only reason the West Berkeley Shellmound has received so much attention is because it’s a flat, empty space which is easy to fit a hundred protestors on top of. [Other shellmounds are behind fences, and protected by Oil, Quarry and Other Industries’ Private Security Companies.]
But, as a sacred site that needs protecting, the West Berkeley Shellmound is at the bottom of the list–mostly because it’s already 👏🏽 been 👏🏽 destroyed 👏🏽; and, also, because the Spenger’s Parking Lot is not where the shellmound used to be.
Map of West Berkeley showing CA-Ala-307 (West Berkeley Shellmound)
The historic location of the West Berkeley Shellmound is on the other side of the train tracks, under what’s now mostly a Truitt & White Lumber Yard.
5. Lisjan has never been the name of any Ohlone Tribe
Lisjan (or “lisyan”) does not appear in any historic mission records–or anywhere else–until 1921: when a Muwekma Ohlone ancestor (Jose Guzman) said “Yo soy lisjanes“, to define himself as someone from the Bernal, and Alisal Rancherias, in what’s known as Pleasanton today.
Aside from the fact that “Lisjan” appears in an interview of Muwekma ancestor Jose Guzman, which occurred about 87 years after the secularization of the Missions in California: there is nothing to prove that an Ohlone village named Lisjan ever existed. In fact, the only thing passages referring to “Lisjan” prove is that “Lisjan” is the place name for Pleasanton, California; not East Oakland–where Corrina Gould claims the “Lisjan” homeland is.
To dive in deeper to the references of “Lisjan” in the 1921 interview of Jose Guzman: Guzman was busy discussing how his family came from the North–which was Nisenan territory, where the word “Lisjan” came from–to Pleasanton. In this passage, Guzman talked about his family’s history, and of his grandfather speaking Russian.
But, let’s be clear: Lisjan is not an Ohlone word at all.
So a woman calling herself the chairperson of an Ohlone “tribe” (which is supposedly a “confederation” of Ohlone villages) named after Pleasanton, but based in East Oakland, should be considered extremely suspect. 🚩🚩🚩
But Corporations are not Tribal Governments, because Tribal Governments are Sovereign Nations which exist outside of the normal U.S. Corporate Structure.
7. Corrina Gould isn’t a tribal chairperson.
There are a number of different reasons why Corrina Gould is not a Tribal Chairperson. The fact that the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC. is not a tribe is the strongest. And it’s evidenced on the faces of everyone you see in every picture of CVL’s “tribal members”.
Real Tribal Leaders are actually voted for by Tribal Members who represent all the different families which make up a Tribe.
Look at the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area:
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe was federally recognized; they have a documented 10,000 year history continuous habitation in the San Francisco Bay Area; not just Federal Documentation, but family trees, and DNA documentation directly linked to archaeological sites.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is comprised of all the remaining known Indian lineages who survived the California Missions. They have over 614 enrolled tribal members.
The reason why the Muwekma Ohlone tribe seems like it’s “The San Jose Tribe”, or is only in Santa Clara is because Mission San Jose was down in Fremont. That’s where all the “Indians” got let out from when the Mission systems closed down. So that’s why the Governor issued an order re: squatters on Mission Lands; and why the present-day Muwekma population is distributed the way it is. [That is a completely different historical topic for another day.]
“But we have members all over the Bay Area,” Muwekma Chairwoman Charlene Nijmeh told me. This includes places outside of San Jose, like Castro Valley, Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco–and even in Manteca, and Sacramento, and beyond.
But this is an argument about Traditional, Hereditary Muwekma Territory. And that territory includes Berkeley, and Oakland, and Alameda, and Albany. This whole area is Muwekma Ohlone Territory. The only reason they’re not here is because they haven’t got their land back.
When you look closer, the “tribe” Corrina Gould purports to represent is comprised only of her own immediate family members.
Official Portraits of the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, Inc. have never shown many (if any) members of the tribe Corrina Gould purports to be the Chairwoman of.
Take this into consideration when you compare the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC. to real tribes, like the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area–which has 600+ members from many different families, who have well-documented, hereditary links to their land and ancestors.
If Corrina Gould were really trying to educate the public, she would have told you the truth a long time ago, and actually stepped aside to let the real tribe she came from benefit from the work she purports to do “for Ohlone people”–instead of doing it for her personal benefit, and the benefit of her immediate family members.
It’s up to you to educate yourself before you give money, land, or support to Native People.
We get it, you feel guilty about what your ancestors did Native Americans.
But your desperation to absolve yourself of your White Guilt, and the Sins of Colonization lead you into problematic “fixes”, following straw man causes which end up contributing to the erasure of the very people you’re trying to help.
“Lisjan” has been referred to as a Traditional Ohlone Village Site, in East Oakland.
Both the San Leandro Creek, and San Lorenzo Creek bear the name of “Lisjan” creek.
But “Lisjan” isn’t even an Ohlone word.
“Lisjan” is what Nisenan People call the city of Pleasanton, California.
Uldal, J. & Shipley, W. (1966) “Nisenan Texts and Dictionary”
And, just to be clear: Pleasanton wasn’t called “Pleasanton” until the 1860’s. Up to that point, it was called “Alisal”, or “Alizal”, or “El Alizal”, or “Alisal Rancheria”. And, before that, Alisal was the Bernal Rancheria.
And Nisenan People are not Maidu People. They’re totally seperate tribes.
You could say, the present day Nisenan capitol is Nevada City, California….
The “definition” of Lisjan, a Nisenan Word…
In 1929, A.L. Kroeber published “The Valley Nisenan“, which contained an expansive, and categorized Nisenan vocabulary; and a decent explanation of phonetics. However, this was only a short list, which did not contain Place Names. But, this book is an indication of the linguistic study and research going on behind the scenes, in California, in the early 20th century.
It wouldn’t be until 1966, that Hans Jørgen Uldall, would publish “Nisenan Texts and Dictionary“, with William Shipley. This volume includes some very adult stories. So, beware. But, there are Nisenan-English, and English-Nisenan dictionaries in the back.
Uldall’s dictionary contains the entry for “Lisjan”; as a Place Name for Pleasanton, California.
But, how did that name, get all the way up to Nisenan territory, 100 miles away from Pleasanton? And 45 years after Harrington’s interviews? Why is “Lisjan” being touted as a traditional Ohlone Village Site in deep East-Oakland, if “Lisjan” is another name for Pleasanton?
Excerpt from “Chochenyo Field Notes” showing the word “muwekma”.
J.P. Harrington’s “Chochenyo Field Notes” (1921)
One of the most-cited references in Ohlone History…
In 1921, J.P. Harrington performed a Language Survey of Native Americans in the East Bay. Harrington gathered numerous languages during this time, including the “Chocheño” language; which is known as the East Bay Ohlone language, today. Despite being deeply flawed, and extremely sus at times, this document continues to be a primary influence on mainstream discussions about Ohlone History in the San Francisco Bay Area.
One of Harrington’s interviewees was a man by the name of Jose Guzman. Guzman was interviewed, along with a man named “Angelo”, and a third man who is known as “informant”–presumably, Harrington’s fixer. Francisca is another interviewee who appears separately from Jose and Angelo, most times.
This volume is incredibly informative. Even though, a good portion of the information provided by Jose Guzman, and Angelo become problematic in many places–when viewed in context with later anthropological work, and the lack of clear attribution to a speaker (if any) in many of the entries. This is a problem with Harrington, really.
A majority of contemporary work on East Bay Ohlone People cite J.P. Harrington’s “Chochenyo Field Notes”, from 1921.
This document is never more than one step removed from almost any article or research paper.
But who’s actually read it? As daunting as these tomes look in the beginning: I have to be honest, and tell you, it’s not as bad as it seems. 355 pages of hand-written notes goes kind of quickly if you can hang with the kind of Spanglish that’s spoken on many a rez, today.
It’s easy to get a feel for the personalities of the interviewees by how their interviews progress; and even the type of setting. Some interviews were taken at gatherings. There are write-ups of methods of fabrication for food and tools; songs; as well as old stories, passed down to Jose Guzman. Harrington’s hand-writing also changes, depending on the speed of the information he’s being given, and whether or not he’s having a good day. Sometimes, he had to switch pens, until ultimately finding a pencil.
In the beginning, Harrington focuses on the basics. Where are you from? What’s the name of your tribe? Have you heard of these people? Can you tell me the history of this place?
Harrington wouldn’t ask twice about something the same day. He would circle back to it again, on another day.
As his notes progress, the words move to phrases. The lists become Chocheño lists, with Spanish or English translation.
This is how “Lisjan” kept popping up.
Harrington’s Synthesis of Chocheño VS. The Way Chocheño Was Actually Being Spoken
Aside from where the notes explicitly said who the speaker was, or whether or not the interviewees agree, it’s difficult to tell the difference between Harrington’s own ideas and synthesis of Chocheño; and the Chocheño language as it was actually spoken.
The following entry shows how Harrington took a variation of the phrase “makin miwikma” (we are good people), and applied it to “lisjan”, to form “lisjanikma”–which, to Harrington’s understanding of Chocheño, means “lisjan people”.
makin lisjanikma, we are lisjanes. approved lisjanikma but could not get tongue around it.”
The result was a valid form of the word. But not a word which was actually in use; or even really pronounceable.
This would continue on the next page, with:
makin Jinijmin, somos muchachos, cannot say *makin jinijminka inf. tells me clearly
Hand-writing is unclear for “mak[n]ote”, “mak[in]ote”, “mak[s]ote”, “mak[‘n]ote”…
This is when I started suspecting there may have been drinking involved in some of these later sessions with Jose Guzman and Angelo. (Because it looks like they’re having fun, and getting kinda goofy at times.) The informant’s answer seems to say more about the philosophy, or [machismo] culture, of the group being interviewed. I can actually see it playing out:
You can’t just say, “We’re some men.” You have to say, “Puros muchachos estamos aqui!”
It was at this point, that I started noticing the strong Spanish-language influence in many of these examples of Chocheño given to Harrington by Chocheño speakers.
References to “Lisjan”
Page 54: The Ind. name of the Chocheños is lisianij.
In the first few pages, we find an entry that says the “Indian Name” of the Chocheños is “Lisjan“.
This may seem like an authoritative, and all-encompassing reference. But the specifics change over time.
Page 59: lisjanis, In. Infor. They said that S.Jose was an early mission [upside-down triangle symbol]; they called the Inds. here sometimes los viejos cristianos. Jose knows this trbu. too and uses it every day, in talking to me.
In the next entry, we find out that San Jose Mission Indians were also called “los viejos cristianos”.
We also find out that Jose Guzman references San Jose Mission Indians this way, as well. No location information is given yet. But that changes.
Soon, there are distinctions made between who is, and who isn’t Lisjan.
On page 95 of the PDF, a paragraph begins with “lisjanes were the San Jose.” It goes on to say that, neither the Doloreños, nor the Clareños, were Lisjanes.
Page 95: lisjanes were the San Jose — the name covered up as far as S. Lorenzo Angelo thinks. 8ing. lisjan. yo soy lisjan. The Doloreños were not lisjanes, nor were the Clareños. [Mention of Dumbarton Rail Bridge (opened 1910) at bottom of page?]
This entry includes a little more information about location. It states that the name Lisjan covered up as far as San Lorenzo. This is interesting, because the very first entry said Lisjan is the “Indian Name” of the Chocheños.
It’s also interesting, because the Chocheño-speaking Indians at San Lorenzo were called “Los Nepes”. Which means, they were considered a completely different group by Harrington’s interviewees.
Unfortunately, this entry only gives us a rough northern boundary to a possible Lisjan “territory”, certainly not enough information to pin to a certain geographic region. This also means that “Lisjan” was definitely not located in present-day Oakland, at all.
Pages 105-106: kana lisjanka, yo soy lisjan. makin lisjanikma, we are lisjanes. approved lisjanikma but could not get tongue around it.
The next entries that we see, are on pages 105 and 106. While the phrases “yo so lisjan”, and “we are lisjanes” are present; so is a real problem.
There is no distinction between the words and phrases that are actually used/spoken in Chocheño–and given to Harrington; and, the words and phrases J.P. Harrington created, or invented, on his own, and “pitched” to his informant, and interviewees.
Using the information found in Harrington’s notes, I prepared the following visual aids.
I wanted to find the answers to a number of questions I had:
Where is Lisjan? Is it in Oakland, Pleasanton, or somewhere else?
Who are the Lisjanes? Are they a specific group, or family?
Regarding what Angelo said about a Northern Boundary for Lisjan: is it possible the boundaries for Lisjan fall within the historic bounds of Mission San Jose?
Map showing Historic Place Names, Mission San Jose, and approximate North and South Mission Lands boundaries, as surveyed in 1852.
Where is Lisjan? Is it in Oakland, Pleasanton, or somewhere else?
[If this is the only document you’re going by….] And, if the Northern bounds of the name “Lisjan”, were located just before San Lorenzo, that means that:
Lisjan was not located in Oakland.
Lisjan was not bound by the historical Mission San Jose property lines.
Pleasanton was probably not called “Lisjan” by locals.
Who are the Lisjanes? Are they a specific group, or family?
Not much light is shed on who the Lisjanes are. While Jose Guzman probably declared himself Lisjan; it’s unclear the extent of Angelo’s affiliation to the name. At one point, one man touches his chest and tells Harrington that he is Lisjan in name, but his heart is from somewhere else.
Does this mean that Lisjan is somehow a transitory, or new affiliation based on where someone lives, now? Is this person simply saying something akin to, “I left my heart in San Francisco?” Or, “My heart yearns for home?” Or even something like, “This heart was made somewhere else; my blood pumps the blood of my ancestors, from a different place than here?”
We are told that the San Jose’s are Lisjan. The indian name for Chocheños from Mission San Jose are Lisjan. Indians from Santa Clara, and Dolores are definitely not Lisjan. Los Nepes aren’t Lisjan, either. And a tribe, from Sunol, the name of which no one could remember, was never affiliated with Lisjan.
This was one of the reasons I began to suspect that the bounds of Lisjan could be tied to the property lines of Mission San Jose.
But, alas, no matter which San Lorenzo you draw the Northern boundary of the name Lisjan upon, they always exceed the extent of mission property lines.
This article will introduce you to where Lisjan is; who “Lisjan Ohlone” are, what what “Viva Lisjanes” means.
Where is Lisjan?
Lisjan is the big valley that spans the area from Pleasanton, to the Altamont Range (Amador and Livermore Valleys) which were also rancherias Alisal, Bernal, Del Mocho, and more.
Lisjan homeland of Jose Guzman, who is a Muwekma Ohlone Ancestor and Captain of the Verona Band of Indians of Alameda County.
Lisjan is a Nisenan (Maidu) name for the area now known as Pleasanton, California.
Why does it seem like Ohlone people are only in the South Bay?
Because the Spanish Missions in the Bay Area were in San Francisco and the South Bay.
Mission San Jose is in Fremont
Mission Santa Clara is in San Jose
Mission Delores is in San Francisco
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.
Secularization and Mission Abandonment
When the Missions were abandoned, secularized (in 1833), or destroyed, indigenous people continued to live on Mission Land, in what was most definitely their tribal homeland.
They were simply continuing to live and survive on their land, through the rise and fall of the California Mission System—which only lasted 64 year, yet had a profound and cataclysmic effect on all Indigenous people within their spheres of influence.
Many indigenous people stayed in this area, and blended in with Spanish, and Mexican work forces to avoid the American treatment of Indigenous People–which was well-known by the mid-1850’s to be sadistic and unpredictable. It was in the interest of survival that people blended in, and kept a low profile.
Verona Band of Alameda County
The “Verona Band” was an administrative name used to refer to a group of indigenous people who lived around the area where a train station named “Verona” was built by William Hearst in 1901. This is the Niles Canyon/Sunol Region of the Bay Area. Relatively close to the Mission San Jose.
Yo Soy Lisjanes
In 1921, a linguist interviewed a member of the Verona Band known as Jose Guzman. Guzman was considered an “Indian captain” and shared much of his language and life stories with John P. Harrington—the linguist. (Jose Guzman was not the only person Harrington interviewed.)
So where/who is Lisjan?
One of the things Jose Guzman said was, “Yo soy Lisjanes.”
As in: I’m Lisjanes, I am from Lisjan.
He was saying he’s from the area North of Verona: valleys now known as Amador and Livermore–but which had been split into many different rancherias by Spanish and Mexican colonizers, including Alisal, Bernal, and Del Mocho, among others.
One of the reasons that Guzman may have referred to the area around present-day Pleasanton by its Nisenan name could be that Jose Guzman’s parents were both from Maidu Territory, farther north, in a region where people spoke Nisenan.
Indigenous people are polyglottal by nature.
What does Chochenyo Mean?
Jose Guzman was the last fluent Chochenyo Speaker. Chochenyo is an Ohlone Language spoken in the East Bay.
Both are fronted by Corrina Gould, an Ohlone woman, who has managed to command the attention and monies from thousands of people in the San Francisco Bay Area, and beyond.
Corrina Gould has been lauded for her fundraising to establish urban gardens; create ad-hoc Ohlone language programs; and even negotiate for a cultural easement at a well-known park, in the City of Oakland, California.
But Corrina Gould’s work has been done without the inclusion, consultation, or participation of her own tribe.
And the victories that Gould has managed to score, however shallow—and in the name of “all Ohlone people”—do not actually benefit all Ohlone people. In fact, Corrina Gould is actively diverting money and support away from her own tribe.
Shuumi Land Tax, (fundraising donations) collected by the Sogorea Te Land Trust, does not go to all Ohlone People.
“Shuumi” stays within the Sogorea Te Land Trust, and is only disbursed to Corrina Gould’s personal corporation: the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.–which, in turn, only benefits Gould’s immediate family.
[For reference, Corrina Gould’s immediate family are:
(1) herself, (2) Cheyenne Gould, (3) Deja Gould, and (4) Chatah Gould.
For all intents and purposes, these are the only members of what Corrina Gould alleges is a “confederation of villages”.]
And…. While Corrina Gould claims that her non-profit corporation is a Tribal Government, it is not. And, despite Corrina Gould’s claims that she is a Tribal Chairwoman, she is not.
Tribal Chairpersons are voted for by the enrolled members of a tribe, in a democratic process which all legitimate Native American tribes are required to employ, per the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Not only do enrolled tribal members vote for the Tribal Chairpersons; they vote for Tribal Council Members; and vote for or against the laws, regulations and actions taken by their Tribe.
At most, Gould was “elected” as CEO by the Board of Directors of her corporation.
But, in reality, Corrina Gould is the self-appointed Chief Executive Officer of a corporation she formed to affect the illusion of legitimacy; a shell corporation she could use not just for her own personal monetary gain, but also satisfy her narcissistic need to be the only indian in the room—the end-all, be-all expert on Ohlone “indianness”.
Gabriel Duncan
The fact that the three officers of the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.are:Corrina Gould, Deja Gouldand “Chayenne Zepeda” (AKA, “Cheyenne Gould”), should be a red flag regarding the legitimacy of the corporation as a “tribal government”, and “confederation of villages”.
The name of Gould’s corporation itself; a so-called “confederation of villages” forming a “nation” would imply the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC. is a large group of people—presumably, Ohlone people—who represent a number of different Ohlone villages in the San Francisco Bay Area.
If this were true: one would expect to see a roll or roster of villages; articles of confederationsigned by representatives of all the villages in the confederation.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is composed of all surviving lineages of Missions San Jose, Delores, and Santa Clara.
Muwekma boasts over 700 enrolled tribal members; and a proven, documentedcontiguous history of living in the San Francisco Bay Area for over 10,000 years.
Muwekma is a Chochenyo word which means la gente (“the people”.) This is a commonality, for tribes’ names to literally mean “us”, or “the people”. The reason why is mostly philosophical, and only a teensy bit linguistic; but this is true for the majority of groups of people when asked “what do you call yourselves?” [Indigenous People have the right to name themselves, and be referred to by the name they choose. UN Resolution 61/295; adopted Sept-13-2007.]
Alisal was the Land Grant Rancheria Muwekma people lived and worked on after the secularization of the missions, as vaqueros.
Much of this land was later bought by the Bernal family (which became Pleasanton), and a southern portion was purchased by Randolph Hearst.
Muwekma people have called themselves by a few names: Lisjannes, Muwekma, the Mission San Jose Band of Indians, and Ohlone.
However, Ohlone people have never called themselves “Chochenyo”, or “The Chochenyo”, because Chochenyo is an Ohlone Language, not a tribal group.
And Muwekma people have never referred to themselves as the “Verona Band of Alameda County”; this was a name used to identify Muwekma people by the U.S. Government, used in their own internal BIA/Department of Interior documents.
Aside from the fact that:
“Lisjan” is a Chochenyo and Nisenan name for Pleasanton, California; that,
Corrina Gould’s corporation is not a confederation of Ohlone villages, or a Tribal Government; and that,
Shuumi Land Tax doesn’t actually go to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area…
There is the very real and (largely) unreported pattern of hostility and contempt that Corrina Gould harbors for any person who tries to advocate for, or even dares to mention the name “Muwekma”.
In the four years the Alameda Native History Project has been operating, I have come into contact with countless indigenous people who have (tried to) work with Corrina Gould in various professional and academic capacities. These credible people, experts in their fields, sought me out, to tell me about their experiences with Corrina Gould, after I publicly withdrew my support, and admitted my own mistake in ever co-signing the narrative that Gould had appropriated (almost word-for-word) from the history of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.
This project completely, and uncompromisingly protects, and will continue to protectthe anonymity of our sources; because, some of these sources are afraid of being subjected to even more harassment and possibly violence from Corrina Gould’s supporters than they have already experienced. [However, we are not afraid. And, this topic–and the subjects within this essay–need to be discussed and brought to the general public; because they are newsworthy and important.]
This public mis-understanding is especially problematic because it means that Corrina Gould is diverting money and support away from the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Franciso Bay Area; the tribe from which Corrina Gould is a recognized descendant. [Alameda City Council, “Listening Session and Partnership Opportunities with Local Indigenous People and Ohlone Tribes“, Dec-6-2022]
So, while people generously donate to a corporation, which they believe will help all Ohlone people….
While the Sogorea Te Land Trust, and Corrina Gould, continue to profit from the public’s belief their donations fund programs which benefit a much larger group of Ohlone people than they actually do….
Ohlone people will continue to suffer harms from colonization and political erasure–not just from the United States, and Spanish Governments’ policies of eradication and assimilation–but also, from misinformation and diversion by someone who would rather exploit their own indigenous identity (, and the public’s genuine good will and support for Ohlone people) for personal gain.
These are the top two priorities of the indigenous people of the San Francisco Bay Area. Once known as “Costanoans” because they, Muwekma Ohlone people, are among the First Peoples of the California Coast.
Let them know that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area has been in the Bay Area for over 10,000 years; and they deserve a land base on their own tribal homeland.
Muwekma deserves reaffirmation of their status as a Federally Recognized Tribe. Muwekma has the right to have a land base on their ancestral homeland, in a region where they are in danger of being gentrified and priced out of.
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.]
It’s rude to question someone’s pedigree, generally.
But it’s a necessary challenge in Native America that every single one of us faces multiple times in our lives.
We want to know who someone is related to when they say they’re Paiute, or Karkin–’cause they’re probably related to us somehow, or we know some of the same people. It’s a small world. We keep track of our own, and each other’s blood quantum. Because it’s important.
But we also want to make sure that people aren’t coming in and faking. Collecting money for a cause, but really keeping it for themselves. Taking our benefits because the American Government did all these terrible things to us. (It’s a well established fact that the U.S. Government just said **** the treaties.)
Claiming Native American Heritage when you don’t have any, is like wearing a Purple Heart you didn’t earn. Just like with wearing a medal you didn’t give a piece of yourself in the defense of this country to earn; owning and displaying eagle feathers is super illegal if you’re not Native American.
But most of time there is no legitimate consequence for being a “fake indian”. There are so many cheap knock-off’s, and bad copies, I’m not surprised you can’t tell the difference.
For example: Elizabeth Warren is a classic caricature of the “cherokee princess” scenario. And, apparently Ward Churchill was our Rachel Dolezal before she ever decided to put on black face. But, you know what? There are a lot of fake shaman and medicine men out there, feeding the world this mainstream, kumbaya B.S. about the colors of the wind or something; and collecting your money for some sus ceremony with a raggy owl wing.
This is why we have a problem with Instragram Accounts like “NativeAmericanLovess”, or “NativeAmericanSpiritLoves”… They are fronts for stores that sell art that does nothing but fetishize real Native Americans; and make owning, wearing, and using our sacred ceremonial items a game.
These people are making money off of our likeness, our trauma, and our pain. They are making cheap knock-offs of our culture, and identity. And White America is just eating it up. Shelling out bills to go to “Hiawatha” ceremonies. Paying to play Indian.
And it’s the people who sell these images. The ones who say their grandma, six great-grandmas ago was Cherokee. Who went to one of those ceremonies, and smoked some tobacco with some other herbs out of a “peace pipe”, contacted their animal guide, and is now some kind of “ordained” “Native American Church” spiritual guru leader shaman chief medicine man.
These are the people we want to stay away from us. The people we don’t want to share our knowledge and beliefs with. Because, these people, will appropriate it all, and try to find a way to make money off it.
This might be an explanation of why we don’t want to talk about this stuff under the White Gaze. Because it’s “Indian Stuff”. But we can’t stand interlopers. This is why pedigree is important.
But just because the person who made the argument is invalid, the argument itself is not necessarily invalid.
As much as we hate to admit it, these people who made us look like fools also contributed greatly to their respective causes. And the organizations they were associated with ultimately survived the scandal. But neither Ward Churchill, nor Rachel Dolezal were who they said they were.
And it wasn’t until years after they started their charades, that they were finally exposed. Up until then, people had been too afraid to ask, to timid to confront, past attempts had failed. It’s much easier to attack the person making the argument, than the argument itself.
And people honestly want to believe the lie. It’s better than admitting to themselves they’ve been lied to this whole time. Better not to risk being wrong. Not be rude, or mean. Or look racist.
But, let me be clear:
Pedigree is necessary for Tribal Enrollment, and to receive State, and Federal Benefits. It’s a racist system, based in eugenics. It’s even more distasteful than it sounds, when you are subjected to it. [Yes, I have been subjected to this same test. Same level of scrutiny that every other person who claims to be Native American is subjected to.]
We are turned into “subjects”.
Equated with Hermann J. Muller’s radioactive flies.
Maybe that’s too obscure….
But it’s normal for us to ask each other who our grandmothers are, and how much Indian we are. It’s a standard test.
So don’t act shook that I took the time to look into Corrina Gould’s genealogy. Maybe the “White Gaze” is afraid to ask. But, after Ward Churchill, and Rachel Dolezal…. And the discovery of Corrina Gould’s 1997 conviction for fraud…. I think it’s important to ask.
Who are these people?
Flora Freda Munoz, and Jose Guzman are two very well-known and important family members associated with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Verona Band Proxy–which is the historical name for this group of inter-related Native American people, who used to live in the Alisal Rancheria (near the Verona train station, Pleasanton area), Niles, San Leandro… It’s a specific list because the BIA documents–mentioned below–stick to Indian Censuses, including one of a place called “Indian Town”, near pleasanton, in the late 1920’s. Researchers think this may be the Alisal Rancheria.
Much of the information about the Muwekma Family Tree that I gathered was pieced together from the Proposed Finding, and Final Determination Upon The Criterion re: Federal Recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, in 2011.
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe Family Tree, using BIA Proposed Find and Final Determination re: Petition for Federal Recognition
However, I later found the public Galvan Stenstrom Family Tree on Ancestry.com, and found that to be the most authoritative reference to the descendants of the Verona Band. Even so, I still compared it with the information in the BIA documents, as you will see later.
The public Galvan Stenstrom Family Tree is massive. It has hundreds of individuals; was created, and contributed to by Muwekma Family members, as well as the Ancestry.com people… Who are based in Utah, by the way. It’s really amazing the amount of research that went into the families comprising the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. It’s truly crowd-sourced.
To research Corrina Gould, I used Public Records, Newspapers, various statements and interviews of Corrina Gould, and litany of databases at Ancestry.com. I also found the “Gould Family Tree”. (More about that later.) In all cases, I began searching for the individual first, and didn’t discover or access the family trees until I wanted to check/challenge my work.
Corrina Gould, “On the Record”
In 2014, Corrina Gould contributed an autobiographical oral history to “Ohlone Elders & Youth Speak: Restoring a California Legacy”. In her contribution, Gould revealed her grandmother was “Flora Munoz”, and that her great grandfather was “Jose Guzman”.
In 2015, in an interview regarding the canonization of Junipero Serra, Gould volunteered an explanation of how she was related to Andrew Galvan:
“I’m actually related to Andy Galvan…” Gould explained Andrew Galvan is the docent at Mission Dolores, in San Francisco. She continued, “Our relation is that our grandmothers, six great-grandmothers back were sisters.”
Corrina Gould, Episode 58 of “Iconocast”, recorded 09/23/2015.
Oddly, it seems that Corrina Gould hasn’t mentioned her own mother by name. So, that was where I started.
Statements about Corrina Gould’s family. (Mostly made by Gould herself.)
I was able to find the Gould Family Tree, on Ancestry.com, after I had failed at finding any links to Flora Munoz or Jose Guzman in numerous Public Records searches.
But I was able to find Gould’s late husband, Paul Gould Jr., and her late brother, Anthony Tucker. (Both died in the first half of 2021.) And her children, and children’s families. So, from public records, I was able to find Corrina Gould, her immediate family and brothers. I was not able to find any ancestry information.
However, the information I found in public records helped me verify the Gould Family Tree, to a certain extent. On Ancestry.com, living people are masked. So the living descendants of Fred Edward Tucker, Paul Gould Sr., and Jesse L. Aceves were mostly hidden.
There were hints, though. Like links to individuals who weren’t masked, who were already known. It didn’t take too much time to verify that I was looking at the family trees of Corrina Gould, and her, and her mother’s, first husbands.
Don’t worry. I made charts.
Excerpt from the “Gould Family Tree”. Problematic for obvious reasons.
So, I found the Gould Family tree (excerpt above). But I also found it critically lacking in verifiable information. The birth and death date for “John Munoz” and “Victoria Marin” do not appear, for instance. [And John Munoz’s death date?! That says six years before Corrina’s mother was even born! WTFITS?!]…
Flora Munoz–Corrina’s grandmother–isn’t refered to as “Flora Freda Munoz”, which is the true name of the Muwekma Family Member, who was the daughter of Victoria Marine.
This is not an attempt at being facetious. Middle names matter. Try going to a bank with a court order to access your grandma’s safe deposit box, and being turned away because the judge didn’t include her middle name.
It also matters because, on its face, the birth and death dates are already different. There’s a divergence between what Corrina Gould has said about her ancestry, and what bears out in the facts and evidence.
Genealogy Logic Bomb
This is where I started getting confused. There were at least two logic-bombs here; and I didn’t want to be misled by something that was probably put together really quickly, with the intention to correct later.
I made a timeline of Joanne Guzman’s life, according to her daughter, Corrina Gould; so I could address one of Corrina Gould’s other claims, that Joanne Guzman had been taken to Chemawa Indian School.
Joanne Guzman Timeline
According to the established timeline of the Muwekma Tribe/Verona Band, the children of Flora Freda Munoz, and John “Jack” Guzman–John Jr. and Rayna–were sent to boarding school, twice. The first time in 1928, when Flora was sick. And the second was from 1944-1947 at the Chemawa Indian Highschool, when Corrina Gould’s mom, Joanne Guzman, was only 4.
This means–according to this Ancestry.com thing: Corrina’s Uncle, John, would have been 8 in 1944. And her aunt, Rayna, would have been 6. None of Corrina Gould’s mom’s siblings were highschool age in the years between 1944, and 1947, when the Muwekma Family member John Guzman Jr., was determined to be 5/8 indian, and allowed to enroll in Chemawa–with his sister, Rayna, following a year later.
Although, a typographical error in the 1940 US Census marks Joanne Guzman as “2” or “0”, the Birth Certificate for “Joan” Guzman, dated Jan-7-1940 helps add clarity; when the Father and Mother’s names are taken into full account.
Examination of “Joanne Guzman’s” FamilyInformational Copy of Joanne Guzman’s Birth Certificate1940 US Census of Washington Township, Alameda County
It wasn’t until I pulled the hard copies of both Corrina (Tucker) Gould, and Joanne Guzman’s birth certificates, that I was really able to illustrate the differences between the two families.
Once that was done, I pulled together all of the dates, and sources, and put them back into another chart, so I could compare the information side-by-side.
From this comparison, it appears that these are two different family trees. And, while the names of Joanne Guzman’s family, match those of Flora Freda Munoz, and John Guzman’s: they are not the same.
But let’s look closer at Joan Guzman’s birth certificate:
Guzman, Joan (Birth Certificate)
Official Muwekma Records
Mother: 22 (1918)
Flora Freda Munoz: 1917
Father: 37 (1903)
John Paul “Jack” Guzman: 1902
These dates match within a year. Only one “Joan Guzman” was born in Alameda County between 1940, and 1944.
After reviewing this information, and comparing it to the Ancestry.com “Gould Family Tree”, it looks like the Gould Family tree is super wrong… But Joanne Guzman might really be the unknown daughter of the Jose Guzman and Flora Freda Munoz!
There is still the issue of the Guzman Family in the 1940 US Census…
Before we solve this… I need to remind you that John Guzman Jr., and Rayna Guzman were both “Highschool Age” (13 or 14), in 1944, and 1945 respectively–when they were sent to Chemawa Indian School, which was a highschool since 1927.
This means John Guzman Jr. was born sometime around 1931/32; Rayna Guzman around 1933/34.
Or, just counting back four years from 1944, John Guzman Jr. would be about 10, making Rayna about 9.
Joanne’s Birth Certificate
Official Muwekma
1940 US Census
John Guzman
36
1902 (38)
37
Flora Munoz
22
1917 (23)
23
John Guzman Jr.
null
[10]
4
Rayna Guzman
null
[9]
2
Joanne Guzman
0
null
0
[Discussed above.] Joanne’s birth cert. only has parental info. No official Muwekma Documents mention Joanne Guzman.
So, First Actions On:
Downgrade “Gould Family Tree” to “Unreliable”. (Even though the birth info for Joanne Guzman was legit.)
Marvel at how similar these two families really are (in name only.)
Note the age differences between the ages of Flora Freda Munoz’ family, and Flora Munoz’ family.
Joanne Guzman is still not listed in any official Muwekma Records.
Joanne Guzman is found in the 1940 U.S. Census, in a family bearing almost the exact same names as Flora Fred Munoz’ family.
Decide whether it’s more likely that Corrina Gould’s mother is the long lost daughter of John Paul “Jack” Guzman, and Flora Freda Munoz; or the exact match Joanne Guzman, born in 1940, to a family with principally the same names as the aforementioned.
Given the age differences between Joanne’s siblings, to the established ages of John Guzman Jr., and Rayna Guzman in 1944, it seems unlikely that Corrina Gould’s mother–Joanne Guzman–is related to Flora Freda Munoz, or John Paul “Jack” Guzman.
This would also suggest Corrina Gould is not related to Andrew Galvan.
While it is true that Corrina Gould’s grandmother really is “Flora Munoz”; and that her mother’s family, closely resembles a well known Muwekma family:
No direct evidence was found that ties Corrina Gould to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, or the Verona Band.
It’s also true that Corrina Gould could be enrolled in the Muwekma Tribe.
It would be great to see Corrina drop the façade and actually fight for, and help contribute to her real tribe; because, right now, she’s managed to take all the attention and support away from the people she actually belongs to.
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.
