Alameda Native History Project

Category: The Urban Reservation

  • Beyond Land Acknowledgment

    Alameda Native History Project has a standing policy to never contact or involve Tribal Members or Tribes unless there is a clear and tangential Tribal Benefit To Participation.

    Truthfully, the reason why this policy was set was mostly out of respect for the lived experiences of the Tribal Members of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    And as a direct response to the continuing tokenization and empty promises of non-indigenous corporations, governments, and individuals who seek to monetize the appearance of Indigenous People at their events, solely for the exclusive benefit of the hosting organization/corporation.

    And, while people like Corrina Gould are more than happy to take a check for their appearance, and play the part of a Tribal Chairperson; the real Indians–bona fide Native Americans–actual, self-respecting Indigenous People–will likely never respond to these invitations.

    Because Land Acknowledgements don’t mean shit to someone looking across the sea of pale faces who now occupy their tribal territory, destroy their tribal homelands, and want us to acknowledge that this land is stolen by the very same people who are giving us these false platitudes and empty promises.

    I mean… really… how do “well-meaning”, “progressive”, non-indigenous people manage to come up with more and more ritually ridiculous ways to re-traumatize a group of people they tried to murder, and wipe off the planet?

    And they think letting us tell them they’re thieving, murderous interlopers is doing us a favor? No, Land Acknowledgments are yet another song and dance indigenous people are being expected to perform (for free) to put white people at ease.

    The earliest examples of the Land Acknowledgment ritual goes back to Australia in the form of a “Welcome to Country” ritual, which is meant to put newcomers at ease, in order to form a friendly relationship between indigenous people, and their visitors, so mutually beneficial exchanges can begin between the two groups.

    [Read that as: Welcome to Country rituals were created by aboriginal people to appease white people, and put them at ease in order to foster an exploitive/extractive interaction which didn’t result in aboriginal people being massacred; yet. See also: Dear White People, and, What It Means to Be Unapologetically Black, to understand why “putting white people at ease” is even a thing.]

    Mind you, every interaction with white people during the “Discovery Era” was exploitive and extractive; and, of course, only benefitted the colonizer with free food, riches, labor, etc.

    It’s important to note the similarities between the intent of both Aboriginal Australians, and Indigenous, and First Peoples of the Americas, when meeting newcomers.

    In a very American context: Native Americans dancing exhibitions commonly occurred at Forts and Missions to appease visiting dignitaries and military officials; and were another way for indigenous people to ensure their ongoing survival. By making their captors look good in front of their superiors, and put white people at ease in doing so. [“Look how well he commands the savages under his control!”]

    Veritably, the white-washed version of the “discovery” and “founding” of America includes references to the “First Thanksgiving” as a celebration of how Native people “helped” white people to survive a place these Colonizers knew nothing about, and would have perished in, if left on their own.

    The clean, anesthetized, version of White History yields so many selfless examples of Indigenous generosity and kindness.

    And demonizes the audacity of indigenous people who object to the taking of their land, destruction of their resources, and kidnapping, enslavement and abuse, and murder, of their people.

    Such examples of White-Washed History include:
    • “The Indians gave us their food so we could live,”
    • “The Indians agreed to move off their land so we could build our cities,”
    • The Indians agreed that white people were superior, and decided to learn their language, religion, and culture, so they could finally abandon their dirty, heathenness savagery and live clean and pure, like God intended.

    It’s all so guilt free.

    White History carries with it a sense of smugness and blamelessness, which purports to release all white people, all colonizers (and their descendants), of the liability for their damages, ill-doings, and complicity, in what today are called War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity….

    And Land Acknowledgments are just another way to side step “all of that ugliness.”

    Using Indigenous People to perform Land Acknowledgments gives white people another way to avoid acknowledging the ugliness of their ancestors. Because it makes us apologize for them, for everything they did, including stealing our land.

    Even worse, Indigenous People giving Land Acknowledgments can sometimes give corporations and organizations the green light to continue desecrating sacred land, exploiting natural resources, and completely disregard indigenous people from that point on because we already apologized for them.

    And, even more worse than that: when indigenous people give headdresses out to people like The Pope: it really signals absolute forgiveness for something which white people haven’t even begun to admit to, much less atone for; and releases them from the burden of ever performing a genuine confession, reconciliation and/or atonement.

    Most of the time, Land Acknowledgments are used in the place of real soul-searching, and a meaningful truth and reconciliation process.

    When pressed, organizations will fess up pretty quickly:

    “We didn’t invite you here to acknowledge the wrong-doings of our ancestors, or the continuing injustices against Native Americans we commit, or are complicit in….

    “We really just wanted someone with shell jewelry and feathers to burn sage, give a blessing–and play the part of what we believe an idealized Native American should look like, so we can check that box on our Diversity Equity and Inclusion component for this year….

    “We didn’t actually mean to do any work.“

    But maybe you should do the work of making sure the tribe you contact is bona fide; making sure the money you donate actually benefits indigenous people; and making sure you understand that land acknowledgments are meaningless tokenization without true tribal benefits.

  • 99% of Alameda Museum’s Ohlone Artifacts Were Stolen from Native American Graves

    We’ve found a pattern of reckless and careless treatment of 100% of those stolen artifacts.

    The Alameda Museum has roughly 186 Native American Artifacts. All of those artifacts were found in connection with Native American Graves, except for 2.

    So, we can’t say ALL of the artifacts are grave goods. But we can say:

    99.93% of Alameda Museum’s Indigenous Artifacts are Stolen Burial Goods from Native American Graves all over the place we now call “Alameda.”

    Shellmounds are cemeteries, ancient structures, sacred sites, historical resources, and ancient structures built by the first inhabitants of this area, Ohlone people.

    Shellmounds are made rows of burials stacked vertically and alternately; covered with the shell-laden soil found along the San Francisco Bay Region’s shorelines.

    There were several excavations of the shellmounds of Alameda.

    Artifacts saved from excavations attended by professional and amateur anthropologists/archeologists were donated to both the Alameda Library, and the U.C. Berkeley Museum. [Some artifacts were notably kept by a City Engineer by the name of I.N. Chapman.]

    Alameda Free Library existed long before the historical Alameda Historical Society, or the Alameda Museum were ever founded.

    The Two Alameda Historical Societies

    To be clear about the two Alameda Historical Societies: one of these societies existed in the early 1900’s, and is mentioned in newspaper articles, as being interested in the early Alameda Free Library’s “Museum” in the Carnegie Library.

    The second iteration of the Alameda Historical Society started in the 1940’s, and was instrumental in moving the Museum from the basement of the Alameda Free Library, into the old Alameda High School Auto Shop in the 1980’s. And then, into the storefront of the Masonic Building, on Alameda Avenue–where it remains [“lies in state”?] today.

    Transfer of Artifacts & Records from Alameda Free Library to Alameda Museum

    All of these artifacts taken from the mounds were transferred from the Alameda Library to the Alameda Museum when the Museum moved into the old Alameda High School Auto Shop.

    Those artifacts weren’t the only things transferred to the Alameda Museum.

    At it’s inception, the Alameda Museum was designated as the Official City Repository for City Records, and the Records of the City of Alameda’s Departments, including (but not limited to,) Alameda’s Fire and Police Departments.

    I know this isn’t incredibly relevant, but it’s important to know this background information, especially when the Alameda Museum claims they don’t have stolen artifacts, or that the artifacts the museum displays aren’t Native American Grave Goods. You’ll know that 99.93% of artifacts in the Alameda Museum’s possession are Grave Goods because they were taken from the Alameda “mounds”, which are Native American Graves.

    Out of the approximately 186 Ohlone Artifacts in the possession of Alameda Museum, only two of them are unrelated to Native American Graves.

    The other 184 artifacts are directly attributed to the shellmounds of Alameda.

    What’s more: the Alameda Museum’s pattern of wanton “inattention”, and reckless disregard for these burial goods are clearly stated in the museum’s own records:

    History:

    Stone mortar and pestle found in one of Alameda’s mounds. The information on the pestle can be connected to a donation documented in the museum records: Subject: One Indian Mortar and Pestle. Date received: April 1954. Unfortunately, as a result of earlier inattention there is no further description, and as a result of later inattention during moves and minor catastrophes, it is not certain the mortar and pestles are together anymore, and the connection has been lost. Part of a collection of objects found in the largest Shellmound, also known as Sather’s Mound in Alameda, or smaller mounds. The excavations at Sather’s Mound were carried out in 1908 by Captain Clark, an amateur anthropologist. The items were donated to the Alameda Free Library, and passed on to the museum when the museum moved to a separate location. Date: April 1954 Mortar Acquired from: unknown Date: before 1991

    Condition:

    Notes: 6/30/2020 MvL: The label has suffered water damage when a pipe in the museum burst. Any accession numbering of the mortars and pestles was lost and has been redone.

    The above excerpt of an artifact’s description establishes the Alameda Museum’s pattern of careless disregard, and reckless neglect of Native American artifacts.

    Grave goods belong in graves; not museums.

    Mismanagement of Ohlone Artifacts by Alameda Museum:

    • Misidentified the tribe associated with these stolen Ohlone artifacts;
    • Mixed up mortars and pestles, (among other things) so they no longer match;
    • Lost records and identifying information about the stolen burial goods;
    • Carelessly and recklessly stored, handled, and moved Ohlone grave goods.

    This mismanagement, and noncompliance with their Service Provider Agreement with the City of Alameda; with the standards and practice of commensurate professionals and institutions engaged in the conservation and preservation of historical records and artifacts; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); has resulted in damage to these priceless, irreplacable artifacts, which the Alameda Museum possesses without permission, or right of ownership.

    This evidence of unreported and unclaimed, loss/damage to Ohlone grave goods; and the established pattern of careless and reckless neglect of Ohlone artifacts…

    Should be reason enough for the Alameda Museum to concede it cannot adequately care for any of the 186 Ohlone artifacts it possesses; and return them to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area in the most expeditious way possible.

  • Alameda Museum Contract Expires

    Should the City renew the agreement?

    On Monday, September 4, 2023, the City of Alameda’s five-year agreement with the Alameda Museum to provide archival storage expired.

    According to the agreement, the Alameda Museum, as an Independent Contractor, would provide the following:

    1. Be open to the public for free at least 15 hours a week.
    2. Be open for free group tours, especially for education based groups.
    3. Store historical records of the city and provide archival preservation.
    4. Dedicate 25% of warehouse to archival storage.
    5. Dedicate an additional 25% of warehouse to the City’s historical exhibits, including documents and photo archives from the Library, City records, Police and Fire Departments, Alameda Recreation and Park Department, and other City records.
    6. Assist with providing archive digital photos and text for City historical interpretive signage as requested.
    The agreement made it clear the Alameda Museum is a Service Provider; and not a Civil Servant.

    The agreement also provided a standard of care:

    Provider agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service providers… all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel[.]

    Service Provider Agreement Between the City of Alameda and the Alameda Museum executed 09/05/2018

    In the Recitals, the Agreement states that the Alameda Museum “possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, volunteer and staff time, and knowledge to provide the services described in this agreement on the terms and conditions described herein.”

    But, even when this was signed, in 2018, the Alameda Museum didn’t possess any of the skill, experience, ability or background to perform these services.

    George Gunn wasn’t qualified to preserve historical documents; and he didn’t.

    George Gunn was an architect; not a serious records preservationist, or an archivist. Sure, he was able to inventory houses outside of the museum. But he never inventoried or organized the inside of museum in any useful or practical way–and this is a truth uncovered by what was supposed to be a routine records request that started almost four years ago.

    Before 2019, the Alameda Museum had never bothered to organize the catalogue by Keyword, or Date.

    Museum staff had simply redirected visitors to the Alameda Free Library, hoping the Library would do the Museum’s heavy lifting for them; instead of providing access to the relevant materials the Library actually transferred to the Museum.

    This is why it always feels like a run-around.

    Because the Alameda Museum always tries to redirect you to Alameda Free Library, even if the Library referred you to the Museum.

    But this story lead straight to the Alameda Museum from the beginning; and I was not going to be redirected. I had the receipts.

    I was following up on a number of items referenced in historical newspapers as donated to the Alameda Library; so I knew those items were in the possession of the Alameda Museum because of the transfer.

    Of course the Museum didn’t know what I was talking about at first, and forced me to show them my sources to validate my inquiry.

    Despite inheriting such a well organized, and cross-referenced volume of data and objects from the library, the Alameda Museum still managed to index it in a way that made it impossible to search the historical City Records, and City Exhibits. This was the second major hurdle.

    When George Gunn finally left, the shadow of his leadership still remained.

    The Museum Warehouse was not indexed. And, despite the efforts of the Museum’s volunteers, many of Alameda Museum’s holdings that were indexed, were indexed incorrectly.

    This isn’t just proof Alameda Museum wasn’t in compliance with their contract; these circumstances underscore the need for the Archives to be maintained and preserved by a qualified Archival Preservation specialist.

    Identification, dating, authentication and assignment of keywords of Alameda Museum’s artifacts needs to be performed by qualified persons. Data Entry and Cross-Referencing of existing card catalogs needs to be performed accurately, and with care.

    And this is not to mention the financial and existential challenges George Gunn left Alameda Museum Board Members to deal with in his wake.

    None of this is an excuse for the fact the Board Members didn’t do anything to encourage Gunn to provide the services or fire him. Point of fact: Gunn was constantly co-signed; his seat was never contested.

    George Gunn, for his part, was belligerent in his noncompliance and perceived omnipotence [read: hubris].

    George Gunn thought he would always be able to “survive” his critics… But he resigned in 2021, two years before the Museum’s contract expired.

    While people like Dennis Evanosky [sorry, Dennis] and Woody Minor lauded Gunn’s “accomplishments”: Gunn’s only listed accomplishments reflected his own personal interests–outside of the museum–and unintentionally highlighted that Gunn’s notable achievements did not confer a public benefit.

    Coincidentally, Dennis Evanosky was a signator to the Agreement with the City of Alameda, as the President of the Alameda Museum Board of Directors.

    Museum Lacks Skilled Staff or Volunteers to Provide Preservation Services

    Even if the Alameda Museum has been able to stay open for the 15 hours required of it for some of 5 years of this agreement, the Museum certainly does not have the volunteer or staff time to provide the archival services necessary to manage and preserve Alameda City Records.

    This is because the Alameda Museum lacks any staff or volunteer hours to do the work that piled up during George Gunn’s tenor.

    The Alameda Museum openly admits this:

    • They lack trained staff, they’re volunteer run.
    • They don’t have enough staff or volunteer hours to provide access to the Archives.
    • Board members are largely only scheduled for 2 hours a week.
    The Alameda City Records are invaluable, priceless materials the City pays to be conserved in a warehouse suited for archival preservation.

    Charging for Admission & Tours At Meyer House could Violate Agreement

    Meyers House required $5 cash only admission fee.

    The Service Provider Agreement specifically states the Museum must be open to the public (for no admission fee) for at least 15 hours per week.

    Is the Meyer House exempt from the Agreement for some reason?

    If so, the Meyer House and Garden hours of operations should not count towards to the total amount of time the Alameda Museum is open to the public.

    Which would bring the Alameda Museum’s total time “Open To The Public” to only 7.5 hours–exactly half of the 15 hours the museum is required to be open for.

    Museum Does Not Have Important Documents Regarding Transfer of Artifacts From Alameda Library

    To be honest, my research request has less to do with the Alameda Museum, than with the Official City Repository they are paid to manage.

    For context, my research request with the Alameda Museum started on November 24, 2019. And I was looking for archival materials like Newspapers of Records, Archival Photographs and Documents from the Library, City Records from the Council and other Departments and City Offices, as well as objects, artifacts, and other things donated to the Alameda Free Library’s Museum — all materials that were transferred to the Alameda Museum for safe keep, per the Service Provider Agreement between the Alameda Museum and the City of Alameda.

    The first hurdle was the Museum’s lack of useful, practical, or accessible index/catalog.

    Today, Valerie Turpen claims the Museum’s holdings have been catalogued and can now be searched by keyword — which was impossible before. But this doesn’t mean that my records request has been satisfied, or that I am any closer to reviewing the historical documents I request nearly four years ago.

    Part of the reason is because some records are missing.

    For instance, it appears that all records of the donation of Ohlone Artifacts to the Alameda Library are missing. There is no record of when the artifacts were donated, or by who. Every artifact in the “Native American Collection” seems to bear the same boiler-plate language:

    Part of a collection of objects found in the largest Shellmound, also known as Sather’s Mound in Alameda, or smaller mounds. The excavations at Sather’s Mound were carried out in 1908 by Captain Clark, an amateur anthropologist. The items were donated to the Alameda Free Library, and passed on to the museum when the museum moved to a separate location.

    Alameda Museum, “Native American Artifacts” as of May 31, 2022
    1991.1.42
    1991.1.89
    1991.1.87
    1991.1.168
    1991.1.9
    1991.1.6
    1991.1.15
    1991.1.16
    1991.1.33
    1991.1.17

    The images above are a small selection of the Ohlone Artifacts stolen from the Alameda Shellmound and put on display as “Miwok” artifacts until I called the Museum out for their inaccuracies in 2019.

    As you can tell from the object description quoted above: the exact provenance is impossible to tell because of Alameda Museum’s failure to accurately identify these stolen burial goods, and preserve integral paperwork related to their “donation”.

    The plain and obvious disregard for indigenous objects and history stands in sharp contrast to the careful cataloguing and indexing of the white, Victorian-era artifacts proudly displayed and advertised by the Alameda Museum.

    And it begs the question: How can the Museum have spent so much time cataloguing all of the objects owned by white Alamedans, from artwork to silverware to shoes, to the smallest, most inconsequential objects… but completely neglect the provenance, identification, and indexing of the most historically important objects in the entire Alameda Museum: proof of what life was like for the First Alamedans.

    These artifacts were celebrated and popular during the early 1900’s. Several lectures were given on the Alameda Shellmounds, which featured artifacts now in the possession of the Alameda Museum.

    Is this indicative of how other collections in the Alameda Museum are being mismanaged, improperly attributed, and haphazardly stored?

    What other “city exhibits” are being neglected and what other records have been lost by the Alameda Museum?

    When’s the last time the Museum even took inventory of their holdings? Seems like the answer is never, if their holdings weren’t even catalogued in 2019.

    How could the Alameda Museum have let these conditions persist for so many decades?

    Has the City ever inspected it’s own Archives for Compliance with the Service Provider Agreement?

    All signs point to, “No”.

    Maybe it’s time for the City of Alameda to take a better look at how the Alameda Museum has mismanaged the City Archives;

    And either take serious steps to provide required access to those Archives at the Alameda Museum;

    Or put out a Request for Proposals from qualified records storage and preservation companies.

  • Elizabeth Hoover Should Resign

    May 1, 2023, Elizabeth Hoover issues a statement admitting that she used her non-existent Mohawk and Mi’kmaq ancestry to get to where she is today… But it was her “experience and expertise” which helped her become a professor–not the fact that she gained said experience an expertise from impersonating an indigenous person.

    This isn’t the first time we’ve heard about Elizabeth Hoover; but this is next chapter in the saga. The last time we we heard about Elizabeth Hoover was in October, 2022. Pretendian Country Today ran an article about a statement Hoover published on her personal site.

    The statement wasn’t an apology. It was an announcement. Hoover ended it with: “I will accept with humility and understanding the decisions of people who do not think I belong in certain spaces.”

    But she never actually stepped down, or stopped selling her books.

    Around May 1, 2023, Elizabeth Hoover published an addendum to her statement. In this addendum, Elizabeth Hoover admitted to being a “white person” who “identified” as Mohawk, and Mi’kmaq.

    Hoover stood by her initial claims she was misled by a blind belief in family lore. She admitted to changing the subject, or accusing her interrogators of being envious, jealous, or interfering with her assumed identity as a Mohawk and Mi’kmaq woman, whenever anyone tried to ask her the hard questions about her family history, tribal enrollment status, or her ancestry.

    In spite of all this: Elizabeth Hoover is currently a professor at U.C. Berkeley; a position she admitted using fraud to attain:

    Identifying as a Native person gave me access to spaces and resources that I would not have otherwise, resources that were intended for students of color. Before taking part in programs or funding opportunities that were identity-related or geared towards under-represented people I should have ensured that I was claimed in return by the communities I was claiming. By avoiding this inquiry, I have received academic fellowships, opportunities, and material benefits that I may not have received had I not been perceived as a Native scholar.

    Elizabeth Hoover Admission of Fraud, May 1, 2023

    Elizabeth Hoover denies that her untrue statements and absolute impersonation of an indigenous person did not help her attain her current position. But she doesn’t seem to understand that she totally admitted to benefitting from her own fraud. And she continues to benefit from the apathy of U.C. Berkeley.

    Her flimsy reasoning is that she wasn’t hired during U.C. Berkeley’s First Peoples hiring blitz…. So, her employment must be because of all of the experience and expertise she gained… while impersonating an indigenous person.

    This is all despite the fact Hoover outlined how she benefitted from identifying as a person with Mohawk and Mi’kmaq ancestry:

    • Access to spaces and resources
    • Participating in Programs
    • Funding
    • Academic fellowships
    • Material benefits

    Elizabeth Hoover admitted to abusing identity-based resources intended for people of color, and under-represented people–and, securing those resources with a false identity.

    Elizabeth Hoover knew how claiming Indigenous ancestry worked. She’s worked with many tribes before. She had that special access as an indigenous person.

    What’s really surprising was her access to the benefits and resources which usually require more specific information–like an enrollment number–which Elizabeth Hoover did not actually have.

    Elizabeth Hoover actively evaded these question, and, managed to escape uncomfortable conversations at all costs.

    This episode totally exposes the flaws in academia, and in the movement; and shows you yet another example of a non-indigenous person gaming the system. These deficiencies are commonly overlooked because “not every tribe is federally recognized”, and unrecognized tribes exist. [They actually do, like Kutzadika’a.]

    Members of legitimate unrecognized tribes can still establish their Indian Ancestry.

    These things: the opportunities, monetary rewards and other material benefits. Are the product of a long series of fraudulent transactions; which lead to the accrual of the Experience and Expertise Elizabeth Hoover attributes to her hiring as a professor.

    It’s amazing how much cognitive dissonance Elizabeth Hoover has regarding the fact that she used a false identity to get to where she is.

    Elizabeth Hoover can admit to doing all these things. But she somehow does not make the connection between (a) the fact that she should not be in the position she is today, and (b) the fact she’s in a place she doesn’t belong.

    That’s why she needs to resign: because she’s not supposed to be there.

    Posted on Instagram:

    It’s bad enough @UC Berkeley won’t give back the stolen ancestors, or the huge swath of stolen land they received through land grants. But letting a professor continue to teach after she’s been wearing brown face for her entire life is also not cool.

    A lot of people are going to say it’s not her fault that she believed her family rumors/fantasies of Mohawk and Mi’kmaq ancestry. But it is.

    If you claim Indigenous/First Nations/Native American/American Indian ancestry, you should be able to prove it by knowing who your nearest full-blooded relative is.

    If your family lore is true, this should be relatively easy to do. This is what the “Indian Rolls” are for, the Indian Censuses, and other documentation the Federal Government maintains to track our downfall. [Good luck with that, Uncle Sam.]

    Claiming indigenous ancestry when you have none is akin to stolen valor. Our ancestors literally fought and died so we could be here. We are the survivors of countless atrocities, attempted genocide, family massacres, sterilization campaigns, boarding schools, and more.

    Claiming indigenous ancestry when you have none is not only offending, but it’s illegal when you sell books, give speeches, interviews, paid appearances, and gain other benefits by claiming a heritage that you have no right to.

    Where’s the line?
    UC Berkeley needs to show some integrity.

    You can tell them, too. Here’s a list of people you can contact:

    ESPM Dept. Chair Michael Mascarenhas: (510) 643-3788
    Chancellor Carol Christ: (510) 642-7464
    Exec. Vice Chancellor Ben Hermalin: (510) 642-1961
    Equity & Inclusion Dania Matos: (510) 642-7294
    Office of the Chancellor Khira Griscavage: (510) 643-8880

  • Landback Wildflower Mix

    What’s InsidePlanting InstructionsHow To Get the Landback Wildflower Mix

    A mix of hand-collected Native California Plants chosen for the semi-arid climate of Alameda, and places like it, below 1,000 feet.

    All of them are full sun; except for the Tomcat Clover, which is happiest with a little soil moisture.

    Tomcat Clover
    Trifolium willdenovii

    Credit: Jennifer McNew, BLM

    Most of the plants in the Landback Wildflower Seed mix were selected because they are easy to grow, and help to provide food and pollen for a variety of life-forms, the most popular of which would be butterflies, and native honey bee and bumble bees. But these plants also sustain Birds, and Moths.

    Gilia Capitata is beautiful, blue, self-sewing and easy to grow. Blooms throughout spring, well into summer.

    Blue Thimble Flower
    (aka “Globe Gilia”)
    Gilia capitata

    Credit: Amada44

    Many of these plants should look familiar, if you’ve ever been hiking around the East Bay. We live in a place where there are many places where you can observe wildflowers as they exist in nature.

    Goldfields are numerous, and can be found all over the shoreline of the Bay Area, for instance: on Doolittle Drive, along the Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline.

    Goldfields
    Lasthenia glabrata

    Credit: Cliff Hutson

    The California Coastal Poppy is a native cultivar developed for its drought tolerance, deer resistance, and self-sowing attributes. The orange dot in the center make the perfect landing pad for all kinds of pollinators.

    Coastal Poppy
    Eschscholzia californica var. maritima

    Credit: Paul Hermans

    Each seed pack has a unique ratio of seeds.

    Chinese Houses set themselves apart with their long stalks, which reach up to 2 feet high, and their distinctive purple petals. These wildflowers are especially attractive to pollinators, including the Variable Checkerspot, Edith’s Checkspot Butterflies; and the Bilobed Looper Moth (among others.)

    Chinese Houses
    (aka “Innocence”)
    Collinsia heterophylla

    Credit: Stickpen

    Some packets have a small amount of these beautiful and super drought tolerant California native plants:

    Elegant Tarweed
    Madia elegans

    Credit: Calibas

    Smells like pineapple. Drought & Deer tolerant. Reliably self-sows. Late-season bloom from Mid-Summer to Fall.

    Serpentine Sunflower
    Helianthus bolanderi

    Credit: Richard Spellenberg

    Grows up to 5′ tall. Doesn’t care what soil you plant it in. Goes crazy in compost-enhanced soil. Great cut flower. Self-Sows.

    About the Seed Packets

    The Landback Wildflower Mix has been specifically chosen to be easy to grow and drought-tolerant; requiring only a couple of waterings a month once they are established.

    These seeds require no pretreatment and can be sown directly into the ground where they will be grown. Coastal Poppy roots are fragile, and should not be transplanted or moved from their original plot, once established.

    Planting Instructions:

    Prepare seedbed by removing existing weeds. Mix seeds with compost, broadcast where it is to grow, rake in lightly, and tamp. If fall rains don’t begin, irrigate 1-2 times weekly until seedling have made good growth.

    Watering:

    Water 1-2 times weekly until the plants are established. Once these plants are established, they can be water 1-2 a month. [With the exception of the Tomcat Clover, which enjoys a little moisture in its soil.]

    Planting Time:

    Fall and winter are optimal for annual flowers. The sweet spot is mid-fall.

    Sowing Rate:

    The Landback Wildflower Mix seed packet can seed approximately 5 square feet.

    Source of the Seeds in the Landback Wildflower Mix:

    These seeds were purchased, mixed, and repackaged by Alameda Native History Project from Larner Seeds, and Klamath-Siskiyou Native Seeds, for give-away purposes only.

    Neither Larner Seeds, nor Siskiyou Native Seeds are affiliated with the Alameda Native History Project.

    A Note On Larner Seeds:

    Larner Seeds was founded by Judith Larner Lowry. She is an expert on local native plants, seed gathering, and propagation, and has written a number of books on this subject.

    Larner Seeds is based in Bolinas, California, and is definitely worth the visit, if you can make it over to their Seed Shop & Demonstration Garden.

    How To Get the Landback Wildflower Mix

    You can pick up a Landback Wildflower Mix seed packet from our booth at the:

    Blues, Brews & BBQ Festival
    September 17, 2023
    Noon to 6pm

    Call or Email Us ahead of time to reserve your packet!

  • What about the East Bay Ohlone of Oakland, Emeryville, Alameda?

    Someone recently responded to the article “Who are the Lisjan Ohlone? What does Chochenyo mean?” with some questions of their own.

    What about the East Bay Ohlone of Oakland, Emeryville, Alameda? [The] Muwekma are not the only Lisjan in the area.

    B. Richman

    I publicly responded:

    [B.] Richman this article seeks to educate people like you about Ohlone people in the east bay. So you stop calling them “chochenyo ohlone”, “Lisjan Ohlone”, and other misnomers.

    Alameda Native History Project

    But, I wanted to address the confusion and misinformation about Indigenous People, being perpetuated by non-indigenous people.

    So I sent this message directly to that person, which I wanted to elaborate on, and share with you. What follows is based on that message, illustrated with pictures and relevant links.

    “What about the East Bay Ohlone of Oakland, Emeryville, Alameda? [The] Muwekma are not the only Lisjan in the area.”

    Questions like this are problematic because they show how much the person asking really doesn’t know about the indigenous history of their area.

    [Everyone is aware of the hype behind the Sogorea Te Land Trust, a corporation fronted by Corrina Gould, an indigenous woman who claims to be a chairwoman of an Ohlone Tribe–a corporation called the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Incorporated. A corporation formed by Corrina Gould, and her daughters; which is less than two years old.]

    Take a look at Corrina Gould and ask yourself why the pictures of her and her “tribe” only ever show about five people.

    Oakland, CA
    Alameda, CA
    Albany, CA

    Seriously… ask yourself why the members of the other Confederated Villages never appear in the pictures.

    If you take a step back, you’ll realize that Corrina Gould’s support is not from Ohlone people.

    It’s from non-indigenous people, and native people who aren’t even Ohlone.

    The truth is: Corrina Gould appointed herself as a “chairwoman”; she doesn’t represent Ohlone people beyond herself and her immediately family.

    The Muwekma Tribe has hundreds of members.

    Coyote Hills Regional Park
    Muwekma Group Picture 001
    Muwekma Group Picture 003
    Why Federal Recognition is Important
    Muwekma Tabling at Event

    Muwekma are actually the people who called themselves “Lisjanes” (Lisjanikma), who were called the Verona Band of Alameda County. The Muwekma Tribe is actually composed of the descendants of those who survived the missions, attempted genocide and cultural erasure.

    More pictures of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area can be found on their website: Muwekma.org

    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 Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area

    If you take away anything from this, it should be that:

    You need to know the difference between Tribe, and a corporation run by a convicted fraud whose main activities consist of fundraising for her own personal benefit, and that of her immediate family.

    In truth, Shuumi does not help Ohlone people.

    It’s a distraction created by someone who’s done this kind of stuff before.

    Take a second to stand back and see that Corrina Gould’s narrative is a washed down version of the real history of Muwekma.

    Corrina Gould is a recognized descendant of the Muwekma Tribe; and she betrayed her own tribe by weaponizing their own language and history against them.

    I thought her story was compelling too, until I did the research, and followed the facts.

    Once I learned to truth, I had to publicly withdraw my support. It was kind of embarrassing, and a mistake to support a group without doing my research first.

    But it’s a mistake I want you to avoid, too.

    This isn’t some nebulous grey zone. There are peer-reviewed articles and genetic studies establishing these facts. All you need to do is look at Muwekma’s petition to the BIA to learn way more than you ever needed to know about this subject.

    You should do your own research, and educate others.

    This confusion and misinformation is detrimental to the sovereignty of real, bona fide tribes.

    The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area is trying regain their Federal Recognition, and restore their homeland. Find out how you can help Ohlone people (for real) by going to Muwekma.org

    You can also learn more Ohlone History, and see more pictures of the Muwekma Tribe, as well as read a selection of academic articles, interviews, and watch Chairwoman Charlene Nijmeh at TEDXBerkeley.

  • Shellmounds and Their Relationship to the Waterbodies of the San Francisco Bay Basin

    In the Indigenous Bay Area, water and life have always gone hand-in-hand. It was impossible to tell where the sea truly ended on this coast. Even inland, the San Francisco Regions’s natural aquatic resources are used with reverence, and traded throughout the region (and beyond.) Salmon connect the sea to the rivers, streams, and lakes of California, and they are a living link shared by many Indigenous People in California.

    Did the First People of the Bay Area Benefit from the Waterbodies and Waterways through Sustenance Fishing?

    It is without any doubt that the First People of the place we now call the San Francisco Bay Area have used, worn, consumed, or cultivated almost all of the things in the pre-contact environment. This includes the natural aquatic resources of the San Francisco Bay Region.

    You already know about salmon; edible plants, like kelp, eelgrass; but, think even smaller, like byssal thread–the stuff that holds mussels together in their beds–which was mainly used as an adhesive. These are the Traditional & Cultural Tribal Beneficial uses.

    It’s established that Indigenous people engaged in Sustenance Fishing, individually.

    As a group, Tribes engaged in Tribal Sustenance Fishing by working together to catch or gather larger numbers of natural aquatic resources like fish, shellfish, and vegetation, to be able to feed their group (or Tribe).

    The shellmounds’ very existence is proof that this is true because of the sustained consumption, gathering, and use of shellfish it would take to gather the amount of shells used for the burials, and cemermonies, that shellmounds physically represent, and immortalize [as tangible evidence of this use.]

    Consider also, the sheer amount of tools, currency, jewelry, and clothing, which is made from shells proves a continuous Tribal Cultural Beneficial Use for the last 10,000 years.

    Surely, the shellmounds are the emodiment of the Traditional, Cultural, and Sustenance, Tribal Beneficial Uses for the WaterBodies of the San Francisco Bay Region?

    Yes, Indigenous People have engaged in Sustenance Fishing, and Tribal Sustenance Fishing in all of the waterbodies in the San Francisco Bay Region for at least 10,000 years. And, that Sustenance-based use directly influences the innumerable Traditional, Cultural, [and Ceremonial] uses in First People’s societies.

    Natural Aquatic Resources and Indigenous Ceremony

    The less opaque “Tribal Beneficial Use” of the waterways and waterbodies of the San Francisco Bay Region (or “Basin”) are their ceremonial uses and connections.

    This is because ceremonies for things like funerals, and ancestor worship has not been performed at shellmounds regularly in the region since approximately the 1770’s [which is when the Bay Area began to be invaded, and occupied, by Spain, Mexico, and the United States (in that order.)

    But not all was lost. The First People of the San Francisco Bay Area are alive and well.]

    Shellmounds, today, exist on private property, and are inaccessible to the Indigenous people whose blood relations are buried there. While it is difficult to compel land owners to grant Easements For Tribal Beneficial Uses… Government Agencies and Departments should create policies granting such Cultural Easements For Tribal Beneficial Uses upon request.

    It should be assumed that water, and the proximity to it, played a large role in the selection of the location shellmounds, because shellmounds are found almost exclusively near the shores and riverbanks of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    We should also assume that funerary practices included natural aquatic resources (like shellfish, fish, vegetation) which were gathered and used as ceremonial objects, to make special clothing, for the ceremony, or things given to the decedent for use in the afterlife; or, to protect their body on earth; or, for other myriad reasons, including: it was their favorite [object here.]

    It’s not surprising then, that the amount of direct influence shellmounds and the waterways and waterbodies of the San Francisco Bay Region have on each other leave almost no corner of the Bay Area untouched.

    Composite map of San Francisco Bay Basin Plan Waterbodies shown in lines and polygons.

    There are three sets of data here. Just like there are three colors.

    The green features show the San Francisco Bay Basin Waterbodies.

    Yellow features are part of the wider network of waterbodies to which shellmounds are connected.

    Red features show where shellmounds and basin waterbodies are intrinsically linked.

    To get these results, I had to:

    1. Find the data.
    2. Import them into my GIS software.
    3. Fix geometries. (It helps to make a spatial index.)
    4. Reproject to NAD83 California State Plane Zone 3
    5. Find features for layers which matched the location of shellmounds within my margin of error, and with consideration to the average size of shellmounds recorded.
    6. You know, then do the cosmetic stuff, as you can see in the picture above.

    Consider the Confidentiality of Tribal Cultural Resources

    Is this a bad time to point out that N.C. Nelson’s Shellmound Map was hand-plotted, using a completely different geographic coordinate reference system? I think that matters….

    Besides that: the confidentiality of Tribal Cultural Resources has now been codified. And, providing shellmound location data to any non-indigenous organization would totally negate the idea of data sovereignty.

    Use This Information As Another Reason to Listen to Indigenous Voices

    It is an ethical obligation for Indigenous People to be included, respected, and listened to in the planning process. Not just to check the boxes on the Environmental Impact Assessment, or after a burial has already been disturbed.

    Tribal Cultural Resources, and Tribal Beneficial Uses must also be taken into account when facilities Water Treatment Plants, Oil Refineries, and Quarries, seek to renew their license to operate.

    Especially when those facilities generate large quantities of hazardous waste, endanger nearby communities, and deprive indigenous people of their beneficial use of natural aquatic resources and Tribal Cultural Resources through:

    1. The illegal occupation of unceded land. (No, for real, the treaties were never ratified. Indigenous people in the Bay Area never gave away anything, and never will.)
    2. Destruction of Tribal Cultural Resources to create infrastructure, like levees, landfills, and larger things like water treatment plants, and municipal dumps (many are on the shores of the San Francisco Bay Basin).
    3. Forced Extinction and Endangerment of Native Plants and Animals, especially whales, fish, shellfish and aquatic vegetation.
    4. The spoiling of natural resources through pollution, dumping, and paving.

    … Among other things.

    The Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Basin are not only Tribal Cultural Resources, they are intrinsically connected with the Tribal Beneficial Uses of this region’s natural aquatic resources.

    Extracted Basin Plan Lines and Polygons
    Extracted Basin Plan Lines and Polygons (Dissolved by Waterbody Name)

  • Who are the Lisjan Ohlone? What does Chochenyo mean?

    Who are “The Lisjan Ohlone”?

    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.

    “Mission Indians” who continued to live on their homeland after secularization were not “squatters”; as the California (Military) Governor proclaimed in 1847.

    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.

    When Jose Guzman passed, in 1934, some people thought Chochenyo would never be spoken again. But, his words and phrases from 1921 make it possible for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe to reawaken the Chochenyo langauge today.

    It all started when Jose Guzman said, “Yo soy Lisjanes”.

    So when you recognize “The Lisjan Ohlone”; you’re recognizing Jose Guzman.

    You’re recognizing the historic Verona Band of Indians of Alameda County. The present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    Viva Lisjanes!

    Jose Guzman (1854-1934)

  • Alameda Shellmound Map

    Please Note: A new version of the Alameda Shellmound Map (Version 2.0) was released on July 18, 2024.

    There’s a new map showing the Shellmounds of Alameda.

    It transposes the historic alameda shoreline onto the modern-day silohuette of the city. The map shows historic wetlands and tidal marshes, and the four Alameda Shellmounds.

    Map of the
    Shellmounds of Huchiun,
    ~Muwekma Ohlone Territory~
    Showing the Area Now Known As The
    “City of Alameda”

    By: Gabriel Duncan

    Description of The Map:

    The base map is comprised of the present-day shoreline of the Alameda and Bay Farm area, indicated by a gray-hashed outline; with the land-mass filled in white. The overlay to this map shows the pre-1900 shoreline of Alameda as a solid black outline.

    The Areas shaded in green comprise historical wetlands in the Alameda and Oakland Area. Alameda and Oakland were once connected. Alameda used to be a lush oak tree forest (Coast Live Oak), with verdant wetlands, and a thriving ecosystem. Alameda was also called la Bolsa de Encinal, or Encinal de San Antonio (a land grant reference.) First Peoples called this place Huchiun.

    The green dots (or markers) indicate the approximate positions of historic Ohlone shellmounds present around 1908, and before. The shellmound locations indicated in this map were compiled from three different sources:

    1. N.C. Nelson’s “Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region” [1909, University Press.]
    2. Imelda Merlin’s “Alameda: a Geological History”, [1977, Friends of the Alameda Free Library]
    3. Oakland Tribune [“Skull reveals mound”, Feb. 11, 1945]

    What are Shellmounds?

    Shellmounds are the resting place of the First Peoples of this area, Ohlone people. Ohlone people built these ancient structures over thousands of years. There are so many mussel shells in a shellmound they have a bluish tinge. Shells were deposited on land by birds, as well as humans, and the natural course of the circle of coastal life.

    In the 1800’s until around 1980, Archaeologists and Historians thought that Ohlone people were extinct; and that these shellmounds were “trash heaps”. And they treated the mounds accordingly.

    Americans used the shells and bones inside the mounds to make aggregate for concrete; landfill for levees; overspread to grade train tracks; and even fertilize plants. Grave robbers stole things from the Ohlone people buried inside the mound, and sold them to museums or collectors. The famous shellmound that Mound Street is named after (the “Sather Mound”) was used to pave Bay Farm Road on multiple occasions.

    Shellmounds today are one of the most endangered historical sites in the Bay Area. But they still exist as a sacred resting place of the Ohlone ancestors. Alameda is the tribal homeland of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, survivors of the Missions Fremont, Santa Clara, and Delores, and the Verona Band of Alameda County. For at least 10,000 years, Ohlone people have called this place home.

    Get an 24×18-inch copy of this map:

    Get this map as a thank-you gift for your donation of $25 or more to the Alameda Native History Project. 10% of your donation goes directly to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    References:

    1. Historic Wetlands; Gabriel Duncan 2023
    2. Historic Shoreline (1851-1877) Datasets produced by NOAA National Ocean Service
    3. Present-day Shoreline; City of San Francisco Department of Telecommunications and Information Services
    4. Tribal Regions; A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810, Randall Milliken, Malki-Ballena Press, 1995
    5. Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region, N.C. Nelson, University Press, 1909
    6. Alameda: A Geographical History, Imelda Merlin, Friends of the Alameda Free Library, 1977
    7. “Skull Reveals Mound”, Oakland Tribune, Feb. 11 1945
    8. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, Personal Interviews with Tribal Chairwoman Charlene Nijmeh, Vice Chairwoman Monica Arellano, Tribal Member Joey Torres
    9. Muwekma History Presentation to Alameda City Council, Alan Leventhal, Dec. 5 2022
    10. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area Website, http://muwekma.org, Accessed Aug. 10, 2023
    11. “Road Paved with Bones Grewsome [sic] Covering On Bay Island Thoroughfare”, Alameda Daily Argus, Apr. 23, 1901
    12. “Fixing the Streets”, Alameda Daily Star, Aug. 13 1908
    13. “Mayor Has Idea on Roadbuilding: Takes Exception to Old Mound Being Used for Dressing on New Road”, Oakland Tribune, Oct. 9 1908
    14. “Routine Ruled the Meeting”, Alameda Daily Times, Sep. 29 1908
    15. “End Hauling Dirt to Island From Mound”, Oakland Tribune, Nov. 22 1908

    About the Cartographer

    Gabriel Duncan is the founder and principal researcher of the Alameda Native History Project. He is a recognized descendant of the Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe. Gabriel was adopted at birth, and born and raised in the city of Alameda, California. ANHP is devoted to researching and documenting the Indigenous History of Alameda, fostering indigenous representation and awareness in Alameda, and educating Alamedans about their local (living) history in a modern, nuanced way.

    NOTE: This map was updated on 08/17/2023 to show the “Pre-1900 Shoreline”, Historic Wetlands, and Present-Day Land-mass; which are layers 1-3 on the list of references, above. Subsequently, those references have also been updated to reflect this change.
    Please Note: A new version of the Alameda Shellmound Map (Version 2.0) was released on July 18, 2024.

  • Ranked Choice Voting Campaign Kicks Off In Alameda

    Voter Choice Alameda is a ballot measure committee that was founded by members of the Alameda League of Women Voters with the purpose of introducing a ballot measure to voters in the 2024 Elections.

    I had no idea what a Ballot Measure Committee was until this distinction was explained to me. Wanting to know more, I found the California Fair Political Practices Commission‘s website; and took a look at the “Ballot Measure Committees” Campaign Disclosure Manual 3. It’s 243 of pure intrigue. lol. But, there it is, if you’re interested.

    Alameda Native History Project fully supports Ranked Choice Voting, and Voter Choice Alameda, and we’re actually really excited to have a nonpartisan way to get involved.

    We also want you (the person reading this) to consider donating your time to the crucial signature-gathering period of getting this measure on the 2024 Election Ballot. [Voting’s really the easy part, innit?]

    So what’s up with Ranked Choice Voting? Why should anyone even care about this stuff?

    Ranked Choice Voting helps to strengthen the guarantee of free and fair elections; and the constitutional promise for government officials who are representative of, and stand for, the majority of voters.

    Right now, in Alameda, we have a Plurality Voting System. This means that candidates with the highest amounts of votes win–even if they only garnered a small percentage of the vote.

    Read on to learn more about Ranked Choice Voting; and the differences between Plurality and Majority Voting Systems.

    Ranked Choice Voting isn’t a new idea.

    Several cities in Alameda County already use Ranked Choice Voting to choose elected officials.

    • Albany
    • Berkeley
    • Oakland
    • San Leandro

    Ranked Choice Voting in Alameda will be used to choose elected officials, like the Mayor, Members of City Council, City Auditor, and the City Treasurer.

    Ranked Choice Voting means that the elected official chosen in an election will be chosen with a majority of votes.

    FairVote‘s “Ranked Choice Voting Facts”

    Right now we have a “plurality” voting system; which means that whoever has the most votes wins.

    This makes sense when there are only two choices. But when there are–let’s say–five or more candidates: the fact is that none of the candidates running ever score a majority of the votes. Which leaves the simple fact that, if an elected official wins with only 20% of the vote; there could be 80% of voters who never even wanted the elected official in the first place.

    Plurality Voting skews to the rich, and to candidates with name recognition. It leads to a partisan, polarized, all-or-nothing mentality where voting for someone who isn’t “guaranteed to win” is just throwing away your vote.

    It reinforces the idea of a “Two-Party System” and effectively shuts out other candidates, regardless of merit, because they can’t spend the money to game the system the same way career politicians do. It also disenfranchises voters who begin to believe that their vote doesn’t count, or that the voting system just doesn’t work.

    Ranked Choice Voting seeks to find the candidates voted by the majority of people who cast ballots. And, that–in and of itself–helps to create a democratic government which is representative of its citizens.

    Ranked Choice Voting also saves the overall cost of holding elections. Most of the savings comes in eliminating the costs of run-off elections, by using 2nd and 3rd choice candidates to find the majority consensus among voters. Since this is a Majority Voting method, the “run-offs” are held during the tabulation of votes; where the candidate with the least votes is eliminated in each round of tabulation to determine the majority vote-getter.

    This video produced by PrimerLearning helps explain Majority Voting, Ranked Choice Voting, and Approval Voting; and compares all three voting schemes with each other.

    “Simulating Alternate Voting Systems”, PrimerLearning on Youtube

    Ranked Choice Voting also removes the “Spoiler Effect” that third-party candidates can have in “Splitting The Vote”. It also disincentivizes voting as if we really do only have a Two-Party system (ignoring all other candidates than the two major party candidates.)

    Most importantly, Ranked Choice Voting allows voters to vote honestly for their first choice, and then “strategically” for their second and third choices, without being worried about “splitting the vote” and changing the outcome of the election to something a majority of voters neither wanted, nor intended.

    Visit the Voter Choice Alameda website to find out more about Ranked Choice Voting and How To Get Involved!

    A Note About The 2022 Oakland School Board Election

    Some folks might point to the error in the Oakland District 4 School Board Tally System, which resulted in an incorrect count of votes.

    That error was not the result of a flaw with Ranked Choice Voting, rather Human-Error in the configuration of the scanning and tallying at the County-Level. Specifically, the error meant that First Choices Left Blank were not counted correctly.

    Because of regular auditing of elections, this error was caught and corrected by FairVote.

    Therefore vague objections to Ranked Choice Voting like, “Ranked Choice Voting doesn’t work, look at what happened in Oakland” are facetious and made in ignorance to the true nature of the error. [Sorry, not sorry.]

    Read More:

    CalRCV Website – Has tons more information, videos, and even answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Ranked Choice Voting in California.

    Articles About 2022 Oakland School Board Election

    Must-Read: “After election debacle in Oakland, what’s next for ranked choice voting?”, Election Law Blog, Dec. 31 2022

    Alameda Co. finds error in ranked-choice voting system, investigating Oakland school board race, ABC7, Dec. 29 2022

    Articles About City of Oakland’s First RCV Election (And Success in Berkeley, San Leandro, and Albany)

    Final Results in Oakland’s First RCV Election: Analysis Shows Voters Effectively Used Ranked Choice Voting, FairVote, Dec. 16 2010

    Opinion: New Bay Area ranked choice voting system worked, should be California model, Mercury News, Jan. 14 2023