Talk:Tongva/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tongva is a misnomer

Let me be clear: there never was a tribe of Indians or a language called "Tongva." Tongva isn't even a word. Try and look it up in a Webster's unabridged dictionary. Check out the Table of Contents of The Handbook of California Indians by A.L. Kroeber Search all you want, any book or article published prior to 1993. The Tongva tribal name is a lie, though there are those who think that it's the truth. And the Tongva language is a lie, though there are those who think that it's the truth. Search all you want, any book or article published prior to 1993, before the lies began in earnest.

Why do people believe in Tongva? The Gabrieleno/Tongva have been effective promoters of themselves, even to the point of convincing actual Gabrieleno Indians that they are Tongva! Cyndi Alvitre, the first woman chair of the bogus Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Coucil, is one such promoter; she is a member of the Indian Studies Faculty at CSLB who lectures about California Indians, though she doesn't have a drop of Southern California Indian blood in her.

Ask Lorraine Escobar, Certified Genealogist. No, you're right, Cindi doesn't have to be Indian to lecture about them; but she should find out, it's incumbent upon her to find out if she is Indian before claiming to be one. DNA does not prove whether a person is Indian or not. A paper trail is the only way.

The Cal State Long Beach website says that Cindi is Southern California Indian, but Lorraine "Rain Cloud" Escobar, a certified genealogist and researcher, says she is not; in fact, Cindi's not even Indian (and other Tongva, which cost Andrew Salas, Tribal Chairman of the Kizh Nation, $65,000 to find out about her and them).Here's a link to her paper trail. talk) 01:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Listen, there are people out there who take advantage of Indians, Elizabeth Warren, a White woman, for law school and politics, or Iron Eyes Cody, a Sicilian, for the movies or television, or Jay Silverheels of Lone Ranger fame - no, he was a Mohawk, the real deal playing a fake Indian - an Indian playing an Indian, there's no harm, no desecration in that. But there is harm and desecration in non-Indians who appropriate the culture of Native Americans.It's time to disappear "Tongva."Harryawhite (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Harryawhite (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC) See below for references 1-5.Harryawhite (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"There is no real historical support for the term "Tongva."[1]There is however, historical support and legitimacy for the name Kij or Kizh (pronounced keech),[2]which is a name being used by many of the Gabrielenos today,[3]"what they," the Kizh Nation, the original Indian Tribe of the greater Los Angeles area "want to be called."[4]The word "Kizh" itself refers to the willow houses they lived in[5] for several thousand years before the arrival of the Spanish.[6]

The term "Tongva" appears to be a post-contact (with a Mrs. James Rosemeyre[7]) coinage, i.e., invention of a new word:[8]C. Hart Merriam, the 'Father of Mammalogy, having became an ethnographer, though he had no formal training in the field,[9]began focusing on the ethnology of California Indians circa 1910.[10]Circa 1933, Merriam, recording (on aluminum discs[11]) from J.P.Harrington's linguistic and ethnographic field notes having to do with Gabrieleno vocabulary, for one, uttered Tongva (pronounced Tongvay) into the michrophone,[12]and recorded a new word: Jesus Jauro, Harrington's principal Gabrieleno consultant, "used to hear his mother saying to' onve of a person talking … Gabrieleno,"[13]that to'onve may be a rancheria, a name of a San Gabriel locality.[14]

Harrington dutifully wrote down to' onve, but Merriam recorded Tongva.[15]It is believed that Merriman glitched to' onve into Tongva and wrongfully attributed it as the name of the Gabrieleno tribe.[16]Merriman later published his misinterpretation in a paper.[17]

There is historical support and legitimacy for the Kizh, in a book published in 1909 by a priest of the San Gabriel Mission.[18]There is support and legitimacy for the Kizh long before Merriman coined the misnomer "Tongva." In his book[19]Fr. Sugranes says, "The language spoken by the San Gabriel Mission Indians was the Kizh. He gives the reader the Lord's Prayer in the Kizh dialect.

Furthermore, Hubert Howe Bancroft, the great ethnologist, wrote this in 1883: "Returning to California, let us examine the three languages, Kizh, Netela, and Kechi spoken near the missions of San Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, and San Luis Rey, respectively, …"[20]"Unfortunately, the term of "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 did Tonto of Lone Ranger fame) but they even got some genuine tribal members to believe it as well."[21]

KIZH Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians [22]statement: "The Gabrielenos were first known by the Spanish as Kicherenos … they were the people who canoed out to greet Spanish explorer Juan Cabrillo … in 1542. Their original name Kizh … lost through assimilation into Spanish culture … Today academia continues to desecrate our true name, culture and history by promoting the misnomer of Tongva," says Ernest Perez, Teutimez, Salas, Tribal Chief and spiritual leader of the Kizh Nation.[23]"In 1994 the state of California recognized the Gabrieleno Tribal Council, 'Gabrieleno' - without the use of the term Tongva.[24]Harryawhite (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

^ https://www.amazon.com/Gabriel-Images-America-Richard-Arnold/dp/1467130613 ^ WHY THE ORIGINAL INDIAN TRIBE OF THE GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA IS CALLED KIZH NOT TONGVA by E. Gary Stickel, Ph.D (UCLA) ^ "Prehistoric milling site found in California". USA Today. March 3, 2006. Retrieved February 2, 2016. ^ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tongva_language ^ https://www.amazon.com/California-Indian-Languages-Victor-Golla/dp/0520266676 ^ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Clinton_Hart_Merriam ^ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Aluminum_disc ^ https://www.amazon.com/California-Indian-Languages-Victor-Golla/dp/0520266676 ^ In Studies of California Indians, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 77-86 ^ The Old San Gabriel Mission, by the Rev. Eugene Sugranes, C.M.F. published in San Gabriel, CA feb. 2, 1909 ^ The Old San Gabriel Mission, Chapter VI ^ The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, Vol.III, The Native Races, Myths and Languages, San Francisco, A.L. Bancroft & Company, Publishers. 1883 ^ http://gabrielenoindians.org/

Talking Tongva took a while and it hasn't been easy, but I finally figured out that I need to click on "contributions" to make a contribution - DUH!Harryawhite (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Say you are a member of the Kizh Nation/Gabrieleno band (original tribe) and you want to operate a casino, but Chief Ernie does not want to operate a casino, not because he has anything against separating a fool from his money - he could put it to good use - but because he knows what an awful lot of young Indians, Whites, etc., do when they come into a small fortune - spend it on drugs and become miserable; but, having no respect for the Chief, you say the heck with that and break away from the Gabrielenos; only now you need a new name, an Indian sounding name, so you stumble on Tongva and call yourself the Gabrieleno/tongva; you start the (casino) ball rolling, but California shoots you down in 1994. Oh well, not to worry, there are other ways to make a living.Harryawhite (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"I always say Tongva women never left their ancestral homeland, they just became invisible. 'How do we make ourselves not invisible?' is the question I ask every day." - Julia Bogany. Well, Julia, one way not to make yourself invisible is to promote the hell out of Tongva and disappear Kizh, I suppose. You go girl! "Julia Louise (nee: Gaitan) Bogany is, indeed, a fraud." And Lorraine "Rain Cloud" Escobar has the proof, an 18 page genealogy report. This is but one example of the kind of people that the Kizh are up against. Let me be crystal clear: Should you ever leave the Gabrieleno/Kizh tribe (if you ever were a member) over a dispute, e.g., a casino, and turn your back on the Chief, you no longer have the right to call yourself a Gabrieleno, let alone appropriate the culture and language of the Kizh, make a slash, and call it "Tongva." What balls!Harryawhite (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Tongva" still appears to be the conventional term, and far more of a WP:COMMONNAME in the sources than "Kizh".[1] vs. [2] "Gabrieleno", with or without the ñ, is also less common than Tongva at this time.[3] The article already gets into the different names and is clear that "Tongva" is a relatively late convention. The name section needs expansion, but "Tongva" shouldn't be replaced or downplayed at this time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect: "Tongva" should be disappeared forever. That's my story and I'm sticking to itHarryawhite (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Who dares to steal Chief Ernie's thunder? Plenty of non-Indians, that's who - https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/5-fake-indians-checking-a-box-doesn-t-make-you-native-Z9mn2ErpHEWl5BDNU9LJRw/ - genealogy doesn't lie. He who watches over Kizh neither sleeps nor slumbers.Harryawhite (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I am a voice crying in the wilderness: "Kich, Kich, Kich."Harryawhite (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

For many years there was the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians only. In the 1990s some non-Indians, academia, etc., began attending their meetings, boning up on Kizh culture. Then they started the Tongva-Gabrieleno and the Tongva/Gabrieleno in the hopes of gaining federal recognition and opening a casino and becoming rich, basically. No deal said the State of California in 1994 to the hyphen group. And no casino for the slash group either. But the hyphen and slash groups are far better at promoting themselves than the original tribe is at promoting itself. Wikipedia titles such as "Tongva," "Tongva Populated Places," and "Tongva Language," etc., do harm to the San Gabriel Band. Wikipedia should not help the Tongvas promote "Tongva" to the detriment of the original band. Isn't this a violation of the Neutral Point of View Policy?Harryawhite (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

In all fairness, how about "People of the Willowhouse?" And I don't mean to suggest that Wikipedia is knowingly being unfair, but why penalize someone for being out-promoted and thus having a "less common name at this time." Both sides admit that the so-called Tongva Populated Places were inhabited by the People of the Willowhouse. All due respect, you don't know what the heck you are talking about, Mr. Cuchullain. Put your mind in gear. Do a little investigatingHarryawhite (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Harryawhite (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not insult other editors. Again, Wikipedia relies on common names in the reliable sources, and in this case the demonstrable WP:COMMONNAME is Tongva. You can start a requested move if you wish, but you're going to have to make an argument based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not what you think is correct.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to insult you, if that's what you mean by other editors, but I believe that if you took a hard look into the Kizh-Tongva situation you would not be so quick to say "Tongva should not be downplayed at this time." Clearly, your shoe is on the wrong foot. It's the Tongva who downplay the Kizh using Wikipedia, for one, to great effect. Pretendians is a serious issue. And I understand that making an argument based on what I perceive to be unfair or one-sided, even if I'm 100% correct, won't get me anywhere; that's why I put it to you that "Tongva," "Tongva Populated Places," "Tongva Language," etc. is a violation of a Wikipedia policy, namely illegitimate name. Apparently, I made a mistake putting it to you. I will start a requested move as you suggest. Thank you.Harryawhite (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Harryawhite (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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."

Good luck with your book,

Lorraine Escobar

Say it's 1993 and a professor appears at your front door. You are about to conduct a meeting but you invite her in and show her around. She admires the silverware in the dining room. "K-I-Z-H, hmm, tell me about it," she says. "Well, it's been in the family for many generations," you say. "It looks real enough," she says. "Tell me more." "Come to our next meeting and I will," you say, unaware that she covets the KIZH. Eventually she hears enough and steals the KIZH from under your nose, for a casino. Then she creates a website that tells everyone T-O-N-G-V-A has been in the family for many generations, talks to her cronies about mentioning it in their articles and books, and writes a piece for Wikipedia (now that she has references), one that its editors can't decline because this particular silverware is a new subject that's very well referenced, thanks to all her cronies. Now T-O-N-G-V-A is in the encyclopedia. And the articles and books keep coming. Say it's 2019, lo and behold, the professor owns the silverware. She always has.Harryawhite (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Requested move, be bold it says. very well, bold it shall be. "What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."Harryawhite (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"The name Tongva is what we've chosen to use in the present," which means "people of the Earth," Alvitre said in her office one day, early last fall semester. "There was no one tribe called 'Tongva.'" This is what the creator of the "Tongva" article used to back up the following: "The name Tongva has become increasingly preferred as a self-designation since the 1990s ..." By whom? These are weasel words and one-sided. The Gabrieleno band rejects "Tongva."Harryawhite (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term of "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 did 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. 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 - Lorraine Escobar, certified "genealogist"Harryawhite (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Colliers or Britannica would have declined "Tongva." Their editors aren't amateurs. They are professionals who understand the importance of observing policy.Harryawhite (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I am an advocate for real Native Americans to do all they can to hang on to what little is left of their heritage.Harryawhite (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Tongvas are pretendians, imposters, frauds, and usurpers. They have no right to say "The name Tongva is what we've chosen to use in the present," no right to put Tongva in front of Gagrieleno.Harryawhite (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I am an advocate for real Native Americans to do all they can to hang on to what little is left of their heritage, says Lorraine Escobar.Harryawhite (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Lorraine.Harryawhite (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Tongva article is supposed to improve the coverage of Native Americans like the Gabrielenos. What's the opposite of improve?Harryawhite (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Tongva are cultural appropriators. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.[11] The article "Tongva" aids and abets cultural appropriators.Harryawhite (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

To Rebecca Tsosie Regents' Professor of Law; faculty Co-Chair Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program Special Advisor to the Provost for Diversity and Inclusion:

Hi, Rebecca,

I want to share something with you. I use Wikipedia for research, among other sources, although I question everything I read. Having come across an article entitled “Tongva” and the Tongva/Gabrielenos (on Wikipedia), I contacted Andrew Salas, Tribal Chairman of the Gabrielenos.

It turns out that Cindi Alvitre, Cal State Long Beach Professor of Indian Studies and Chairwoman of the T/G who claims to be California Indian is a fraud. Andrew has her genealogy. Yet the university supports her. It’s incredible. And she calls me a “Kizh nut.”

Convinced that the Tongva are cultural appropriators, I have been butting heads with Wikipedia’s editors to no avail: they support the article saying that Tongva is more common than Gabrieleno or Kizh. The imposters, many in academia, have been promoting Tongva to great effect, through articles, books, etc., since the early 1990s.

I realize that Wikipedia is staffed by amateurs and volunteers, but there is no excuse for publishing “Tongva,” “Tongva Populated Places,” Tongva Language,” etc., and aiding and abetting cultural appropriators: the tongva continue to appropriate Kizh culture, thereby creating mischief, not playful mischief but harmful mischief, possibly criminal mischief, and the editors at Wikipedia continue to support them through "Tongva," "Tongva Populated Places," "Tongva Language," etc.Harryawhite (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Harryawhite (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Colliers or Britannica would never publish Tongva.

I am an advocate for real Native Americans. I don’t know why but I want to help them do all they can to hang on to what little is left of their heritage.

I have my work cut out for me.

Cheers,

Harry WhiteHarryawhite (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I propose the following major edits to the Tongva article:

1. Under “Tongva,” 3rd paragraph, penultimate sentence: “The US government signed treaties with the Tongva, promising 8.5 million acres of land for reservations….” That’s simply not true. Regarding ref 5, California Senate Bill 1134, SECTION 2, (g) says “The Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe signed Treaty D with federal Indian Commissioner George Barbour in 1851.” Treaty D, which was titled “Treaty with the Castake, Texon, etc., 1851” and set aside 8.5 million acres of land for Indian reservations, was signed (with an “X”) by the chiefs and elders of 11 tribes, none of whom were members of a “Gabrieleno-Tongva tribe.” The senate got it wrong: the writer is mistaken. https://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/heizer1972.htm

2. Under “Contemporary Tribe,” second sentence: “In 1994, the state of California recognized the Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe…” That’s simply not true. Regarding ref 31, California Senate Bill 1134, under “Legislative Counsel’s Digest,” 5th sentence: “California law…does not have a formal system of recognizing state Indian tribes.” California has not established a formal process for state recognition of Indian tribes. The writer is mistaken http://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx

However, the Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian Commission has a system for recognizing tribes, and it recognizes three — the Ventureno, Gabrieleno, and Fernandeno, i.e., Gabrieleno is a tribe, but Gabrieleno-Tongva is not.

About “Notable Tongva,” why not add “Notable Gabrieleno,” because “the Tongva are also known as the Gabrieleno”? (See Tongva, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence.) I propose adding the following:

• Nicolas Jose, a man of great power and control as well as a good leader, he was the first alcalde of the San Gabriel Mission. Unfortunately, he organized the Toypurina rebellion (1785); as a result he was banished to the San Francisco Presidio for six years. http://faculty.humanities.uci.edu/tcthorne/notablecaliforniaindians/nicolasjose.htm

• Ernest Perez, Teutimez, Salas, chief and spiritual leader of the Gabrielenos and great great great grandson of Nicolas Jose.http://gabrielenoindians.org/

• Andrew Perez, son of Chief Ernest and Tribal Chairman of the Gabrielenos.http://gabrielenoindians.org/Lauraacusterwhite (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Lauraacusterwhite (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

My wife may be on to something.Harryawhite (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

'Wife'. Yeah, right. Sumanuil (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC

Who was that woman I saw you with last night?

That was no woman. That was my 'wife'.

——Henny YoungmanHarryawhite (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Employing the number of Google hits a term gets is not a valid way to determine statistically the actual usage or popularity of a term.

I've been surveying the previous posts made on this talk page, going back several years, and find it amusing and a little frustrating that some editors have been employing the number of Google hits the term Tongva gets versus the number Gabrieleño gets as a measure of how common their respective usage is. This is not a valid way to determine statistically the actual usage of a term—it's neither scientific nor accurate. As someone said elsewhere, statisticians at Google don't do it, and neither should we.

Perhaps some editors reading this have noticed that the Google algorithm no longer serves up the number of results for Google Books searches using the "Books" link. One would think that the "Google hits"-citing editors might have noticed that before this change a Google Books search could show hundreds or several thousands of results for the search term, but only a few dozen of the results actually contained the search term, if one took the time to check; most of them were just peripherally related, probably "side catches" of the algorithm. I would like to think that the removal of results numbers for a book search was intended to address misuse of them for false statistical analysis like this, but as far as I know it might have been a side effect of some unrelated tweak, or even an experiment. Carlstak (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Or legitimacy? Harryawhite (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

That, too.

Harry, your edit messed up the section header. You want to place your replies to a comment underneath the comment with one more colon (:) than however many were used by the commenter you are replying too. If you want to paragraphize your comments, use the same number of colons preceeding each of your paragraphs, as I did here while I was editing. Use the "show preview" button next to the "publish changes" button to check what your changes will look like before you publish them. If you want to change the subject and start a new section with a different title, use the "New section" button at the top of the editing page.

I'm writing more material about the cultural practices of the Kizh/Gabrieleño people (with reliable sources, of course) and will post it in the next couple days if I can find the time between job sessions. I have an erratic schedule. Carlstak (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I get it now. Many thanks for your help and attention to the Gabrieleno situation. I type in "Gabrieleno Indians" and get 24 "Tongva" hits on the first five pages. It's not an intertribal squabble. It's cultural appropriation spreading like a virus, the Casino Virus. Tongva hits were few and far between before 2002. Harryawhite (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Aaron Carapella, a map maker in Warner, Oklahoma has designed a map of Native American Tribes, prior to 1st contact with Europeans. The tribe in San Gabriel, California (1769) was known as the KIZH. They became known as the Kicherenos or Gabrielenos, Spanish pet names. Ernie Salas, the current Chief of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, accepts Gabrieleno, but prefers KIZH. His ancestors are the People of the Willowhouse. Tongva is anathema to the Chief. Respect the wishes of the Chief.

Native identity is not a plaything. The non-Indians of the non-tribe of Tongvans aren't the survivors of a genocide. "A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth"—Joseph GoebbelsHarryawhite (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Know what's worse than 24 Tongva hits? Six KIZH hits. I get 6 KIZH hits. I guarantee you there wouldn't be a single Tongva or Gabrieleno or Kichereno hit in sight, if this were 1768. I guarantee you there'd be nothing but "People of the Willowhouse" hits in the Kizh language prior to then, back to the age of the Pharoahs perhaps.Harryawhite (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I just came across a most interesting piece about Gabrieleno culture. The Mourning Ritual is fascinating. http://www.lawesterners.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/177-FALL-1989.pdfHarryawhite (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There may be a problem with the link. The piece is titled the Gabrieleno Indians: A Culture Decimated by John W Byram Los Angeles Corral Fall 1989 Number 177. Here's something interesting to chew on about Gabrieleno stuff written before 1989: Tongva never comes up. It's obvious that Tongva and Gabrieleno have no historical connection whatsoever, none. Harryawhite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryawhite (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The link works, I just read Byram's article; it's informative, well-written and well-sourced. Carlstak (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Note the photograph of Iron Eyes Cody. Hollywood’s go to Indian for a generation of Cowboy and Indian movie goers, he died in 1999 in the belief that he was a Native American after playing one for decades. He was born in Sicily.Harryawhite (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussion of ways to improve the article, not for general discussion of related subjects, Harry. Let's keep the focus here, please. Carlstak (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

“Tongva” is fraudulent and can’t be improved; that being said let’s see if we can improve things by starting with the word “Tongva.” I just downloaded Webster’s unabridged dictionary (2019). The imposter(s) haven’t gotten to Webster’s yet: Tongva is not in the dictionary, i.e., Tongva is not a word, for a tribe or a language or anything else in the English language. More to follow. Harryawhite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryawhite (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

C.A. (?), professor of Indian studies and documented non-Indian, et al. takes pains to create a section of “Notable Tongva,” going so far as to call Toypurina a Tongva, which is false, but she has neither the time nor the energy (i.e., inclination) to include “Notable Gabrieleno,” e.g., Nicolas Jose and Chief Ernest Salas. Why?Harryawhite (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Notable Gabrieleno

• Nicolas Jose, a man of great power and control as well as a good leader, he was the first alcalde of the San Gabriel Mission. Unfortunately, he organized the Toypurina rebellion (1785); as a result he was banished to the San Francisco Presidio for six years. http://faculty.humanities.uci.edu/tcthorne/notablecaliforniaindians/nicolasjose.htm
• Toypurina (1760–1799), a medicine woman who, opposing the rule of colonization by Spanish missionaries in California, led the unsuccessful rebellion.
• Ernest Perez, Teutimez, Salas, chief and spiritual leader of the Gabrielenos and great great great grandson of Nicolas Jose.http://gabrielenoindians.org/
• Andrew Perez, son of Chief Ernest and Tribal Chairman of the Gabrielenos.http://gabrielenoindians.org/Harryawhite (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding reference no. 24, the link is broken. Here's one that should work:https://www.cpp.edu/~tgyoung/Pom_Parks/Kizh%20not%20Tongva_9-27-17.pdfHarryawhite (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It's such a pain for Gabrielenos, the true descendants of San Gabriel Mission Indians, to have to deal with an article that “desecrates our true name” by promoting Tongva, by putting a fraudulent tribe front and center for the whole world to see; it’s an article in which Cindi Alvitre, first woman to chair the so-called Gabrieleno-Tongva, or whoever wrote it, has the gall to call Toypurina a Tongva.

Cindi flat out calls Toypurina a “Notable Tongva.” This is ludicrous. Toypurina is a Gabrieleno. Cindi can call herself anything she likes in the present, past, or future but she can’t call Toypurina a Tongva in the present, past, or future and get away with it. Toypurina is a Gabrieleno in the future; she is a Gabrieleno in the past; she is a Gabrieleno in the present, undeniably. I can back up her tribe with any number of references.Harryawhite (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Harryawhite (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

And the Gabrieleno are Gabrieleno past, present, and future, the Wikipedia article about the fraudulent Tongva not withstanding.Harryawhite (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Tongva article is an attack on the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians. The Tongvans mean to replace the Gabrielenos by means of Wikipedia (or you name it). Can't Wikipedia's administrators see that? Why the insistence on perpetuating (i.e., protecting) pretendians? A new name for the Tongva article won't solve the problem; please delete it. An article on the Gabrieleno without the word "Tongva" is the only thing that will solve the problem.Harryawhite (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Or should the administrators insist on preserving "Tongva," I ask them to edit out the word "Gabrielino" wherever it appears, out of respect for the Gabrielino. I would be happy to submit a separate article on the Gabrielino, in the interest of preserving history of course.Harryawhite (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

About Notable Gabrieleno, I realize that it would look awkward next to Notable Tongva, but the article makes no mention of Ernie Salas, the chief of the Gabrielenos. Obviously, the writer doesn't want people to know the name of the chief of the Gabrielenos, the one, true chief; she wants them to know the name of a fraud in order to advance a fraudulent, so-called tribe. That's just not right. Tongva should be removed from Wikipedia.Harryawhite (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Name discussion 2020

Hello. I am editor on Wikipedia who has been adding content to this page recently. I greatly expanded the history section and other sections of this page to reflect the sources which exist on the matter. Over the course of my work, I ran into the issue of name several times and I think a discussion should be had on which name is appropriate to use.

Firstly, I would like to address that a user by the name of WallaceC2 has deleted parts of the content I have added without any explanation which has prompted me to start this discussion topic. In any event, I think a discussion has to be had on the matter of the name of this page and how the issue of the name is addressed through the content of the page itself (how will the name be listed throughout the page).

Through my research it is clear that there is much contention surrounding the name, especially between groups who differ in support of Tongva or Kizh. I think it is unquestionable that this discussion (which has been recorded in numerous sources) surrounding name should be included in the appropriate NAME section of the page (and reflected in the introductory paragraph). Elsewhere, what name is to be used should be decided via consensus.

I would like to draw your attention now to an incident in 2017 in which both the Tongva and Kizh groups reached a consensus to use the name Gabrieleño, despite its colonial origins in a case in Pomona, California. Debra Martin, a city council member from Pomona, led a project to dedicate wooden statues in local Ganesha Park to the Indigenous people of the area in 2017. There was considerable conflict over which name, Tongva or Kizh, should be used on the dedication plaque. An agreement was reached to use the term Gabrieleño, despite its colonial origins.

As quoted in a piece for the Daily Bulletin:

That meeting ended without unanimous support, so Sandoval and Gonzalez sat down and drafted the wording themselves.

The adopted language reads: “The city of Pomona dedicates this plaque and tree sculptures at Ganesha Park to all the Ancestors of this land and to all our Relations and the future generations yet to come.

“Indigenous people once lived near Ganesha Park at an ancient village named ‘Toibingna,’ which was also a sacred burial site. They migrated thousands of years ago and were part of the Shoshonean linguistic branch.”

The text refers to the arrival of Spanish colonizers and the use of Native American labor to construct the California missions.

“After the construction of the San Gabriel Mission, the indigenous people were designated as ‘Gabrieleños,’ ” the text reads.

“Today, the indigenous people still reside here in Pomona and throughout their ancestral homeland. These tree sculptures have been commissioned in their honor,” the text reads.

Source: https://www.dailybulletin.com/2017/04/18/controversy-over-native-america-inspired-art-installation-in-pomona-resolved/

Because of the obvious contention over which term to use, it appears this may be appropriate for Wikipedia as well, especially since there is a precedent between the groups themselves for doing so. Please add relevant thoughts to this discussion here so that a consensus may be reached. Thank you.

Xicanx (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Miyiiha Xicanx, I actually did post below extensively about my revisions. I did so after the changes which were requested by a number of individuals in the Tongva community as it is Indigenous Peoples day and this article is getting particularly heavy traffic. The corrections were time sensitive.

I should point out that the insertion of the name "Kizh" throughout this article was added far after the original article was developed. The only attestation of that endonym that I am aware of is from the work of the discredited Gary Stickel. I also removed that self published work, and gave my reasons in my section on this talk page.

This page is the Tongva page. If someone wishes to create a "Kizh" page, I suggest they do so, but it does not seem appropriate to simply go through and replace the term Tongva with the term Kizh, almost randomly (as had been the case). You may note I did not remove instances where the term Kizh referenced a particular political entity, nor did I remove other Kizh supported scholarship for which I do not have evidence of the author's malfeasance. I respect the right of others to self identify as they wish, but we should also be accorded that same respect.

The problem with using the term Gabieleno or Gabrieleno is that these are colonial terms. Again, it seems appropriate to make another page using that term if individuals wish to do so. Again, this is the Tongva page, and should reflect that designation.

I should also note that there is an actionable document on this talk page falsely indicating that an established and recognized member of the the Tongva community is not of Indigenous decent. AS past membership and certification chair of the Tribal Council, I can sure you that this is not the case. I am notifying that family in case they wish to take further action on the matter. -Wallace CleavesWallaceC2 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Hello WallaceC2, thank you again for your response. Please see my response below as a response to your original post. Thank you again for having this conversation and I would be happy to hear your thoughts.

Xicanx (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)