On Monday, Amy Wooldridge (Director of Alameda Parks & Recreation Department) replied to our open letter concerning the possibility of Sogorea Te Land Trust being given a portion of Linear Park, in Alameda–at the corner of Main Street and Singleton Avenue.
In our preliminary email, asking whether or not this was true, Wooldridge told us: “The Recreation and Parks Department is working with the Sogorea Té Land Trust and Confederated Villages of Lisjan to develop an agreement regarding a section of tule plants in the Main Street Linear Park between Singleton and Stargell streets…. Sogorea Té Land Trust will take responsibility for maintenance of this area which includes removing weeds and invasive plants…. They will also then have the opportunity to cultivate the tule plants that they use for ceremonial dress, boats, roofing, and baskets.”
Our primary objections were two-fold:
The Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, Inc. is not a tribal government; the City of Alameda is Muwekma Ohlone Territory.
Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area
Less than 5 years old.
Documented existence before 1890. (aka “Time Immemorial”)
Represents 1 family.
Thousands of enrolled tribal members.
Corporation
Federally Recognized as a Tribal Nation*
*The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area is currently fighting to restore their Federal Recognition as a Tribe. Find out how you can help.
The site proposed for management by Sogorea Te Land Trust has been subject to soil and groundwater pollution which was never properly cleaned.
2 x 6,000 gallon gasoline tanks removed in
1 x 550 waste oil tank.
These tanks were leaking gasoline and waste oil into the soil at Main Street, and Singleton Avenue, specifically.
Contaminated soil around tanks were used to back-fill holes made from tank removal.
Contaminated groundwater sprayed on contaminated soil for dust suppression during the entire project.
Existence of Toxic Marsh Crust 4-18 below ground surface.
Water table at 3 feet BGS, drainage ditch at least 4 feet deep.
2021 Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment report finds Benzene, Naphthalene, and other contaminants in ground water at one of the 26 underground storage tanks within 1,000 feet of proposed land management area.
Specific guidance from Alameda County Healthcare Services requiring review of sufficiency of corrective actions before Land Use may be changed.
It was our impression that the City of Alameda had reached out to Sogorea Te Land Trust in another performative display of “restorative justice” to give indigenous people [toxic] land back.
We found out that this was not the case. Sogorea Te Land Trust was not being given land by the City of Alameda.
“This was simply intended as a short, one-year maintenance agreement that also included and allowed for the Sogorea Te Land Trust to cultivate the plants for non-edible purposes.” Amy Wooldridge told us; adding, “They had reached out to me directly with this interest and since this park is in need of more maintenance, it seemed like a good fit.”
However, after being told about the dubious nature of Sogorea Te Land Trust’s intentions to convey trust land to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, and being given credible information regarding the suspected contamination of Linear Park, Amy Wooldridge has told us she intends to “pause” plans for collaboration with Sogorea Te Land Trust, “and will keep the Muwekma [Ohlone] Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area apprised of anything connected with Indigenous People that I’m involved with here in Alameda.”
This news is a victory for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, because the City of Alameda falls within traditional Muwekma Ohlone territory.
An Open Letter to Reverend Michael Yoshii, and Serena Chen, two of the lecturers set to speak in the Alameda Museum’s “Virtual Speakers Series”, for AAPI Heritage Month Lecture Series tomorrow, Monday, May 23, 2022.
Here’s the flyer:
Alameda Museum AAPI History Month Virtual Speak Series Flyer, links to AlamedaMuseum.org
Background: I tried to call Lillian Galedo, but I wasn’t able to reach her for comment. I sent letters to both Reverend Michael Yoshii, and Serena Chen.
Serena Chen responded by giving me a call, and we had a conversation that touched on this subject, as well as much more about Chinese-American History, Japanese-American History, Serena Chen’s work in passing smoking laws in the Bay Area, as well as her advocacy for the preservation of Angel Island Immigration Center.
Reverend Michael Yoshii hasn’t gotten back to me yet, re: the letter. But I know that he’s received it. And I actually asked him a lot of questions.
The reason why I wrote to these people, is because:
I am a researcher in the city of Alameda. And, my primary focus is on the Native American History of Alameda. However, it was impossible for me to research this topic and not notice the lack of representation of any non-white historical Alamedans at the Alameda Museum.
This bothers me, because my interest in history is not bound to my own ethnic group; and I believe that history’s lessons are infinitely more important, and more valuable than hiding the misdeeds of a city. And that, the truth of what happened to us, Alameda’s nonwhite citizens, is better aired out, discussed, and reconciled. I think that hiding these chapters of our history only creates more animus, and sets us up for future conflicts we don’t even know why we fight.
05/18/2022 ANHP Letter to Serena Chen, and Rev. Michael Yoshii
In my letter to the Reverend Yoshii, I asked him specifically:
How does it make you feel that Alameda Museum does not have any permanent exhibits about the Japanese-American experience in Alameda?
Does it bother you that the businesses, homes, wealth, and anything valuable (like family photos, heirlooms, and other precious things), that you, your family, and your compatriots had to abandon, or have taken away, aren’t even mentioned at all in Alameda’s official history?
If the Alameda Museum were to create a permanent exhibit featuring Japanese-American History and Experiences in Alameda, what would you like to see reflected about your own history, heritage, culture, and contributions to the City of Alameda?
In my letter to Serena Chen:
I mention that I found things about the Chinese Pioneers in Alameda that I thought were really cool. And was excited to share with her, and people interested in Alameda History.
But, in both letters, I invited them to consider addressing the lack of representation of their history, heritage, and culture in the Alameda Museum.
After all, Serena Chen, Rev. Michael Yoshii, and Lillian Galedo, will all be lecturing at the Alameda Museum, which has no permanent exhibit to AAPI History.
So, as soon as their voices fade, so will any representation or mention of their histories, heritage, or cultures. Histories which are rich, interesting, and worthy of being shared just as much as the white, victorian-obsessed history that Alameda Museum chooses to share–at the price of excluding all BIPOC people.
I’d like to invite you tune in to watch and learn; support Serena Chen, Lillian Galedo, and Michael Yoshii, as they share their family history, and experiences with us; and advocate for meaningful representation of AAPI heritage, and history in the form of permanent exhibits in the Alameda Museum.
Alameda Museum Virtual Speaker Series AAPI Heritage Month Feat. Serena Chen, Lillian Galedo, Reverend Michael Yoshii Monday, May 23, 2022 7:00 – 8:30 PM Event on Zoom Link to Event Info @ AlamedaMuseum.org Link to Event Registration @ Zoom.us
While being billed and paid for as an “homage to the gentle savages which once roamed the coasts and hills of this area thousands of years ago”:
Many of the images presented to you as “Native American Art”, and installed in places like Parks, Malls, Skate Parks, and other Public Spaces, and “Public Arenas”, are actually the romanticized interpretations by (a) someone who is not Native American and, (b) does not know enough about their subject matter to truly allegorize the sacred dances, symbols, and objects they attempt to vivify.
The result is a vitiated version of true Native American Cultural Representation Through Art. An impoverished image of who we are, and our physical connection to The Earth; The Animals; Our Ancestors; And All Of Us.
These images are created with the “understanding” that Native Americans are gone. That we no longer live in a physical sense.
We take up space in the imaginary place the artist has created. In the place with forests, and mesas; and lakes; and horses; and deer; and the Wolf howling at the Moon; and Iron Eyes Cody.
It’s probably the same place in your head….
The same place where “Indian Blankets” are half off. Where you can buy your own “Native American flute” out of a bucket at the door. Next to the Cigar Store Indian; and the “You Are On Stolen Land” t-shirts.
These images don’t just affect you. They affect us.
One: It Makes Us Forget Who We Are
Aside from beating us down by starvation literally; economically; educationally; culturally; and spiritually: these images help erase our sense of individuality in both Tribal and Personal identities.
We are enshrouding ourselves with the stereotypes they created for us.
We are letting them convince us that this is who we are. That we don’t exist unless we conform to these images. Their idea of “American Indians”, “Gentle Savages”, “Proud Chiefs”, and “Sexy Squaw”. Those are Halloween costumes.
We’re convincing ourselves that, unless we aren’t beading, or praying, or posting performative “Indian” [stuff] on social media that we aren’t Indians. That we don’t exist without the identities they try to place on us.
But we do. And that’s the First Way Public Art Promotes Pan-Indian Confusion: It makes us forget who we are.
Like, who we really are.
Two: Pan-Indian Images, Made By Non-Native Artists, Shut Out Contemporary and Authentic Native American Art and Voices (and create false subject matter experts, who only perpetuate the myths of colonization.)
The artists who rendered these images we see in public become considered subject matter experts, and go on to create more “culturally appropriate” or “culturally inspired” artwork for architects, corporations like tech companies, and more city governments, and municipalities.
These works of art are now cited as “Native American works”; and referred to as historically & culturally accurate representations of people–who are very much real, and alive, today–as though they were no longer here.
They contribute to the myth that we’ve just disappeared, somehow.
This is effectively re-colonizing these places with attenuated versions of us; homogenized stereotypes of the “Indians of California”. Representing the sanitized beginning, middle, and end of an entire civilization that “wasn’t” murdered, buried in mass graves; and pulverized, to be hidden in the very cornerstones of the institutions designed to govern them out of existence…. And yet, still came out fighting like Schrödinger’s Cat
These works of Public Art help to indoctrinate new generations into the Myth of The Colonization of California. The one where we all just simply disappeared; were “killed by the Spanish”; or “became Mexicans.” …That California was open, lush, and willing.
This not only prevents true Native American Artists from being featured, or recognized in their own homelands. But, the popularity, and entrenched nature of Public Art (something that’s usually made of steel, or metal, and set in concrete), literally cements these images in the public eye; helping to gloss over, and tune out the real history, living voices, and work of contemporary Native Americans as people and artisans. In favor of the commercialized, white-washed, Pan-Indian images and stereotypes that stalk us everywhere we go.
We have to stop considering non-native people as the gatekeepers of Native American culture, or the experts on our lives, and lived experiences.
Three: Works of Public Art Do Not Absolve Governments of Their Duty to Recognize and Honor Native American People
Public Artwork concerning Native American People should do the following:
Never be a sculpture of a Native American person, unless it was actually made and designed by a Native American person, or a person of Native American Descent.
Be built/created/assembled by Native American people;
In print: acknowledge the Native American Genocide, California Genocide, or the Mass Murder and Removal of Native Americans for the Exploitation of Their Land and Natural Resources as the reason why the viewer is standing in an outdoor mall, and not a lush field–with rivers, fresh air, salmon, and singing forest animals–today;
Recognize the People Whose Land We Are On by Name, and the name of the Tribal Nation as it may appear in Treaty;
Recognize that Public Art cannot undo the past, but it is a way that we can all remember our history, honor our ancestors, and heal together from the sins of our fathers.
Public Art is a component, and not the whole solution.
These things should be employed in concert with serious policies of Native American Inclusion & Acknowledgment, like:
Native American Representation in City Government, City Events, City Planning
Renaming of Some Parks, Streets, Schools, and Other Public Buildings/Spaces
Establishing Historical Sites and Districts
Rehabilitating, Maintaining, and Protecting the Local Environment
Consider doing these things in a sustainable way, with native plants, non-neonicotinoid pest control, and by eliminating nitrogen (fertilizer) run-off.
Specifically Prohibiting Development in “Restricted Resource Zones”
Actively soliciting local Native American people, artists, and historians, for input and education about their history.
When “The Spanish” came to the San Francisco Bay Area, they called all of the people who lived here “Costanoans”; and promptly killed, and corralled them into the California Missions; then began to colonize the land by bringing cows, catfish, eucalyptus, and other foreign plants and animals.
The primary language for the Mission San Jose was Miwok.
Miwok was a common language for most missions in the San Francisco Bay Area. But, Coast Miwok is the name of just one Tribal Group in the Northern Bay Area. In fact, Coast Miwok and Miwok consider themselves as distinct Tribal Groups of their own; and should not be confused with one another.
Richard Levy’s 1978 essay, entitled “Costanoan”, and featured in the California Volume of the Handbook of North American Indians, edited by Robert F. Heizer… has been widely relied upon since its publication. Despite its obvious errors, and out-dated nature. [For instance, the term “Costanoan” was already beginning to fall out of style. It was recognized as a blunt umbrella term for an entire region, which is actually diverse af.]
Before Richard Levy’s 1978 “Costanoan” Essay was published, J.P. Harrington had already come through the Bay Area–in 1921–to document and study California Native American Languages. This is where Harrington documented the existence of a language called “Chochenyo”; and recorded it separately from the known Miwok Language.
In fact, it was Harrington, in 1921, who first recorded the phrase, “Yo soy lisjanes.” Words spoken by Jose Guzman, the last Chochenyo speaker, and “Captain” of what was then known as the “Verona Band of Indians” by white people.
But the Verona Band was just a small part of a larger group known collectively today as Ohlone People.
It was noted, then–in 1921–that these languages (Chochenyo and Miwok) somehow fit into the “Penutian” Language Tree; and that a completely different group of people from the South-West of the Delta Area around Byron (ostensibly, the “other side” of Mount Diablo) spoke a Yokutian dialect.
In fact, from the work leading up to Richard Levy’s 1978 “Costanoan” Essay, the following facts were already established, peer-reviewed, and easily discoverable by scholars such as Levy, and Alameda’s Imelda Merlin–who was a UC Berkeley student herself, and within easy counsel of Kroeber, now infamous (and former) head of the UC Berkeley Anthropology Department, and Phoebe A. Hearst Museum….
Anyway, these established facts were:
There is a group of Yokutian-speaking people who live on the East Side of Mount Diablo, up to at least the “Byron Delta Area”, probably spanning farther east toward the Sierra Foothills–joining the rest of the Yokutian-speaking area;
Neither Miwok, nor Chochenyo languages were related to the Yokutian-speaking Tribal Group in language, and diverged in custom;
The aforementioned group of people were errantly included under the term “Costanoan”, despite the obvious differences in language, religion, and culture;
Miwok is a language, and also a Tribal Group;
Coast Miwok and Miwok are two different Tribal Groups;
Chochenyo is a separate and distinct language from Miwok, spoken by at least one East Bay Tribal Group that has called themselves the “Lisjanes”–and been called the “Verona Band”, among other names;
Both Miwok and Chochenyo are linguistically related to each other, as branches, not as derivatives of one or the other.
The detrimental effects of Richard Levy’s work have undermined the fundamental understanding of the Indigenous Bay Area landscape, reducing it to something uniform, monolithic. The historical narrative Levy pushes in this work is out-dated; even for the time it was published.
It should also be noted that Levy’s work presented several claims, conclusions, and information that simply wasn’t corroborated or supported by citations, or other evidence.
In spite of these facts, the “Costanoan” essay is still relied upon by Park Services, City Governments, Developers, (and more,) today.
Levy’s work has been heavily relied upon for a number of reasons:
It was published in what is still considered to be one of the most authoritative volumes to this day: The Handbook of North American Indians;
It’s short;
It has pictures.
The map included with Levy’s essay was heavily relied upon up until the seemingly arbitrary placement of markers, and borders were pointed out.
But let’s be clear. The difference in time between when these papers were published in academic journals, and when they get published in books, like “The Indians of California: A Source Book” is notable enough for me to point out that the public side, and the interior, academic, research side of the the anthropology/archaeology/ethnology department are completely different. They move at completely different speeds.
And students/student-researchers are privy to material that just isn’t available to anyone outside of that institution.
So let’s shift gears to look at yet another scholar.
This one probably shouldn’t even be cited as a reference for Alameda Native History, anymore–given lack of credible citations and research regarding what she termed as “Aboriginal Settlement”.
Her name is Imelda Merlin, and her thesis was published as a book in 1977 as “Alameda: A Geographical History”.
This book has been referred to as the Alameda “historical bible“.
However, Merlin’s thesis is actually dated in 1964–thirteen years before publication of her book. The thesis was submitted for partial satisfaction of the requirements for a Master’s Degree in Geology.
Should I point out that Geology is not archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, or “ethnology” in any recognizable form? Because Geology is the study of the Earth. You know, like rocks, and how mountains were formed.
In the second chapter, “Aboriginal Settlement” [p. 16], Merlin presents a brief history of “man’s” occupation of the area now known as Alameda.
Here, Merlin refers to Ohlone People (known then, at least, as the Lisyan, Costanoan, and Verona) as a “branch of the Miwok tribe”. The citation for this claim refers to the unpublished, personal correspondence of Robert F. Heizer. It is unknown whether Merlin claims Robert F. Heizer shared this information during the interview, listed the bibliography; or whether there is a letter in Robert Fleming Heizer’s correspondence file that says this.
But, remember the name Robert F. Heizer (aka “R. F. Heizer”) because he’s all over this.
Merlin did not cite any academic research paper, archaeological or ethnographical reports to support her assertion that Heizer said this; in spite of his own work–contrary to the preponderance of academic papers that Heizer compiled and published, himself.
If the interview in the bibliography was performed by Merlin, as the interviewer, how come she didn’t include the transcript? If the interview wasn’t performed by Merlin, who was it performed by? What was the date of the interview?
Is the Heizer interview in the bibliography the ‘(Heizer, Personal correspondence)’ that Imelda Merlin refers to?
[Please, don’t get me started on the maps.]”
Me, This Article
Yes, I honestly expected Imelda Merlin, in the 13 years between submitting her thesis, and publishing it as a book, to fix some of these issues. I expect anyone who has that much time between writing and printing, to have edited the […] out of their manuscript.
This is troubling for a number of reasons; not the least of which is that Heizer (most probably) didn’t say that.
Merlin’s assertion that the unnamed tribe of Alameda, and its adjacent lands was “now thought to be”, a “branch of miwok” really flies in the face of what Archaeologists, Anthropologists, and Ethnologists actually believed.
J.P. Harrington’s 1921 Linguistic Survey of the Niles/Pleasanton area was well-known, and continues to be the authoritative reference concerning Ohlone People from Mission San Jose, and descendants, and family of Jose Guzman. Harrington’s work (as already mentioned in length) makes a clear distinction between the Chochenyo, and Miwok language; as well as Miwok and the “Lisjanes”.
In 1955, Alfred Kroeber, and Robert F. Heizer, had already written “Continuity of Indian Population in California From 1770/1848 to 1955”. This work specifically distinguishes between “Miwok” and “Costanoan” people who appear in the Mission Rolls.
This was, of course, after publication of Robert Heizer’s 1951, “Indians of the San Francisco Bay Area”, in the Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties (Bulletin #154); which made it clear:
The San Francisco peninsula, western Contra Costa County, and Alameda and Santa Clara Counties were the home of the Costanoan tribes.”
First paragraph of the Preface to the “Indians of the San Francisco Bay Area”, Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties. Bulletin 154, Division of Mines, Ferry Building, San Francisco, 1951.
Mind you, “Costanoan” territory started out as the whole of the San Francisco Bay Area, and then kept getting smaller, and more defined, until it became the area we now associate with Ohlone Territory.
Ohlone Territory is the area from Yelamu, to Huchiun Aguasto, from below Ssalson, to way far down, past Carmel, and well into the Santa Cruz Mountains.
In Merlin’s second Heizer citation, “The California Indians”, we are brought to what was considered the sequel of….
The undisputed authority on the California Indians, A.L. Kroeber, heads the list of outstanding anthropologists whose writings have been selected to appear in this book.
Here, then, for the first time since the appearance, many years ago, of A.L. Kroeber’s Handbook of the Indians of California (Smithsonian Institution, 1925) is a book which covers the material and social cultures, the archaeological findings, and a wealth of other materials on the Indians of California.
Dust cover of “The Indians of California: A Source Book”, Compiled and Edited by R. F. Heizer and M. A. Whipple, Fourth Printing, 1962, Cambridge University Press, London, England
The Handbook of the Indians of California, mentioned above, was also edited by Robert Heizer (aka “Robert F. Heizer”, aka “Robert Fleming Heizer”.)
So, Heizer is all over this stuff. As an editor, and a contributing author.
Of all the works bearing Heizer’s name, the “Indians of California” took pains to specify, exactly, the relationships of the Tribal Groups of California with each other.
This came out in the form of maps, data tables, and hundreds of pages of narrative.
Population “Table 1” Showing Costanoan and Miwok as separate GroupsMentioning Dances Miwok Received from Costanoans“Map 1” Penutian Language Family List, Showing Costanoan and Miwok as different LanguagesThree examples of Miwok and Costanoan Tribal Groups mentioned as separate, and distinct groups. Figure 1 shows a population “Table 1” with Costanoan and Miwok separate. Figure 2 mentions that certain Miwok dances were received from Costanoan Groups, from the Kuksu Big Head cult, specifically. Figure 3 shows “Map 1”, and gives a “Penutian Family” language list, showing Costanoan and Miwok as separate branches of the Penutian Language Family.
Despite some of the most “authorative”, widely publicized, even celebrated source material on the “Indians of California” at her finger-tips.
In her own citations.
Somehow….
Merlin writes:
Man was present on the shores of San Francisco Bay at least 3500 years ago according to Carbon-14 tests made of shellmound material (Gifford, pp. 1-29). Since at least one mound has revealed a layer of skeletal material below the present ground level, in much the same way as did the Emeryville mound, presumably Indians now thought to have been a branch of Miwok Indians, (Heizer, personal correspondence) occupied the Encinal as early as they did the adjacent areas.”
“Alameda: A Geographical History”, Imelda Merlin, 1977, Friends of the Alameda Library, Alameda Musuem, Alameda, California, [p.16]
The most important fact here is that the word “Costanoan” isn’t mentioned at all.
“Well, that’s what people thought in 1964.” Was one reply, when I brought up this in recent conversation with Valerie Turpin, VP of the Alameda Museum Board.
But it isn’t the Miwok who people thought occupied the Encinal as early as they did the adjacent areas.
In 1964, people thought Native Americans from the San Francisco Bay Area were called “Costanoans”. People already knew that Costanoans were different, and distinct from Miwok, Pomo, Delta Yokuts, and all the rest of the “Indians of California”.
I expressed my confusion as to why Imelda Merlin would be so wrong. I shared with Turpin the breakdown of Merlin’s sources, including the “most authoritative” sources by A.L. Kroeber, and Robert F. Heizer.
I also mentioned other work, which was published, just one year after Imelda Merlin’s book was published. It’s called “The Ohlone Way”.
Malcom Margolin wrote, or contributed, to three of the most famous books about Native Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area:
The Ohlone Way
The Way We Lived
Life in a California Mission (Introduction)
These are non-fiction narrative books; collections of stories, and songs; not academic research papers, or post-graduate theses.
Even though they’re made by a white man, for a white audience, Margolin’s work was the kind of stuff that brought solace, as I pined for home. Oh yeah, and the references to Margolin’s work can be found in Park Service Project Plans, CEQA filings, Berkeley City Council Briefs, etc.–right next to the references to Levy, and Heizer we’ve already covered, above.
Certainly, Margolin would be a fine resource to consult, when curating an exhibit on the First Alamedans, and the way they lived.
More recent events have brought the fact that Alameda is Ohlone land into the forefront of the conscious of almost every person who lives here.
Those, of course, were the visible protest actions against housing development in West Berkeley [which isn’t where the shellmound actually is]; and, before that, the takeover of Wintun/Patwin land, in Vallejo, by an activist who was the self-proclaimed “chairwoman” of the corporation known as the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan, INC, which claimed to be a forgotten Ohlone Tribe.
In reality, Corrina Gould was a rogue “fallen member” of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area; who refused to go back home, even though Muwekma offered her enrollment in the tribe.
Despite the bad optics, and the confusion, we now know that, “Ohlone People are The Native American People From the San Francisco Bay Area”.
Because of all of this “awareness”, a City of Alameda park was renamed to “Chochenyo Park”, in recognition of the Ohlone language spoken in the Alameda area.
The City of Alameda even voted to donate city funds to the Sogorea Te Land Trust, a purportedly Ohlone Land Trust, using the Wintun name for Glen Cove, in Vallejo… and has no affiliation to any Tribal Government, whatsoever. [FYI: Nonprofit corporations cannot be Tribal Governments because the exercise of Tribal Sovereignty is not a “Charitable Purpose”.]
The City stopped short of issuing a Land Acknowledgement, though.
But this seems like enough for the Alameda Museum to take notice, and update their website, and exhibits.
But the issue still lingers:
Why didn’t the Alameda Museum vet Imelda Merlin’s book?
Why didn’t they check the citations?
When asked why the Alameda Museum only relied upon this one resource for their information (Imelda Merlin’s book), I was told that they are simply sharing the information the Museum was given when the Native American Grave Goods from the Alameda Shellmounds were transferred from the possession of the Alameda Free Library, to the Alameda Museum, sometime in the 1970’s.
But what about the ethical, and legal duties behind possessing, and curating, Native American Grave Goods?
What about:
Proper identification of the Native American Grave Goods, and Native American Artifacts in the Alameda Museum’s possession?
Proper attribution of Native American Grave Goods, and Native American Artifacts to the correct Tribal Group?
Asking the Native American Tribes for permission to possess the Native American goods and objects already in their possession?
I mentioned the prosecution of David van Horne, and how he was ordered to return the Native American Grave goods as a function of law. And how pursuant suits have ended in order to return the goods to the tribe’s possession “just because that’s the law.”
I let Valerie Turpin know that simply possessing the Native American Grave Goods without permission put them in violation of the NAGPRA laws.
She told me that the Museum had reached out to a few groups, and was working on that. I asked her if the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan, INC. was one of the groups, and informed her that I’m now the CEO of that corporation; as of January 2022.
I told Valerie that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area is the actual Ohlone Tribe of this area: Named In Treaty.
But that the California Native American Heritage Commission is the proper authority to contact, to determine who the Most Likely Descendants are, for the things in the Alameda Museum’s possession.
When it came to discussing “help”; voluminous reminders that the Alameda Museum is entirely run by volunteers, I just have to get this out of the way:
Museums are supposed to be an authority on their subject.
We expect museums to verify the authenticity and provenance of their exhibits before curating them.
Being “volunteer run” should not be an excuse for why the Alameda Museum’s exhibits are less credible than a 4th Grade Science Fair Project.
What did I want to do to help?
When the Alameda Museum and I first met: I offered to scan the entire card catalog with our production scanner that scans at 130 Pages Per Minute. This was just because I wanted to find what I was looking for; and scanning the entire catalog seemed like a win for both of us. I specifically mentioned that it would be a good time, then, because of the COVID-19 Lockdown, and this extended period of free time.
I never heard back on that offer. [I didn’t think the Alameda Museum took me seriously.]
But, I remembered. And, when I brought it up, I learned that the Alameda Museum Card Catalog had been entirely scanned, and was now in a database. That database, while not public (and still being worked on), was available to be searched only in the Alameda Museum.
So I basically asked how come the Alameda Museum didn’t just search its own database. Turpin asked me if I would help research.
I responded that the Alameda Museum has the only holdings on this subject that I haven’t seen. They (the museum) probably have the only remaining primary sources regarding this subject. And, that, once they locate their materials, that I (of course) would be able to cross-reference that with everything that I already have, and have put together.
Valerie mentioned the problem. The problem that these artifacts could be taken and locked away from the world’s view forever. And I really understand that fear. Because I feel it, too. As a lover of history. As an inquiry-based, tactile, experience-seeking, life-long learner.
I told her the California Indian Museum had the same problem. But they solved it. By “inviting contemporary Native Americans to come and make some contemporary Native American stuff.” The whole museum is filled with it. It’s in Sacramento, California. And it’s beautiful.
NOTE: This article was amended to include a brief mention of the California State Indian Museum’s solution to the idea that Native American Grave Good, Artifacts, Objects, Resources, and Other Things could simply be “locked up” and “no one could see them.” Because these Native American Artifact Laws do have a chilling effect on the activities of Museums.
“Alameda Museum: / If you won’t share our history, give our artifacts back / Celebrate the First Alamedans just / as much as your Colonizer Heroes. / Alameda’s Racist History” Title art for @AlamedaNativeHistoryProject on Instagram.com.
Alameda is a model colonial city. Their Victorian houses, and expansive gardens have been written about for hundreds of years. Regular Alameda Garden Tours, and Alameda Legacy Home Tours extoll the virtues of Alameda’s First Colonizers.
These historical celebrations routinely leave out facts, such as,
“This garden was fertilized by using human remains found in one of Alameda’s three shellmounds.”
Or,
“This sidewalk was constructed using one of the over 350 Native American bodies found in the ‘Sather’s Mound’.”
The Alameda Museum is exclusively devoted to commemorating and memorializing Alameda’s White History, while simultaneously ignoring and minimizing the existence and contributions of people of color; and the atrocities committed by those who are purported to be such heroic goliaths of Alameda History, today.
This is all done in the shadows of people like Rasheed Shabazz, someone who had to trace his own Alameda Legacy to bring us Black Alameda History, which was never touched upon, or even considered by an all-white museum staff, and curation team. [
Sure, the Alameda Museum invites us to search their archives. But the word “search” belies the onerous nature of digging through files and card catalogs which aren’t actually indexed or organized in any useful way.
People always offer us the chance to do their work for them, like it’s a favor to us.
But let’s be clear: an archive that isn’t indexed or organized is trash.
The real issue here, is that the Alameda Museum has existed for so long without ever: (a) indexing their holdings; (b) focusing on anything other than Alameda’s White History; or (c) ever asking for permission to possess the Native American Funerary Objects, and Grave Goods in their possession….
The issue of Alameda Museum’s possession of Native American Grave Goods and Funerary Objects is especially salient considering their absolute lack of respectful handling of the Historical Events Surrounding the Sather’s Mound, and the Destruction and Morbid Uses for Alameda’s Shellmounds.
Simply put;
Alameda Museum, if you’re not going to engage the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, ask for permission to possess their artifacts, and present respectful, and responsible, information regarding the First Alamedans: then you don’t deserve to possess their artifacts.
Tribal Groups of the San Francisco Bay Region. Compiled and Plotted by Gabriel Duncan, for the Alameda Native History Project. Version 2.1.5.8.21
“Tribal land claims are complex, and overlapping.”
You’ve probably heard that before.
While one group may be the most vocal about claiming their ancestral land, rest assured, there are other groups who claim that exact same place.
While it’s true Indigenous People shared many spaces with each other for a plethora of reasons, including mutual survival, the actual “Tribes” in the San Francisco Bay Area were formed thousands of years ago.
In spite of the fact that the California Native American Heritage Commission recognized corporations as Tribes, it’s important for you to recognize the difference between a corporation and a Tribe.
This is especially important Today; when seeking out indigenous people and tribes to consult with on various projects like land acknowledgements, cultural easements, land back, or deciding whether or not to pay into a “land tax” scheme.
Indigenous People/Native Americans/First People can all do something that the Bureau of Indian Affairs refers to as “Establishing Indian Ancestry”.
Proving our Ancestry, or Blood Quantum, is a common challenge Native Americans face. It may not be right, but it’s the reason we know who our nearest Full Blooded Relative is.
Blood Quantum is an ugly, racist concept. [A tribe is made of family. That’s how tribes work.]
But it’s how we separate the Elizabeth Hoovers and Ward Churchills from actual Indigenous People.
“Who’s your grandmother?” Is one of the most common questions you get asked when you talk about the rez. We keep track of who is who. It’s not hard, because it’s such a small world. But, even if we aren’t close, we’re still native; and we still look out for each other.
It’s appropriate to ask someone basic questions about their tribe, such as:
What is the name of your tribe?
Where is your tribe from?
Who is your Tribal Chairperson?
Are you enrolled in your tribe?
If they are a Tribal Chairperson, it’s okay to ask them how long their term is, and when the next elections will be held.
It’s true that the Native American Heritage Commission is the agency in California which determines the proper Tribes To Consult for NAGPRA and Planning Purposes.
But, the Native American Heritage Commission does not seem to vet the lists, judging by how many corporations are considered not only Tribes, but the “Most Likely Descendant” to Native American Burial Grounds and Cultural Resources.
Corporations cannot be Tribal Governments because the exercise of sovereign powers is not a charitable purpose. Sovereign powers include the right to repatriation of remains, as declared in the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights, article 12.
