The Association of Ramaytush Ohlone

​

https://www.ramaytush.org/

 

From Website

​

​The Ramaytush (pronounced rah-my-toosh) are the original peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula. Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, the Ramaytush Ohlone numbered approximately 1500 to 2,000 persons, but by the end the Mission Period only a few families had survived. Today, only one lineage is know to have produced living descendants in the present. Today, those descendants comprise the membership of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples and the staff of the Association of Ramaytush Ohlone. ​

​

​

​

​

​

Muwekma Myths
Part II. The Myth of Supremacy
7 February 2023

Introduction
 
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe (MOT) uses the colonial logics of federal recognition to assert their purported supremacy and dominion over other San Francisco Bay Area Native peoples. Based in part upon the false claims that the MOT is by federal definition an historic and a previously federally recognized tribe, the MOT claims to have rights over the lands and resources of other Bay Area Native peoples. Evidence of their supremacist disposition can be found in other false statements and actions, like the false claim that the MOT is “comprised of all the known surviving American Indian lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay Region.”[i] The MOT’s exclusivist claim to being the only (and therefore the only legitimate) tribe in the Bay Area informs their tribal territorial map, which wrongly includes the entire San Francisco Bay Area.
 
The Ohlone and Bay Miwok villages of origin of the MOT are located exclusively in the East Bay. The boundaries of their tribal language, Chochenyo, are located in the East Bay. The Verona Band from which they claim direct lineal descent was located in the East Bay. In other words, the tribal territory of the MOT is located exclusively in the East Bay. Nonetheless, the MOT attempts to exercise dominion in the tribal territories of other Bay Area Native peoples, like the Tamien Nation of the South Bay and Ramaytush Ohlone of the San Francisco Peninsula. As a result, the MOT undermines the Indigenous sovereignty of Tamien and Ramaytush peoples. In addition, the MOT literally erases other Bay Area Native peoples and inserts their own ethnic identity, culture, language, and history in the place of others. These violations constitute acts of lateral oppression and will no longer be tolerated.
 
Internalized Colonialism and Lateral Oppression
 
Internalized colonialism refers generally to the incorporation of colonial logics (colonial ideologies, norms, policies, practices, etc.) by an oppressed group, which are then applied internally by some group members to oppress other group members. Also, internalized colonialism can refer to the use of colonial logics in order to oppress another similarly oppressed group, which is often accomplished by imposing the logics of the dominant group. Since the logics of colonialism originate from the racist and discriminatory practices inherent in colonialism, lateral oppression may look like racism—discrimination against one racial/ethnic group by another, for example. The use of colonial logics often results in the oppressive group (the one now oppressing the other oppressed group) aligning itself with the oppressor in order to gain certain advantages. The following recent example illustrates internalized colonialism.
 
In a September 15, 2022 article in the Los Gatan, Chairwoman Charlene Nijmeh wrote that elected officials in Los Gatos were trying to determine what “constitutes a historic Native American tribe and what does not.” She demanded that elected officials “make a distinction between Native American tribes that can demonstrate continuity and recently-created entities.”[ii] In advocating for those criteria above others, Chairwoman Nijmeh was trying to exclude the Tamien Nation from participation. Historical Indian tribe and continuity are criteria for federal recognition and neither one should determine eligibility for inclusion in a land acknowledgement that recognizes the original peoples of Los Gatos. The Tamien Nation’s members descend from villages/tribes closest to Los Gatos, which is located in Tamien territory. In this instance, Chairwoman Nijmeh is imposing the colonial logics of federal recognition upon the Tamien Nation in order to diminish their legitimacy and to assert the MOT’s superiority. Ironically, the same colonial logics Chairwoman Nijmeh used to invalidate the Tamien Nation were the same ones used by the BIA to deny the MOT federal recognition.
 
In making the above argument, the MOT aligned themselves with non-Native organizations and the federal government. In the same article, Chairwoman Nijmeh writes, “Indian tribes—federally-recognized or not—are sovereign “Tribal Nations” predating the United States. If any individual with an Indian ancestor could start a tribe of their own whenever they felt like it, there could potentially be thousands popping up, demanding attention from cities and institutions."[iii] This grossly overstated concern for non-Native organizations and agencies aligns the MOT with colonial entities now occupying Native lands. Instead, we should be grateful that the original peoples of the South Bay have formed a tribe to represent their interests. As the original peoples of Tamien territory, they have every right to demand “attention from cities and institutions”—that so-called right does not depend upon criteria for federal recognition but relies upon the fact that Los Gatos is within their tribal territory and upon the fact that the Tamien Nation are Indigenous to the South Bay and are therefore sovereign in their own lands.[iv]
 
The MOT Is Not a Previously Federally Recognized Tribe
 
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 from 1927. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (2002), 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 83.1O(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.”[v] As the BIA contends, the MOT is not a federally recognized tribe precisely because it is not the same tribal entity as the Verona band—the MOT did not “demonstrate it continuity from a previously-recognized tribe and its continued tribal existence only since 1927” (March 14, 1997). 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.
 
The MOT Is Not by Federal Definition an Historical Indian Tribe
 
According to Chairwoman Charlene Nijmeh, “On September 6, 2002, the BIA issued its Final Determination against the future of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. The BIA agreed that the Tribe is a historic and previously Federally Recognized Tribe.”[vi] In this statement, Chairwoman Nijmeh incorrectly conflates the Verona Band’s status as a historic tribe with the MOT. In the criteria for Federal Acknowledgement, the BIA uses the terms historical Indian tribe and historical tribe to refer to a tribe that “has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900” (CFR 83.11(a)).[vii] Because the MOT could not prove tribal continuity between themselves and the Verona Band “on a substantially continuous basis,” the MOT is not by federal definition an historic tribe. Instead, the MOT is a modern tribe that was created in 1984/5.
 
The MOT Undermines the Indigenous Sovereignty of Other Bay Area Native Peoples
 
The MOT’s efforts to attain federal recognition would grant them tribal sovereignty; however, all Native peoples hold an inherent sovereignty that it independent of federal recognition, referred to as Indigenous sovereignty. In fact, tribal sovereignty depends in great part upon the federal government recognizing our existence as sovereign nations prior to colonization. Indigenous sovereignty, then, refers to the inherent “right” of Native peoples to self-governance and cultural continuance—the right to determine our own way of life. Indigenous sovereignty preexists and is not dependent upon tribal sovereignty (i.e., recognition by the federal government). It is important to note that, in regards to territory, Indigenous sovereignty extends only over the tribal territory. Chairwoman Nijmeh agrees, “Indian tribes—federally-recognized or not—are sovereign “Tribal Nations” predating the United States.” Unfortunately, the MOT adds historic tribe with continuity, as defined by the BIA, to the list of requirements for exercising sovereignty in order to assert their purported supremacy and to exercise dominion over other Native peoples’ lands and resources.
 
The MOT’s Acts of Erasure
 
The MOT asserts its purported supremacist claims to the lands and resources of other Native peoples based in part upon their false claim to previous federal recognition and to being an historic tribe. The MOT believes that the Verona Band’s previous federal status grants the MOT rights over other tribes and tribal territories in the San Francisco Bay Area. In exercising their purported supremacy over others, the MOT erases other Bay Area Native tribes and inserts their identity, culture, language, and history in place of others.
 
Acts of erasure include removing, omitting, and ignoring information about other Native peoples. Some of the simple acts of erasure committed by the MOT include, 1) using Muwekma Ohlone as a collective identifier for all Bay Area Native peoples, which subsumes the identities of other Native peoples, 2) refusing to meet in person with other Bay Area tribal leaders as if we did not exist or were irrelevant, and 3) deliberately excluding other qualified Bay Area tribes from Land Acknowledgement Statements and Indigenous Peoples’ Day Proclamations.
 
One of the most offensive acts of erasure is conveyed in the following statement: “The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe TODAY is comprised of all the known surviving American Indian Lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay Region who trace their ethno-historic origins from the indigenous tribes who continuously occupied these lands for over 10,000 years.”[viii] In spite of their knowledge of the existence of other tribes in the San Francisco Bay Area, the MOT falsely claims to be the only tribe in the entire Bay Region comprised of lineal descendants of Bay Area Native peoples. That false claim positions the MOT as the sole tribe of the Bay Area and validates their claim to the entire Bay Region as their tribal territory. This act of erasure obviously disadvantages other Native peoples and serves to support the MOT’s purported supremacy and dominion over other tribes and their respective tribal territories.  
 
The MOT’s claim to being the only tribe of the San Francisco Bay Region is reproduced in the map of their tribal territory. Their haphazardly drawn territorial map does not conform to any known tribal territory boundaries, violates the Indigenous sovereignty of other Native peoples, justifies the acquisition of the land and resources of other Native peoples, and makes possible the insertion of their identity, culture, language, and history in place of the original peoples of those lands. The map is, in essence, the visual representation of their supremacist attitude and purported dominion—it is a cartographic re-colonization of Native peoples by other Native peoples.[ix]
 
Conclusion
 
Contrary to their claims, the MOT 1) is not a previously federally recognized tribe, 2) is not by federal definition an historic tribe, 3) is not comprised of all surviving lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay Area, and 4) does not have rights over and above other Native peoples, even if all of the above were true. Moreover, the MOT employs the colonial logics of federal recognition, supported by other false claims, in an attempt to exercise supremacy and dominion over other Bay Area Native peoples and their lands. Further, the MOT’s long record of violating the sovereignty of other tribes, of erasing their ethnic identities, and of other re-colonizing statements and actions, must be brought to public attention and must cease.
 
The MOT is no different in status from other unrecognized Bay Area tribes. Nothing about the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe grants them a superior status or the right to exercise dominion over other Bay Area tribes. In very basic ways, the MOT differs from the rest of us only in the fact that they applied for federal recognition and were denied. Otherwise, we share a very similar, tragic history of colonialism. We all confront ongoing obstacles imposed by colonialism that impede our well-being. We all have genealogies that confirm our direct lineal descent from Native peoples of the Bay Area. Many of us have corroborating DNA evidence that confirms our genealogies. Many of us have been declared extinct. Instead of undermining the sovereignty of other Bay Area tribes for their own gain, the MOT should be acknowledging the commonalities that can unite us in mutual support of one another.
 
Notes
[i] Charlene Nijmeh. “Truth and Justice for the Muwekma Ohlone People,” http://www.muwekma.org/learn-more-about-the-tribes-efforts.html, January 21, 2023.
[ii] Charlene Nijmeh, Los Gatan, September 15, 2022. “Op-Ed: Town must seek proof before recognizing ‘Original Inhabitants’ MUWEKMA OHLONE CHAIRWOMAN SAYS CAREFUL LOOK AT HISTORY IS NEEDED.”
[iii] Nijmeh, “Op-Ed,” 2022.
[iv] The MOT claims that the Tamien Nation is not an historic tribe with tribal continuity, which, if true, is a direct consequence of colonization and not a failure of their own. Spanish, Mexican, and American colonization severely disrupted the continuity of tribal communities and leadership. Blaming the victims of colonization for their own failings alleviates the oppressor of their responsibilities for the racist foundations of colonialism and the ongoing racism inherent in colonial institutions.
[v] 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.
[vi] Nijmeh, “Truth and Justice,” 2023.
[vii] Second, the final rule defines ‘‘historical’’ as prior to 1900. Using pre1900 for the end date of ‘‘historical’’ and 1900 for the start date for analysis of community and political influence/ authority allows for a rigorous and seamless examination of each petitioner, requiring evidence of descent from a historical Indian tribe that existed prior to 1900 and requiring an evaluation of identification, community, and political influence/authority for more than a century from 1900 to the present (Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes, July 1, 2015).
[viii] Nijmeh, “Truth and Justice,” 2023.