Talk:Tongva

My name is Joe Castillo, and I’m an independent historical researcher and author, and am presently completing a study on the evolution of the term ‘Tongva’. My research to date has included a review of 155 sources of information from 1774 through 2018. The study included a survey of multiple subject-related materials associated with the San Gabriel Mission, Southern California locations, Los Angeles and California history and Native Americans cultural, historical and anthropological records. My research included the following types of resources: a) published books, b) various documents and manuscripts, c) legislative documents, d) posters, e) maps, f) sites and signage, g) articles and h) websites. In addition, I have interviewed a variety of Native American and ‘Tongva’ authorities to gain a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of the term ‘Tongva’.

My research has resulted in the following statements based on identified factual records:

· The Gabrielino’s are recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin. The Tongva are not recognized by the State of California which documented in its 1994 legislative research that there was ‘no support’ for the ‘Tongva’ name;

· The ‘Tongva’ term was first defined by C. Hart Merriam in 1903. Merriam was performing a study of California Indians by documenting their language, boundaries and tribal origins. In his notes, Merriam documented that the ‘Tongva’ were from Tejon and referenced the Indians at the San Gabriel Mission as ‘San Gabriels’. Even though Merriam wrote the notes, they were not published until 1955 and 1966, after being compiled and edited by university researchers. In addition, Merriam’s research practices were not considered conventional and were not reviewed, critiqued and accepted by his colleagues in the anthropological field;

· Prior to 1992, only 8 sources of the study population of 155 identified the term ‘Tongva’ and 7 of the 8 sources were based on information provided by Merriam. From 1774 to 1992, a period of 218 years, only two separate researchers identified and applied the term ‘Tongva’ in their professional works, and even then it was not in reference to a Los Angeles area based tribe;

· Since 1992, the study population identified 57 sources which reference the term ‘Tongva’ but do not provide detailed research data and information to support it as the authentic and accurate ancestral, cultural and historical name of the Gabrielinos. In summary, my research has led to the following conclusions:

· The ‘Tongva’ name is inaccurate when referenced as a Los Angles based tribe with negligible support from historical records and unconfirmed in comprehensive research studies by professional anthropologists;

· The ‘Tongva’ term primarily evolved in 1992 casting significant doubt on its validity as the aboriginal tribal name of Los Angeles based Indian tribes dating back to the Spanish Mission era and before.

As such, it is my recommendation, that any organization choosing to be associated with an entity named with the term ‘Tongva’ should reconsider its relationship until additional confirmed and validated evidence can be offered to support its claim as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles Basin. Each entity should be able to provide ancestral, cultural and historical evidence in support of its claim as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin. However, it is highly unlikely that such evidence even exists as starting in 1992 the ‘Tongva’ term was first associated with a Los Angeles based tribe even with negligible support for its ancestral, cultural and historical foundation. My study is expected to be finalized in September 2018 and will provide additional factual documentation in support of the information provided in this memo.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter,

Joe Castillo

Historical Researcher

Joe Castillo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:B1C9:5900:FC10:5DB7:DB8D:29A (talk • contribs) 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Researcher response

I'll begin by noting that I'm not a disinterested party, but am a lineal descendant of Mrs. James Rosemeyre (née Narcisa Higuera), your photographed representative of the tribe. Our family has always used the term Tongva to refer to themselves, though I do recognize others may have a different history.

While I do recognize the tribal endonym is a source of contention, I also feel it necessary to point out (reluctant as I am to enter this fray) that the individual, Joe Castillo, portraying himself as an independent researcher, is anything but. He is a member of the "kizh" faction, as you can see from his own postings here: http://www.gabrielenoindians.com/JOE_CASTILLO_NEWS.html

I just felt the need to point this out and to thank you as a collective for being careful with this fraught and sensitive issue. There are no simple answers, and I recognize the challenges you face not wishing to offend an indigenous people who have overwhelmingly (as your own research documented here points out) decided to apply a known if not definitive endonym to themselves, rather than to continue to use a patently colonial term. For what it is worth, I will note that I have absolutely no problem with the notation that other endonyms are used, but it would be wildly inaccurate and irresponsible to deny the use or legitimacy of the term Tongva. I greatly appreciate that you have so far resisted efforts to that effect.

Wallace Cleaves — Preceding unsigned comment added by WallaceC2 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Response to researcher response

Mr. Cleaves, There is no such thing as a Kizh "faction." Know this: The Kizh Nation, the whole tribe, has always used "the patently colonial term Kizh" to refer to themselves. The history of Rosemeyre, a Kizh, is the history of the Kizh. Furthermore, the Kizh Nation accepted "the patently colonial term Kizh" long before "Tongva" came into existence, which means nothing in Kizh, and continues to accept Kizh. I just felt the need to point that out.Harryawhite (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Harryawhite,

Actually, it's Dr. Cleaves, but, respectfully, the term Tongva is historically attested in Merriam and, frankly, has been used by my own family and many others as our designation since long before the colonial era. Rosemeyre always referred to herself as either Gabrieleno, a colonial term, or Tongva, never "Kizh," a term that I'm certain even you know the very dubious history of. Tongva is even the designation she uses on the singular wax cylinder recording of a Gabrieleno/Tongva singing in our language. That resource is in the Smithsonian and is dated to 1906, and Merriam's work was presented in the same year. Of course other members of the tribe have the right to call themselves whatever they wish, but the vast majority of our people use the name Tongva to refer to ourselves as the only authentically testified endonym recorded by a member of our own people. Not to acknowledge that right and to refute it is problematic in the extreme.

I feel I should also note that there are claims on this site denigrating the ancestry of specific recognized Tongva members. It is also incredibly unwise to, in print, suggest that specific individuals are "frauds" or not members of of the Gabrieleno/Tongva. Several of the individuals attacked above are in fact registered both with the tribe and with the BIA, as is my own family. To deny our ancestry is actionable slander. This is simply meant as courteous advice to refrain from such acts and as a note to the wikipedia folks that they might want to take that stuff down.

Wallace Cleaves, Associate Professor, UCR, and member of the Tongva — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.145.242.126 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Cleaves, denigrating the ancestry of specific recognized Tongva members? Really? You don’t want to go there. In the 1770s Spain enslaved a tribe of North American Indians—the “People of the Willow house” or the Kizh (pronounced Keech) Nation—and forced them to work, farming, etc., at the San Gabriel Mission. The Spaniards called them Kicherenos or Gabrielenos. But "The name Tongva is what we've chosen in the present," says Tongva member Cindi Alvitre in Dig Magazine, a Cal State Long Beach publication (March 8, 2008).

Why would the Kizh call themselves the Tongva? They wouldn’t.

Cindi is a pretendian and a member of the American Indian Studies faculty at CSLB (Fall, 2021). She admits "There was no one tribe called 'Tongva.'" The Tongva tribe never existed; still, Wikipedia has numerous articles about the “Tongva”— "Tongva," "Tongva Populated Places," “Tongva Language, etc., that do harm to the Kizh. Cultural appropriation is harmful. You won’t find an article on the Tongva language on The Encyclopedia Brittanica website because there’s no such thing. Chief and Spiritual leader Ernie Perez Tautimes Salas (proven to be the most recognized and accurately documented direct lineal descendant of the native ancestors of the Kizh villages that populated the entire Los Angeles basin), who passed away in 2021, is rolling in his grave.

Lorraine "Rain Cloud" Escobar, a certified genealogist and researcher, says Cindi Alvitre is not a member of the Kizh Nation; here's a link to Lorraine’s paper trail that proves Cindi is not of California Indian descent at all. ^[1]

And here is what she wrote to me in 2019:

Hello Mr. White, Andy Salas sent me a copy of your dialogue with Cindi Alvitre. (I meant to answer before now but I've been super busy.) I told him I was interested in writing to you about it and so, here I am. First, allow me to introduce myself--I am Lorraine Escobar, the certified "genealogist" you mentioned in one of your e-mails to Ms. Alvitre. I was first certified in 1998 and have been required to re-certify every five years with the Board for Certification of Genealogists. I am also the genealogist who assists Chairman Salas in his endeavors to prove his tribe's Gabrieleno lineages and to investigate the lineages of others who are pretendians. But, I am sure you have an idea of my work as, no doubt, as your dialogue appears to reflects that facts you would find in his website. I find it so telling that anyone depends on DNA to attempt to prove where they are from. All that does is show that they have NA DNA from either North or South America--both of which are not particularly specific to any given state in any country. That is why good genealogy will be necessary for a very long time. The origin details are in the paper trail, not in the DNA trail. So, Alvitre's claim of 40-60% does not prove anything other than she has some native ancestry from one of those two continents while the paper evidence proves she is not of California Indian descent at all. Those pretendians don't seem to grasp the hard facts of DNA or genealogy. And, in her case, it appears she believes she can keep fooling those who don't know better. I believe Alvitre is in a community of frauds. It is going to take some real time and attention to get the truth out there where it might actually start shedding the light necessary on these frauds. It's too bad they don't see themselves as they truly are--an obstacle to the real Gabrielenos. It will take time but we have to try to change that ("we" meaning people like Andy, me, and others who understand and support the cause). There is no morality in remaining quiet when there is so much evidence to the contrary. So, sooner or later, the status quo will have to change. She is right about one thing--she and her pretendian buddies are "all bozos." Their "collective consciousness" is based on denial. You can have a bunch of people who are wrong. I should know. I have researched many of the 1928 California Indian Jurisdictional Act applications of persons who got on the Indian rolls in 1933. For example, half of those who enrolled, and got on the list, in Orange County were not Indians from California. There are lots of people who have been misled by Thomas Workman Temple, II. He was not a certified genealogist and his methods were flawed. Had there been a higher standard of evidence back then, the list would have been a whole lot shorter. But, the phenomenon has snowballed and its going to take an avalanche of truth to undo it. I am not mercenary by any means. But, I am an advocate for real Native Americans to do all they can to hang on to what little is left of their heritage. And, sometimes being an effective advocate does not just mean proving the real Indians are as they claim, it also includes exposing those who are frauds. I am hoping to start a blog pretty soon to explore my topic of "Thieves and Frauds Among Us," (a book I had thought to write). I know there will be haters but I also know they have no authority and have not done the work to rebut my conclusions. Yes, I agree, "And the truth will set you free."

Lorraine Escobar

Here’s more from Lorraine: It's unfortunate but the term "tongva" was promoted by persons claiming to be Gabrieleno Indians. They were so effective at promoting this false concept in the 1980s and 1990s that they not only got the general public to believe it (the term does sound Indian, as does Tonto of Lone Ranger fame) but they even got some genuine tribal members to believe it as well, not to mention editors at Wikipedia and authors of articles and books. Alvitre is in a community of frauds. It is going to take some real time and attention to get the truth out there where it might actually start shedding the light necessary on these frauds. It's too bad they don't see themselves as they truly are--an obstacle to the real Gabrielenos. Read: Microsoft Word - Kizh not Tongva_9-27-17.doc (cpp.edu)

Wikipedia’s editors are a joke: just the other day, Larry Sanger, founder of Wikipedia, warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.” Read: Wikipedia co-founder says site is now 'propaganda' for left-leaning 'establishment' (nypost.com)Harryawhite (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I just checked Alfred Kroeber's 1925 "Handbook of the Indians of California" , and there is no mention of the name "Tongva" whatsoever. Also, The ethnonym "Kizh" cited in the article is probably mistaken for "Kechi" or "Kech", which means "house, village", or a native designation for the vicinity of the mission (ibid. p. 648). This article should be named Gabrieleno canonically with "Tongva" redirecting to it, not the other way round. --83.137.6.59 (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Since the first photo of a human being is a daguerrotype dating to 1838, these women were clearly not pictured in 1830.

Furthermore, a version of the picture here (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/75/5f/b6/755fb6f37df3c44ef780ae987b4ff7cc.jpg) claims that they are 100 and 130 years old, which seems just as absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.152.118 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Another source suggests the picture dates to 1890. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.152.118 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This might be of some interest to the extant article as a reference or citation: University Land Grant -- Gabrieleño though the article takes a detailed, deep look at how Native American lands were seized and distributed among the States for the putative creation of Universities. The history of the Gabrieleño and the killing of tribal members to force the selling of their ownership is one aspect of why California's current governor lamented the attempted genocide of natives nation wide. SoftwareThing (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)