We’re proud to announce the re-release of the Indigenous Bay Hoodie.
Newly redesigned to provide exquisite detail and unparalleled accuracy in local Native American History. Rep your support for Ohlone people by wearing your land acknowledgment.
This hoodie features the Indigenous Bay Bart Map design, highlighting the Ohlone Villages and Tribal Regions with Indigenized station and airport names, and regional callouts in the same style and design you every time you take BART.
Available in Regular ($35) and Premium ($55) versions, this hoodie is perfect for the Bay Area’s temperate climate!
It’s time the Bureau of Indian Affairs recognizes the existence of California Tribes.
There are a lot of problems with the Tribal Recognition Process administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Tribal Acknowledgment. But it’s their absolute resolve to stonewall almost every petitioner that dissuades many legitimate California Tribes from ever filing their petition.
When tribes are denied Tribal Acknowledgment by the BIA; the decision is almost absolutely always final. Forever.
Meaning tribes which fail to properly plead their case, or prove their continuous existence as a community, (or show a government-to-government relationship with the US,) will never be able to petition for Tribal Acknowledgment ever again.
Those Letters of Intent reserve the Tribes’ rights to file the petition at a later date.
But, because the BIA obfuscates what should be a simplified process, in an earnest attempt by the government to make good on its Trust Responsibility to Native Americans….
And, because the government has treated Tribes with hostility, denied their appeals, and left them with no recourse, and no hope to re-petition, ever….
Other tribes who haven’t submitted their petitions are beginning to think it’s easier to live a landless, nomadic existence, without the access to healthcare, housing, and homeland that so many other federally recognized tribes enjoy.
Because the alternative (permanent denial of Tribal Acknowledgment) could shut their tribe out, forever. Who wants to be the person who did that?
It’s not fair.
But there is hope!
The United States Department of the Interior is seeking input on a proposal to create a conditional, time-limitedopportunity for denied petitioners to re-petition for Federal acknowledgment as an Indian Tribe.
This means that previously denied tribes will be able to re-file their petitions and plead their case under new and changed laws; and have their cases heard with new deference and guidance from the Department Of the Interior.
“Lisjan” has been referred to as a Traditional Ohlone Village Site, in East Oakland.
Both the San Leandro Creek, and San Lorenzo Creek bear the name of “Lisjan” creek.
But “Lisjan” isn’t even an Ohlone word.
“Lisjan” is what Nisenan People call the city of Pleasanton, California.
Uldal, J. & Shipley, W. (1966) “Nisenan Texts and Dictionary”
And, just to be clear: Pleasanton wasn’t called “Pleasanton” until the 1860’s. Up to that point, it was called “Alisal”, or “Alizal”, or “El Alizal”, or “Alisal Rancheria”. And, before that, Alisal was the Bernal Rancheria.
And Nisenan People are not Maidu People. They’re totally seperate tribes.
You could say, the present day Nisenan capitol is Nevada City, California….
The “definition” of Lisjan, a Nisenan Word…
In 1929, A.L. Kroeber published “The Valley Nisenan“, which contained an expansive, and categorized Nisenan vocabulary; and a decent explanation of phonetics. However, this was only a short list, which did not contain Place Names. But, this book is an indication of the linguistic study and research going on behind the scenes, in California, in the early 20th century.
It wouldn’t be until 1966, that Hans Jørgen Uldall, would publish “Nisenan Texts and Dictionary“, with William Shipley. This volume includes some very adult stories. So, beware. But, there are Nisenan-English, and English-Nisenan dictionaries in the back.
Uldall’s dictionary contains the entry for “Lisjan”; as a Place Name for Pleasanton, California.
But, how did that name, get all the way up to Nisenan territory, 100 miles away from Pleasanton? And 45 years after Harrington’s interviews? Why is “Lisjan” being touted as a traditional Ohlone Village Site in deep East-Oakland, if “Lisjan” is another name for Pleasanton?
Excerpt from “Chochenyo Field Notes” showing the word “muwekma”.
J.P. Harrington’s “Chochenyo Field Notes” (1921)
One of the most-cited references in Ohlone History…
In 1921, J.P. Harrington performed a Language Survey of Native Americans in the East Bay. Harrington gathered numerous languages during this time, including the “Chocheño” language; which is known as the East Bay Ohlone language, today. Despite being deeply flawed, and extremely sus at times, this document continues to be a primary influence on mainstream discussions about Ohlone History in the San Francisco Bay Area.
One of Harrington’s interviewees was a man by the name of Jose Guzman. Guzman was interviewed, along with a man named “Angelo”, and a third man who is known as “informant”–presumably, Harrington’s fixer. Francisca is another interviewee who appears separately from Jose and Angelo, most times.
This volume is incredibly informative. Even though, a good portion of the information provided by Jose Guzman, and Angelo become problematic in many places–when viewed in context with later anthropological work, and the lack of clear attribution to a speaker (if any) in many of the entries. This is a problem with Harrington, really.
A majority of contemporary work on East Bay Ohlone People cite J.P. Harrington’s “Chochenyo Field Notes”, from 1921.
This document is never more than one step removed from almost any article or research paper.
But who’s actually read it? As daunting as these tomes look in the beginning: I have to be honest, and tell you, it’s not as bad as it seems. 355 pages of hand-written notes goes kind of quickly if you can hang with the kind of Spanglish that’s spoken on many a rez, today.
It’s easy to get a feel for the personalities of the interviewees by how their interviews progress; and even the type of setting. Some interviews were taken at gatherings. There are write-ups of methods of fabrication for food and tools; songs; as well as old stories, passed down to Jose Guzman. Harrington’s hand-writing also changes, depending on the speed of the information he’s being given, and whether or not he’s having a good day. Sometimes, he had to switch pens, until ultimately finding a pencil.
In the beginning, Harrington focuses on the basics. Where are you from? What’s the name of your tribe? Have you heard of these people? Can you tell me the history of this place?
Harrington wouldn’t ask twice about something the same day. He would circle back to it again, on another day.
As his notes progress, the words move to phrases. The lists become Chocheño lists, with Spanish or English translation.
This is how “Lisjan” kept popping up.
Harrington’s Synthesis of Chocheño VS. The Way Chocheño Was Actually Being Spoken
Aside from where the notes explicitly said who the speaker was, or whether or not the interviewees agree, it’s difficult to tell the difference between Harrington’s own ideas and synthesis of Chocheño; and the Chocheño language as it was actually spoken.
The following entry shows how Harrington took a variation of the phrase “makin miwikma” (we are good people), and applied it to “lisjan”, to form “lisjanikma”–which, to Harrington’s understanding of Chocheño, means “lisjan people”.
makin lisjanikma, we are lisjanes. approved lisjanikma but could not get tongue around it.”
The result was a valid form of the word. But not a word which was actually in use; or even really pronounceable.
This would continue on the next page, with:
makin Jinijmin, somos muchachos, cannot say *makin jinijminka inf. tells me clearly
Hand-writing is unclear for “mak[n]ote”, “mak[in]ote”, “mak[s]ote”, “mak[‘n]ote”…
This is when I started suspecting there may have been drinking involved in some of these later sessions with Jose Guzman and Angelo. (Because it looks like they’re having fun, and getting kinda goofy at times.) The informant’s answer seems to say more about the philosophy, or [machismo] culture, of the group being interviewed. I can actually see it playing out:
You can’t just say, “We’re some men.” You have to say, “Puros muchachos estamos aqui!”
It was at this point, that I started noticing the strong Spanish-language influence in many of these examples of Chocheño given to Harrington by Chocheño speakers.
References to “Lisjan”
Page 54: The Ind. name of the Chocheños is lisianij.
In the first few pages, we find an entry that says the “Indian Name” of the Chocheños is “Lisjan“.
This may seem like an authoritative, and all-encompassing reference. But the specifics change over time.
Page 59: lisjanis, In. Infor. They said that S.Jose was an early mission [upside-down triangle symbol]; they called the Inds. here sometimes los viejos cristianos. Jose knows this trbu. too and uses it every day, in talking to me.
In the next entry, we find out that San Jose Mission Indians were also called “los viejos cristianos”.
We also find out that Jose Guzman references San Jose Mission Indians this way, as well. No location information is given yet. But that changes.
Soon, there are distinctions made between who is, and who isn’t Lisjan.
On page 95 of the PDF, a paragraph begins with “lisjanes were the San Jose.” It goes on to say that, neither the Doloreños, nor the Clareños, were Lisjanes.
Page 95: lisjanes were the San Jose — the name covered up as far as S. Lorenzo Angelo thinks. 8ing. lisjan. yo soy lisjan. The Doloreños were not lisjanes, nor were the Clareños. [Mention of Dumbarton Rail Bridge (opened 1910) at bottom of page?]
This entry includes a little more information about location. It states that the name Lisjan covered up as far as San Lorenzo. This is interesting, because the very first entry said Lisjan is the “Indian Name” of the Chocheños.
It’s also interesting, because the Chocheño-speaking Indians at San Lorenzo were called “Los Nepes”. Which means, they were considered a completely different group by Harrington’s interviewees.
Unfortunately, this entry only gives us a rough northern boundary to a possible Lisjan “territory”, certainly not enough information to pin to a certain geographic region. This also means that “Lisjan” was definitely not located in present-day Oakland, at all.
Pages 105-106: kana lisjanka, yo soy lisjan. makin lisjanikma, we are lisjanes. approved lisjanikma but could not get tongue around it.
The next entries that we see, are on pages 105 and 106. While the phrases “yo so lisjan”, and “we are lisjanes” are present; so is a real problem.
There is no distinction between the words and phrases that are actually used/spoken in Chocheño–and given to Harrington; and, the words and phrases J.P. Harrington created, or invented, on his own, and “pitched” to his informant, and interviewees.
Using the information found in Harrington’s notes, I prepared the following visual aids.
I wanted to find the answers to a number of questions I had:
Where is Lisjan? Is it in Oakland, Pleasanton, or somewhere else?
Who are the Lisjanes? Are they a specific group, or family?
Regarding what Angelo said about a Northern Boundary for Lisjan: is it possible the boundaries for Lisjan fall within the historic bounds of Mission San Jose?
Map showing Historic Place Names, Mission San Jose, and approximate North and South Mission Lands boundaries, as surveyed in 1852.
Where is Lisjan? Is it in Oakland, Pleasanton, or somewhere else?
[If this is the only document you’re going by….] And, if the Northern bounds of the name “Lisjan”, were located just before San Lorenzo, that means that:
Lisjan was not located in Oakland.
Lisjan was not bound by the historical Mission San Jose property lines.
Pleasanton was probably not called “Lisjan” by locals.
Who are the Lisjanes? Are they a specific group, or family?
Not much light is shed on who the Lisjanes are. While Jose Guzman probably declared himself Lisjan; it’s unclear the extent of Angelo’s affiliation to the name. At one point, one man touches his chest and tells Harrington that he is Lisjan in name, but his heart is from somewhere else.
Does this mean that Lisjan is somehow a transitory, or new affiliation based on where someone lives, now? Is this person simply saying something akin to, “I left my heart in San Francisco?” Or, “My heart yearns for home?” Or even something like, “This heart was made somewhere else; my blood pumps the blood of my ancestors, from a different place than here?”
We are told that the San Jose’s are Lisjan. The indian name for Chocheños from Mission San Jose are Lisjan. Indians from Santa Clara, and Dolores are definitely not Lisjan. Los Nepes aren’t Lisjan, either. And a tribe, from Sunol, the name of which no one could remember, was never affiliated with Lisjan.
This was one of the reasons I began to suspect that the bounds of Lisjan could be tied to the property lines of Mission San Jose.
But, alas, no matter which San Lorenzo you draw the Northern boundary of the name Lisjan upon, they always exceed the extent of mission property lines.
Or that this is the product of Libby Schaaf’s (Mayor of Oakland) unilateral dealings with Corrina Gould (Spokesperson for Sogorea Te Land Trust, alleged Tribal Chair Person of Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.)
It’s the fact that other local Ohlone tribal groups weren’t consulted during the process of creating the easement we see proposed today.
Also: this still isn’t LandBack. It’s just an easement.
Land is not being conveyed from the City of Oakland, to any entity, as Sogorea Te Land Trust claims. An easement just gives them the right to use Sequoia Point as they chose, within the parameters of the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the City of Oakland and Sogorea Te Land Trust. The City of Oakland retains ownership of the 5-acre area in Joaquin Miller Park–part of Oakland’s Recreation and Parks Department.
There are some important limitations listed in the propose ordinance you can find in the City of Oakland – Calendar. This includes a clause regarding public access, as well as permit free operations within the scope of the agreement and zoning requirements.
But this is a small part of a large document, that also excludes the Sequoia Point land grant, and (possibly) any future projects at the Point, from certain CEQA, NAGPRA, and AB52 Rules, which have requirements that projects on or near Tribal Cultural Resources must follow a consultation and scoping process with representatives of all the tribal groups of the area.
Bypassing these requirements would completely preclude any other tribe’s rightful claim to be a part of, or hold a share of interest in, this easement. Other tribes would not get a say in what happens at Sequoia Point, a place which other Ohlone groups claim as a part of their tribal homeland. Where each of the Ohlone Tribal Groups should share an equal interest, and have an equal voice.
The most curious part of the Agenda Report, regarding the “Cultural Conservation Easement to Sogorea Te’ Land Trust in Joaquin Miller Park” is the section marked “Public Outreach / Interest”. This section, in its entirety, states:
City staff and the Land Trust have conducted substantial outreach. The Land Trust, both with and without City staff, met with the Friends of Joaquin Miller Park several times to receive input and feedback about the project, and the organization enthusiastically supports the project. District 4 Councilmember Sheng Thao hosted an online Town Hall about the project on September 13, 2022. More than one hundred people registered for the meeting and participants expressed strong support for the project and no opposition. The Land Trust and City staff have also presented the project multiple times to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The Commission recommended formal and enthusiastic approval at its meeting on September 14. Since the project was publicly announced on September 8, 2022, there has been a broad expression of support and enthusiasm from the public at large.
City of Oakland Agenda Report for Item # 10 22-0849, on for City Council Meeting Nov-1-2022
The passage above contains no mention of City Staff attempting to contact other tribal groups in the area.
Proponents of the easement appear to have had one very popular online Town Hall, and contacted the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, and the Friends of Joaquin Miller Park, for their opinions.
But there is no mention of either City Staff, nor Sogorea Te Land Trust, reaching out to any other Ohlone Tribal Group in this area other than the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.–who is conveniently fronted by the same person as the Sogorea Te Land Trust, Corrina Gould.
Most projects or proposals on this scale would require some form of Tribal Consultation, or Scoping; this proposal especially, because–for all intents and purposes–Sequoia Point is being considered, or treated, as a Tribal Cultural Resource.
When a city is creating an Environmental Impact Report or Assessment for any proposed public project (or project on public lands) they must exercise due diligence in requesting from the Native American Heritage Commission a list of tribes to consult regarding possible Tribal Cultural Resources possibly affected by the project, and develop ways to avoid or mitigate damage to those resources.
This is an example of a 2019 Tribal Consultation List for Richmond, California.
2019 Tribal Consultation List for Richmond, California – This list is public record and was included as part of an EIR filed in the City of Richmond, California.
As you can see, there is more than one Tribal Organization to consult with. There are seven organizations on this Tribal Consultation List, next to the associated tribes composing those organizations.
FYI: No, this list is not radically different in Oakland, California. I couldn’t find one quickly enough to use as an example. But please believe me, it looks the same, and still has more than one Tribal Organization. [… It’s also really difficult to track down one of these lists outside of an Environment Impact Report/Assessment.]
My point is: cities are required to send letters to every single one of these organizations requesting consultation. Those letters, and replies by tribal representatives, must be filed in the Environmental Impact Report/Assessment; along with a report regarding the request for consultation and any subsequent consultation and scoping activities.
The law requiring requests for consultations, and the consultation lists, were created and required in order to ensure that Native American land rights are respected; Native American Graves, and Cultural Resources are preserved, and protected from desecration.
This is done by codifying the Tribal Consultation process in the California Environmental Quality Act; thereby ensuring that Native American Tribes have a voice, and a say, in what happens on their traditional homelands, to their sacred places, and tribal resources.
The preamble of AB52, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, both specifically state this is the legislative intent of these laws.
The well-defined and accepted procedure of the Tribal Consultation Process was not followed to create the proposed Sequoya Point Cultural Easement.
To grant this land to one Ohlone group, without even talking to the others, is wrong; and in opposition to the Equity of all Ohlone People of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Choosing to award one single tribal group with land grants, while simultaneously excluding all others, sows division among indigenous people. And it interferes with tribal sovereignty in a way that disenfranchises thousands of indigenous people from having ownership of a place and project that is supposed to be for them.
The City of Oakland is meddling in tribal politics in the same way the US does in the Middle East. Or Haiti. Or any other place where people have turned around and said, “maybe that wasn’t such a good idea.” Where the actual people living in those countries have done things like burn flags, and tell us to get out. [Judgments reserved.]
The same way that some tribes were denied recognition by the US Government for petty, arbitrary reasons from the start–just as other Tribes were arbitrarily, and capriciously unrecognized [“removed from the Tribal Rolls”] during the Termination Era for the same.
This meddling is unwelcome, and sets a dangerous precedent across the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as California. The precedent that Tribal Consultation doesn’t matter.
Tribal Consultation matters.
All Ohlone Tribal Groups should be consulted, and have an equal share–and an equal voice–in the Ohlone Cultural Easement at Sequoia Point.
Excluding the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as other tribal groups, from what’s happening at Sequoia Point, is not equitable. And the easement should not go forward without proper consultation with all affected tribes of the this area. Especially since this is a land grant made in perpetuity,
Introduced by Senator Cortese (Coauthor: Senator Wieckowski) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Kalra, Lee, and Low)
March 07, 2022
Relative to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
SJR 13, as amended, Cortese. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe: federal recognition.
This measure would urge the United States Congress and the Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Indian Affairs to reaffirm and restore the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe as a federally recognized Indian tribe and include the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in the Federal Register as a recognized tribe.
Fiscal Committee: NO
WHEREAS, The United States Federal District Court of the District of Columbia recognized in Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt (2000) 133 F.Supp.2d 30 that “The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is a tribe of Ohlone Indians indigenous to the present-day San Francisco Bay Area. In the early part of the Twentieth Century, the Department of the Interior recognized the Muwekma Tribe as an Indian tribe under the jurisdiction of the United States. In more recent times, however, and despite its steadfast efforts, the Muwekma Tribe has been unable to obtain federal recognition, a status vital for the Tribe and its members.”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Federal District Court of the District of Columbia recognized in Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kempthorne (D.D.C. 2006) 452 F.Supp.2d 105 that “The following facts are not in dispute. Muwekma is a group of American Indians indigenous to the San Francisco Bay area, the members of which are direct descendants of the historical Mission San Jose Tribe, also known as the Pleasanton or Verona Band of Alameda County (the “Verona Band”). From 1914 to 1927, the Verona Band was recognized by the federal government as an Indian tribe. Neither the United States Congress nor any executive agency ever formally withdrew federal recognition of the Verona Band.”; and
WHEREAS, The Muwekma Ohlone people, who never left their aboriginal land and were once pronounced extinct by anthropologists, have retained their culture and social identity for the past 230 years; and
WHEREAS, The Muwekma Ohlone people have left a record of approximately 13,000 years of human history; and
WHEREAS, The United States government maintained a “trust” relationship with three Costanoan tribal groups, including the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, historically identified as the Verona Band, by the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 1906 to 1927; and
WHEREAS, The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe was wrongly removed from the Federal Register in 1927 despite its “trust” relationship and its previous efforts to foster and secure federal recognition as an Indian tribe; and
WHEREAS, The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe enrolled with and was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs during the years between 1928 and 1933, inclusive, 1948 and 1957, inclusive, and 1968 and 1971, inclusive, under the 1928 California Jurisdictional Act, attended Indian boarding schools between 1930 and 1950, inclusive, and have since organized according to the Bureau’s directives, but still have no right to be legally considered an Indian tribe without first obtaining reaffirmation and formal acknowledgment by the Secretary of the Interior; and
WHEREAS, There are over 600 individual descendants of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in the San Francisco Bay Area who have been identified by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
WHEREAS, European migration led to the near decimation of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and the lack of formal recognition after 1927 by the Department of the Interior suggests a disregard for the cultural diversity and historical presence that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has offered to our state, including service in the United States Armed Services in previous wars and military conflicts spanning from World War I through the present day; and
WHEREAS, Several California counties and elected officials have officially supported the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in its efforts for recognition through legislation commending their efforts and historical and social accomplishments, supporting requests for historical claim by the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and urging the federal government to reaffirm and restore the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe as a federally recognized tribe; and
WHEREAS, It is imperative that the Department of the Interior and the federal government officially recognize the historical and social history of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe through its efforts to attain federal recognition; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature does hereby urge the United States Congress and the Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Indian Affairs to reaffirm and restore the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe as a federally recognized tribe and include the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in the Federal Register as a recognized tribe; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Secretary of the Interior, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the United States Congress.
This text of the Senate Joint Resolution Number 13 was taken directly from the California Legislative Information website. You can find more information about the Senate Joint Resolution for Federal Recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe–as well as read the current text of the resolution–on the official CA Legislative Information website, at:
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.
The City of Alameda, Alameda Museum, and City of Albany all need to know that hyping Corrina Gould so much is really detrimental to the struggles of the actual Ohlone tribe of this area.
As much as you hate to hear me continue to say this, I’m going to be even more clear: The Confederated Villages of the Lisjan “NATION”, INC. is not a tribal government.
CVL is not a confederated group of tribes because there is no other tribal government to confederate with that isn’t already fully incorporated into the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco…
CVL was originally created as a mutual benefit corporation to benefit only one family, those related to Corrina Gould by birth or by marriage.
And, CVL was only created to bolster the illusion that Corrina Gould was a real tribal chairperson; even though her organization held no votes, and isn’t diverse enough to represent Ohlone people as a political group beyond Gould’s immediate family.
As much as you don’t want to listen; don’t want to look; it is necessary to break the black out on this subject.
Because your willful ignorance is what’s actually causing damage. Not my insistence on reiterating the facts of the matter.
I’m not a misogynist like Gould would have you believe. When I say #rematriatetheland, this is what I mean: honor the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area by recognizing their Sovereignty as a Tribal Nation of thousands…
By recognizing the OG Ohlone. The original, indigenous, woman-led resistance.
By not recognizing people like Charlene Nijmeh, Monica Arellano, and Dolores Marine Galvan, you’re only contributing to the indigenous erasure. And disrespecting tf out of the people you should be taking pains to build relationships with.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area doesn’t need your #shuumi. They need their Federal Recognition Restored.
That’s how Ohlone People get their land banks, land base, and land back.
Nothing short of Federal Recognition will do this.
