Muwekma Myths
Part I. The Myth of Previous Federal Recognition
24 January 2023
Introduction
Over the past year the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe (MOT) sought support from State Assemblymembers, State Senators, and Congresspersons for the restoration of their purported previous federal recognition. CA SJR 13, the so-called “Muwekma Bill,” specifically called for the reaffirmation and restoration of the MOT “as a federally recognized Indian tribe”[i]; however, the MOT is not a previously federally recognized tribe. Congress cannot restore federal recognition to a tribe that never had it in the first place. The primary rhetorical strategy used by the MOT conflates the “Verona Band” with the “Muwekma Ohlone Tribe” and thereby falsely attributes statuses of the Verona Band, like previous federal recognition, to the MOT. For example, the MOT claims that the “BIA agreed that the [Muwekma Ohlone] Tribe is a historic and previously Federally Recognized Tribe”[ii]; however, those statuses (historic and previously recognized) were attributed by the BIA to the Verona Band not to the MOT.[iii] While a widely held belief among the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and others, the notion of previous federal recognition is false; it is a myth that underlies and pervades the Tribes’ narrative.
Preliminary Determination
During the application process for federal recognition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) granted the MOT a preliminary determination as the successor of a previously federally recognized tribe, the Verona Band, for the purposes of applying for federal recognition. The BIA determined in a letter dated May 24, 1996 that the MOT had “established, on a preliminary basis, that it is the same group as the [Verona] band identified between 1914 and 1927.”[iv] With this preliminary determination the MOT had a “reduced burden of evidence”—they only had to prove tribal continuity from “the point of last Federal acknowledgement” (i.e., 1927) to the present.[v]
The preliminary determination made by the BIA is just that—preliminary. In the same letter dated May 24, 1996 the BIA made it very clear that the letter “is a determination of eligibility to be evaluated under section 83.8, not a determination that the Muwekma meet the requirements of the acknowledgement regulations, section 83.7, as modified for previously acknowledged groups by section 83.8. That final determination will be made during the active consideration of the Muwekma Petition.”[vi] A subsequent letter from the BIA dated March 14, 1997 confirmed the preliminary determination of the earlier letter. The BIA stated that “[a]lthough the BIA has accepted, "on a preliminary basis," that your modern group is the same as the band recognized in 1927, you still need to demonstrate the validity of that preliminary judgment.”[vii] The MOT attempted to validate that preliminary judgement in their petition for federal acknowledgement.
Final Determination
In order to receive a final determination for federal recognition, the MOT had to prove continuity of tribal existence from 1927 to the present. In its petition for federal recognition, the MOT failed to prove tribal continuity with the Verona Band based on criteria related to its status as an Indian entity, as a distinct community, and as a politically autonomous entity. According to the BIA, the MOT “does not meet criteria 83.7(a), (b), or (c) as modified by sections 83.8(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), or (d)(5). In accordance with the regulations set forth in 25 CFR 83.10(m), failure to meet anyone of the seven criteria requires a [final] determination that the group does not exist as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law.”[viii] The MOT is not a federally recognized tribe precisely because the MOT did not “demonstrate its continuity from a previously-recognized tribe and its continued tribal existence only since 1927.”[ix] Also, the MOT is not a previously federally recognized tribe for the same reason—the BIA determined that the MOT is not the same tribal entity as the Verona Band.
Lineal Descendant
Members of the MOT, however, are lineal descendants of the Verona Band, a previously federally recognized tribe. On the basis of lineal descent the MOT can correctly claim to be a successor of the Verona Band; however, as the BIA reminded the MOT, “a demonstration of a group’s Indian ancestry is not sufficient to meet this [the continuity] standard.”[x] Tribal continuity refers 1) to the identification of the Indian entity by other entities “on a substantially continuous basis,” 2) the continued existence of a distinct community with consistent interactions and “significant social relationships connecting individual members” on a substantially continuous basis, and 3) the exercise of political authority over tribal members which includes decision-making and representation on a substantially continuous basis.[xi] In other words, proof of lineal descent from an historical Indian tribe does not constitute proof of tribal continuity.
There are at least two other tribes in the San Francisco Bay Area that are comprised of members who descend from the Verona Band, so any action to recognize the MOT on that basis and not the other groups is unjust. Also, all of the tribes in the San Francisco Bay Area have proof of lineal descent to an historic tribe, so if State and Federal legislators advocate for federal recognition of the MOT on that basis, they should do the same for other interested tribes as well.
Self-Determination?
The MOT claims that it provided sufficient evidence to the BIA to meet the requirements for proving tribal continuity. For a variety of reasons, the BIA found the evidence insufficient to meet the requirements; therefore, the MOT was denied federal recognition for failing to prove tribal continuity from 1927 to the present. Still, the MOT persists in its argument that it has evidence of tribal continuity and is therefore the same tribal entity as the Verona Band. As Chairwoman Nijmeh contends, “The BIA ignores the fact that we have evidence of our tribal community dating back hundreds of years before the mission period.”[xii] Federal recognition, however, means recognition by the federal government, not the self-determination of federal recognition. A tribe cannot determine its own status as a federally recognized tribe no matter how convinced they are by their own evidence.[xiii]
Conclusion
We acknowledge that the federal recognition process is immensely problematic, especially because the requirements for proving tribal continuity are so difficult to meet for many missionized California Indian tribes. We support tribes who desire federal recognition. We do not, however, support the use of unethical and potentially illegal[xiv] means to attain federal recognition and its benefits, especially when such actions adversely affect other American Indians. We encourage everyone directly involved with the MOT’s efforts to attain federal recognition 1) to critically examine MOT’s claim to being previously federally recognized and 2) to research and assess any real or potential impacts to other Bay Area tribes of the MOT gaining federal recognition. Last, we encourage all involved to advocate for a revision of the federal acknowledgement process in a manner that serves the interests of all American Indians.
Over the past year the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe (MOT) sought support from State Assemblymembers, State Senators, and Congresspersons for the restoration of their purported previous federal recognition. CA SJR 13, the so-called “Muwekma Bill,” specifically called for the reaffirmation and restoration of the MOT “as a federally recognized Indian tribe”[i]; however, the MOT is not a previously federally recognized tribe. Congress cannot restore federal recognition to a tribe that never had it in the first place. The primary rhetorical strategy used by the MOT conflates the “Verona Band” with the “Muwekma Ohlone Tribe” and thereby falsely attributes statuses of the Verona Band, like previous federal recognition, to the MOT. For example, the MOT claims that the “BIA agreed that the [Muwekma Ohlone] Tribe is a historic and previously Federally Recognized Tribe”[ii]; however, those statuses (historic and previously recognized) were attributed by the BIA to the Verona Band not to the MOT.[iii] While a widely held belief among the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and others, the notion of previous federal recognition is false; it is a myth that underlies and pervades the Tribes’ narrative.
Preliminary Determination
During the application process for federal recognition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) granted the MOT a preliminary determination as the successor of a previously federally recognized tribe, the Verona Band, for the purposes of applying for federal recognition. The BIA determined in a letter dated May 24, 1996 that the MOT had “established, on a preliminary basis, that it is the same group as the [Verona] band identified between 1914 and 1927.”[iv] With this preliminary determination the MOT had a “reduced burden of evidence”—they only had to prove tribal continuity from “the point of last Federal acknowledgement” (i.e., 1927) to the present.[v]
The preliminary determination made by the BIA is just that—preliminary. In the same letter dated May 24, 1996 the BIA made it very clear that the letter “is a determination of eligibility to be evaluated under section 83.8, not a determination that the Muwekma meet the requirements of the acknowledgement regulations, section 83.7, as modified for previously acknowledged groups by section 83.8. That final determination will be made during the active consideration of the Muwekma Petition.”[vi] A subsequent letter from the BIA dated March 14, 1997 confirmed the preliminary determination of the earlier letter. The BIA stated that “[a]lthough the BIA has accepted, "on a preliminary basis," that your modern group is the same as the band recognized in 1927, you still need to demonstrate the validity of that preliminary judgment.”[vii] The MOT attempted to validate that preliminary judgement in their petition for federal acknowledgement.
Final Determination
In order to receive a final determination for federal recognition, the MOT had to prove continuity of tribal existence from 1927 to the present. In its petition for federal recognition, the MOT failed to prove tribal continuity with the Verona Band based on criteria related to its status as an Indian entity, as a distinct community, and as a politically autonomous entity. According to the BIA, the MOT “does not meet criteria 83.7(a), (b), or (c) as modified by sections 83.8(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), or (d)(5). In accordance with the regulations set forth in 25 CFR 83.10(m), failure to meet anyone of the seven criteria requires a [final] determination that the group does not exist as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law.”[viii] The MOT is not a federally recognized tribe precisely because the MOT did not “demonstrate its continuity from a previously-recognized tribe and its continued tribal existence only since 1927.”[ix] Also, the MOT is not a previously federally recognized tribe for the same reason—the BIA determined that the MOT is not the same tribal entity as the Verona Band.
Lineal Descendant
Members of the MOT, however, are lineal descendants of the Verona Band, a previously federally recognized tribe. On the basis of lineal descent the MOT can correctly claim to be a successor of the Verona Band; however, as the BIA reminded the MOT, “a demonstration of a group’s Indian ancestry is not sufficient to meet this [the continuity] standard.”[x] Tribal continuity refers 1) to the identification of the Indian entity by other entities “on a substantially continuous basis,” 2) the continued existence of a distinct community with consistent interactions and “significant social relationships connecting individual members” on a substantially continuous basis, and 3) the exercise of political authority over tribal members which includes decision-making and representation on a substantially continuous basis.[xi] In other words, proof of lineal descent from an historical Indian tribe does not constitute proof of tribal continuity.
There are at least two other tribes in the San Francisco Bay Area that are comprised of members who descend from the Verona Band, so any action to recognize the MOT on that basis and not the other groups is unjust. Also, all of the tribes in the San Francisco Bay Area have proof of lineal descent to an historic tribe, so if State and Federal legislators advocate for federal recognition of the MOT on that basis, they should do the same for other interested tribes as well.
Self-Determination?
The MOT claims that it provided sufficient evidence to the BIA to meet the requirements for proving tribal continuity. For a variety of reasons, the BIA found the evidence insufficient to meet the requirements; therefore, the MOT was denied federal recognition for failing to prove tribal continuity from 1927 to the present. Still, the MOT persists in its argument that it has evidence of tribal continuity and is therefore the same tribal entity as the Verona Band. As Chairwoman Nijmeh contends, “The BIA ignores the fact that we have evidence of our tribal community dating back hundreds of years before the mission period.”[xii] Federal recognition, however, means recognition by the federal government, not the self-determination of federal recognition. A tribe cannot determine its own status as a federally recognized tribe no matter how convinced they are by their own evidence.[xiii]
Conclusion
We acknowledge that the federal recognition process is immensely problematic, especially because the requirements for proving tribal continuity are so difficult to meet for many missionized California Indian tribes. We support tribes who desire federal recognition. We do not, however, support the use of unethical and potentially illegal[xiv] means to attain federal recognition and its benefits, especially when such actions adversely affect other American Indians. We encourage everyone directly involved with the MOT’s efforts to attain federal recognition 1) to critically examine MOT’s claim to being previously federally recognized and 2) to research and assess any real or potential impacts to other Bay Area tribes of the MOT gaining federal recognition. Last, we encourage all involved to advocate for a revision of the federal acknowledgement process in a manner that serves the interests of all American Indians.
Notes
[i] CA SJR 13, June 8, 2022.
[ii] Charlene Nijmeh. “Truth and Justice for the Muwekma Ohlone People,” http://www.muwekma.org/learn-more-about-the-tribes-efforts.html, January 21, 2023.
[iii] In MOT Chairwoman Nijmeh’s statement, that the BIA found “no evidence that Muwekma’s status was ever terminated by Congress,” is embedded in the false assumption that the MOT is the same tribal entity as the Verona Band. All of these types of claims made by the MOT assume a status that, according to the federal government, the tribe has never had because the MOT is not the same tribal entity as the Verona Band. The MOT could never have been terminated from federally recognition because they were never federally recognized in the first place.
[iv] Deborah J. Maddox to Rosemary Cambra, May 24, 1996.
[v] Maddox, 1996.
[vi] Maddox, 1996.
[vii] Deborah J. Maddox to Rosemary Cambra, March 14, 1997.
[viii] United States Department of the Interior, Office of Acknowledgement, “Summary under the Criteria and Evidence for Final Determination against Federal Acknowledgement of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe,” Neal McCaleb. Washington DC, 2002, 7.
[ix] Maddox, 1997.
[x] Maddox, 1997.
[xi] 25 CFR Part 83.
[xii] Nijmeh, “Truth and Justice,” 2023. For the record, the Verona Band did not exist as a tribal community prior to the Mission Period.
[xiii] We wish it were otherwise because then so many other American Indian tribes could benefit.
[xiv] For example, see the False Statements Act (18 U.S.C. 1001).
[i] CA SJR 13, June 8, 2022.
[ii] Charlene Nijmeh. “Truth and Justice for the Muwekma Ohlone People,” http://www.muwekma.org/learn-more-about-the-tribes-efforts.html, January 21, 2023.
[iii] In MOT Chairwoman Nijmeh’s statement, that the BIA found “no evidence that Muwekma’s status was ever terminated by Congress,” is embedded in the false assumption that the MOT is the same tribal entity as the Verona Band. All of these types of claims made by the MOT assume a status that, according to the federal government, the tribe has never had because the MOT is not the same tribal entity as the Verona Band. The MOT could never have been terminated from federally recognition because they were never federally recognized in the first place.
[iv] Deborah J. Maddox to Rosemary Cambra, May 24, 1996.
[v] Maddox, 1996.
[vi] Maddox, 1996.
[vii] Deborah J. Maddox to Rosemary Cambra, March 14, 1997.
[viii] United States Department of the Interior, Office of Acknowledgement, “Summary under the Criteria and Evidence for Final Determination against Federal Acknowledgement of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe,” Neal McCaleb. Washington DC, 2002, 7.
[ix] Maddox, 1997.
[x] Maddox, 1997.
[xi] 25 CFR Part 83.
[xii] Nijmeh, “Truth and Justice,” 2023. For the record, the Verona Band did not exist as a tribal community prior to the Mission Period.
[xiii] We wish it were otherwise because then so many other American Indian tribes could benefit.
[xiv] For example, see the False Statements Act (18 U.S.C. 1001).