Tag: jose guzman

  • Who, What, and Where is Lisjan?

    “Lisjan” has been referred to as a Traditional Ohlone Village Site, in East Oakland.

    Both the San Leandro Creek, and San Lorenzo Creek bear the name of “Lisjan” creek.

    But “Lisjan” isn’t even an Ohlone word.

    “Lisjan” is what Nisenan People call the city of Pleasanton, California.

    And, just to be clear: Pleasanton wasn’t called “Pleasanton” until the 1860’s. Up to that point, it was called “Alisal”, or “Alizal”, or “El Alizal”, or “Alisal Rancheria”. And, before that, Alisal was the Bernal Rancheria.

    And Nisenan People are not Maidu People. They’re totally seperate tribes.

    You could say, the present day Nisenan capitol is Nevada City, California….

    The “definition” of Lisjan, a Nisenan Word…

    In 1929, A.L. Kroeber published “The Valley Nisenan“, which contained an expansive, and categorized Nisenan vocabulary; and a decent explanation of phonetics. However, this was only a short list, which did not contain Place Names. But, this book is an indication of the linguistic study and research going on behind the scenes, in California, in the early 20th century.

    It wouldn’t be until 1966, that Hans Jørgen Uldall, would publish “Nisenan Texts and Dictionary“, with William Shipley. This volume includes some very adult stories. So, beware. But, there are Nisenan-English, and English-Nisenan dictionaries in the back.

    Uldall’s dictionary contains the entry for “Lisjan”; as a Place Name for Pleasanton, California.

    But, how did that name, get all the way up to Nisenan territory, 100 miles away from Pleasanton? And 45 years after Harrington’s interviews? Why is “Lisjan” being touted as a traditional Ohlone Village Site in deep East-Oakland, if “Lisjan” is another name for Pleasanton?

    Excerpt from “Chochenyo Field Notes” showing the word “muwekma”.

    J.P. Harrington’s “Chochenyo Field Notes” (1921)

    One of the most-cited references in Ohlone History…

    In 1921, J.P. Harrington performed a Language Survey of Native Americans in the East Bay. Harrington gathered numerous languages during this time, including the “Chocheño” language; which is known as the East Bay Ohlone language, today. Despite being deeply flawed, and extremely sus at times, this document continues to be a primary influence on mainstream discussions about Ohlone History in the San Francisco Bay Area.

    One of Harrington’s interviewees was a man by the name of Jose Guzman. Guzman was interviewed, along with a man named “Angelo”, and a third man who is known as “informant”–presumably, Harrington’s fixer. Francisca is another interviewee who appears separately from Jose and Angelo, most times.

    As a digital file this document is 2.3 gigabytes large. It has 355 pages of original scans. It is entirely hand-written in cursive. [J. Alden Mason’s “Plains Miwok, Chocehnyo Field Notes”, from 1916, actually are written in cursive.] And uses a mix of Chochenyo, Spanish, and English (in that order.)

    This volume is incredibly informative. Even though, a good portion of the information provided by Jose Guzman, and Angelo become problematic in many places–when viewed in context with later anthropological work, and the lack of clear attribution to a speaker (if any) in many of the entries. This is a problem with Harrington, really.

    A majority of contemporary work on East Bay Ohlone People cite J.P. Harrington’s “Chochenyo Field Notes”, from 1921.

    This document is never more than one step removed from almost any article or research paper.

    But who’s actually read it? As daunting as these tomes look in the beginning: I have to be honest, and tell you, it’s not as bad as it seems. 355 pages of hand-written notes goes kind of quickly if you can hang with the kind of Spanglish that’s spoken on many a rez, today.

    It’s easy to get a feel for the personalities of the interviewees by how their interviews progress; and even the type of setting. Some interviews were taken at gatherings. There are write-ups of methods of fabrication for food and tools; songs; as well as old stories, passed down to Jose Guzman. Harrington’s hand-writing also changes, depending on the speed of the information he’s being given, and whether or not he’s having a good day. Sometimes, he had to switch pens, until ultimately finding a pencil.

    In the beginning, Harrington focuses on the basics. Where are you from? What’s the name of your tribe? Have you heard of these people? Can you tell me the history of this place?

    Harrington wouldn’t ask twice about something the same day. He would circle back to it again, on another day.

    As his notes progress, the words move to phrases. The lists become Chocheño lists, with Spanish or English translation.

    This is how “Lisjan” kept popping up.

    Harrington’s Synthesis of Chocheño VS. The Way Chocheño Was Actually Being Spoken

    Aside from where the notes explicitly said who the speaker was, or whether or not the interviewees agree, it’s difficult to tell the difference between Harrington’s own ideas and synthesis of Chocheño; and the Chocheño language as it was actually spoken.

    The following entry shows how Harrington took a variation of the phrase “makin miwikma” (we are good people), and applied it to “lisjan”, to form “lisjanikma”–which, to Harrington’s understanding of Chocheño, means “lisjan people”.

    makin lisjanikma, we are lisjanes. approved lisjanikma but could not get tongue around it.”

    The result was a valid form of the word. But not a word which was actually in use; or even really pronounceable.

    This would continue on the next page, with:

    makin Jinijmin, somos muchachos, cannot say *makin jinijminka inf. tells me clearly

    ‘aji jinijmin mak[n]ote, puros muchachos estamos aqui”

    Hand-writing is unclear for “mak[n]ote”, “mak[in]ote”, “mak[s]ote”, “mak[‘n]ote”…

    This is when I started suspecting there may have been drinking involved in some of these later sessions with Jose Guzman and Angelo. (Because it looks like they’re having fun, and getting kinda goofy at times.) The informant’s answer seems to say more about the philosophy, or [machismo] culture, of the group being interviewed. I can actually see it playing out:

    You can’t just say, “We’re some men.”
    You have to say, “Puros muchachos estamos aqui!”

    It was at this point, that I started noticing the strong Spanish-language influence in many of these examples of Chocheño given to Harrington by Chocheño speakers.

    References to “Lisjan”

    Page 54:
    The Ind. name of the Chocheños is lisianij.

    In the first few pages, we find an entry that says the “Indian Name” of the Chocheños is “Lisjan“.

    This may seem like an authoritative, and all-encompassing reference. But the specifics change over time.

    Page 59:
    lisjanis, In. Infor. They said that S.Jose was an early mission [upside-down triangle symbol]; they called the Inds. here sometimes los viejos cristianos. Jose knows this trbu. too and uses it every day, in talking to me.

    In the next entry, we find out that San Jose Mission Indians were also called “los viejos cristianos”.

    We also find out that Jose Guzman references San Jose Mission Indians this way, as well. No location information is given yet. But that changes.

    Soon, there are distinctions made between who is, and who isn’t Lisjan.

    On page 95 of the PDF, a paragraph begins with “lisjanes were the San Jose.” It goes on to say that, neither the Doloreños, nor the Clareños, were Lisjanes.

    Page 95:
    lisjanes were the San Jose — the name covered up as far as S. Lorenzo Angelo thinks. 8ing. lisjan. yo soy lisjan. The Doloreños were not lisjanes, nor were the Clareños.
    [Mention of Dumbarton Rail Bridge (opened 1910) at bottom of page?]

    This entry includes a little more information about location. It states that the name Lisjan covered up as far as San Lorenzo. This is interesting, because the very first entry said Lisjan is the “Indian Name” of the Chocheños.

    It’s also interesting, because the Chocheño-speaking Indians at San Lorenzo were called “Los Nepes”. Which means, they were considered a completely different group by Harrington’s interviewees.

    Unfortunately, this entry only gives us a rough northern boundary to a possible Lisjan “territory”, certainly not enough information to pin to a certain geographic region. This also means that “Lisjan” was definitely not located in present-day Oakland, at all.

    Pages 105-106:
    kana lisjanka, yo soy lisjan.
    makin lisjanikma, we are lisjanes. approved lisjanikma but could not get tongue around it.

    The next entries that we see, are on pages 105 and 106. While the phrases “yo so lisjan”, and “we are lisjanes” are present; so is a real problem.

    There is no distinction between the words and phrases that are actually used/spoken in Chocheño–and given to Harrington; and, the words and phrases J.P. Harrington created, or invented, on his own, and “pitched” to his informant, and interviewees.

    Using the information found in Harrington’s notes, I prepared the following visual aids.

    I wanted to find the answers to a number of questions I had:

    1. Where is Lisjan? Is it in Oakland, Pleasanton, or somewhere else?
    2. Who are the Lisjanes? Are they a specific group, or family?
    3. Regarding what Angelo said about a Northern Boundary for Lisjan: is it possible the boundaries for Lisjan fall within the historic bounds of Mission San Jose?
    Map showing Historic Place Names, Mission San Jose, and approximate North and South Mission Lands boundaries, as surveyed in 1852.

    Where is Lisjan? Is it in Oakland, Pleasanton, or somewhere else?

    [If this is the only document you’re going by….] And, if the Northern bounds of the name “Lisjan”, were located just before San Lorenzo, that means that:

    1. Lisjan was not located in Oakland.
    2. Lisjan was not bound by the historical Mission San Jose property lines.
    3. Pleasanton was probably not called “Lisjan” by locals.

    Who are the Lisjanes? Are they a specific group, or family?

    Not much light is shed on who the Lisjanes are. While Jose Guzman probably declared himself Lisjan; it’s unclear the extent of Angelo’s affiliation to the name. At one point, one man touches his chest and tells Harrington that he is Lisjan in name, but his heart is from somewhere else.

    Does this mean that Lisjan is somehow a transitory, or new affiliation based on where someone lives, now? Is this person simply saying something akin to, “I left my heart in San Francisco?” Or, “My heart yearns for home?” Or even something like, “This heart was made somewhere else; my blood pumps the blood of my ancestors, from a different place than here?”

    We are told that the San Jose’s are Lisjan. The indian name for Chocheños from Mission San Jose are Lisjan. Indians from Santa Clara, and Dolores are definitely not Lisjan. Los Nepes aren’t Lisjan, either. And a tribe, from Sunol, the name of which no one could remember, was never affiliated with Lisjan.

    This was one of the reasons I began to suspect that the bounds of Lisjan could be tied to the property lines of Mission San Jose.

    But, alas, no matter which San Lorenzo you draw the Northern boundary of the name Lisjan upon, they always exceed the extent of mission property lines.

    Stay tuned.


    References:

  • 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)

  • Fallon Statue Removal in San Jose Cause For Hope & Celebration

    On the morning of Friday, August 4th, 2023, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Centro Aztlan Chicomoztoc, their supporters, members of the press, and San Jose government officials (and their designees.) Gathered at the site where a statue of Captain Thomas Fallon was “immortalized” in bronze to commemorate the moment when Fallon rose American Flag for the first time, in San Jose, 1846; and which symbolized the second time this land was stolen.

    However, the statue was no longer there, at the intersection of Julian and St. James, in what’s no known as San Jose, California. The statue was removed on April 25, 2023.

    This meeting was to cleanse the land beneath the concrete and roadways of this area. (The place where the Guadalupe River flowed. Where the Muwekma Ohlone ancestors lived for thousands of years.)

    Charlene Nijmeh speaking at site of former Holiday Inn, where her mother Rosemary Cambra, fought to protect Muwekma ancestral remains unearthed by archeologists right here.

    Charlene Nijmeh, Muwekma Chairwoman said we gathered at the former site of a symbol of oppression and genocide, “To give prayers to our ancestors; and also to give them hope.”

    And, to show that Ohlone people are still here, and that their voices will not be silenced.

    The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is trying to break the silence on their fight for Federal Recognition, Sovereign Rights, and Land Grants that the tribe rightfully deserves. Things which are granted to Federally Recognized Tribes as a matter of law.

    They want all of these things without the concessions Bay Area Congressional Representative want them to make. Concessions like money for education, and limits on rights affecting the tribe’s long term development and survival.

    San Jose City Council voted unanimously to remove the Fallon Statue on November 9, 2021.

    San Jose Councilmember Peter Ortiz–who led the movement to remove the Christopher Colombus statue from San Jose’s City Hall– recognized the Fallon statue as another reference to the culture of colonialism. He said it sends the wrong message; that we need healing from the violence of the past.

    “The monument symbolized, unfortunately, oppression, it symbolized injustice,” San Jose Councilmember Omar Torres said, “I’m just glad that it’s gone.”

    Peter Ortiz’, and Omar Torres’ pledge to co-write, and introduce a resolution fully recognizing the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area as a “Tribe”, could be the start of the silence surrounding Muwekma’s efforts finally ending.

    Today’s events would start with a cleansing at the former site of the statue, followed by a procession around downtown San Jose to show people historic places which are important to Indigenous and Latinx Communities.

    Left to Right: Miwok Elder Razzle, Charlene Nijmeh (Facing), Centro Aztlan Chicomoztoc (Back to camera), Joey Torres, Muwekma Tribal Members and Supporters Surrounding.

    Controversial from the beginning…

    The early history of the fight to remove the Fallon statue. As told to me by Kathy Chávez Napoli, a Mountain Maidu Elder, and core member of the original group fighting the statue, along with Javier Salazar (who started it), and Felix Arcano. With help from Yolanda Reynolds, and more. I was honored to have met one of the people who fought the installation of the statue from its commission in 1988, and to receive this oral history.

    Centro Aztlan Chicomoztoc Rep. (Left), Kathy Chavez Napoli (right) being recognized during celebrations at St. James Park.

    About the Controversy

    The controversy around the statue stemmed from the fact that it blatantly romanticized American colonization; was a symbol of land theft (the annexation of Mexican land), oppression, and the dark and violent nature of the creation of America literally on top of the bones of Indigenous people.

    There were also serious questions about whether or not Thomas Fallon even deserved to have a statue erected in his honor. Fallon gave himself the rank of captain; it wasn’t actually awarded to him in any official manner. And, John D. Sloat was the one who was ordered to land on Alta California and raise the American flag. Sloat simply gave the flag to Fallon.

    Mayor McEnery’s Book About Fallon Was Fiction

    Aside from those cultural and subject matter objections to the statue, there was also the fact that Tom McEnery wrote a book about Captain Thomas Fallon which was supposed to be based on Thomas Fallon’s journals. And the “historical facts” gleaned from these journal were used to bolster the Mayor McEnery’s argument for commissioning and installing the statue.

    It was later revealed that Thomas Fallon kept no such journal, and the entire book itself was historical (fan) fiction written by Tom McEnery, himself.

    Mayor Tom McEnery, meanwhile, was able to personally commission this art project (in 1988)–with a budget of $250k–which ended up costing $800k; and would require another $500K for installation and infrastructure. (Which is about $1.9M in 2023 dollars for the statue, and about $1.1M for installation and infrastructure.)

    But, where did the money even come from? How did the Mayor Manage to amass the money to pay for the statue? And how did he intend to pay for the installation and infrastructure on top of that?

    This was the fact that moved so many people to action.

    Outcry Over Lack of Accountability Exclusion of Public Input

    Kathy Chávez Napoli remembers the reaction to this sudden, and extreme expenditure: “Wait a minute, we don’t even have stop lights at certain places and you want to spend $800 thousand dollars on a person that you wrote a book about?!

    Tom McEnery (the Mayor at that time) had leveraged an alarming amount of public funds from the city to pay for it. This was possible because of the passage of Measure “G” which gave the mayor of San Jose more power to act without certain checks and balances (like City Council or Committee Approval/Review).

    “Tom McEnery, at the time, was the most powerful mayor that San Jose had ever had.” Kathy Chávez Napoli told me, “They passed Measure G; it gave him a lot more power than the mayor had ever had, prior. And he had never been challenged. And so, when we challenged him, that was his first defeat.”

    The Fallon protestors had managed to make their points heard, and break through the noise with verifiable facts, in black and white, on paper. An advisory committee was created.

    “Because of that we were able to get a lot more support and they formed the Historic Art Council. I was appointed, Javiar was appointed. And we voted to destroy it, but we were out-voted.”

    However: the statue was never installed in its intended place, or anywhere else. For a decade the statue sat in storage, somewhere in Oakland, California….

    Until it was installed by Mayor Ron Gonzalez. At what’s now a bare median, at Julian & St. James, in downtown San Jose.

    Storage Costs and Locations Still A Mystery

    “We never knew how much it cost to be in storage, in Oakland, for ten years.” Kathy said, “They never would tell us. They never would tell us where the location was.”

    Referring to Mayor Gonzalez’ decision to reinstall the offensive statue, “… we said, ‘When it goes up, it’s gonna get vandalized.’ And ever since it’s gone up, it’s always getting vandalized. Always.”

    “It should never have been there. It should never have even been created.” Kathy told me, “And that’s how we were able to bring so many people in the community together to oppose it.”

    Commenting on how long it took for the statue to finally be removed, Kathy Chavez turned to me and said:

    All of our work, all of the work of all the community has been vindicated. And it doesn’t always happen right when you hope it does. But it happens! What better win?

    Kathy Chávez Napoli

    As I listened to the presentations from Muwekma Tribal Chairwoman Charlene Nijmeh, Muwekma Tribal Member Joey Torres, Muwekma Youth Ambassador, Muwekma Tribal Members, Miwok Elder Razzle, SCU Prof. Lee Panich, SJSU Anthropologist & Archeologist Gustavo Flores, and the Speaker for Centro Aztlan Chicomoztoc–who described some of the horrors of the mission system….

    Centro Aztlan Chicomoztoc Presenting at Plaza De Cesar Chavez
    It became more apparent how the removal of public art dedicated to the symbols of oppression, land theft, and white supremacy can open up pathways to healing wounds that we can’t always see.

    That the removal of these blocks can also open up our eyes to see other places where we could do better. New opportunities to create pathways for healing on a community level. Something which is needed more often than not in area where wide disparities exist.

    George Floyd’s murder (May 25, 2020) by police is what sparked the unanimous urgency behind the the deaccession and removal ordinance passed by the San Jose City Council on November 9, 2021.

    The ensuing protests, and the birth of the Black Lives Matter, Defund Police Movement, Me Too, Missing Murdered Indigenous Movement, and more, reignited the struggle for civil rights which had remained dormant until then. It let loose our collective energy, which had been pent up and held back not just by our collective oppression, but our repression, and our silence.

    All of these events helped people wake up and realize that there is a gap in the way people are treated in our society.

    That the economic, justice, and welfare systems in American society were created to exclude nonwhite society members; or, include them in a predatory, exploitive way, which made the cost of inclusion too great a price to bear.

    Because our eyes were open to the injustices and injuries visited upon other people by an unjust system created to oppress and subjugate them….

    Because we were able to empathize with the pain and struggles of someone else who did not look like us….

    Because we, as a society, started practicing restorative justice instead of making proclamations to do so, we have been able to move forward, and imagine a future which includes everyone.

    “This is a we thing.” Miwok Elder Razzle told us, inviting us to share and participate in the cleansing ceremony, directly, as several people shared songs.

    The removal of the Fallon Statue, and the introduction of a resolution fully recognizing Muwekma as a “Tribe” are the first steps in the journey towards the official recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    Muwekma Tribal Member Joey Torres talked about how our ancestors got use ready for this moment, how we are reawakening and searching for knowledge stored deep inside.

    Miwok Elder Razzle talked about the seventh generation, and said this would not have been possible if the youth and young adults of today hadn’t spoken up and taken the lead on a battle that started so long ago.

    We are at an interesting moment in time when the Seventh Generation is now beginning to take the lead as our elders begin to transition. Let’s do them proud and make sure we leave something good for the next seven generations.


    You can help support this journey, too, by helping to support your local tribe and indigenous community.

    You can help the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe’s fight for re-affirmation of their status as a Federally Recognized tribe. Find out more on the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area’s website.

    You can also encourage your local leaders and politicians to acknowledge the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe with a formal Land Acknowledgement.

    Not Sure If You’re In Muwekma Territory?

    The aboriginal homeland of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe includes the following counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, most of Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and portions of Napa, Santa Cruz, Solano and San Joaquin

    From Muwekma.org

    What about the “Chochenyo Ohlone”, and the “Lisjan Ohlone”?

    Chochenyo is a dialect of the Ohlone language, spoken in parts of the East Bay. Jose Guzman, a famous Ohlone leader, who referred to himself as “Lisjanes”. [“Yo soy Lisjan.”]

    Jose Guzman was thought to be “the last Chochenyo speaker” until the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe began speaking and learning their language again. He was a member of the Federally Recognized Verona Band of Alameda County.

    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.

    So, every time you recognize the “Chochenyo Ohlone“, or the “Lisjan Ohlone“, or Lisjanikma, you’re recognizing the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. “Muwekma” means la gente.
  • One More Reason Why Land Acknowledgment is Important: Letter to Museum of San Ramon Valley

    The following is an email sent to John Keenan, volunteer at the Museum of the San Ramon Valley, in reply to his request for topics for Zoom Lectures at the museum:

    Land Acknowledgement is an important step in naming and acknowledging the people who actually belong to this land. It’s a proclamation that has no legal implications, as far as I can tell. But it is the first step in naming the people whose land you are on, and acknowledging the circumstances which forced them off of it, and into obscurity. It is an attempt to undo the continuing erasure (or omission) of the history of our people, and one way to begin the process of inviting Native American people to be a part of the planning process; as well as to make space for the representation of the actual lived experiences of Native American people.

    By acknowledging this land is Ohlone territory, you are honoring Ohlone people by referring to them by the name that they chose for themselves. And you are helping to correct the inaccurate representations of who has been here (“since time immemorial”–but at least for [7,000] years.)

    Many times, historical societies, and museums refuse to acknowledge, or take seriously the factual (historical) background of this place. But it only takes the introduction and study of archeological, ethnographic, and direct statements by Native People, in the last 50 years for one to realize, and determine that this is indeed Ohlone Territory.

    For instance, the last recorded tribal group in your area was the Verona Band of Indians, they appeared in at least two Indian Censuses, J.P. Harrington’s Research, and most recently in Randall Milliken’s detailed and thorough analysis of Mission Records. The Verona Band of Indians was recognized as a tribe by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and is known today as the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, which claims the entire San Ramon Valley area as their homeland. Furthermore, overtures made to the existence of groups in places like “Lisjan”, are direct references to places where Ohlone people lived and worked on ranches in the post-Mission Period–as “Lisjan” is a Maidu place name for Pleasanton, California.

    Inline attachment: image showing Muwekma Tribal Territory, “Some of the Direct Muwekma Ohlone Lineal Descendant Tribal Districts and Villages”

    In spite of this, museums and historical societies, such as the Museum of the San Ramon Valley, continue to insist that the tribal groups of your area were Miwok; when, in fact, they were Miwok-speaking Ohlone People. And the only reason Ohlone people were misidentified was because of the blind reliance on the languages spoken by the Native People here as the sole identifying indicator of a tribe’s identity. This, of course, is a result of the fact Miwok was the primary language spoken in California Missions. (However, Jose Guzman, pictured below, spoke Chochenyo, which is an Ohlone language.)

    By continuing to misidentify Ohlone people–who are alive and well today–and refusing to acknowledge their lives, and contributions to this area, is continuing to omit large portions of a rich and interesting history, some of which can only be presented by Ohlone People, themselves. This is aside from the reliance upon, and repetition of, what’s widely seen as explicitly racist, antiquated, and offensive language and references to Native American People, often still seen in museums, and historical societies, today.

    [Inline attachments: 1. picture of Ohlone ancestor, Jose (“Joe”) Guzman, seated in a chair, holding a cane, on a ranch in Niles, California–unidentified woman standing behind him, perhaps one of his daughters;
    (2.) Jose Guzman’s son, and grand-children, also in Niles, California. Both pictures were taken in 1934.]

    It is for these reasons, among many others, that Land Acknowledgement is an important facet to honoring the people of this area. But it is also a step forward in presenting accurate historical information, and respectful representation, of the people whose land you are on, and benefit from.

    It is also for these reasons (among many others) I would be unable to present information about Native People in the San Ramon Valley area under the guise that they are “Miwok”. Because I know this is a false representation of the facts.

    Please find the attached “Muwekma Greeting”, an official document published by the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. It is extremely thorough and detailed; the most pertinent facts have been verified and augmented by the Bureau of Indian Affair’s own Research and Acknowledgement Division.

    I hope this will help you as you consider which topics and information the Museum of the San Ramon Valley chooses to present to the public. I am copying this email to the museum’s main email address, as well.

    Very truly yours,

    Gabriel Duncan


    Attachment: “Muwekma Greeting”

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

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

    The primary language for the Mission San Jose was Miwok.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Anyway, these established facts were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Despite some of the most “authorative”, widely publicized, even celebrated source material on the “Indians of California” at her finger-tips.

    In her own citations.

    Somehow….

    Merlin writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But the issue still lingers:

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

    Why didn’t they check the citations?

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

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

    What about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What did I want to do to help?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yeah.

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

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

    We left it there.


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

    Stay tuned to find out what happens next.

    NOTE: This article was amended to include a brief mention of the California State Indian Museum’s solution to the idea that Native American Grave Good, Artifacts, Objects, Resources, and Other Things could simply be “locked up” and “no one could see them.” Because these Native American Artifact Laws do have a chilling effect on the activities of Museums.
  • Is Corrina Gould Really Related to Jose Guzman? How come she isn’t enrolled in Muwekma? (And other nosy questions, because Rachel Dolezal, and Elizabeth Warren)

    It’s rude to question someone’s pedigree, generally.

    But it’s a necessary challenge in Native America that every single one of us faces multiple times in our lives.

    We want to know who someone is related to when they say they’re Paiute, or Karkin–’cause they’re probably related to us somehow, or we know some of the same people. It’s a small world. We keep track of our own, and each other’s blood quantum. Because it’s important.

    But we also want to make sure that people aren’t coming in and faking. Collecting money for a cause, but really keeping it for themselves. Taking our benefits because the American Government did all these terrible things to us. (It’s a well established fact that the U.S. Government just said **** the treaties.)

    Claiming Native American Heritage when you don’t have any, is like wearing a Purple Heart you didn’t earn. Just like with wearing a medal you didn’t give a piece of yourself in the defense of this country to earn; owning and displaying eagle feathers is super illegal if you’re not Native American.

    But most of time there is no legitimate consequence for being a “fake indian”. There are so many cheap knock-off’s, and bad copies, I’m not surprised you can’t tell the difference.

    For example: Elizabeth Warren is a classic caricature of the “cherokee princess” scenario. And, apparently Ward Churchill was our Rachel Dolezal before she ever decided to put on black face. But, you know what? There are a lot of fake shaman and medicine men out there, feeding the world this mainstream, kumbaya B.S. about the colors of the wind or something; and collecting your money for some sus ceremony with a raggy owl wing.

    This is why we have a problem with Instragram Accounts like “NativeAmericanLovess”, or “NativeAmericanSpiritLoves”… They are fronts for stores that sell art that does nothing but fetishize real Native Americans; and make owning, wearing, and using our sacred ceremonial items a game.

    These people are making money off of our likeness, our trauma, and our pain. They are making cheap knock-offs of our culture, and identity. And White America is just eating it up. Shelling out bills to go to “Hiawatha” ceremonies. Paying to play Indian.

    And it’s the people who sell these images. The ones who say their grandma, six great-grandmas ago was Cherokee. Who went to one of those ceremonies, and smoked some tobacco with some other herbs out of a “peace pipe”, contacted their animal guide, and is now some kind of “ordained” “Native American Church” spiritual guru leader shaman chief medicine man.

    These are the people we want to stay away from us. The people we don’t want to share our knowledge and beliefs with. Because, these people, will appropriate it all, and try to find a way to make money off it.

    This might be an explanation of why we don’t want to talk about this stuff under the White Gaze. Because it’s “Indian Stuff”. But we can’t stand interlopers. This is why pedigree is important.

    But just because the person who made the argument is invalid, the argument itself is not necessarily invalid.

    As much as we hate to admit it, these people who made us look like fools also contributed greatly to their respective causes. And the organizations they were associated with ultimately survived the scandal. But neither Ward Churchill, nor Rachel Dolezal were who they said they were.

    And it wasn’t until years after they started their charades, that they were finally exposed. Up until then, people had been too afraid to ask, to timid to confront, past attempts had failed. It’s much easier to attack the person making the argument, than the argument itself.

    And people honestly want to believe the lie. It’s better than admitting to themselves they’ve been lied to this whole time. Better not to risk being wrong. Not be rude, or mean. Or look racist.

    But, let me be clear:

    Pedigree is necessary for Tribal Enrollment, and to receive State, and Federal Benefits. It’s a racist system, based in eugenics. It’s even more distasteful than it sounds, when you are subjected to it. [Yes, I have been subjected to this same test. Same level of scrutiny that every other person who claims to be Native American is subjected to.]

    We are turned into “subjects”.

    Equated with Hermann J. Muller’s radioactive flies.

    Maybe that’s too obscure….

    But it’s normal for us to ask each other who our grandmothers are, and how much Indian we are. It’s a standard test.

    So don’t act shook that I took the time to look into Corrina Gould’s genealogy. Maybe the “White Gaze” is afraid to ask. But, after Ward Churchill, and Rachel Dolezal…. And the discovery of Corrina Gould’s 1997 conviction for fraud…. I think it’s important to ask.

    Who are these people?

    Flora Freda Munoz, and Jose Guzman are two very well-known and important family members associated with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Verona Band Proxy–which is the historical name for this group of inter-related Native American people, who used to live in the Alisal Rancheria (near the Verona train station, Pleasanton area), Niles, San Leandro… It’s a specific list because the BIA documents–mentioned below–stick to Indian Censuses, including one of a place called “Indian Town”, near pleasanton, in the late 1920’s. Researchers think this may be the Alisal Rancheria.

    Much of the information about the Muwekma Family Tree that I gathered was pieced together from the Proposed Finding, and Final Determination Upon The Criterion re: Federal Recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, in 2011.

    Muwekma Ohlone Tribe Family Tree,
    using BIA Proposed Find and Final Determination re: Petition for Federal Recognition

    However, I later found the public Galvan Stenstrom Family Tree on Ancestry.com, and found that to be the most authoritative reference to the descendants of the Verona Band. Even so, I still compared it with the information in the BIA documents, as you will see later.

    The public Galvan Stenstrom Family Tree is massive. It has hundreds of individuals; was created, and contributed to by Muwekma Family members, as well as the Ancestry.com people… Who are based in Utah, by the way. It’s really amazing the amount of research that went into the families comprising the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. It’s truly crowd-sourced.

    To research Corrina Gould, I used Public Records, Newspapers, various statements and interviews of Corrina Gould, and litany of databases at Ancestry.com. I also found the “Gould Family Tree”. (More about that later.) In all cases, I began searching for the individual first, and didn’t discover or access the family trees until I wanted to check/challenge my work.

    Corrina Gould, “On the Record”

    In 2014, Corrina Gould contributed an autobiographical oral history to “Ohlone Elders & Youth Speak: Restoring a California Legacy”. In her contribution, Gould revealed her grandmother was “Flora Munoz”, and that her great grandfather was “Jose Guzman”.

    In 2015, in an interview regarding the canonization of Junipero Serra, Gould volunteered an explanation of how she was related to Andrew Galvan:

    “I’m actually related to Andy Galvan…” Gould explained Andrew Galvan is the docent at Mission Dolores, in San Francisco. She continued, “Our relation is that our grandmothers, six great-grandmothers back were sisters.”

    Corrina Gould, Episode 58 of “Iconocast”, recorded 09/23/2015.

    A more recent article, from May 25, 2021, states that Corrina Gould’s mother was taken to Chemawa Indian School, in Salem, Oregon.

    Oddly, it seems that Corrina Gould hasn’t mentioned her own mother by name. So, that was where I started.

    Statements about Corrina Gould’s family. (Mostly made by Gould herself.)

    I was able to find the Gould Family Tree, on Ancestry.com, after I had failed at finding any links to Flora Munoz or Jose Guzman in numerous Public Records searches.

    But I was able to find Gould’s late husband, Paul Gould Jr., and her late brother, Anthony Tucker. (Both died in the first half of 2021.) And her children, and children’s families. So, from public records, I was able to find Corrina Gould, her immediate family and brothers. I was not able to find any ancestry information.

    However, the information I found in public records helped me verify the Gould Family Tree, to a certain extent. On Ancestry.com, living people are masked. So the living descendants of Fred Edward Tucker, Paul Gould Sr., and Jesse L. Aceves were mostly hidden.

    There were hints, though. Like links to individuals who weren’t masked, who were already known. It didn’t take too much time to verify that I was looking at the family trees of Corrina Gould, and her, and her mother’s, first husbands.

    Don’t worry. I made charts.

    Excerpt from the “Gould Family Tree”. Problematic for obvious reasons.

    So, I found the Gould Family tree (excerpt above). But I also found it critically lacking in verifiable information. The birth and death date for “John Munoz” and “Victoria Marin” do not appear, for instance. [And John Munoz’s death date?! That says six years before Corrina’s mother was even born! WTFITS?!]…

    Flora Munoz–Corrina’s grandmother–isn’t refered to as “Flora Freda Munoz”, which is the true name of the Muwekma Family Member, who was the daughter of Victoria Marine.

    This is not an attempt at being facetious. Middle names matter. Try going to a bank with a court order to access your grandma’s safe deposit box, and being turned away because the judge didn’t include her middle name.

    It also matters because, on its face, the birth and death dates are already different. There’s a divergence between what Corrina Gould has said about her ancestry, and what bears out in the facts and evidence.

    Genealogy Logic Bomb

    This is where I started getting confused. There were at least two logic-bombs here; and I didn’t want to be misled by something that was probably put together really quickly, with the intention to correct later.

    I made a timeline of Joanne Guzman’s life, according to her daughter, Corrina Gould; so I could address one of Corrina Gould’s other claims, that Joanne Guzman had been taken to Chemawa Indian School.

    Joanne Guzman Timeline

    According to the established timeline of the Muwekma Tribe/Verona Band, the children of Flora Freda Munoz, and John “Jack” Guzman–John Jr. and Rayna–were sent to boarding school, twice. The first time in 1928, when Flora was sick. And the second was from 1944-1947 at the Chemawa Indian Highschool, when Corrina Gould’s mom, Joanne Guzman, was only 4.

    This means–according to this Ancestry.com thing: Corrina’s Uncle, John, would have been 8 in 1944. And her aunt, Rayna, would have been 6. None of Corrina Gould’s mom’s siblings were highschool age in the years between 1944, and 1947, when the Muwekma Family member John Guzman Jr., was determined to be 5/8 indian, and allowed to enroll in Chemawa–with his sister, Rayna, following a year later.

    Although, a typographical error in the 1940 US Census marks Joanne Guzman as “2” or “0”, the Birth Certificate for “Joan” Guzman, dated Jan-7-1940 helps add clarity; when the Father and Mother’s names are taken into full account.

    Examination of “Joanne Guzman’s” Family

    It wasn’t until I pulled the hard copies of both Corrina (Tucker) Gould, and Joanne Guzman’s birth certificates, that I was really able to illustrate the differences between the two families.

    Once that was done, I pulled together all of the dates, and sources, and put them back into another chart, so I could compare the information side-by-side.

    From this comparison, it appears that these are two different family trees. And, while the names of Joanne Guzman’s family, match those of Flora Freda Munoz, and John Guzman’s: they are not the same.

    But let’s look closer at Joan Guzman’s birth certificate:

    Guzman, Joan (Birth Certificate)Official Muwekma Records
    Mother: 22 (1918)Flora Freda Munoz: 1917
    Father: 37 (1903)John Paul “Jack” Guzman: 1902
    These dates match within a year. Only one “Joan Guzman” was born in Alameda County between 1940, and 1944.

    After reviewing this information, and comparing it to the Ancestry.com “Gould Family Tree”, it looks like the Gould Family tree is super wrong… But Joanne Guzman might really be the unknown daughter of the Jose Guzman and Flora Freda Munoz!

    There is still the issue of the Guzman Family in the 1940 US Census…

    Name, Relation to Head, Gender, Race, Age, [Approx. Birth Year]
    Guzman John, Head, M, W, 37, [1903]
    Flora, Wife, F, W, 23, [1917]
    John “Jr.”, Son, M, W, 4, [1936]
    Rayna, Daughter, F, W, 2, [1938]
    Joanne [check mark], Daughter, F, W, [two crossed out] 0, [1940]

    Wait….

    Before we solve this… I need to remind you that John Guzman Jr., and Rayna Guzman were both “Highschool Age” (13 or 14), in 1944, and 1945 respectively–when they were sent to Chemawa Indian School, which was a highschool since 1927.

    This means John Guzman Jr. was born sometime around 1931/32; Rayna Guzman around 1933/34.

    Or, just counting back four years from 1944, John Guzman Jr. would be about 10, making Rayna about 9.

    Joanne’s
    Birth Certificate
    Official Muwekma1940 US Census
    John Guzman361902 (38)37
    Flora Munoz221917 (23)23
    John Guzman Jr.null[10]4
    Rayna Guzmannull[9]2
    Joanne Guzman0null0
    [Discussed above.] Joanne’s birth cert. only has parental info.
    No official Muwekma Documents mention Joanne Guzman.

    So, First Actions On:

    1. Downgrade “Gould Family Tree” to “Unreliable”. (Even though the birth info for Joanne Guzman was legit.)
    2. Marvel at how similar these two families really are (in name only.)
    3. Note the age differences between the ages of Flora Freda Munoz’ family, and Flora Munoz’ family.
    4. Joanne Guzman is still not listed in any official Muwekma Records.
    5. Joanne Guzman is found in the 1940 U.S. Census, in a family bearing almost the exact same names as Flora Fred Munoz’ family.
    6. Decide whether it’s more likely that Corrina Gould’s mother is the long lost daughter of John Paul “Jack” Guzman, and Flora Freda Munoz; or the exact match Joanne Guzman, born in 1940, to a family with principally the same names as the aforementioned.

    Given the age differences between Joanne’s siblings, to the established ages of John Guzman Jr., and Rayna Guzman in 1944, it seems unlikely that Corrina Gould’s mother–Joanne Guzman–is related to Flora Freda Munoz, or John Paul “Jack” Guzman.

    This would also suggest Corrina Gould is not related to Andrew Galvan.

    While it is true that Corrina Gould’s grandmother really is “Flora Munoz”; and that her mother’s family, closely resembles a well known Muwekma family:

    No direct evidence was found that ties Corrina Gould to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, or the Verona Band.

    However:

    [Update added on May-29-2023]

    Alan LeventhalMuwekma Ohlone Tribal Ethno-Historian and Archeologist–confirmed at the December 6, 2022 Indigenous Listening Session of the Alameda City Council, that Corrina Gould is related to the tribe.

    The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, has recently confirmed that Corrina Gould is a recognized descendant of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    It’s also true that Corrina Gould could be enrolled in the Muwekma Tribe.

    It would be great to see Corrina drop the façade and actually fight for, and help contribute to her real tribe; because, right now, she’s managed to take all the attention and support away from the people she actually belongs to.