HISTORY AND MEMORY: THE MISSION INDIAN FEDERATION’S TOOLS OF RESISTANCE ______
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State University, Fullerton ______
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
History ______
By
Chris McCormack
Approved by:
Volker Janssen, Department of History, Chair Jessica Stern, Department of History Allison Varzally, Department of History
Spring 2018
ABSTRACT
In 1919, the indigenous people of Southern California, to provide a united front in their struggle to secure rights and protect tribal sovereignty, formed the Pan-Indian
Mission Indian Federation. The roots of the problems they faced—the federal government’s allotment policy, paternalistic officials, and population decline—can be traced back to a public that viewed First Peoples through a prism of stereotypes.
Government officials and settlers chiseled this prism out of inaccurate histories that promoted the belief of culturally inferiority, and provided the justification needed to murder, implement assimilation programs, and trample on rights.
Federationists fought against non-Indian attacks on their sovereignty by writing histories that challenged people’s stereotypes. Their histories focused on their ancestors’ contributions to the region before and after European arrival, resistance to colonialism, and cultural perseverance. Furthermore, their memories of the past became manifested in the organization’s governing structure. Members, by maintaining aspects of their traditional governments found a way to protect their sovereignty in the face of foreign aggression. And in the process of using history as a weapon to fight oppression and maintain their traditions, they highlighted the intellectual historians’ responsibility to create factual accounts of the past. The historical revisionism that occurred in Southern
California spread to other parts of the nation and became an effective tool of resistance still in use to this day.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... ii
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2. THE MIF AND BIA: A WAR OVER HISTORY ...... 13
3. MEMORIES OF RESISTANCE ...... 38
4. THE HISTORIAN’S RESPONSIBILITY...... 66
CONCLUSION ...... 78
REFERENCES ...... 82
iii 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Fall 1919: Native Americans from throughout Southern California converged on the Riverside home of the non-Indian real estate agent Jonathan Tibbet. Dressed in dusty button-up collared shirts and suits with ties, most of the male leaders faces hid behind grey beards and black mustaches. Wearing weathered cowboy hats and worn boots, and with the fat of mountain steer sizzling over an open flame, they helped their families and fellow tribal members set up camp in the dirt field next to Tibbet’s residence. Over the next week these participants held dances and performed ceremonies as they made plans for their futures. When it came time for the leaders to formalize their discussions, they did so under Tibbett’s porch festooned with patriotic symbols. American flags and bonnets hung from the wooden frame, Indian women sang patriotic songs in English and a portrait of Abraham Lincoln hung over the large stone fireplace. We don’t know the exact date of this peculiar meeting, but we do know that this gathering created the
Mission Indian Federation (MIF), the region’s first 20th century Pan-Indian organization.1
1 There is no in-depth account of the first meeting. The above description comes from various sources, on the semi-annual meetings the Federation held during the 1920’s. Damon B. Akins, Lines on the Land: The San Luis Rey River Reservations and the Origins of the Mission Indian Federation, 1850--1934 (University of Oklahoma, 2009), 231; “Indians Withdraw from Federation: Younger Men Fail to Agree with Fathers as to Policy of Organization,” Los Angeles Times, February 3, 1920; “Indian Dance Program Given: Mission Federation Council Sessions Concluded Tribal and Other Songs Are Sung During Ceremony Washington to Get Report of Convention,” Los Angeles Times,
2
Until Tibbett’s death, his home served as the MIF’s headquarters. At his residence members created a constitution, developed strategies, and elected leaders of member nations. They built an organization that even after his death continued to fight for “HUMAN RIGHTS AND HOME RULE.”2 And it was here that the indigenous peoples of Southern California began to reshape people’s understanding of the past.
The historian David Blight, in his essay on Reconstruction, argued that historical interpretations are weapons in the struggle for human rights. He focused on how Fredrick
Douglass recognized that the level of freedom experienced by recently freed slaves depended on how people viewed the conflict. After the war, ex-Confederates and those sympathetic to their cause diminished or denied the fact that Southern racists took the nation to war to preserve slavery. The narratives these white supremacists created emphasized the nobility and courage of confederate soldiers who fought to protect states’ rights. These arguments allowed people to ignore the true cause of the war: slavery. Once people forgot the war’s origins, they forget demands for equality. Douglass knew the destructive nature of such beliefs and he challenged those beliefs by constructing an image of Lincoln that stood as a counter-argument, as an “endless storehouse of memory and a legacy to be used as a weapon against the forces of darkness.”3 For him, freedom rested on whether people remembered that tens of thousands of men were slaughtered in
April 12, 1925; “Campfires Burn as Red Men Gather Again: Mission Indians Open Federation Meeting; Red Men from Reservations Near and Far to Hold Age-Old Ceremonies and Map Out Policies,” Los Angeles Times, April 17, 1921.
2 The U. S. National Archives, Constitution of the Mission Indian Federation, Ca. 1922 - Ca. 1922, January 1, 1922, http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/4101518640/. Accessed, December 2, 2012.
3 David W Blight, Beyond the Battlefield: Race, Memory & the American Civil War (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002), 88.
3 the name of emancipation. As Blight noted, Douglass “understood that winning battles over policy or justice in the present often required an effective use of the past.”4
Like Douglass and the freed slaves, Federation members confronted oppressive barriers based on inaccurate histories. Settlers who moved west brought with them accounts of Natives as savage, untrustworthy people destined to be replaced by a superior
Anglo culture.5 This false narrative depicted a people whose primitive state prevented them from thinking rationally and predisposed them to seek pleasure by attacking and killing unsuspecting victims. The new arrivals racist ideas did not come out of thin air, such thinking had been confirmed by memories passed down through generations.
Historian Benjamin Madley argued that the accepted belief of Native savagery allowed non-Indians to form “the myth of inevitable extinction”: the belief that native deaths represented a natural process Anglos could not control.6 Thus, the murder of indigenous people became accepted as a consequence of a predetermined extinction. With the moral impediment to killing removed, Natives found themselves consumed by a whirlwind of death and destruction.
The stereotypes settlers brought with them to California translated into policies and laws that promoted genocide. California’s first three governors advocated extermination. Peter Burnett, the state’s first Governor, argued that Native Americans
4 Ibid, 97.
5 Brendan C. Lindsay, Murder State: California's Native American Genocide: 1846-1873 (Nebraska: Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, 2015), 36.
6 Ibid., 185.
4
“are among all poor and savage tribes of men” and that “the inevitable destiny of the race
[to become extinct] is beyond the power or wisdom of man to avert.” 7 The 1849 constitution also denied Native people citizenship, allowed for their enslavement, and made it legal for whites to steal their lands. A lack of legal rights opened the door for settlers to implement their genocidal campaign without fear of repercussions. California historian Hubert Bancroft called the period after statehood, “ . . . one of the last human hunts of civilization and the basest and most brutal of them all.”8 Within the state hundreds of thousands of Natives were kidnapped or sold at auction, forced to work as servants or raped. Slain babies still resting in murdered mother’s arms. Other innocent indigenous people found themselves hacked to death with axes, pulled out of their dwellings and executed, tortured for fun their scalps paraded as badges of honor. The slaughter reached a point where during one massacre near Crescent City the water flowed red from the massacre of civilians, and during another massacre on an island in Humboldt
Bay the ground oozed with so much blood it stuck to the executioner’s shoes.9 Many of these events took place without provocation or resulted from Natives, whose traditional food sources had been destroyed by non-Indians, taking livestock to feed their starving families. Survivors then watched as their lands were stolen and they were forced onto
7 Peter Burnett, “State of the State Address,” January 6, 1851, accessed June 5, 2016, http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/s_01-Burnett2.html.
8 Richard Rice, The Elusive Eden: A New History of California, 3rd ed (New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 2001), 203.
9 Benjamin Madley, An American Genocide (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 223, 283.
5 reservations where promised supplies and protection never arrived.10 In the end, the federal and state government, media, and average citizens all participated in the genocide that took Natives to the brink of extinction.11 From statehood till 1873, over eighty percent of the state’s indigenous population perished.12 Then, in 1887, with the population decline continuing, the federal government stepped in to implement a new plan.
The Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887, based on the false narrative that benign Anglos needed to save Natives from their uncivilized lives, revealed how inaccurate histories translated into polices of oppression. Partly as a result of reformers concerned about the loss of Native lands, Congress passed and the President signed the allotment act.13 Allotments sought to bestow the benefits of “civilized life” on tribes by breaking up their lands into individual plots for farming. 14 Once Natives become private property owners and sedentary farmers, the thinking went, they would merge into mainstream society as full-fledged citizens. After plots were granted, any excess land would be turned over to settlers. The language of benevolence masked the bill’s use to
10 Lindsay, Murder State, 264-265.
11 Ibid., 31.
12 Madley, An American Genocide, 346.
13 Francis Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), 643.
14 “Transcript of Dawes Act (1887),” accessed September 1, 2015, http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&page=transcript&doc=50& title=Transcript+of+Dawes+Act+%281887%29.
6 legitimize the seizure of millions of acres of tribal lands and increase Washington’s control over indigenous people’s affairs.15 If reformers really wanted to help Natives they would have recognized their humanity and provided them with security from settlers, not an unfounded civilization program. Ironically, the efforts of reformers to protect lands led to the massive loss of the very lands they sought to protect. As historian Janet McDonnell argued, by the time the policy ended in 1934, “Two-thirds of the Indians were either completely landless or did not own enough land to make a subsistence living. The Indian estate had shrunk from 148 million acres in 1887 to 52 million acres.”16
In Southern California, the implementation of the allotment policy also corresponded to narratives of Natives as uncivilized. During the first part of the twentieth century, the limited accounts of Southern California indigenous people focused on how their cultural inferiority led to poverty, destitution, and the prospect of extinction. In these interpretations, tribal members were dependent on the white “father” for their salvation and any challenges from the child-like Natives were dismissed as adolescent ignorance.
Along this line of thinking, even sympathetic individuals supported the idea of eradicating Native cultures to save the Indian. Once these histories became ingrained in the collective memories of citizens, assimilation polices became the logical course of
15 Prucha, The Great Father, 864-65.
Charles F. Wilkinson, Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations, 1st ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006), 43,46.
16 Janet McDonnell, The Dispossession of the American Indian: 1887-1934, (Bloomington: Indian University Press, 1991), 121.
7 action; the “savages” needed to be saved and the government had the means and obligations to do so. 17 When the Federation members met on that cold fall day in 1919, they confronted these histories.18
How Federationists overcame massive population decline, loss of lands, and paternalistic federal officials has attracted the attention of historians who have proposed several theories. One explanation focused on the MIF‘s ability to generate public support for the organization’s goal of ending federal wardship. For example, Helen Hunt
Jackson’s books on atrocities against Mission Indians shined a spotlight on federal officials who in turn became conscious of how the public perceived their actions. Damon
B. Akins’ dissertation argued the Federation used this increased attention to provide breathing space for member nations to exercise their sovereignty.19 Hunt’s impact on public perception was not lost on federationists who occasionally cited her works and whose popularity possibly influenced their decision to take on the name Mission Indian.20
17 Historian Fredrick Hoxie addressed the connection between inaccurate histories and oppression by arguing for citizens to be more respectful of Native rights they need to move beyond the idea of Native people as being inferior and beyond the “line of Sympathetic paternalism” that dominated histories well into the first part of the 20th century. Daniel M Cobb and Loretta Fowler, Beyond Red Power: American Indian Politics and Activism since 1900 (Santa Fe, N.M.: School for Advanced Research, 2007), 24-26.
18 “The Weather,” 1919, Nov 30, Los Angeles Times.
19 Damon B. Akins, Lines on the Land: The San Luis Rey River Reservations and the Origins of the Mission Indian Federation, 1850—1934 (PhD diss., University of Oklahoma, 2009).
20 “Resolution Passed,” The Indian, April 1921. In one of the first issues of the Federation’s magazine, they publicize that “Ramona, heroine of the Helen Hunt Jackson’s novel,” would be at their next convention.
8
In addition, some of the violent confrontations that occurred between government officials and the organization drew attention to the plight of the federationists. One such event took place in 1927 when Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)21 policemen entered the
Campo Indian reservation and tried to detain two reservation members for selling alcohol. The policemen, after initially making the arrest, found themselves confronted by tribal members and in the ensuing melee two federation leaders were killed. While it is difficult to judge levels of public support, press coverage and public reaction appeared to favor the organization. Tanis Thorne and then Eric Bernard asserted that acts of resistance like the one that took place on Campo pushed the BIA to implement policies that acknowledged Native sovereignty.22
There are other examples of resistance at both the micro and macro level. On the
Agua Caliente reservation, Terence Przeklasa credited federation leaders with helping the tribe secure independence by serving as a bridge between the tribe and the US court system. This relationship helped the reservation become “one of the wealthiest in the nation.”23 From a broader viewpoint, Richard Hanks linked the MIF to a centuries long resistance movement. Since Columbus’s arrival indigenous people resisted colonialism
21 At one time the BIA was known as the Office of Indian Affairs but for this paper, the former will be used.
22 Tanis C. Thorne, “On the Fault Line: Political Violence at Campo Fiesta and National Reform in Indian Policy,” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21, no. 2 (July 1, 1999).; Eric Bernard, Fighting the Conspiracy: The Mission Indian Federation’s Justifiable Use of Violence, 1905-1934 (MA Thesis, California State University, Long Beach, 2006).
23 Terence Przeklasa, The Band, the Bureau, and the Business Interests; The Mission Indian Federation and the Fight for the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (MA Thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 2011), 127.
9 and the organization connected the Southern California to this broader struggle.24 All these lines of thinking provide insight into how members navigated the waters of government intrusion. Still to be addressed, though, is the role history played in the battle for independence.
As did Frederick Douglass, federationists used history to confront oppression. By creating their own histories, they consciously tried to break themselves out of the mental prison whites constructed. These histories challenged the image of the passive, destitute
Indian by painting a more respectful and more informed account of the past. Members believed if they broke down the bars of stereotypes they could work together with Anglos on more equitable terms. Although the histories they produced did not appear in book form and often materialized as resolutions passed on to the media and federal government, the informal nature of the histories does not diminish their importance.
Federation historians embraced the written historical process by quoting directly from government documents and reports, which often provided the foundation of their reinterpretations. They also cited Helen Hunt’s books and at one point they referenced the anthropologist A.L. Krober. And even though major publishers did not print their works, their arguments constantly portrayed a more truthful version of the past than those of government officials. History became their tool of resistance, allowing members to confront the government by means other than violence. Instead of taking up arms, they took hold of their pens and started writing. Nevertheless, as they withstood attacks, they
24 Richard Hanks, This War Is for a Whole Life. California (Banning: Ushkana Press, 2012.)
10 needed to find other tools of resistance and to protect their cultures they used the memoires of previous resistance movements to guide their actions.
Utilizing memories to prevent the erosion of ones’ culture has been a key aspect of resistance to colonialism within the US. Christine DeLucia’s, award-winning piece on
King Philips War, explained the importance of memories to Native people:
Memory, the way individuals and groups conserve the past and mobilize it for the
present and future uses . . . has its own logic and faculties for recalling, forgetting,
or silencing the past, and it merits serious consideration as a form of historical
knowledge, particularly among communities that have valued nonwritten
strategies for transmitting the past to posterity.25
In other words, history connects the past to the present and indigenous people’s ability to retain their histories allowed them to protect their distinct tribal identity. The US government’s assimilation policy tried to erode this bond by imposing Western beliefs on tribes. Federal officials needed Natives to abandon their past in order for their policies to be successful. When Native peoples centered their lives around traditions they ensured the US government’s assimilation programs would not destroy their cultures. Under conditions imposed by Anglo culture, living according to one’s past represented resistance. The current Federal recognition policy requires that tribes be “identified as an
American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900.”26 If member
25 Christine DeLucia, “The Memory Frontier: Uncommon Pursuits of Past and Place in the Northeast after King Philip’s War,” Journal of American History 98, no. 4 (January 2012): 979.
26 Cornell University Law School. “Mandatory criteria for Federal acknowledgment.” Accessed November 21, 2014. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/83.7.
11 nations assimilated, this standard could not be met; thus, the ability to protect tribal traditions helped determined the degree of independence a tribe achieved.
Federation leaders realized that to push back against foreign encroachment and protect their sovereignty they needed to teach the public about their history. This strategy sought to correct present injustices by correcting interpretations that sustained those wrongs. Inaccurate accounts of the past are not easy to overturn. Deborah Miranda’s
2013 memoir highlighted the lingering effects of the “Mission Fantasy Fairy Tale” told of her people. She argued that, “Story is the most powerful force in the world” and the story told of Mission Indians is one of a savage Indian in search of history and civilization.
That this story “has done more damage than any” settler or disease; a story that also
“taught us how to kill ourselves and sill each other with alcohol, domestic violence, horizontal racism, internalized hatred.”27 Yet, despite the power of inaccurate interpretations to cause pain and suffering, the MIF work to change the way people understood Natives produced victories for member nations and in the process highlighted history as a tool of non-violence resistance, a tool other Natives picked up.
However, the emphasis on teaching represented only part of the struggle, resistance also became predicated on a tribe’s willingness to protect their tribal traditions.
To do so, the Federation created an organization that helped member nations live according to their traditions. And, by allowing their struggle to unfold on the battlefield of history, they revealed the historian’s responsibility to create accurate accounts. If
Anglos had had a greater understanding of indigenous people, then many battles might
27 Deborah A. Miranda, Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir, First Edition (Berkeley: Heyday, 2013), xvi, xix.
12 not have occurred. In the organization’s struggle against the federal government, leaders used history as a weapon to attack oppression, protect their distinct national identities, and in the process, exposed the power that comes from shaping the present out of the past.
13
CHAPTER 2
THE MIF AND BIA: A WAR OVER HISTORY
Throughout the mid-nineteenth century wagon trains of white settlers rolled towards California and towards the dream of a new beginning. At the helm of the wagons a man, more than likely unshaven and with the stench of not showering for weeks, shifted his sweet stained jeans back and forth on a wooden seat. His fearful heart pumped rapidly while his eyes shifted back and forth trying to make out what lay hidden by the trees that lined the path westward. He believed savages inhabited the forest and with every unknown sound his mind told his hands to drop the leather horse reins, grab the rifle stock, place his twitching index finger on the metal trigger, and pull. Then slip in another shell and do it over, and over, in pursuit of a sense of security. The presumed barbarians that haunted the imaginations of settlers lusted for blood, covered themselves in mud not clothes, listened to the spirits of the dead not God, and yelled for war not peace. His compatriots and lord told the settler danger lay in the unknown and told him to stay vigilant so that the ghouls would soon fulfill their destiny to be vanquished from earth.
Historian Maureen Konkle outlined how inaccurate histories provided the legal rational for the US imperial agenda. Anglos, for centuries after landing at Jamestown, dealt with the numerically and militarily strong Native population by making treaties.
These legally binding agreements, signed by two sovereign entities, acknowledged the legitimacy of first nations. As US control expanded outward, these contracts became a
14 barrier to westward expansion. Within a nation that proclaims its respect for the rule of law treaties are not easily dismissed. Konkle claimed that non-Indians overcame this problem by removing Natives from the past:
The principal means of undermining the political significance of treaties for Native
peoples is Euro Americans’ denial of Native people’s existence in time, their exclusion of
Native peoples from history.28
Once indigenous people were removed from the past, their rights were removed from the present. Anglo writers accounts of Natives as culturally inferior and ahistorical fueled the government’s bulldozer of westward expansion, paving the way for non-Indians to steal lands protected by treaties. When settlers began to occupy California, misrepresentations of indigenous people found a home in the term Mission Indian.
California statehood brought public officials who began to write about the region in their reports to Washington. Within their works, a stereotypical image of Mission
Indians began to take hold. In 1852 the government-appointed subagent B.D. Wilson reported on the conditions of Southern California indigenous people. While he noted their contributions, he found that many were “savage . . . warlike” people who live in “very meager and very miserable” fashion. He contemplated whether the government should follow a policy of “extermination,” which he ultimately rejected because of the high
28 Maureen Konkle, Writing Indian Nations: Native Intellectuals and the Politics of Historiography, 1827-1863 (University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 6.
15 cost.29 Another report from the period corroborated Wilson’s account by portraying
Mission Indians as “homeless wanderers, the process of vice and destitution by which they were carried away is fitly described as extermination.”30 And in 1873, Agent Luther
Sleigh found that white settlers believed “their dusky neighbors” were “thieves; they are treacherous; they are vagabonds” and should be removed to a territory under military occupation or an island.31 Even California’s Attorney General noted in 1944 that many of the State’s first legislators held “inhumane sentiments” and had a “harsh attitude” towards Indians.32 Such dehumanized manifestations clouded the minds of Anglos, allowing them to terrorize and kill Natives without provocation. By the time government agent J Ross Browne wrote about the state in 1864, he found that these ideas dominated the mental landscape.
In 1833, Browne and his family immigrated to the US from Ireland after the
British exiled his father for his Irish nationalist views. Eventually, Browne became a prolific writer and traveler and some credit his witty writing style with influencing Mark
Twain. During the Gold Rush, he arrived in California and after witnessing the
29 Benjamin Davis Wilson and John Walton Caughey, The Indians of Southern California in 1852: The B.D. Wilson Report and a Selection of Contemporary Comment (U of Nebraska Press, 1952), 68.
30 United States. Office of Indian Affairs, Annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, for the year 1875 (Washington: G.P.O, 1875), 10.
31 Robert F Heizer, Federal Concern about Conditions of California Indians, 1853 to 1913: Eight Documents (Socorro, N.M.: Ballena Press, 1979), 56.
32 Robert W Kenny, “History and Proposed Settlement: Claims of California Indians,”
1944, box 22, folder: Court of Claims-CA. vs US, Record Group 75, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento Area Office.
16 destructive nature of stereotypical memories of California Natives he turned to satire to expose the injustices linked to such thinking. He found that many whites viewed Natives as “very poor and very corrupt, given to gambling, drinking, and other vices prevailing among white men, and to which Indians have a natural inclination.”33 And that these opinions created a history of injustice:
Their history in California is a melancholy record of neglect and cruelty and the part
taken by public men high position, in wrestling from them the very means of subsistence,
is on which any other professional politicians would be ashamed.34
He satirically argued that their inferiority prevented them from comprehending their extinction helped humanity, “The idea, strange as it may appear, never occurred to them that they were suffering for the great cause of civilization, which in the natural course of things, must exterminate Indians.”35 As Browne highlighted, people’s incorrect memories put Natives in an impossible position; their alleged savagery confined them to an inferior livelihood and destined them to perish. With the future thus predetermined, the federal government chose to make the transition into extinction as peaceful as possible by implementing civilizing programs.
Browne attacked government officials who used their humanizing rhetoric as a smokescreen for the genocidal displacement taking place at the time. He held utter contempt for officials who claimed to work as a force of progress but then turned a blind
33 J. Ross Browne, The Indians of California (San Francisco, 1944), Hathi Trust Digital Library, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31175035118416, 2.
34 Ibid., 71
35 Ibid., 8.
17 eye to massacres in which women and children experienced brutal savagery at the hands of non-Indians. One event that exposed the contradiction among those who claimed to work for a “civilized county” took place in Northern California during the winter of
1858. After tribal members found themselves wrongly accused of stealing and killing cattle:
Armed parties…shot the Indians down—weak, harmless, and defenseless as they were—
without distinction of age or sex; shot down women with sucking infants at their breasts;
killed or crippled the naked children that were running about.36
Following the murderous aggression, Federal officials refused to act against the perpetrators by claiming their civilization program voided them of responsibility:
The general government folded its arms and said, ‘What can we do? We cannot chastise
the citizens of a state. Are we not feeding and clothing the savages, and teaching them to
be moral, and is not that as much as the civilized world can ask of us?’37
Browne excoriated the argument that Congress fulfilled their obligations by delivering social services— services that, Browne noted, were insufficient and contributed to corruption among government agents—to the savages, even though state violence took place unabated. He believed the president had an obligation to stop the violent actions of
California politicians and settlers but the President’s sense of superiority prevented him from doing so. Eventually, the memories Browne exposed gave way to one of the state’s most famous women, Helen Hunt Jackson.
36 Ibid., 57-58
37 Ibid,, 59.
18
In 1880, in a further indication of how histories affected policy, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in response to Hunt’s book on atrocities against the region’s indigenous peoples, sent Jackson and Albert Kinney to Southern California on a fact-finding mission.
Their final report did shine a sympathetic light on the plight of Natives, but it also voided them of agency. Jackson and Kinney viewed the history of Mission Indians as problematic; they were a product of “a legacy of a singularly helpless race in a singularly anomalous position.” The authors explained that cultural inferiority allowed them to be pushed aside and prevented them from resisting colonial aggression. In Jackson’s book that followed the report, she continued to forge her history of Mission Indians as “poor creatures” who must leave their cultures behind if they want to survive.38
These views of the past directly contributed to the creation of the government’s allotment policy. A 1928 report from the Department of Interior noted:
The Mission Indians are inevitably associated in our minds with the tidal wave of Indian
sympathy which spread over the country a half century ago, bringing on its crest the
romantic story of Ramona, and the impassioned brief, A Century of Dishonor, and
resulting in the adoption of allotment policy for Indians in general.39
The report connected Hunt’s story of Mission Indians to a policy that ravaged Native societies. Even today the cloud of allotments hangs over reservations that were broken up
38 Helen Hunt Jackson, The Present Condition of the Mission Indians in Southern California, in Father Junipero and the Mission Indians of California (Boston: Little, Brown, 1902), 137, 175.
39 “Department of Interior Board of Indian Commissioners Washington,” 15 August 1928, box 24, folder 090, Board of Indian Commissioners, Record Group 75 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento Area Office.
19 into private lands. Under the policy, many tribal members lost their plots to non-Natives due to their inability to pay property taxes, their desperate need for money, or to outsiders taking excess lands. Reservations turned into checkerboards comprised of private and
Native owned lots and this lack of congruency plagues tribes to this day.40 The connection between inaccurate accounts and oppressive actions did not go unnoticed by
MIF leaders.
Shortly after the organization’s inaugural meeting, an unattributed article in the organization’s official magazine, The Indian, addressed the connection. The article noted that regional indigenous people lived “only as memoires in the romance of the past” and if they wanted government interference to end they needed to change the way people thought of them.41 The editor of The Indian, Sammual Rice, also confronted the issue in more direct terms, “Yet through propaganda, through civilization’s intelligence, we are soaked with misrepresentations, stupefied with an American outlook. We turn in our chains, struggle to free ourselves from the degrading, contradicting propaganda.”42 And
MIF President Adam Castillo, who served in that capacity for over four decades, took note. In his speech on the history of the MIF, he noted that their lands had been stolen because “The story told to white people is that these Indians were glad to go.” He argued this story originated back East and when government officials arrived in the region they
40 McDonnell, The Dispossession, 3, 121.
41 “The History of the Mission Indian Federation,” The Indian, June 1934.
42 “Our Foundation as a Light to Justice,” The Indian, April 1922.
20
“could not think of treating them any different from other Indian nations whom they had encountered in other parts of the country.” Konkle claimed that the story from back East began with Anglo writers who provided the mental fuel for westward expansion. And, as she noted, by the early nineteenth-century these writers convinced many citizens into believing that:
Native peoples were…an anachronistic relic of an early moment in the history of man
locked in a state of nature without history and without a future, that they would rapidly
disappear when confronted with the pinnacle of human civilization, the new United
States.43
As did Konkle, almost a century later, Castillo and Rice recognized that false histories drove the oppression of their oppressor.
MIF members, to change the actions of Federal officials and settlers, worked to reinterpret the perception of Mission Indians. For members, the connection to the missions provided them with a forum to change people’s understanding of who they were. Therefore, they did not take offense to Helen Hunt’s histories in part because she exposed the public to the brutality of Spanish and then US colonization attempts. Even though her accounts denied them agency, at least part of her story held publically accepted truths. Embracing Hunt allowed members to expand on her works by moving the narrative away from one of cultural inferiority and oppression to one of cultural resistance and shared values. Hunt became the key to unlocking people’s minds and to bringing Mission Indians out of the shadows of non-Indian consciousness.
43 Konkle, Writing Indian Nations, 4.
21
To generate a more accurate account of Mission Indians, Federationists published their official magazine. In many ways, The Indian became a Native history journal by providing the public with the Natives’ accounts of the past. Its pages featured their historical interpretations, poetry, traditional stories, and messages about various events taking place on the reservations. President Castillo explained the importance of the publication to the struggle for a more informed present, “It is for all to write on the pages words to people, words to the Indian and white man, words that will tell the hopes, ambitions and disappointments . . . It’s the magazine of the Indians of California.”44 For
Castillo and other members, the publication laid the foundation for a new past, one in which Native people gained agency by consciously shaping their own destinies.
An early issue of The Indian took on the task of rebuilding Anglos’ image of
Mission Indians by offering a brief history of the region. Challenging ingrained stereotypes, the piece noted the Mission Indians “were never on the war path [and] were peaceful people,” that their ancestors built the “famous Missions,” and that these structures stood as monuments to their labor.45 That “the fathers of many members of the
Federation carried timbers . . . on their backs to build the walls of the old Missions.” That their rights to citizenship and land had been guaranteed by the eighteen treaties their ancestors signed with federal officials in 1852. That while members abided by the agreement, politicians and agents continually failed to live up to their responsibilities.
44 “Indians Notice,” The Indian, March 1934. Castillo also noted that the magazine would publish, “articles of encouragement and interest—Indian legends, poems, life stories, especially items from every reservation.”
45 “The History of the Mission Indian Federation,” The Indian, April 1921.
22
The unnamed author proved his arguments by not only quoting the treaty and “A Legend of Mission Indians,” but by turning to a memory of what occurred at the treaty meeting.
This account portrayed the Mission Indian ancestors as hospitable and rational. The treaty negotiations became a case of two civilized peoples working together to build a future of respect. This history, along with other writings in early issues, began to form a new image of Mission Indians. But, for some within the federal government this retelling of the past represented a threat.
When Federationists confronted the memory of the passive, uneducated Indian, many government officials found it difficult to fathom that a people they considered savages thought for themselves. The BIA operated as a civilizing force, but the
Federation’s premise challenged that mission. Why did those the agency worked to help organize against that help? Agents needed to address this contradiction to continue their work. At this point, they could either try to understand why opposition occurred or rely on stereotypical memories. They chose the latter by bringing an indictment against
Tibbett and other members.
In 1921, the U.S. government indicted Tibbett on charges he worked to “destroy the good will of said Indians [California Mission Indians] toward the government of the
United States.” The indictment claimed he used lies to “misinform and mislead” Indians into believing the government violated their rights, misused funds earmarked for regional tribes, and prevented them from living in their “primitive way.”46 The charges corresponded to a belief among some Bureau officials that the simple nature of their
46 United States v. Jonathan Tibbet, et al. 1921, box 184, folder: 1, Records of the District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21, National Archives, Mission Indian Agency, Riverside, CA.
23 subjects meant that whites made decisions for them. As the federal inspector on the case noted, Tibbett had control “over these poor, uneducated Indians” and “Instead of obeying the laws of the government these Indians are being led and they are obeying officers of the organization.”47 P.T. Hoffman, the head of the Bureau at the time, also echoed the belief that Natives could not think for themselves. That for Indians to believe the government did not work on their behalf, a dishonest white man had to brainwash them.
He claimed if they could put Tibett “out of business there will be no difficulty for the government to reason things out with the Indians who have been deceived by Tibbet.”48
To further diminish the importance of the opposition, a federal lawyer, without presenting any evidence, labeled Tibbet a rapist who put members under his control.49 In the minds of Federal officials, Tibbet played the role of the shepherd who led his sheep astray and now the superior culture needed to bring these wayward creatures back to the herd.
Nevertheless, as the case progressed, it became clear that some MIF members acted on their own accord, not Tibbett’s, and eventually President Castillo and forty-nine others were added to the indictment.
47 “Tibbet Cause of Much Trouble,” Riverside Daily Press, 21 July 1921, box 136, folders 1: Mission Indian Federation, Correspondence and Other Records Relating to the Mission Indian Federation (1919), Record Group, 75, National Archives, Mission Indian Agency, Riverside, CA.
48 “Concerning the Indian Branch of the ‘Pioneer Memorial Museum Association,’” box 136, folder 2: Superintendent Hoffman 2, Correspondence and Other Records Relating to the Mission Indian Federation (1919), Record Group 75, Mission Indian Agency, Riverside, CA.
49 Ibid.
24
The new case mimicked the previous one but with indigenous defendants. Instead of Tibett being accused of lying to Native people about their history, now a group of ungrateful Indians were accused of the lying. Under the new indictment the defendants found themselves charged with conspiring to “alienate from the government of the United
States the confidence of the California Mission Indians.” They did this by falsely telling regional Indians the government “robbed [them] of their lands and had . . . deprived
[them] of their rights and privileges.”50 Without argument, the prosecutors rejected the defendants’ claim their lands had been stolen by discrediting the claim as a manifestation of inherent ignorance. The problems the suspects faced lay within their cultures not within the BIA. The Superintendent of Indian Affairs, in charge at the time of the prosecution, explained the rational for turning the victim into the victimizer:
My observation is that there is not a man who holds a position in the association [Mission
Indian Federation], even down to the lowliest committeeman, who could be classed as an
upstanding, prosperous Indian. Those who cry for more land are, to a large extent, those
who resist in every way our efforts to get them [help.]51
Things were bad, but a group of unappreciative Natives compounded the problem by standing in the way of progress. Once Federationists became the source of their problems, BIA agents could classify any of their actions as being counterproductive to their civilizing efforts.
50 United States v. Jonathan Tibbet, et al. 1921, box 198, folder: 1, Records of the District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21, National Archives, Mission Indian Agency, Riverside, CA.
51 As quoted in Akins. Akins, “Lines on the Land,” 219.
25
At this point, Federation members needed to make a decision. They could conform to the thinking of agents by ditching Tibbett and disband. Or they could chart a new course by picking up their pens and writing. They chose the latter.
Federation leaders challenged the charges by challenging the notion that their cultural inferiority prevented them rationalizing their reality. In a resolution passed by members, they noted that Christopher Columbus did not discover America because, “the
Indians were here and had been here for centuries before . . . ” To ease worries about the organization’s formation, they reminded readers that before Columbus arrived, regional tribes came together to solve their problems. By creating the MIF they were only
“exercising the rights of the white man to meet and confer together for their mutual good” and they wanted to solve their problems in a legal manner, not through violence.
To further prove their innocence, they turned the readers’ attention to past resolutions that proclaimed their patriotism, while noting their sons sacrificed their lives for the country in WWI. They finished with a lengthy quote from a congressional committee report which supported their right to organize to improve their living conditions.52
After this initial attempt failed to bring a dismissal of the BIA charges, leaders passed another resolution. This resolution, as did the previous one, focused on, “the enlightenment of the white people as their objects and purposes.” In an indication of the difficulty and importance of changing people’s beliefs, it noted that Anglos still did not understand them and in some cases—they did not name names— there had been a deliberate attempt to “misrepresent” their intentions. The authors sought to generate understanding by invoking the constitution: “Its [our] object is to secure liberty, justice
52 “Resolution,” The Indian, October 1921.
26 and right for all, with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Their use of the constitution connected them to the American Revolution against British colonialism and challenged notions of cultural inferiority. Referencing US history and making rational arguments for why their rights needed to be respected, portended a high level of intellect. They also confronted the charges by again highlighting that 20,000 US Natives fought in France during WWI to defend “that glorious banner that the Americans are so proud of.”53 In a sign of the truthfulness of federationists interpretations, the charges, based on the BIA’s flawed interpretations, were eventually dropped.
While it is difficult to directly connect the dismissal of charges to the
Federationist’s histories, their accounts illuminated the weakness of the government’s case. The plaintiff’s argument that MIF members worked against their and other indigenous people’s interests by resisting the BIA had no factual basis. On the other hand, member’s accounts of themselves as rational human beings with the legal authority to organize to fight for their rights did correspond to reality; a point proven by the dismissal of the case. How government officials tried to publically counter MIF histories, prior to and during the case, also revealed the effectiveness of history as a tool of resistance. Members’ historical accounts, published by local journalist, worried BIA agents to such an extent the bureau worked to convince citizens the agency operated as a force of progress, not repression.
Less than a year after the MIF inaugural meeting and as the BIA began to build its case against Tibett, agency director Paul Hoffman took offense to a speech Dr. Comstock gave to the Eball Club. The director disagreed with Comstock’s claims of agency
53 “At The Council Fires,” April 1922.
27 malfeasance and how colonialism led to the decline of the indigenous population.
Hoffman, after reading about the event in a local publication, wrote a letter to the Eball
Club president attacking the accusations. He countered the doctor’s indictments by providing budgetary and historical evidence he believed proved the BIA worked as a force for good and that any wrongs committed resulted from the actions of “others.” He apologized for writing the “lengthy letter,” by stating he did so to clear up “any false impressions” by informing club members about the “truth,” and that it “would be a pleasure to furnish any facts available upon request.” Although Comstock did not work in an official federation capacity, his arguments reflected those of members and drove
Hoffman to write a rebuttal. 54 When charges were eventually brought against Tibett and other members, concern over public opinion remained an issue within the Agency.
As the case progressed, government lawyers, along with top BIA officials, took time to address the Riverside Chamber of Commerce to secure their support for the prosecution. At the meeting, they explained that Tibett created the MIF as a “grafting proposition” and he used his position to wrongly make federal officials believe he had local public support. Attempting to counter this community backing, the chamber passed a resolution that denounced Tibbet and the organization while endorsing the “Indian department and its officials.” To further discredit the Federation, a government lawyer quoted a man who appeared to be working as an informant. He claimed that Tibbet told him he had the ability to lead 20,000 Natives in an armed rebellion against the
54 “Hoffman Letter to Ebell Club,’” box 136, folder: Mission Indian Federation 1, Correspondence and Other Records Relating to the Mission Indian Federation (1919), RG- 75, MIA, NA-Riverside, CA.
28 government. The effort to gain a public proclamation from the chamber reveled the agents’ fear that opposition arguments could generate solidarity.55 When the charges against Tibett and other members fell apart, this fear must have grown as the Federation’s fight against allotments took center stage.
For over a decade, the struggle for “home rule and human rights” evolved around defeating allotments. Within Southern California the idea that Native peoples needed to be taught the concept of private property and how to effectively use tribal lands held no basis in reality. When a lawyer asked MIF member Vidal Mojado if tribal tradition allowed “particular portions of land to use for a particular Indians?” Mojado responded yes. Mojado then mentioned that this traditional respect for private property had been in place prior to European arrival.56 The anthropologist Florence C. Shipek corroborated
Majodo’s assessment while noting that by the time Spaniards set foot in California, indigenous people, to feed the high population density, developed a form of land ownership like that of Europeans.57 The Spanish colonialist and then BIA officials’ refusal to recognize this past made conflict inevitably. Tribal members did not need to be taught the concept of private property and land use because they already knew such
55 Riverside Daily Press, “Tibbet Cause of Much Trouble,’” box 136, folder: Superintendent Hoffman 2, Correspondence and Other Records Relating to the Mission Indian Federation (1919), RG- 75, MIA, NA-Riverside, CA.
56 “Reporters’ transcript. Testimony and Proceedings on Trial, vol. 12 ” November 1929, box 2, folder A2 [8/16], Southern District of California, Southern Division, Equity Case, Record Group 21, National Archives, Mission Indian Agency, Riverside, CA.
57 Florence C. Shipek, Pushed into the Rocks: Southern California Indian Land Tenure, 1769-1986 (University of Nebraska Press, 1988), 17-18.
29 things. What they did not understand was why government officials disregarded their intelligence by treating them like children.58
Lacking factual support for the implementation of their policy, BIA agents relied on inaccurate interpretations to rationalize their actions. In the early 1920s, P.T.
Hoffman, the Regional Superintendent of the BIA, articulated the connection between history and allotments:
Anyone familiar with California history knows that the time when the Indians lost much
of their valuable property was in the early days when the Indians managed their own
affairs before the Government afforded any real protection. This indicates the efficiency
of Indian management of community property. Any return to that system would result in
the Indians losing what remains of their property.59
Hoffman’s argument justified the need for federal intrusion to prevent further decay. Of course, lands had been stolen, but that resulted from Natives’ uncivilized behavior, not the actions of the Federal Government. This twisted interpretation allowed politicians and settlers to avoid responsibility for stealing Native lands.
The MIF leadership confronted the policy of allotments by passing additional resolutions that expanded upon their previous ones. By humanizing Natives, these histories sought to overcome the lack of knowledge that contributed to allotments. One resolution again rejects the idea Columbus discovered America, instead arguing that
58 According to Shipek, Native peoples of the region had a long history of granting members’ individual parcels that would be passed down from generation to generation. Ibid, 25.
59 “Concerning the Indian Branch of the ‘Pioneer Memorial Museum Association,” box 136, folder 2: Mission Indian Federation 1, Correspondence and Other Records Relating to the Mission Indian Federation (1919), Record Group 75, Mission Indian Agency, Riverside, CA.
30 when he and his men arrived, Native people greeted them with open arms and baskets full of the continent’s copious foods. This generosity, they argue, brought salvation to the immigrants by saving them from the ravages of starvation and eminent death. However, their kindness did not end there. Others like De Soto, John C Fremont and Lewis and
Clark, survived because first peoples blessed them with gifts of benevolence and charitable guidance. The resolution then noted that the white man repaid the favor by spreading infectious disease across the land and by raping their women. The foreigners also introduced liquors that made many white men “stagger around” and brought on a form of drunkenness and debauchery not seen before. European immigrants greatest sin, though; the continual theft of ancestral lands.
The second half of the resolution focused on how the white man’s “so-called civilization” took the land of indigenous people by force, driving many into the deserts and mountains where conditions became “harder and harder.” The Natives were forced onto reservations, and their once fertile lands were replaced with a barren dried up landscape. To take their “last poor abodes,” Federal agents then began to break up the reservations into small allotments. Some of these agents, with a demeanor of Washington privilege, used violence to get what they wanted. They tore down old fences that defined tribal boundaries and stomped on their gardens and crops to secure more territory and water. To demonstrate their traditional and long-standing ideas of land use, they incorporate a statement about how their nations always operated within defined
31 boundaries. The decree concluded by arguing the expropriation occurred without “our consent or approval” and the time had come for the land grab to stop.60
Castillo also attacked the policy by writing a narrative that emphasized Native resistance. In his “Story of the Mission Indian Federation,” he turned his attention to the period of Spanish colonization. Largely because of Helen Hunt Jackson, many whites viewed this period as a time when the indigenous people experienced brutality and death only. On the other hand, Federationists looked at it in a very different light. Yes, the
Spaniards tried to get them to “leave their original mode of life,” but they failed:
During the rule of the Padres the Indians lived in their own villages, elected their own
head men, or chiefs, their captains, their judges. They made and enforced their own
village laws and generally handle their own affairs.61
The period of Spanish colonialism represented resistance not destruction, a time when their ancestors protected their sovereignty not acquiesced to foreign domination. When the Missionaries arrived in brown robes preaching about a tall bearded white man who knew all the worlds’ secrets, Native people paid little attention. Mission Indians listened to their apparent Christian saviors and then continued to live according to their own beliefs. However, things turned for the worse during the period of Americanization when the US government exploited Natives people’s respect for the eighteen treaties of 1852 by using the documents to steal their lands.
60 “Deny Columbus Discovered America,” box 24, folder 1, Tribal Relations: Communications Newspaper Clippings, 1921-1934, RG. 75, MIA, NA-Riverside, CA.
61 Castillo, “The Story of the Indian Federation,” RG-75, NA, Riverside, California.
32
Castillo argued that after “the Indians appealed to Washington” about treaty violations they were told nothing could be done because the Senate had never passed the agreements. From that point forward, the situation grew worse as the “reservations have constantly been getting smaller.” He substantiated his argument about the theft of lands by citing the forceful relocation of the people of Agua Caliente to Pala, noting that the
“facts are that they [Caliente tribal members] went only when a detachment of soldiers bundled them up and hauled them away.” He then linked allotments, a policy that “does not benefit the Indian” at all, to previous land grabs by arguing that if the policy was not stopped “in time the Indians will have no land left.” If the treaties had been respected
“there would be enough for all [Natives].” He also made it clear that members remained committed to protecting their ancestral lands.
Castillo’s history connected the eighteen treaties and allotments to a federal government bent on stealing Native territory. He argued that if government officials sincerely wanted to help indigenous people they could by respecting the treaties and bringing an end to the allotments. For many Federationists the fact Congress never passed the agreements mattered little; the government had made a contract and therefore it needed to be honored. In 1930 several Federationists who acted on the belief allotments violated treaty rights found themselves in civil court for interfering with the policy on their respective reservations of La Jolla and Rincon.
For the La Jolla, Rincon court case government lawyers again turned to the inaccurate history of BIA benevolence to substantiate the case by arguing the defendants broke the law by not respecting the allotments of tribal members:
. . .and the evidence further fairly shows that the purpose of the allotment is to foster and
encourage habits of thrift and industry among individual Indians, and to furnish him an
33
opportunity to build his home, cultivate his land, make his own independent living,
encourage habits of civilized life and cause them to be established in communities as
industrious, frugal and law-abiding citizens of the United States of America. 62
Federal officials again found justification for legal action against Federationists by arguing their opposition to the government’s civilizing actions made them criminals; that allotments benefited Natives. The defendants’ actions brought their people suffering by standing in the way of progress and they needed to be punished in the name of civilization.
On the other hand, the defense attacked the charges by presenting a vastly different history than that of the prosecution. Federation lawyers produced a “Historical
Sketch” that generated a defense based on the argument that since MIF ancestors followed the eighteen treaties, so too should the federal government. As defense lawyers noted, their client’s memories of the treaties represented the law of the land:
Both parties to the treaties proceeded as though the treaties were actually approved, but
the government, never, on its part, carried out the term of the treaties, though these same
terms were punctiliously observed by the Indians.
Their relatives gave up approximately eleven million acres, in exchange for recognition of their land rights, infrastructure such as, “schools and other necessary buildings,” and other services such as “skilled instructors in farming, blacksmithing and woodwork . . . ”
Even though the government wanted it both ways - lands and the denial of rights and services - Federationists refused to accept this contradiction.
62 “Special Master’s Finding of Facts, Conclusion of Law and Report,” March 1931, box 1, folder A1, Southern District of California, Southern Division, Equity Case, Record Group 21, National Archives, Mission Indian Agency, Riverside, CA.
34
The defense further bolstered their case by arguing that in a nation based on the rule of law, agreements signed between two civilized groups are binding. They dismissed
Congress’s rejection of treaties by arguing the historical record proved Natives abided by the terms, and because no one informed them about the process of checks and balances, the agreements were lawful. The defendants substantiated this claim by again turning to their memories:
The Indians believed that these Treaties recognized and guaranteed their rights to certain
lands given to them in lieu of the lands, which they had surrendered. To the Indian mind,
the solemn compact agreed to on the one hand by their chief men and captains, and the
other by the agents of the Federal Government, definitely concluded the transactions.63
In their minds, the treaties represented the law and therefore the defendant’s actions did not violate the law. Although the strategy of utilizing memories to support arguments represented a minor point in the case, it granted insight into the accuracy of non-written accounts. Government lawyers may have thought that history sustained their argument, but in the end, facts corresponded to the defendants’ interpretation.
In 1944, Robert W. Kenny, the Attorney General of California, produced a
History and Proposed Settlement: Claims of California Indians, in which he argued that the government misled tribal members about the treaties. Even though Natives
“performed or remained willing to perform all their duties and obligations required of them by the treaties,” the Government failed to follow through on their promise to respect
63 “Respondents’ Points and Authorities,” box 1, folder 1, Southern District of California, Equity Case File, RG. 21, NA-Riverside, CA.
35 the treaty.64 And in 1919, a regional Superintendent of Indian Affairs described how the
Senate’s inaction on the treaties impacted indigenous people: “18 treaties were made between Indians and the Government . . . which would have protected the Indians’ property rights and perhaps placed them in such an economic state that they would not have been decimated.”65 The Native signatories of the agreements accurately trusted that the federal government would provide them with protection from white settlers and allow them to live their lives on their own terms. 66 Instead, their trust ran into deceitful government officials bent on looking out for the needs of non-Indian settlers.
At the conclusion of the La Jolla and Rincon case, the judge, sitting behind the bench in his black robe, thanked federation members in attendance for their behavior during the trial, noting that they had behaved in a civil and proper manner.67 No record exists of what the judge expected, but by acting rationally they caught his attention. What occurred in the courtroom that day represented a microcosm of the MIF’s struggle for
“Human Rights and Home Rule.” Governmental officials, seduced by their flawed histories, found it difficult to move beyond the image of the defeated, soon-to-be-extinct
64 Robert W Kenny, “History and Proposed Settlement: Claims of California Indians,”RG 75, Sacramento Area Office.
65 “Hoffman Letter to Ebell Club,’” box 136, folder: Superintendent Hoffman 2, Correspondence and Other Records Relating to the Mission Indian Federation (1919), RG- 75, MIA, NA-Riverside, CA.
66 Vanessa Gunther, Ambiguous Justice (Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2006), 19. Gunther argued that, “None of the tribes had been made aware that the treaties required ratification by the US Senate to make them valid.” And “in the minds of the tribes” the treaties held legal standing.
67 Akins, “Lines on the Land,” 265.
36 savage. In the end, Federationists lost the court case but they eventually defeated allotments, a victory credited in part to their work as historians.
The clash over allotments epitomizes how indigenous people could use history to attack policies that diminished their sovereignty. Members helped defeat allotments by formulating factual accounts in which Natives protected their cultures and secured their legal rights through agreements with Anglos. As the public and government agents became more aware of this past, they became more respectful of their demands. The truths that members espoused informed the citizenry by way of local journalists, who served as an invaluable ally in informing perceptions of their struggle against policy.
A 1923 LA Times article that addressed the policy found that some white men
“sincerely” were working to understand the “Indian point of view and sympathize[d] with him in his last stand to hold to his ancestral acres in Southern California.” To expand on the organization’s point of view statements from federationists who demanded that the government end its paternalistic behavior were included, “’Indians do not want allotment and they want to be consulted before action is taken.’” In addition, tribes called “’on their friends to help them stop this until they can have a conference about it with the government.’” The piece then addressed the viewpoint of Agua Caliente members who were furious that Federal officials surveyed allotments without holding a meeting with the tribe. This lack of communication created fear that their ancestral lands would be taken if the process continued. A telegram signed by three tribal leaders two of whom were prominent spiritual elders also appeared. In the telegram, the elders demanded an end to allotments and that they had, “’patent to our lands and want to hold them always
37 together.’”68 Other articles during the 1920s also portrayed the MIF in a sympathetic light and in 1931 the San Diego Sun ran a series that focused on issues affecting regional indigenous people.
An article in the series by Templeton Peck investigated the fight to protect tribal lands. Peck followed the arguments of federationists in claiming the government violated the treaties of 1852 by not granting the signatories compensation for lost territory and that on some allotments Natives, “were denied rights to their hereditary lands.” The article also included statements from Adam Castillo and a petition sent to the BIA that supported the claim the policy represented an injustice. The petition called again, as did the Agua
Caliente telegram, for, “white brothers and friends who are in sympathy with our cause” to fight with them “to withdrawal the allotment system.” It continued by claiming they hoped, “our government will fulfill its promise as stipulated in the ungratified treaties of
1852,” rather than forcing them onto small plots “upon which we will not be able to make a living.” Peck’s article came as number seven in the series and during the following year the paper ran another succession of pieces on the same topic.69
In one of those articles, Virgil Wyatt tackled “the history of allotments” and essentially quoted directly from Federatioinists’ accounts of the policy. As did Peck,
Wyatt advanced the argument that the government broke its promise to respect the 18 treaties of 1852, “Yet the federal government—in the Indians’ eyes—betrayed the tribes in the treaties . . . ” His mention of the Indians’ viewpoint is a clear reference to MIF
68 “Red Men Discuss Affairs,” LA Times, May 2, 1923.
69 Templeton Peck, “Indians To Be Paid For Treaty Lands,” September 27, 1931, box 24, Tribal Relations: Communications Newspaper Clippings, Record Group 75, National Archives, Riverside, California.
38 histories. Wyatt also acknowledged that Tibett worked to help members protect their territory and that he did not violate the law because the government did rob and steal.
Castillo’s words were also an important resource for these reporters since they expressed how the policy did not bring civilization to reservations, but instead led to the expropriation of ancestral lands. The piece ended with quotes from regional government officials that agreed allotments had caused great harm and had to be abolished or modified. All of this made Wyatt optimistic that the Federation would achieve the goal of winning back lost lands.
In large part, MIF historians had history on their side. Even though BIA agents believed the evidence supported their arguments, the record proved otherwise. Indigenous peoples’ cultures were not the source of their problems; uniformed federal officials and settlers were the problems. And eventually, some officials began to listen to accounts like the ones Federationist transmitted to journalists, which in turn led those officials to advocate for change.
John Collier’s decision to reform the BIA and end allotments largely resulted from him accepting the Federationist historical view of BIA maleficence. Collier’s 1938 report on bureau affairs explained how prior to his appointment non-Natives “took away their [Natives] very best lands; broke treaties, promises; tossed them the most nearly worthless scraps of a continent that had once been wholly theirs.” He stated that as a result of this history he, after taking office, directed the agency to make a “concerted effort—an effort which is as yet but a mere beginning—to help the Indian to build back his landholdings to a point where they will provide an adequate basis for a self-sustaining
39 economy, a self-satisfying social organization.”70 Also, after his appointment, he sent
BIA coordinator and Mayan historian William E. Gates to a MIF convention. At the event, Gates acknowledged that due to the Agency’s oppressive past, more respectful policies had to be implemented:
You complain of land steals. So far as I know, the bureau administration has never denied
it. The bureau recognizes that wrongs have been perpetrated upon the Indians and is
doing its best to correct them. Steps have been taken and are being taken to regain some
of the lost lands and to force payment for other lost lands…We are weeding out the
officers who do not fit into the new Indian Bureau idea.71
Different actions grew out of different ideas. Collier’s and others’ recognition of Natives peoples’ arguments made new policies possible.
During the struggle against allotments leaders used histories to try to destroy the image of the vice-ridden Indian whose survival rested on the charity of non-Indians. They worked to change people’s memories by portraying first people as rational human beings who actively participated in the region’s formation, as a people who instead of looking for charity, looked “to secure by legislation the rights and benefits belonging to the
Indian.”72 When they took the battle into people’s minds they found an invaluable tool of resistance. However, their decision to resist through history represented only part of the story. If they stayed content waiting on agents to appreciate their interpretations then they
70 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1938 (Washington, D.C. 1938), 209–211.
71 “Indian Aid Plans Told: Collier ‘Steals’ Parley Show,” LA Times, April 30, 1934.
72 “Council Fires,” The Indian.
40 would be waiting a long time. Federation members needed to find another tool of resistance. They found such a tool by using their past to shape their present.
41
CHAPTER 3
MEMORIES OF RESISTANCE
July 16, 1927, on a day when the LA Times reported that communist revolutionaries rioted through the streets of Vienna with “sticks and stones and knives” and proclaimed a “Soviet Dictatorship,” a smaller uprising of the sorts took place at the
Campo Indian festival in San Diego, CA.73 As one drove, or rode out to the dusty dirt field where the event took place, smoke rising from open flame barbecues inside square sycamore wood booths would have been visible. More than likely arrivals at the festival experienced the “Ancient Ceremonies and dances” occurring in the sandy performance area encircled by the booths. And they would have had a wonderful time until the pent-up tension between MIF members and BIA agents exploded into a deadly all out brawl.
Unbeknownst to those in attendance, BIA policemen, some of whom were regional Native people, set up a sting operation to catch those selling alcohol. The intelligence police gathered indicated some tribal members frequently violated the law by selling liquor at such events and they wanted to put an end to that behavior. While two agents patrolled the event, one ducked his head into a booth to check for illegal conduct.
Gazing inside, he witnessed two-reservation members making booze. The agents sprang into action, placing the two men under arrest, with the intention of taking them to the
73 George, Seldes, “Red Revolt Turns Vienna Streets into Shambles: Communists Run Riot in ...” Los Angeles Times, Jul 16, 1927.
42 local city police station to be processed. However, as they began to escort the suspected liquor makers off the premises Federation police blocked their path. BIA agents were not democratically elected, as were local MIF leaders, and therefore did not have authority to make arrests. With the two sides lined up across from each other, the BIA police physically thwarted an escape attempt by one of the arrestees. At that point, tribal members made their move to free the detainees. In the brief scuffle that ensued, the men gained their freedom but not before MIF police placed an agent under arrest for firing two warning shots. Deciding to retreat until reinforcements arrived, the remaining BIA officials tried to free their partner once backup showed up. In a scene reminiscent of S.E.
Hinton’s Outsiders, MIF members encircled the detained BIA officer, and began to “fan” out as they chanted in Kumeyaay ''Ca-tim, ca-mooch, ca- wut cop- se-you ca-row":
"Shoot him, kill him, kill all, fix them, burn him up."74 With the two sides squaring off again, one federationist stepped forward as a BIA agent fired two rounds, one of which fatally penetrated another member’s body. A shootout then ensued between the Campo
MIF chief, the only tribal member with a pistol, and the agents. Popping off rounds, the chief sustained a shot to the neck hit the ground, and slowly bled out. The shots he fired however, found their mark, ripping through two agent’s bodies. In the ensuing fight, bullets rained while participants battled with fists and sticks, all of which resulted in numerous injuries. By the time the dust settled two tribal elders lay dead. In the following weeks, the government brought charges but the case never went to trial.75
74Thorne, “On the Fault Line,” 200.
75 “The Mission Reservation. The Mission Indian Federation, and the allegations of Mr. Purl Willis and Mr. Adam Castillo,” RG 75, Sacramento Area Office.
43
The events of that day represented an outgrowth of a centuries long struggle to maintain independence by maintaining traditions. From the Spanish period to statehood indigenous people fought against encroachment by refusing to relinquish the position of captain—leaders of tribal units also known as chiefs— and their tribal police force. MIF members believed their right to govern resulted from their historical continuity of self- rule, while BIA agents believed their right to govern centered on the alleged inability of
Natives to rule themselves. Federation leaders confronted this conflict by recalling memories of previous indigenous resistance movements.
During a 2002 interview, David Blight, defined collective memory while explaining its importance to the study of societies:
But our [historians] primary concern is with the illusive problem of collective memory--
the ways in which groups, peoples, or nations construct versions of the past and employ
them for self-understanding and to win power in an ever-changing present… In short,
historians study memory because it has been such an important modern instrument of
power. [1]
With the MIF, a collective memory of resistance provided a means to secure and protect their autonomy. The struggle for sovereignty required an external and internal strategy.
On the one hand members fought to overturn stereotypes of themselves and on the other they worked to maintain the functionality of their tribes. Assimilation entailed replacing the old with the new. It required Natives to forget their past by embracing a new present centered on Anglo culture. Federationists understood that they not only needed to challenge non-Indians’ ideas of indigenous people, but they also needed to protect their distinct cultures. Prior to the MIF’s formation future members and their ancestors resisted
44 by maintaining tribal continuity. The MIF tapped into this past by embracing a collective memory of resistance, while providing support for member tribes cultures and struggles.
A large part of the Federation’s appeal centered on the organization’s support for member nations efforts to live according to their traditions. Lacking written records, indigenous people passed down cultural and political systems orally. Federationist and
Agua Caliente tribal member, Francisco Patencio, explained how council fires provided the means to transmit knowledge to the next generation:
Many things were talked of since the beginning at the Council fire: traditions…about the
settling of Southern California and the Islands; the things that were done by the chiefs,
the headmen, the medicine men, and many brave and good things done by the common
people. Many are the words told at the council fires, words to remember, many things
that happened since the creation.76
A decline in population and land base broke down community cohesion hindering the transmission process. To combat this problem, the organization provided member nations with the means to preserve their cultures.
Under the MIF banner, tribes held fiestas that reinforced tribal governments and cultural expressions.77 Semi-annual meetings, at times in indigenous dialect, featured traditional dances and ceremonies, and older members, some possible over the age of a hundred, told stories of the past. And, the Federation structure allowed tribes to maintain their governments. During sworn testimony, Castillo described the historical precedent
76 Francisco Patencio and Margaret Boynton, Stories and Legends of The Palm Springs Indians, (California, Palm Spring Desert Museum, 1943), 74.
77 According to Thorne, fiestas “provided an expression, if in somewhat modified form, of traditional political and ceremonial forms, including religious observances, hospitality, dances, games, and other activities.” Thorne, “On the Fault Line,” 187.
45 for enabling members to select their own captains, “That is the custom, that custom from way back.” When it came to electing MIF police, he again justified the action by turning to memories, stating that “as far as I can remember” his people elected them. He continued, arguing that in the past, BIA agents allowed tribes to pick their policemen who received pay from the federal government. Also, during the same testimony, Castillo explained the importance of memories to the organization stating that they kept notes of meetings to protect “our memories . . . so we can look back at what has passed.” 78
Clearly Castillo believed federationists actions were driven by their recollections. When tribal members looked back at the past, they saw their ancestors resisting by protecting their traditional governments.
Even though the Spanish period brought change to Native societies, many captains remained leaders of their people. In Southern California, tribal leaders inherited their position based on lineage and headed tribal units that oversaw smaller groups.
Within this system, leaders made decisions based on consensus, which obligated everyone within the given unit to follow their decisions. When problems did arise fighting among the various tribes took place but it did not follow the European pattern of annihilation and conquest. Evidence also exists indicating at times regional groups formed pan-Indian structures that vested power in a large political body; however, after foreign contact, these structures essentially collapsed.79
78 “Reporters’ transcript. Testimony and Proceedings on Trial, vol. 8” November 1929, box 2, folder [6/16], Southern District of California, Southern Division, Equity Case, Record Group 21, National Archives, Mission Indian Agency, Riverside, CA.
79 Shipek, Pushed into the Rocks, 4–5. Also, Steven Hackel, Children of Coyote, Missionaries of Saint Francis (North Carolina: North Carolina Press, 2012), 24.
46
When the Spanish arrived, they worked to gain tribal compliance by turning to alcaldes who served as a bridge between the colonialist and other indigenous people.
Initially selected by the Spaniards, the alcaldes job focused on implementing the
Church’s dictates.80 But a commitment to their own people meant they often ignored or subverted their responsibility.81 Spaniards mistakenly believed a position in the colonial process would lead Natives to participate in the destruction of their own cultures.
Although the new arrivals brought diseases and violence that ravaged communities, they still found themselves out numbered.82 In this situation, the colonialist soon became dependent for their safety on alcaldes, some of whom they believed were untrustworthy.83
Reliance on indigenous people, translated into a large degree of autonomy and by the time of Mexico’s independence many traditional societies remained intact. Father
Jeronimo Boscana, who visited San Juan Capistrano in 1821, found that the Achemen people defied the Catholic Church through deception with the chiefs performing “the work of priests.”84 What Boscana witnessed also occurred throughout the region.85
80 According to Hackel by 1778 Mission Indians gained the right to “elect their own alcaldes.” Hackel, Children of Coyote, 235.
81 Ibid, 243.
82 In 1850, Natives still represented a majority of the state’s population. Gunther, Ambiguous Justice, 81.
83 Hackel, Children of Coyote, 267.
84 Geronimo Boscana, A new original version of Boscana’s Historical account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California, trans. John Peabody Harrington, (Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1934), 15.
85 Thorne, “On the Fault Line,” 13. And according to George Phillips during the Spanish period in Southern California, “… Christianity was often only superficially adopted by
47
During the short lived Mexican period, change occurred and body counts rose but
Native’s still protected their cultures, a pattern that endured during US annexation.
The second half of the twenty-century witnessed increased settler intrusion and the loss of tribal lands. Nevertheless, indigenous leaders guided their people by helping them stand up to non-Indian oppression. A refusal to be passive observers preserved established societies, and allowed tribes to remain a viable force of resistance in Southern
California. Richard A. Hanks argued that, “For several decades starting in the 1840’s,
California’s southern deserts were a dangerous place for non-Indians to be.” In the new city of Los Angeles horse raids and fear of attacks threatened the city’s existence.86 To help quall the destructive nature of these raids and establish peaceful relations, Anglos turned to captains, who, as government agent B.D. Wilson noted, showed, “a commendable spirit in restraining their people from cattle-stealing in Los Angeles and
San Diego counties.” Other examples of leaders riding into towns to dispense justice on tribal members who violated the law also occurred.87 Due to these actions, indigenous legal systems remained functional. According to Vanessa Ann Gunther, “In the early
many neophytes is quite apparent.” George Phillips, Chiefs and Challengers (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975), 31.
86 “The Indians of Southern California in 1852” The B.D. Wilson Report and a Selection of Contemporary Comment. Edited by John Walton Caughey. Republished 1952, Xxi.
87 B.D. Wilson, found that, “The present chiefs, in general, understand their affairs very well, and appear to be keenly alive to the good of their people. They often come to towns—to this city, at any rate—and inflict some punishment in particular cases,” Wilson and Caughey, The Indians of Southern California, 29-30, 51.
48 years of Anglo American occupation, it appears the American authorities were content to allow the tribes to police themselves.”88
The end of the Mexican period ushered in new laws that voided tribes of any lawful standing. The state’s constitution challenged the power of tribal captains by granting California government officials decision-making authority along with the ability to impose legislative and judicial decisions on those they governed. Gunther argued this lack of legal protection mirrored the “Black Codes of the Deep South,” but unlike
African Americans, Native’s, at one point, had rights to the land and independent governments within the nation.89 Because, while the suffering and pain cannot be overestimated— by the time of statehood their numbers hovered around 8,000 from a pre-contact population—many tribes remained intact.90
California statehood not only brought new settlers to the region but also Federal officials whose work resulted in the treaties of 1851. Though these treaties never received congressional approval, memories associated with the lack of approval provided
Federationists with a common cause to organize around. A 1928 report from the
Department of Interior acknowledged how past wrongs, such as the unratified treaties, contributed to the MIF’s appeal, “But their [Indians] resentment for past wrongs seems to have been transferred to their present guardian, and they lend a willing ear to agitators
88 Gunther, Ambiguous Justice, 77.
89 Ibid, 9.
90 Ibid, 33.
49 who tell them they are being held in servitude and oppression.”91 A collective memory of an unethical treaty process and oppression associated with that process empowered the
Federation and served as a source of solidarity. A history of indigenous leaders’ using force to protect their autonomy also enhanced their sense of unity.
In 1851, Cupeno captain Antonio Garra, in response to the imposition of taxes on his people’s possessions, took up arms and organized several tribes into an ad-hoc confederation. These tribes rejected outside imposition on their societies and were willing to use force to do so. Eventually, the confederation they formed coordinated an attack on
Warner’s Ranch that resulted in the deaths of four white settlers. Fear of a large scale
Indian rebellion soon gripped the region and local military leaders quickly formed a militia to confront the problem.92 Unfortunately for Garra, before he gained the opportunity to again confront his enemy, he accepted an invitation from the Cahuilla leader Juan Antonio. Antonio previously indicated he wanted to join the uprising but instead, he turned on Garra. At the meeting Antonio, possibly to advance his peoples interests by gaining favor with the newly arrived US leaders, arrested Garra and handed him over to the non-native authorities who executed him along with his son and several others. Antonio’s actions did not lead to friendly relations as he hoped. Instead, he
91 Department of Interior Board of Indian Commissioners Washington,” 15 August 1928, box 24, folder 090, Board of Indian Commissioners, Record Group 75 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento Area Office.
91 McDonnell, The Dispossession, 3, 121.
92 John Caughey noted that, “The whites of Southern California were so concerned with Garra that they made an emergency army that called up every able bodied individual in San Diego” Wilson and Caughey, The Indians of Southern California, 10-11.
50 became a target of government surveillance. In later years, that increased scrutiny foiled his attempts to form a pan-Indian organization to fight colonial aggression.93 Other forms of violent resistance including armed confrontations and horse raids continued during the mid 1800’s. But as the century ended, Native populations decreased and the US military superiority grew. Consequently, the emphasis on non-violent measures grew.
Leaders adapted to the end of large-scale armed resistance by following the pattern of forming alliances. Two decades after Garra’s execution, Olegario Calac became the elected leader of a new pan-Indian coalition. In 1870, after suffering under the rule of the BIA appointed leader Manuel Cota, members of more than twelve villages elected Olegario to be their captain. This democratic action upset bureau officials and local white ranchers who relied on Cota to implement their demands and to provide them with a cheap source of labor. By 1871, conflict over control led to physical fights between the two groups and serious injuries. Eventually, Olegario allied himself with another prominent chief and successfully removed Cota from power. The US government responded by refusing to grant him formal recognition, but this refusal represented little more than rhetoric. The historian Richard Carrico, explained how even though Olegario never received federal approval (he died, under suspicious circumstances) he never stopped leading his people, “Over the next six years, from 1871 to 1877, Olegario and the
Luiseno people continued to struggle for native self-determination, land rights and government recognition.”94
93 Hanks, This War, 24-31-32.
94 Richard L. Carrico, “The Struggle for Native American Self-Determination in San Diego County,” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2, no. 2 (December 1, 1980): 208.
51
Garra, and Olegario’s actions proved that traditional governing structures remained functional during the early US period. In an attempt to extinguish this resistance, the BIA implemented polices to abolish tribal governments. To achieve this goal, the BIA established reservation administrations beholden to agents. Under this system, agents held the power to appoint captains, police, and judges who implemented their policies. They often avoided pushing their authority, however, by allowing Natives to elect their own officials. By the time the Dawes Act took hold in the 1890’s, many tribes still maintained a large degree of control over their governments.
In the early 1880’s, on the Potrero reservation, now known as Morongo, local tribal members turned to their hereditary leader William Pablo to protect their traditional government in the face of BIA opposition. At that time, a newly arrived BIA agent challenged Pablo by putting in place a captain who the people of Potrero opposed. Up to that point, the government respected the Morongo people’s right to elect their leaders and
Pablo attacked this outside imposition by largely turning inward. He generated support among his people through his position as shaman and the Ghost Dance, which the government made illegal because several tribes throughout the nation used it to promote solidarity and traditional life. Pablo’s embrace of the dance connected him and his people to a larger resistance movement and generated unity on the reservation. He also allied with other local tribes which Richard Hanks argued, provided a template for the MIF.95
Due to Pablo’s actions, the appointed leader never succeeded in removing him from his
95 Hanks, This War, 77
52 traditional position and he fought throughout the region, helping tribes “maintain long standing tribal political systems.”96
A similar situation occurred in 1909 on the Pechanga reservation when a new BIA superintendent arrived on the scene determined to put an end to the local people’s customary practice of electing “a judge and a captain.” Shortly after his arrival the superintendent become appalled by the fact Pechanga members violated federal protocol by meeting, “under shade trees to hold councils and trials and no record of any kind is kept of the proceedings.” He also despised the electorate because they, “cannot read nor write and [were] set in their ways and beliefs . . . ” To install a judge loyal to the agency, the superintendent took it upon himself to orchestrate a coup. Still, the newly imposed judge did not gain public support and the people continued to operate on their terms by hiding and preventing federal marshals from capturing a tribal member. In a further indication of their resistance to the colonial system, the superintendent noted nearly a year later, that tribal members still “believe in ancient legends and superstitions of their forefathers . . . ”97
Adam Castillo also confronted an agent’s imposition before his time as president.
On the Soboba reservation, as on Pechanga, tribal members retained the right to elect leaders and they elected him judge. According to Akins, Castillo believed the position entailed more than making decisions on issues brought before him and quickly he took on more responsibilities, “While Castillo’s charge as judge was to keep the peace and settle
96 Ibid, 65-79, 105.
97 “Letters from Superintendent JW Revies,” book 1909/1913, Pala Superintendence
Letters Sent, 1908-1914, Record Group 75, National Archives, Riverside, California.
53 local disputes, it is clear that he viewed his task as much more expansive and part of an existing Indian legal system.” With this increased role, it did not take long for him and the superintendent to come into conflict and soon he found himself removed from power for insubordination. Yet, as Castillo stated later, his removal did not stop him from executing his duties as a judge for his people.98
While protecting their governments often meant ignoring BIA dictates, tribes also turned to violence if outside encroachment grew too strong. This became evident in an incident between the hereditary leader of the Cahuilla people, Leonicio Lugo, and superintendent William Stanley. When Stanley came to power, he wasted no time imposing his will on those he governed, a decision he must have known would lead to confrontation. After all, before becoming superintendent he experienced how far Natives would go to protect their cultures by suffering a beating for trying to influence reservation festivals. It also needs to be noted that in 1909, during a dispute between
Stanley and Soboba members, Revies, who orchestrated the failed coup on the Pechanga reservation, warned Stanley not to get involved and allow them to settle the dispute on their own.99 Evidently, Revies recognized the control tribal members retained and the effectiveness of their resistance. And, even though Stanley believed he held absolute power, that power only derived from a piece of paper; Lenoicio continued to fulfill his duties as Captain.
98 “Reporters’ transcript. Testimony and Proceedings on Trial, vol. 7,” Southern District of California, Southern Division, Equity Case, RG 21, NA-MIA, Riverside, CA; Akins, Lines on the Land, 200.
99 “Letters from Superintendent JW Revies,” RG-75, National Archives, Riverside, California.
54
Given the situation, it only became a matter of time before a fight ensued between the two rivals. On May 2, 1912, in front of a splintered wood paneled school house that rested on wood stilts, that fight occurred when Lugo and other tribal members met
Stanley to discuss tribal affairs. In the ensuing discussion, a heated conversion over who held authority on the reservation broke out between a BIA policeman and Ambrosio
Apapas, a member of Stanley’s group. Tempers flared and things quickly turned deadly.
From the school house porch, numerous witnesses watched the policeman shot Apapas and another tribal member before he received a gunshot wound. As the policemen staggered off, Apapas wobbled towards Stanley standing on the porch. Apparently at that point, Stanly told the policemen to come back and finish the job. Apapas then raised his gun towards Stanley who, after pleading for his life, turned and ran. Apapas opened fire, fatally shooting Stanley in the back. Eventually the government tried ten Cahuilla people for the murder. A jury found six, including Lugo, guilty. Jail time did not diminish
Lugo’s popularity, however; upon his release and return, locals elected him as their MIF judge.100
Lugo’s acceptance of the federation judgeship showed his commitment to the tribe’s history of resistance. He did not need to join the federation and must have known such a decision ran counter to the BIA wishes and could have caused further legal problems. Nevertheless, instead of respecting the BIA’s demand that Natives only participate in federal approved governments, not the federation, Lugo chose to fight. His desire to remain faithful to his tribal past outweighed any potential criminality.
100 Tanis, “The Death of Superintendent Stanley.”; Akins, Lines on the Land, 196–199; Hanks, This War, 115-119.
55
Prior to the MIF formation, indigenous people weathered attempts to destroy their cultures by protecting their traditions through both violent and peaceful means. When ED
Davie toured the region in the early 20th century he found that many still practiced their traditions. Like father Boscana, he noted that they protected their cultures from the
Christianization effort through adaptation, “The rites of the Catholic religion have been blended into many of the old Indian customs.”101 Similarly, a 1917 letter from BIA
Superintendent H.E. Wadsworth noted the importance of traditions to Native children of
Southern California. According to the Superintendent these youths desire to stay connected to their cultures drove many to run away from off-reservation schools.
Wadsworth, argued that for their “plan to civilize” young people “from the wild, reservation Indian to a cultured and useful member of society” the federal government must cut “him loose from the shackles of tradition which bind him to the old way.” To accomplish this goal “the tribal form of government among the Indians” must be destroyed.102 But even with these successes, the colonization effort took its toll and by
1915, the ability to live outside BIA confines became more precarious as the Bureau pushed their control by directly appointing leaders without tribal consent.103
Unsurprisingly with this past taken into account, indigenous people of Southern
California decided to form an alliance to counter increased BIA meddling in their affairs.
101 “Edward Davis Collection,” 1903, folder MS 75/ 1:3, Edward Davis Collection, San Diego History Center, San Diego California.
102 “Superintendent H.E. Wadsworth letter to Sec. Board of Indian Commissioners,” December 1917, box 16, folder 2, Organizations Interested in Indians; Mission Indian Federation, RG-75, NA-Riverside.
103 Tanis, “The Death of Superintendent Stanley,” 191.
56
Members found an example of how to create a successful pan-Indian movement by tapping into their memories of Olegario. The Federation citied his resistance as the reason for their continual struggle against BIA’s attempt to replace tribal governments. They note that even though the “great leader Olegario died long ago” they are still fighting his fight against Federal aggression.104 In another indication the chief’s influence, Castillo, during Congressional testimony in support of legislation granting tribes the right to organize independent governments, turned to his recollections of the chief:
Chief Oligario [sic] Calac was chosen by all the bands of the Mission Indians to proceed
to Washington and lay before the officials the petition and plea of the Indians for
protection and the return of their lands.. . . Chief Calac was given an American flag—
with 37 stars—and also presented with an enlarged picture of himself by Washington
officials as evidence of their further promise of justice.105
A pictured of the flag appeared in an Indian magazine article about the government’s refusal to recognize the eighteen treaties. Arguing that the flag symbolized the lingering effects of unratified treaties, the author writes that when Olergario received the flag it looked, “ . . . so bright and beautiful and so assuring, today torn and worn, symbolical of crushed spirits, lost hopes and despair.”106
Beyond Olegario, other members found inspiration in the Federation’s commitment to the captainship. The founding MIF captain of Los Coyote, Crispin
104 “An Indian Appeals to the American Public,” box 27, folder 090, March 1950, Mission Indian Federation 1947-1951, RG 75, Bureau of Indian Affairs California, Sacramento Area Office.
105 As quoted in Hanks, This War, 47.
106 Bonnie Prather, “The Forgotten Promise,” The Indian, March 1934.
57
Ballatt, articulated how his memories of being led by a captain influenced his decision to join the organization. Considering he claimed that they “were never without a captain” and that by taking away their right to “elect one” the BIA showed a complete “disregard for the Los Coyote.” Ballatt urged others to embrace the fight to protect their governments and “preserve peaceful living on our reservation.” 107 Even though he does not mention Garra and Antonio by name he surly would have known the history of the two men; the Los Coyote’s consider themselves a band of Cahuilla and Cupeno. Also,
Samuel Rice explained members found inspiration “in the souls of the living chieftains, captains and the headmen.” Whose “counciling [Sic] tongues” reverberated “the story of the great journey . . . of the advent of the great convention” throughout MIF meetings.108
And, an unattributed article in The Indian argued the Federal government must recognize the MIF as the voice of regional tribal members because the organization’s “authority” came “down through the chiefs and headmen for centuries.”109 Since Spaniards first set foot in the region, resistance mushroomed from the captain. Fresh in the minds of tribal members, this memory of past resistance pulled them into the Federation’s orbit.
A collective memory of a captain lead resistance also influenced the structure of the organization. Under the MIF tribes could chose how to operate their governments as
Castillo noted:
107 “Los Coyotes Reservation,” The Indian, April 1923.
108 “Inspiration of the Mission Indian Federation,” The Indian, March 1922.
109 “Our Duty Lies Straight Ahead,” The Indian, July-August 1934.
58
The captains are elected by the people and they work for, and with their people…[that]
The Mission Indian Federation, as an Indian organization, does not give orders to the said tribal officers…And shall protect them agaist (sic) unjust rules and regulations; To gaud (sic) the interests of each member against unjust and illegal treatment. 110
As Castillo highlighted, members had the ability to make their own decisions and they chose to embrace their past. Being that tribes kept alive their governments and cultural largely through language, not writing, forming governments based on traditions showed that their memoires still influenced their decisions.
The familiarity with and support for the organization’s structure is evident by the pace which MIF governments quickly spread throughout the region. Richard Hanks noted that, “By the mid-1920’s the area’s 30 reservations all contained Federation elected captains, judges and police officers.”111 These leaders operated independently of the bureau’s reservation governments. They also operated by mandate of local tribal members, which allowed the organization to remain popular. In 1920, the Mission Indian
Federation claimed to have over 2,000 members.112 And in 1936, the LA Times estimated that 250 indigenous peoples attended their semi-annual conferences and that they represented “24,000 Mission Indians.” 113 This support infuriated BIA agents, who worked tirelessly to destroy their popularity.
110 “Adam Castillo, letter to C.L. Ellis,” April 1925, box 16, folder 2, Organizations Interested in Indians; Mission Indian Federation, RG-75, NA-Riverside.
111 Hanks, This War, 142
112 Akins, “Lines on the Land”, 192.
113 “Mission Indians Gather in San Diego.” Los Angeles Times, October 25, 1936.
59
Like Olegario, President Castillo, countered these attacks by advocating in the region and Washington, for legislation that advanced indigenous rights. Essentially,
Castillo took on the role of alcalde, working with Tibbett to bridge the gap between the reservations and federal agents. In the April 1921 issue of The Indian, an unattributed article explained the functionality of this bridge:
During the past two months the executive council of the Federation has been
gathering and compiling data having to do with such complaints as well as the
adjustment of land and water controversies which the Indians are working to
settle. This will be taken to Washington in May by Councilor Tibbett, appearing
before the Congressional Committee on Indian affairs and Indian Bureau.114
This early effort continued as leaders transmitted pressing issues to Castillo and Tibbett either at annual conventions or during their vists to the reservations. After their 1930 semi-annual convention, Castillo forwarded to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in
Washington “reports from the Captains and Head-men of the various reservations, towns and villages in Southern California.”115 Then, in a 1950 petition that they forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior, they asked that their right “to free elections” be respected.
They provided examples of how the head of the state BIA violated this right by sweeping
“aside the traditional tribal custom of electing and recognizing a ‘captain’ of each band in accordance with the practice of these Indians since the days of Spanish occupation.” The
114 “Resolution Passed,” The Indian, April 1921.
115 “Castillo’s Letter to Hon. Chas. J. Rhoads.” Box 16, folder 2, April 1930, Organizations Interested in Indians: Mission Indian Federation California, Record Group 75, National Archives, Mission Indian Agency, Riverside, CA.
60 petition concluded with the example of how the government refused to recognize
Olegario’s position as elected leader and demanded that the “abuses mentioned in this petition” be “eradicated.”116
The MIF also connected to the past by allowing tribal members to police themselves. A struggle on the Soboba reservation in 1921 over law enforcement authority revealed the fedreationists commitment traditional practices. Following the BIA appointment of a police officer not recognized by the tribe, Castillo met with the regions
BIA superintendent to overturn the decision. Castillo explained the appointed man already had been removed from the reservation for violating tribal law by destroying property that did not belong to him. He also did not have any Soboba ancestors and only lived on the reservation through marriage to a tribal woman. According to “old tribal laws” Castillo explained, “an Indian of another nation marrying a Soboba girl, may reside with the Soboba people and hold land upon consent of the tribe.” Once the women died, however, “the husband must leave the Soboba tribe.” Additionally, Castillo noted the appointment did not follow “the conditions set forth in the tribal laws of the nation” and therefore could not be recognized.117 Due to the lack of records, the outcome of this disagreement could not be determined. Nevertheless, the event did not stop MIF police from providing law enforcement services to their reservations.
The nickel badges the Federation bestowed on their police acted as a symbol to their refusal to relinquish control. Like taking on the name Mission Indian, federationists
116 “An Indian Appeals to the American Public,” box 27, folder 090, March 1950, Mission Indian Federation 1947-1951, RG 75, Bureau of Indian Affairs California, Sacramento Area Office.
117 “Indian Agent and President Talks,” The Indian, April 1921.
61 coopted the badge from Anglo society to advance their fight for sovereignty. In non-
Indian culture police symbols represented state control and Federationists used the symbol to highlight their control of reservations. The MIF badge signified resistance, not acquiescence, and members acted accordingly.
The duties of federation police included providing security at fiestas and making arrest for unlawful behavior. At one time, MIF police detentions for drunkenness became so common that the Escondido City Marshal asked the state’s Attorney General if their actions conformed to legal precedent and if he should accept the prisoners. The Attorney
General replied that they had, “no authority under federal law to make arrests, try cases or commit to jail . . . or act as officers on the Indian reservations.” With this statement, the federal government took away any legal standing indigenous police may have held, yet Federation police remained active.118 Five years after the Attorney General made that statement the battle on the Campo reservation took place, indicating that federation police still played a prominent law enforcement roll. In the aftermath of the Campo incident and as a further indication of their determination to protect their cultures, members called for violent revenge against the BIA, refused to testify, and continued to resist outside interference of their fiestas.119 Partly as a result of these actions, indictments came down but the trials never took place.
On the Agua Caliente reservation, the Federation joined the fight to protect the
Cahuilla Indians traditional government. Cahuilla tribal captain and MIF member,
Francisco Patencio, along with other tribal members asked for the Federation’s help after
118 As quoted in Hanks, This War, 143.
119 Thorne, “On the Fault Line,” 203.
62
John Collier, in accordance with local Palm Spring business initiated a coup against the customary reservation leadership. Problems between Collier and the reservation began after Caliente members voted against Collier’s Indian Reorganization Act.120 The IRA granted Natives the right to form governments in accord with the Federal government, but on Caliente and other reservations members rejected the offer, deciding instead to keep their tribal governments. For a people whose, according to an article in The Indian,
“ . . . thoughts are bonded by forces, relating to his social and religious traditions,” the
IRA remained unappealing.121 Tensions rose even more, after the traditionalist formed an
Indian Committee, which won a majority of votes in the 1935 election. Agents’ had not carefully considered the implication that free elections might not suit them. The new
Indian Committee then increased fees for tourist visiting their sacred hot springs and canyons. The move fit with their traditional government structure. A pamphlet from the
Agua Caliente Cultural Museum noted, that Kauisik’s—elder leaders—made the decision to raise fees and that control over tribal assets “was the sacred duty of these traditional leaders.”122 To members of the local business community, this decision could not stand and they sent word to Washington that change needed to happen. Collier, partially in response to the perseverance of the traditionalists, appointed special agent Harold
Quackenbush, who previously worked as a BIA police officer. Quackenbush wasted no time consolidating his power by personally informing the elders that they no longer held
120 Przeklasa, “The Band, the Bureau,” 81,68.
121 “Palm Springs Cahuilla Indians,” The Indian, April 1921.
122 “Agua Caliente Cultural Museum - Baristo Road,” accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.accmuseum.org/Baristo-Road.
63 any authority and taking control of the tribe’s finances. The historian Robert Przeklasa called the coup an act of aggression in which, “the special agent forcibly took control of the tribe’s main business asset and sacred site.”123
Many Caliente members, who also supported the MIF, refused to work with
Quakenbush and the committee continued to operate without bureau consent. Throughout this process, Castillo and Purl Willis—after Tibbet’s death Willis became the organization’s white spokesperson— provided support. Many of the reservation’s elders did not speak English, and, as Przeklasa argued, the two bridged the gap between them and non-natives by speaking out during public and congressional meetings. During one of the Congressional meetings Willis inserted into the record a batch of resolutions signed by Captain Patencio and others. In one of the resolutions the signatories justified their opposition by turning to their memories of electing their leaders based on “tribal custom.”
Arguing that their traditional government should be allowed to “conduct tribal business in the customary manner . . . ”124 Quakenbush responded to the opposition by arresting all the committee members including Patencio, Castillo and Willis. These arrests did not sit well with Collier. He had not been briefed about them beforehand and viewed them as a public relations nightmare. Collier then traveled to the reservation to assess the situation and after doing so ordered all the men freed, noting that the case rested on the “the same
123 Przeklasa, “The Band, the Bureau,” 80
124 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Indian Affairs, Palm Springs Band of Mission Indians: Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs. 75th Cong., 3rd sess., (March 15, 17, and 23, 1938), 119.
64 old conspiracy charges,” a reference to the 1921 indictment against Tibbet and other MIF members. Shortly after their release, a grand jury decided not to bring indictments.125
In the end, the dismissal did not stop the city of Palm Springs, along with the local
Chamber of Commerce, efforts take reservation lands. After the indictments, Castillo and
Willis provide support, but their decision to back a proposal to sale some territory in exchange for ending BIA control led to the organization’s decline within Caliente. Not all tribal members agreed with Castillo’s advocacy for the sale of land and Cahuilla members responded by leaving the federation.126 However, tribal resistance endured.
Committed to preserving his people’s memories, Patencio in collaboration with Margaret
Boynton, produced a book of tribal traditions. In the foreword, Patencio explained the rational for the book:
But most of all I write the songs and stories for my own people, our children and our
children's children, and those yet to come, that when the Indian customs are forgotten,
they may read and know and remember in their hearts the ways and thoughts of their own
people.127
Eventually their defiance paid off when the Federal government granted the committee official recognition for their right to home rule. This recognition allowed the reservation to become one of the nation’s wealthiest. An economic turnaround Przeklasa partially
125 Przeklasa, “The Band, the Bureau,” 83,96-100.
126 Castillo argued his support for the land sale proposal conformed to the wants of tribal members, “these Indian citizens have come to the conclusion that they would be much better off to sell a major portion of their tribal lands,” Ibid, 104.
127 Francisco Patencio and Margaret Boynton, Stories and Legends of The Palm Springs Indians, (California, Palm Spring Desert Museum, 1943), ix.
65 attributed to the MIF’s advocacy, which helped “save the reservation from the imminent danger in the 1930’s” 128
Unfortunately, for Castillo and Willis the loss of support on Agua Caliente played out on a larger scale. Over time, memories change. When the Grand Council worked with member nations to protect their traditional government’s and secure legislation to achieve those ends, support remained strong. When MIF leaders went against memories of independence, however, by advocating for policies that some tribal members disagreed with, defections occurred. Federal termination policy and Public Law 280 epitomized how the Federtion’s move away from a collective memory of protecting and respecting independent indigenous governments lead to the organization’s downfall.
When John Collier ended his tenure as Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1945, the Federal government directed their attention towards ending wardship through a policy of termination. Termination made tribal boundaries obsolete by breaking reservations up into small privately-owned plots of land in which Natives lived as US citizens.
Reservations selected for termination had three options, sell their land, break it up into individual plots, or turn it into a private management company.129 The policy also nullified treaties and government commitments stipulated in those agreements. Castillo gravitated towards the plan because it brought an end to wardship by abolishing BIA control, both of which represented key components of their struggle. In addition, under the terms of termination, tribal members retained the right to form corporations that
128 Przeklasa, “The Band, the Bureau,” 127, 91.
129 Daly, “Fractured Relations at Home: The 1953 Termination Act’s Effect on Tribal Relations throughout Southern California Indian Country,” American Indian Quarterly 33, no. 4 (2009), 429.
66 worked on members’ behalf. In theory, if the MIF created a corporation, which they did at some point, they could maintain control over their nations and still receive aid from the state. As Castillo noted:
WE are sure, as you must also realize, that under laws of this state now in effect, any
group of Indians can organize or incorporate under law as a community or as individuals,
and then handle our every land or other problem—just as citizens do. We can incorporate
and divide up our lands as we desire or keep them intact as they are now, if we desire—if
the Bureau will get out.130
From his perspective, the policy increased sovereignty by ending federal oversight and allowing tribes to gain status as incorporated corporations. But, some tribal members did not take such an optimistic view of termination; for them the MIF stood for the loss of
Native independence.
In 1950, due to disagreements over termination, Max Mazzetti and Steve
Ponchetti formed a new organization, “Spokesmen and Committee Group” that challenged the MIF leadership. Their memoires of the MIF were that of an organization intent on keeping in power their members by interfering in intertribal affairs. Eventually tribal termination became part of that agenda and the conflict that erupted between those who supported the policy and those who opposed still lingers to this day.
For Mazzetti and Ponchetti the policy represented an attack on indigenous people’s independence. Mazzetti, noted that under the IRA, Natives incurred financial burdens for development projects and without federal protections, the liens from those
130 “California Mission Indians: This Pamphlet is informative!” The Indian, No Date.
67 projects would lead to default, bankruptcy, and the loss of territory.131 Their opposition also pointed to Washington’s responsibility to provide social services to tribes that remained wards. If termination proceeded, the government would no longer have an obligation to provide those services. Purl Willis and Castillo countered this argument by claiming federal and state law would provide the needed aid so Natives would be
“completely and amply provided for.”132 On the other hand, the reduction of federal funds became a frightening proposition considering how issues of poverty, hunger, and lack of education plagued their nations.
SCG members also viewed MIF advocacy for PL 280, which transferred reservation law enforcement responsibilities over to state governments, as a further attack on their sovereignty. Concern over the law centered on a loss of hunting and fishing rights protected under Federal wardship, and the lack of control over reservation policing.
Resisting the policies at meetings on regional reservations and testifying at governmental hearings, Mazzetti and Ponchetti, believed tribal members would turn away from the
Federation if they knew the policies consequences. Publically, they also challenged Purl
Willis claim he represented and spoke on behalf of all regional tribal people.133 In response to SCG accusation, MIF leaders pivoted to the collective memory of resistance based on protecting traditional governments. They claimed that SCG worked in cohorts
131 Daly, “American Indian Freedom Controversy,” 216,144.
132 “Interior Department Appropriations for 1951,” box 27, folder 090, February 1950, Mission Indian Federation 1947-1951, RG 75, Bureau of Indian Affairs California, Sacramento Area Office.
133 Daly, “American Indian Freedom Controversy,” 138.
68 with agents to overthrow their democratically elected governments and that this collaboration sought “to sweep aside the traditional tribal custom of electing and recognizing a ‘captain’ of each band . . . ”134 While their argument raised some questions about the actions of the SCG, the Federation’s unwavering push for termination remained unpopular.135
Castillo never witnessed the effects of PL 280 and the termination policy. He passed away on Christmas eve, 1953. Other than his statement about forming a corporation to control tribal affairs, the lack of plans for post wardship leaves his motivations for supporting both issues in a cloud of uncertainty. If he lived long enough, the outcome of the policies, in all likelihood would have bothered him. Instead of being a source of greater freedom for the tribes, PL 280 lead to a reduction of sovereignty.
Taking away indigenous peoples right to police themselves led to an increase in crime and tension between tribal members and local law enforcement.136 In Southern
California, former MIF member tribes have called for the Act to be overturned and law
134 “Communications between BIA officials,” box 27, folder 090, Mission Indian Federation 1947-1951, RG 75, Bureau of Indian Affairs California, Sacramento Area Office.
135 Questions about the SCG relationship with the BIA relate to a few communications between Steve Ponchetti and BIA officials. In one of the communications, between Special Bureau officer M.K. Clark and BIA Area Acting Director James Ring, Clarke noted that Steve informed him that he, “broke into the Mesa Grande bunch, which is the back bone of the Federation.” In another communication between the two BIA agents labeled confidential, Clarke relies Ponchetti’s report of his actions to Ring. “The Mission Indian Federation, 1947-1951,” box 27, Of Programs & Administration, 1950-1958, RG 75, Bureau of Indian Affairs California, Sacramento Area Office.
136 A Report for the Advisory Council on California Indian Policy, A Second Century of Dishonor: Federal Inequities and California Tribes (UCLA American Indian Studies Center, Los Angeles, 1996)
69 enforcement responsibilities returned to reservations.137 Castillo, also never witnessed the process of termination; if he had, he also would likely have found the outcome troubling.
Destruction, not production, accompanied terminated tribes. Abolishment of reservations lead to loss of lands, loss of services, and loss of tribal identity.138 According to Heather
Daly, if regional tribes received termination the outcome would have been devastating:
Yet the facts are clear: if termination had succeeded lands would be susceptible to
California tax laws, the majority of lands would have been sold or lost to foreclosure, and
there would not be casinos providing a major source of income to California Indian
Country (and the state of California).139
Ironically, Castillo criticized SCG for trying to destroy traditions and then he supported policies that ended Native law enforcement and would have ended Native sovereignty.
A decision by MIF leaders to turn away from the collective memory of protecting independent traditional government’s lead to the organization’s ruin. The Federation attracted indigenous people from around the region by erecting a psychological monument to pervious resistance movements, the plaque reading, “HUMAN RIGHTS
AND HOME RULE.” By the 1950’s, when the later part of this slogan no longer applied, members left in large numbers and the organization collapsed. Yet, memories of the MIF
137 In 2000, at Soboba reservation forum on PL 280, numerous tribal leaders called for the law to be abolished. Morales, Victor. “Southern California Tribes Call for Repeal of PL. 280.” Indian Country Today, January 12, 2010.
138 A 2008 Harvard report on the conditions of Native nations noted that “’termination’ came to be viewed by Indians everywhere as code for tribal extermination.” Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development et al., The State of the Native Nations: Conditions under U.S. Policies of Self-Determination (Oxford University Press, USA, 2007), 2.
139 Heather Ponchetti Daly, “Fractured Relations at Home,” 436–37.
70 remained in the minds of tribal members, both in the region and beyond. Many followed the pattern of confronting the US government by picking up their pens to write. These battles, took place throughout the nation and never came easily. Clearing a path through hundreds of years of historical inaccuracies does not happen overnight. Nevertheless, in taking the fight to the battlefield of the past, they showed the power that can result from reinterpreting history.
71
CHAPTER 4
THE HISTORIAN’S RESPONSIBILITY
For a tourist walking along the San Francisco Wharf on the morning of November
9, 1969 several things stood out. A clear, calm, sunny day, the salty air mixed with the steam rising from pots full of seafood to create a stillness that soon would be broken. As the tourist neared Pier 39, their attention quickly turned to a surprising sight, dozens of
Native Americans, some in traditional garb, singing and dancing while several members of the media looked on. Making the situation even more intriguing, was the fact that, as one reporter later noted, “for all the rising social consciousness of those times, Indians were not well recognized or understood . . . They were still the ‘vanishing Americans,’ all but invisible.”140
Our tourist eyes followed these presumed ghosts as they headed to a boat that soon took them on their mission to occupy the tiny Island of Alcatraz. These Native
Americans held the determination of a people bent on proving to their fellow countrymen that they lived above ground, not below. And, as their proclamation noted, by occupying the island they would show the world “the true history of this nation. This tiny island would be a symbol of the great lands once ruled by free and noble Indians”141 When the
140 Troy R. Johnson, Joane Nagel, and Duane Champagne, eds., American Indian Activism: Alcatraz the Longest Walk (University of Illinois Press, 1997), 78.
141 Ibid., 62.
72 boat, full of fifty occupiers, sailed out to that rock that bumped out of the Bay’s frigid waters, they carried with them the hope that change lay beyond the horizon. Those occupiers from “All Tribes,” not only sailed to an island but into the consciousness of non-native citizens.
The fact Natives had to take over Alcatraz to prove they still existed represented a failure on the part of historians, however. Over a half-century after the MIF’s formation,
Natives still found themselves fighting against inaccurate histories that sustained oppression. History is the place where the past and present collide; forming people’s perceptions of the world while guiding their actions. Everyone at some point plays the role of historian. Whether a person writes or verbalizes history, we all have a tale of the past to tell. Peoples’ accounts of the past inevitably influence those who read or hear them. Sometimes peoples’ history helps others by exposing an injustice, teaching about morals or highlighting morally strong historical figures that can inspire. At other times, it can cause oppression and death as the case of California’s indigenous people showed.
The Federation’s struggle, along with those of other indigenous people proved one lesson: we all need to take responsibility for the way we present the past.
The linguist and social justice activist Noam Chomsky once argued that, “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies” and to “see events in their historical perspective.” 142 He made this statement in response to intellectuals who used their knowledge to justify US imperialism and its atrocities through the advancement of American exceptionalism. Chomsky argued that power derived from
142 Noam Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, 1st edition (New York: Pantheon, 1987), 60, 78.
73 knowledge, and that intellectuals held some complicity in crimes that result from their failure “to expose the lies of government, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions.”143 He wrote those words in 1967, and when he returned to the topic in 2011, he divided these scholarly individuals into two camps. One consisted of “conformist intellectuals, the ones who support the official aims and ignore or rationalize official crimes . . . ” The other included liberation intellectuals who “use their privilege and status to advance the cause of freedom, justice, mercy, and peace . . .
”144 In the case of the MIF, government agents and others in positions of power largely fell into the conformist camp by justifying their control through the public promotion of inaccurate histories. On the other hand, Federationists like Castillo accepted the intellectual’s responsibility by generating interpretations that exposed the lies of conformists and revealed a more truthful image of the past.
Remaining committed to the struggle following the MIF collapse, other indigenous people embraced this responsibility. The federationists’ tireless work to inform the public about the impacts of allotments, Gunther argued, became, “a model for the Indian protest groups of the Civil Rights Era . . . ”145 This model often revolved around intellectual historians, both Native and non-Indian, whose academic skills helped opposition movements achieve success. The course the MIF charted through the turbulent
143 Ibid., 60.
144 Noam Chomsky, “The Responsibility of Intellectuals, Redux,” Boston Review, September 1, 2011, http://www.bostonreview.net/noam-chomsky-responsibility-of- intellectuals-redux.
145 Vanessa, Ambiguous Justice, 49.
74 seas of stereotypes was not theirs alone. After the groups demise others picked up the pen to promote the indigenous narrative.
The battle over fishing rights in Washington became a struggle that followed in the organization’s footsteps. In the 1960’s, Washington game officers began to restrict indigenous peoples fishing rights as an answer to a decline in salmon populations, a decline attributed to large-scale non-Native fishers. In response to this crackdown, western Washington tribes held “fish-ins,” fished at night, and when push came to shove, fought back with rocks and sticks. For them, salmon fishing informed their cultures— they were also known as the salmon people—and provided not just a source of food but chief staple of their culture and identity. To preserve this vital resource, their ancestors signed treaties that protected their fishing rights, but as the state officers’ actions showed, those agreements did not matter. Eventually, the Nixon administration, on the heels of a
Native led public relations campaign that utilized the media and celebrities like Marlon
Brando, filed a claim against the state for violating treaty rights. The case, as James
Wilkinson explained, “turned ultimately on historical evidence” that needed to convince
Judge Boldt, a conservative Eisenhower appointee, that past agreements protected tribal rights.146 Throughout the trial, which lasted nearly four years, over forty witnesses testified in support of the plaintiffs, including the anthropologist, Dr. Barbra Lane, who provided invaluable evidence in support of the plaintiffs and clearly influenced the judge who praised her credibility. Primarily based on oral histories, the testimony of tribal elders, also played a crucial role. When a lawyer questioned the authenticity of their non- written accounts an elder explained why such accounts held truths:
146 Wilkins, The Hank Adams Reader, 200.
75
My father died at 103 years old, and I think it’s been the tradition or our people—you
have history books; our people, the duty of our old people was to inform us about our
family and about our rights. I think that this is a tradition that has been as accurate as
your history books.147
Confirming the accuracy of their interpretations, the judge ruled in favor of the tribes, with some lawyers arguing that the elders’ testimony decided the outcome.148
The judge’s decision, which withstood a Supreme Court challenge, represented a historic victory that allowed the salmon people to expand and profit from their commercial fishing industries. It also showcased the power of intellectuals whose contributions swayed the judge’s opinion, an opinion that centered on history. Without their ability to articulate the facts, the case likely would have been lost. For one individual, the trail represented a victory in a life-long war to secure indigenous rights.
Hank Adams, once called “the most important Indian” by Vine Deloria Jr., relentlessly pursued the quest for justice, not only for his tribe the Assiniboine-Sioux, but for others throughout the nation. A prolific writer whose contributions had no precedent, he effectively utilized the press, politics, and legal system to promote indigenous viewpoints. While Adams’s stature and demeanor did not evoke fear, his unwillingness to back down made it hard to ignore him. At one time or another his resistance entailed taking a bullet at a fish-in, testifying in court, organizing a movement, suffering arrest, providing expert advice on treaties. It also included writing the “Twenty Points” policy
147 Charles F. Wilkinson, Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations, 1st ed. (W. W. Norton & Company, 2006), 201.
148 Ibid., 201.
76 proposals, which one historian called the “most comprehensive indigenous policy proposals ever devised,” moving to D.C., and working in the federal government to ensure the Poor People’s campaign included Natives, among other endeavors. For
Adam’s the struggle had no non-violent boundaries. In 2011, professor David E. Wilkins summed up Adams’ invaluable importance:
The path he blazed provided an example for those who came after and due to intellectuals
like Adams, the Federal government eventually came to recognize Natives’ right of self-
determination.
The path he blazed provided an example for those who came after and due to intellectuals like Adams, the Federal government eventually came to recognize Natives’ right of self- determination.
In 1970, President Nixon introduced to Congress the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which brought an official end to termination while recognizing tribal boundaries and the right to home rule. Within the President’s written justification for the act, he included a non-paternalistic historical account that mimicked those constructed by indigenous people. He accepted the federal government’s contributions to “centuries of injustices” by calling on the Congress to listen to, “what the
Indians themselves have long been telling us.” The justification argued that the “Indian future” must be “determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.” Instead of focusing only on Natives perceived in-ability to combat repression, the President took note of their persistent resistance and contributions to the nation’s development:
But the story of the Indian in America is something more than the record of the white
man’s frequent aggression, broken agreements, intermittent remorse and prolonged
failure. It is a record also of endurance, of survival, of adaption and creativity in the face
77
of overwhelming obstacles. It is a record of enormous contributions to this country—to
its art and culture, to its strength and sprit, to its sense of history and sense of purpose.149
If the cloth of stereotypes finally had been removed, the commander and chief introduced to the US public a more nuanced and powerful “Indian,” one capable of determining their own destiny. Not only did the President hear them, but in 1975 so too did congress by passing the act, which finally provided some reward for the hard work and dedication of indigenous intellectuals. Over a half-century, after the MIF began to call on the government to take serious their demand for “home rule,” it appeared that federal officials finally began to listen. However, while the passage granted legal recognition of tribal rights, sovereignty still rested on shaky grounds and by the 1980s issues over reservation gaming came to the fore.
In 1988, following the Supreme Court’s, California v. Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians decision which confirmed the tribe’s right to have some form of gambling,
Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The act granted states a voice in gaming matters by requiring tribes to negotiate with states for their enterprises to be deemed legal. Nevertheless, California Governor Pete Wilson all but refused to compromise on an agreement and in response, members of twenty-one different tribes, placed Proposition 5 on the 1998 ballot. To gain support for the proposition they built upon surveys that showed a majority of the public backing the reservations. The commercials tribes produced, that aired throughout the region, emphasized that funds generated from casinos would help them overcome poverty, create self-sufficiency, and
149 “Richard Nixon: Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs.,” accessed September 4, 2015, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2573.
78 aid non-natives through taxes paid to the state. In the end, the proposition passed with
60% in favor, but this victory did not last long. Less than a year later the California
Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Even with the setback, however, tribes did not surrender and in the 2000 elections they brought to voters Proposition 1A, a constitutional amendment that created the framework for legal casino style gambling. To win support of the amendment, tribes used an effective TV ad campaign to help gain passage of the amendment with 64% of the electorate. While the public relations campaign did not directly connect to the MIF, the message echoed federationists call for autonomy in overcoming their own social problems; all surveys showed the public viewed the arguments favorably.150 And, in another link to the Federation, the San
Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians continued to use commercials to keep the public informed about pressing issues.
The ads the band produced, reinforced the tradition of presenting accurate historical accounts to generate respect for tribal sovereignty. Jacob Coin, the tribe’s communications director, explained that the outreach project sought to overcome the caricature perpetrated in textbooks of all “teepees and drums,” by teaching “about the history of indigenous people in this area.”151 About thirty second in length, the ads did not exclusively focus on the San Manuel Band, but involved a wide range of issues that affected regional tribes. Topics included the importance of music as a means to pass
150 Duane Champagne, Social Change and Cultural Continuity among Native Nations (Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2006), 186–197.
151 ICTMN Staff, “San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians Gets the Message Out with Television Advertising,” Text, Indian Country Today Media Network.com, (May 13, 2011), http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/05/13/san-manuel-band- serrano-mission-indians-gets-message-out-television-advertising-33848.
79 down histories, the diversity of the state’s tribal cultures and language, the fact that
Anglos built roads on their ancestors trade routes which contributed to the state’s economic growth, that current tribal members followed the “teaching of their ancestors” by donating funds for medical breakthroughs that help all citizens, and that their ancestors built the region’s first aqueduct that allowed the citrus industry to become an economic power house in the 1930’s. The ads also generated understanding through the slogan “tribal self-reliance makes Californians self-reliant” and by claiming that tribal governments, by providing services and protection for their people, serve in the same capacity as do the state and local governments. Furthermore, they cover their history of resistance against, “Spanish conquest and enslavement, disease and epidemics, greedy gold miners, settlers and a government policy of ethnic cleansing.” The campaign argued that the actions of tribal leaders, such as Santo Manuel and their sprit of perseverance, preserved tribal cultures and sovereignty. And even though they never mention the MIF, their histories clearly hark back to their writings.152
Another movement the MIF generated that remains prominent today related to their use of oral histories. Oral histories, from members, litter the Indian magazine.
Through the history of his father, Ventura Paipa, wrote his account of the Capitan Grande
Indians. Other members featured on the magazine’s cover fill pages with their life stories.
And tribal member Trinida Mojado and Grace LaChusa compose their “story of basket weaving” on the reservations. In his “Appeal to the American Public,” Castillo explained why he believed oral accounts held truths. Castillo argued that even though, “The Indian
152 All the ads can be found on the tribe’s website. “San Manuel Tribal Government News Room,” accessed September 4, 2015, http://www.sanmanuel-nsn.gov/News-Room.
80 race have no written language like the white man,” their oral traditions are valid because,
“the stories of those early days have come down to the present generation from parents and older members to the children in clear detail.”153 He worked to prove the government lied about the 18 treaties by turning to his ancestors’ memories:
…there are people living on reservations near my home today (they are nearing 100
years) who were present and remember most vividly the signing of those TREATIES and
they still cling to the HOPE that America will yet give us JUSTICE.154
His use of memories as facts, hinted at the ability of non-written accounts to produce accurate interpretations. As numerous scholars have noted, the US government has a long history of violating Native land rights and human rights within the region.155At the time
Castillo made that statement, the use of oral histories as evidence did not register with western historians, but during the latter half of the 20th century some began to take such a proposition seriously.
In 1972, Gordon Day argued that oral traditions complement interpretations when,
“the validity of the oral tradition is enhanced by its goodness of fit with historical data.”
He showed how, at the end of French and Indian War, Major Rodger and the Rangers much celebrated attack on the indigenous Schaghticoke did not correspond to what really
153 Castillo “An Indian Appeal to the American Public,” RG 75, BIA-Sacramento Area Office.
154 “Castillo Letter to Congressman,” April 1936, folder MS 187, Gussac Family Papers, San Diego History Center, San Diego California.
155 Steven Newcomb, “Fair Share: The History of What Is Owed The Native Peoples of California,” accessed September 1, 2015, http://www.kumeyaay.com/kumeyaay- history/2-articles/articles/69-fair-share-the-history-of-what-is-owed-the-native-peoples- of-california.html.
81 took place. Rodger’s claim that he surprised and killed two hundred tribal members and burned others alive did not conform to oral traditions, which indicated no surprise occurred and limited the massacre to less than fifty. Day, after researching both interpretations, argued that the truth corresponded to the non-written accounts and that there was “harmony between history and tradition.”156 More recently, other scholars have built upon Day’s work through an increased interest in Ethnohistory, which utilizes other academic disciplines and oral traditions to support historical arguments. For example,
Charles Mann, turned to anthropology, history and archeology to paint a picture of the pre-Columbian Americas as a heavily populated place, where people made large-scale changes to their environments to meet their needs.157 There is also a connection between the MIF and ethnohistory. Historian Christian McMillen, credited one time federationist
Richard Mahone, a Hualapais from Arizona, with being a founder of ethnohistory. Before
Mahone utilized tribal traditions to help the Hualapais win a landmark Supreme Court case that set a precedent for recognition of indigenous land rights, he spent time in
Southern California, “soaking up all that the MIF and Tibbet had to offer . . . ”158
When the Federal government removed the final occupier from Alcatraz, over a year and a half after they first took control of the Island, their dreams of establishing a cultural center also went with them. But not all had been lost. The event helped bring
156 Gordon M. Day, “Oral Tradition as Complement,” Ethnohistory 19, no. 2 (April 1, 1972): 100, 107.
157 Charles C. Mann, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, 1st ed. (Vintage, 2006).
158 Christian W McMillen, Making Indian Law the Hualapai Land Case and the Birth of Ethnohistory, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 22,44.
82 them out of the shadows of perceived annihilation and into the minds of non-Natives. At the same time tribal members headed towards Alcatraz, others increasingly headed towards academic institutions.159 This increased presence laid the foundation for the creation of more respectful histories and slowly the past gave way to more humane portrayals. The ability to defeat oppression, Wilkinson argued, rested on destroying the historical basis of that oppression:
The proposals to abolish tribal rights, all supported by powerful interests, were defeated
by Indian people able to articulate the historical, legal, and moral predicates for laws that
are inconvenient to some but that are based on long-standing policies and promises and
on modern circumstances that, once understood, provide justification for their
continuation.160
Facts often supported Native arguments and when Native scholars placed those facts in an historical context, their rights gained greater credibility. Of course, there have been setbacks, issues of poverty, unemployment, poor health care, and housing still plague reservations, but as respect for sovereignty grew, progress followed.
A direct correlation between sovereignty and improved reservation livings conditions also existed. A 2008 Harvard study noted the change “But the Indian voice is rising, the population is growing rapidly, economic progress is being made, and the winds
159 Troy R Johnson, Joane Nagel, and Duane Champagne, American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to the Longest Walk (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 104–112.
160 Wilkinson, Blood Struggle, 277–78.
83 of extermination and de-recognition are being weathered,” the authors concluded.161
Starting with the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Natives have gained more control over their own governments. To take advantage of this greater autonomy, tribal members began to rewrite their constitutions, create their own education systems, reestablish language programs, take control over their resources, and advance economically.162 Undoubtedly these developments have made a difference but their legal rights are still precarious, the courts and congress can legally overturn them. On the other hand, historians can help prevent that from happening and help first peoples build of their success by writing accounts that reverse misrepresentations. As Alcatraz proved, it is difficult to see indigenous people in the present, when you cannot see them in the past.
161 Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development et al., The State of the Native Nations: Conditions under U.S. Policies of Self-Determination (Oxford University Press, USA, 2007), 2.
162 Ibid.
84
CONCLUSION
The thread that tied Frederick Douglass, Federationists and liberation intellectuals together became their belief that truthful historical accounts are weapons in the fight for justice. While this conviction did not always produce the outcomes those who proscribed to it desired, victories did occur. During the 1960’s and 70’s, due in large part to protest movements and liberation intellectuals the public had to confront issues concerning minorities. In turn, this translated into a more informed citizenry and progressive gains.
The civil rights acts, and the Indian self-determination act can to some degree be attributed those who worked to change peoples’ perceptions. Nevertheless, the power of stereotypes to obscure understanding of indigenous people remains a problem to this day.
Many citizens still have trouble moving beyond the Indian who aimlessly roamed the landscape, in a feather headdress, and hid from civilization. The battle over the past inevitably rolls on.
In 1995, historian Michel-Rolph Trouillot, invoked a prescient warning to historians. If they did not promote or challenge how the past is utilized in the public sphere, others will misuse history for their own personal gain:
Professional historians have made good use of the creation of the past as a distinct entity,
a creation that paralleled the growth of their own practice...The more historians wrote
about past worlds, the more The Past became real as a separate world. But as various
crises of our times impinge upon identities thought to be long established or silent, we
move closer to the era when professional historians will have to position themselves more
85
clearly within the present, lest politicians, magnates, or ethnic leaders alone write history
for them.163
To an extent, this warning has not been heeded. Historians still produce great works, but in the digital age of constant information conformist and those in power play a dominant role in interpreting the past. The corporate consolidation of the mass media has only exacerbated this problem.
In Southern California, MIF historians exposed the public to their histories though the The Indian and local journalist. Though their accounts never reached a national audience, Federationists understood the importance of disseminating information. Within the last several decades however, due to media consolidation, voices that challenge perceived truths have largely been silenced. An overt focus on sound bites, sensational news, and celebrities, all of which leaves less time for historians accompanied the consolidation. In this media landscape, historians that challenge power receive scarce attention. As conformists gain publishing deals and airtime, they attempt to teach the public about a topic they have a vested interest in. Meanwhile, respectable historians are left on the sidelines. For example, according to the journalist Sebastian Jones, MSNBC,
Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Network all use corporate lobbyist without disclosing the fact to viewers.164 When these lobbyists appear on the networks they are
163 Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (Beacon Press, 1995), 152.
164 Sebastian Jones, “The Media-Lobbying Complex,” The Nation, accessed January 2013, http://www.thenation.com/article/media-lobbying-complex/. Also, in 2017, journalist Andrew Jerell Jones reported Comcast Corporation spent millions lobbying against net neutrality rules, while not disclosing that spending to viewers of NBC News, CNBC, and MSNBC. All three are owned by Comcast. Jones argued this spending
86 granted credibility by being introduced as people who are objective thinkers. This false objectivity and lack of diversity increases their ability to influence the public into supporting the interests of the powerful few, all of which diminishes the effectiveness of our democracy.165 Democracy is predicated on citizens accessing as many viewpoints as they can to make informed decisions. When arguments from respectable historians aren’t disseminated widely the public often does not get the information they need to make informed decisions. Like the case of the MIF confirmed, when the past is confined to the victor’s, issues of great importance often become lost behind the curtain of power.
The MIF also showed how collective memories can be harnessed to generate solidarity. A collective memory of resistance through cultural preservation manifested in the organization’ structure and provided member nations a means to protect their traditions and sovereignty. This in turn solidified a support base that withstood outside pressure and helped, for a time, minimize internal conflicts. Yet, even though disagreements among Natives destroyed the organization, federationists ability to challenge power spoke to their resolve. Given that nearly all members dealt with issues of
affected their coverage of the topic by either ignoring the issue or presenting commentators who advocated for repeal of the rules. Andrew Jerell Jones, “Comcast spends millions in lobbying on net neutrality, without their news networks disclosing their spending,” The Young Turks Network, accessed September 2017, https://medium.com/theyoungturks/comcast-spends-millions-in-lobbying-on-net- neutrality-without-their-news-networks-disclosing-their-499b3d9cb6dd
165 For further reading on how corporate media interests are responsible for weakening democracy consult, Ben Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, 20th Edition, 2004 (Boston: Beacon Press).; Robert, McChesney, Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times, 2nd Edition, 2015 (New York: The New Press).; Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, 2nd Edition, 2002 (New York: Pantheon Books).
87 poverty, displacement, occupation, and at times physical attacks, protecting ones’ culture, not to mention forming sovereign governments, become an act of resistance. The reservation government’s they established paved the way for some tribes to gain federal recognition and as, Robert Terence Przeklasa noted the MIF bought members time for the public and government attitudes towards them to change.166
Shortly before his death, President Castillo, in a letter to a government official, articulated his frustration at the inability of non-Natives to move beyond misconceptions of the federation. The organization he wrote, “was NOT organized for amusements nor curiosities. It is organized for a purpose. That PURPOSE which will bring Peace, Unity and Happiness for the Indian race.” 167 Though Castillo and other federationists never fully destroyed the stereotypes surrounding their people, they never wavered from their purpose. A purpose they sought to achieve by using their past.
166 Przeklasa, The Band, the Bureau, and the Business Interests, 22.
167 Adam Castillo, President Mission Indian Federation, to Supt. C.L. Ellis, Mission Agency, Riverside, California, 1 May 1925. “Letter,” 1932, Box 16, Folder 2, National Archives, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Record Group, 75, “Mission Indian Agency / Central Classified Files,” National Archives, Riverside, California.
88
REFERENCES
ARCHIVAL / MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS
Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Record Group 75, National Archives and Records Administration, Riverside, California
Records of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, Southern Division, 1929-1938, Record Group 21, National Archives and Records Administration, Riverside, California
NEWSPAPERS/MAGAZINES
Los Angeles Times
San Diego Union
San Diego Sun
The Indian
PUBLISHED
“AGUA CALIENTE CULTURAL MUSEUM - Baristo Road.” Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.accmuseum.org/Baristo-Road.
Akins, Damon B. Lines on the Land: The San Luis Rey River Reservations and the Origins of the Mission Indian Federation, 1850--1934. University of Oklahoma, 2009.
Bernard, Eric. Fighting the Conspiracy: The Mission Indian Federation’s Justifiable Use of Violence, 1905-1934. California State University, Long Beach, 2006.
Blight, David W. Beyond the Battlefield: Race, Memory & the American Civil War. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002.
Champagne, Duane. Social Change and Cultural Continuity among Native Nations. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2006.
Chomsky, Noam. The Chomsky Reader. 1 edition. New York: Pantheon, 1987.
89
Cobb, Daniel M, and Loretta Fowler. Beyond Red Power: American Indian Politics and Activism since 1900. Santa Fe.: School for Advanced Research, 2007.
Daly, Heather Ponchetti. “Fractured Relations at Home: The 1953 Termination Act’s Effect on Tribal Relations Throughout Southern California Indian Country.” American Indian Quarterly 33, no. 4 (2009): 427–439.
DeLucia, Christine. “The Memory Frontier: Uncommon Pursuits of Past and Place in the Northeast after King Philip’s War.” Journal of American History 98, no. 4 (January 2012): 975–97.
Dozier, Deborah. Standing Firm: The Mission Indian Federation Fight for Basic Human Rights. Ushkana Press, 2005.
Gunther, Vanessa Ann. Ambiguous Justice: Native Americans and the Law in Southern California, 1848 - 1890. East Lansin: Michigan State University Press, 2006.
Hackel, Steve. Children of Coyote, Missionaries of Saint Francis: Indian-Spanish Relations in Colonial California, 1769-1850. North Carolina: North Carolina Press, 2012.
Harring, Sidney L. Crow Dog’s Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Heizer, Robert F. Federal Concern about Conditions of California Indians, 1853 to 1913: Eight Documents. Socorro: Ballena Press, 1979.
Johnson, Troy R. The American Indian Occupation of Alcatraz Island: Red Power and Self-Determination. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008.
Johnson, Troy R, Joane Nagel, and Duane Champagne. American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to the Longest Walk. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997.
Konkle, Maureen. Writing Indian Nations: Native Intellectuals and the Politics of Historiography, 1827-1863. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.
Madley, Benjamin. An American Genocide. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016.
Mann, Charles C. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. 1st ed. New York: Vintage Press, 2006.
Martin, Calvin. The American Indian and the Problem of History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
McDonnell, Janet. The Dispossession of the American Indian: 1887-1934. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1991.
90
McMillen, Christian W. Making Indian Law the Hualapai Land Case and the Birth of Ethnohistory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.
Miranda, Deborah A. Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir. 1st ed. Berkeley: Heyday, 2013.
Nabokov, Peter. A Forest of Time: American Indian Ways of History. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Prucha, Francis. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1984
Przeklasa, Terence Robert Jr. The Band, the Bureau, and the Business Interests: The Mission Indian Federation and the Fight for the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. California State University, Fullerton, 2011.
Shipek, Florence C. Pushed into the Rocks: Southern California Indian Land Tenure, 1769-1986. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1988.
Stannard, David E. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Thorne, Tanis C. El Capitan: Adaptation and Agency on a Southern California Indian Reservation, 1850 to 1937. Banning, Calif.: Malki-Bellena Press, 2012.
Thorne, Tanis C. “On the Fault Line: Political Violence at Campo Fiesta and National Reform in Indian Policy.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21, no. 2.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Beacon Press, 1995.
Wilkins, David E., ed. The Hank Adams Reader: An Exemplary Native Activist and the Unleashing of Indigenous Sovereignty. Golden: Fulcrum Publishing, 2011.
Wilkinson, Charles F. Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006.
Wilson, Benjamin Davis, and John Walton Caughey. The Indians of Southern California in 1852: The B.D. Wilson Report and a Selection of Contemporary Comment. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1952.