The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe's
Ridiculous and Dangerous Claims to Tribal Territory
Like other San Francisco Bay Area peoples, the Association of Ramaytush Ohlone has had enough of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe's (MOT) bullying behavior. We have had enough of their misleading and false claims, of the supremacist, colonial, and erase-ist practices, and most importantly of their persistent violations of the Indigenous sovereignty of other Bay Area Native peoples.
Nearly all of their offensive claims to identity and territory derive from the false claim that the MOT is a previously federally recognized tribe and therefore an historic tribe with purported rights over and above other Native peoles of the San Francisco Bay Area. To be clear, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is not a previously federally recognized tribe and is not therefore an historic tribe (i.e., "historical Indian tribe") according to the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, the MOT has internalized the colonial logics of federal recognition in order to
|
This is the current the map of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe (2022). The MOT of the East Bay claims the entire San Francisco Bay Area as their territory (right), in spite of their knowledge of other Native peoples who descend from tribes located in the area encompassed by the boundary, including the Tamien peoples in the South Bay and the Ramaytush peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula. The MOT's claim to the lands and resources of other Native peoples violates their Indigenous sovereignty and contributes to their erasure.
|
Part I. The Villages of Origin of the MOT Are Located Exclusively in the East Bay
(Village of origin refers to the actual villages from which members of the MOT claim
direct lineal descent from a California Indian ancestor).
A. Villages of Origin
Documents from their own petition for federal recognition locate the "aboriginal villages of origin" of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in the East Bay (right). The names of the tribes of origin can be found on the MOT's website. The Bay Area tribes of origin identified on this first map include the Karkin, Seunen, Jalquin/Yrgin Ohlone, and Saclan. B. Chochenyo Language The "official" language of the Muwekma Tribe is the Chochenyo dialect of the san Francisco Bay Costanoan language. The Chochenyo language's boundaries are located in the East Bay. C. The Verona Band The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe claims to be the descendants of the Verona Band, which was formed in the East Bay sometime in the late 1800s or early 1900s. |
MOT Map 1, 2001Map from the documents for federal recognition, 2001.
|
B. The MOT Erasures Other Bay Area Native Peoples
The acts of erasure committed by the MOT include the literal erasure of other tribal territories and therefore of tribal peoples of the San Francisco Bay Area. As you can see below, the MOT removed the Tamien and Ramaytush territories from their tribal territorial map in 2011.
C. MOT's Current Map of their Ancestral Lands and Territory
According to the MOT, the map on the right includes their ancestral lands and tribal territory. By ancestral lands, I assume that the MOT is referring to the lands of the independent tribes of their ancestors. By tribal territory I assume they are referring to the territory that they feel entitled to exercise dominion over as a tribe.
As is hopefully self-evident, the red line appears to be drawn haphazardly--it does not conform to known tribal territorial boundaries. To the best of my knowledge, no other tribe in the entire State of California has a tribal territory that spans thirteen counties. So what are the criteria used for drawing an imprecise map that includes the tribal territories of other Bay Area tribes in clear violation of their Indigenous sovereignty? I offer some insight below in Part II and Part III. The MOT claims our ancestral land as theirs, so to the MOT we ask the following question: "How is our land your land if we are from here and you are not, and if we are not you?" |
MOT Map 3, 2022 |
Part II. Basic Principles for Determining Tribal Territorial Boundaries
Principle 1. Lineal Descent. Documented proof of lineal descent from the original peoples of an independent village/tribe is necessary to establish an Indigenous identity. Lineal descent links ancestry to territory--proof of Native ancestry is necessary for exercising sovereignty with in ones' tribal territory.
|
Principle 2. Indigenous Sovereignty. Native peoples hold an inherent sovereignty in their own tribal territory because, and only because, they are the original peoples of that territory. Indigenous sovereignty preexisted and is independent of recognition by the federal government. Sovereignty includes at minimum self-governance, self-determination, and cultural continuance.
|
There are three basic models used to determine tribal territorial boundaries: traditional, linguistic, and confederated. These models require proof of lineal descent as a prerequisite to exercising sovereignty and attempt to retain the principle of Indigenous sovereignty. The Confederated Model, however, inherently violates the Indigenous sovereignty of other Native peoples because its government is comprised of representatives, some of whom, are not Indigenous to the lands claimed by the tribe. In this instance, persons from other independent tribes exercise authority in the lands of the original people of the land, the host tribe. There are other models, by the way, but usually those involve agreements, formal or otherwise, among neighboring tribes.
1. Traditional Model. In the traditional model known physiographic features of the land mark the tribal territorial boundaries of independent tribes. Colonization adversely impacted traditional knowledge of the precise locations of the territorial boundaries of independent tribes.
2. Linguitic Model. Contemporary Native peoples often use the linguistic boundaries within which their independent tribes of origin are located to define their tribal territory. Because there are so few surviving members of the independent tribes within a linguistic boundary, contemporary Native people of the few surviving lineages tend to represent the interests of neighboring independent tribes who shared the same language or dialect. To that end, contemporary Native peoples use the linguistic boundaries within which their ancestral villages/independent tribe(s) of origin are located to determine their tribal territory.
Also, linguistic differences (language and dialect) indicate cultural or ethnic differences among tribes. The precise location of contemporary tribal territorial boundaries, based on linguistic boundaries is not an exact science, so contemporary Native peoples use various sources of evidence to locate tribal territorial boundaries. Like claims to Native identity, the location of tribal territorial boundaries must be based on evidence or agreement between and among tribes. |
3. Confederated Model. During or after the mission period, surviving members of various independent tribes formed tribal communities usually at or near a particular mission. The Department of the Interior refers to one particular type of historical Indian tribe as one "that combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity (CFR 83.11.e)."
At the time of formation, what criteria define the tribal territory of the newly formed tribe? The independent tribes from which the various members descend? The linguistic boundaries of the territory within which the new tribe is located? The actual property, if any, of the new tribe at the time of its formation? Most confederated tribes select one language and corresponding territory to represent. Individual members of the tribe can still exercise authority in their own ancestral lands but only as individuals, not as representatives of the pan-Indian tribe. Similarly, the Native American Heritage Commission has recognized the existence confederated tribes and limits their participation to only one tribal territory. In principle, the exercise of authority by a confederated tribe comprised of members from multiple tribes violates the Indigenous sovereignty of the host tribe, the tribe within whose tribal territory the confederated tribe was founded/located. |
Part III. What are we to make of the MOT's map of their Ancestral Lands and Tribal Territory?
As I have stated elsewhere, the MOT's map is a cartographic re-colonization of Native peoples by other Native peoples. |
The current map (left) of the MOT is not based on known territorial boundaries. It is not based on,
It appears that the map is based on other criteria that derive from the MOT's supremacist disposition. Since the MOT claims to have rights over and above other Bay Area tribes, the MOT claims all the land north of the other tribe, the Amah Mutsun, whom they believe shares the same status. In other words, the MOT believes it is the only legitimate tribe in the entire Bay Area. Often the MOT will use mission affiliation as a basis for claiming the entire Bay Area, but mission affiliation is not a legitimate basis for making claims to another tribe's territory. Only when the MOT puts its rationale in writing will we know exactly on what bases it makes claims to the ancestral lands of other Native peoples; however, in the end it does not matter. The MOT claims the lands of other Native peoples using colonial logics, and supported by false claims, that justify their sense of entitlement to the lands and resources of others in clear violation of the Indigenous sovereignty of other Bay Area Native peoples. |
Muwekma Tribal Territory Redux
Members of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe are direct lineal descendants of California Indians who originate from villages/tribes located in the East Bay. None of their claims to territory beyond the East Bay have any legitimacy. Despite their advocacy for their own Indigenous and tribal sovereignty, the MOT nonetheless undermines the Indigenous sovereignty of the Tamien and Ramaytush peoples. Their self-serving and hypocritical rhetoric and actions will not be tolerated.