Talk:Tongva

Researcher

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.

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" [1], 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)

Tongva page, not Kizh page

The Tongva tribal community is very upset by the vandalization of this page by editors who keep inserting the term "Kizh" an unattested endonym, into the article. We respect thier right to create their own page and to use any name they wish, but Tongva is historically attested (Merriam, C. Hart; Studies of California Indians, pp. 77-86) and used by the vast majority of our people.

I have removed a number of cases where the term "Kizh" was simply inserted or replaced the endonym Tongva. It does not seem appropriate to allow this page, titled "Tongva," to be modified in this fashion, particularly against the request of the Tongva Tribal community. May I suggest that the "Kizh" create their own page if they wish to discuss their chosen endonym, which is simply the Tongva word for "house" (Munro, Pamela; Gabrielino/Tongva/Fernandeno Vocabulary with an English Index, p.14,49).

I also removed citations to the discredited and self published (by the Kizh group) article by Gary Stickel. Wendy Teeter, the director of the Fowler Museum at UCLA, has issued this statement about Stickel and his work:

In reference to statements you provide below Gary Stickel did graduate from UCLA and has worked on different excavations around the world. He taught for extension a few times several decades ago, but that’s the end of his relationship with UCLA. His professional ethics have been called into question continuously. As an example he helped to convict several daycare providers in the Manhattan Beach area (fortunately later overturned) and this piece was published about him:

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume7/j7_2_1_17.htm

Please see the article for full details on the unprofessional nature of this individual and evidence for why his "scholarship" should not be recognized here.

I know this is a sensitive issue, but it does not seem appropriate to allow the site that references our endonym to be vandalized by someone without consent of our community. Again, I suggest they create a "Kizh" page where they can put whatever material they wish.

For the record, I am an enrolled member of the Gabreileno Tongva, an Associate Professor of Teaching at the University of California at Riverside, and it was my three times great grandmother, Narcisa Higuera, whose picture is used at the beginning of the article. She was the Tongva, along with several others (as the publicly available Merriam papers make clear) who reported the endonym and recorded much of the language. We have used the term continuously in this manner and continue to do so.

'Aweeshkone xaa, Wallace Cleaves — Preceding unsigned comment added by WallaceC2 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Hello, thank you for adding this post to the Talk page so that we may discuss this topic. The name Kizh appears in the work of the following ethnographers and is also historically attested:

"In 1846, scholar Horatio Hale used the term Kizh in a United States government report on “Ethnography and Philology.” Lieutenant Amiel Weeks Whipple, Thomas Ewbank, and William Turner used Kizh when publishing a “Report upon the Indian Tribes” in 1855 for the U.S. War Department. German scholar Johann Carl Eduard Buschmann used the term in a study on language in 1856 published in the German Royal Academy of Science. Further notable scholars who used Kizh throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries include George Bell (in 1856), Robert Gordon Latham (in 1860), Lewis H. Morgan (in 1868), Albert Samuel Gatschet (in 1877), Hubert Howe Bancroft (in 1883), Daniel G. Briton (in 1891), David Prescott Barrows (in 1900), and A. L. Kroeber (in 1907)."

It appears that Stickel summarizes this work (by including images and underlinings of the word Kizh as it appears in the original work of these ethnographers). I am not interested in who Stickel is or the legitimacy of his work otherwise. His article merely does the work of bringing together information. However, if necessary, I would be happy to delete Stickel's article as a source cited on this page and simply go through the work of citing each ethnographer and source that Stickel himself cites independently.

Furthermore, members of the Kizh Nation (Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians) group support the name Kizh over Tongva. For example, this is outlined in sources such as in an article for La Verne Magazine: https://lavernemagazine.org/2018/09/fighting-history/. As evident, there is much conflict surrounding which name is appropriate. I think this should be reflected in the NAME section of this article. Additionally, if an 'identical' Kizh page should be created, then that page should also have a NAME section which has a section on the term Tongva. This would be the only way to accurately reflect the controversy surrounding name.

Again, I gesture towards the case in Pomona, California in 2017, when both groups reached a consensus to use the term Gabrieleño. I can see how this would be inappropriate given the colonial origins, so if two pages should exist under the condition that both pages list each respective name within the NAME section, then that would accurately reflect the issue as it stands. Please let me know your thoughts and thank you again for your response.

Xicanx (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Xicanx, Ah, I see the problem now. Yes, it is attested, but only by colonial sources, not by Tongva or Indigenous ones. The Stickel article itself notes that the term "Kizh" simply meant house and was in no way an endonym. It too is an entirely colonial construct, which is the concern for many in the Tribal community. I should note that the "Kizh" group happily used the term Tongva until they split from the main San Gabriel group. I have Salas' signature on a number of documents with the endonym Tongva from Tribal records. I say this not to cause more contention, but just to note that the use of Kizh by any of our community is quite recent (really within the last decade) and relegated to a small if vocal group, and is largely for political reasons. Again, I believe they have the right to call themselves what they wish, but not to cast aspersions on the attested designations others wish to use.

The Laverne magazine article is not in any way a work of serious scholarship and is simply an interview with a clearly partisan individual. Referencing that is problematic.

I did remove the traces of conjecture from Stickel about Tongva being a misunderstanding and also the odd comparisons to Greek city states that seemed...irrelevant and somewhat Eurocentric.

I support the idea of creating three articles, one for Tongva, one for Kizh, and one for Gabrieleno (even that spelling is contested, so good luck there) and linking them. Hopefully that could resolve this conflict. Your suggestion about the sign at Pomona does not really reflect an accord, but rather a moment where there was so much contention the city decided to use the colonial name to simply avoid further contention. It was a solution that pleased no one and rather created further rancor.

Again, I think it's fairly simple to suggest that the Kizh be left off the Tongva page (except for links and references to the political entity)and that the same respect be accorded the Kizh page. A third "Gabrieleno" page could be developed that mentions both.

I've shared this talk page with other members of the Tongva community of scholars and I hope they will weigh in here as well. I do hope that you will respect the wishes of the actual people who identify themselves, as our ancestors have done for thousands of years, as Tongva, especially on Indigenous Peoples' day and refrain from switching the endonyms back again. I also feel that I need to mention how problematic it is that this is likely going to be decided by people who are not Tongva (or whatever designation they choose to use with that lineage). 'Aweeshkone xaa Wallace CleavesWallaceC2 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Thanks again for your response. I totally understand that this is a contentious and sensitive subject.

I originally started editing this page because I was interested in expanding the history section as I have on the page and have done so on other pages. For example, I expanded the history section of the Acjachemen page and changed the previous article name from "Juaneño" to Acjachemen with little conflict. The issue I ran into for this page was the disagreement among different groups, which brought about unexpected challenges.

I ran into the issue of name several times and eventually encountered Stickel's research and the words of Kizh Nation members in articles, which complicated the issue. I was swayed back and forth trying to do the 'right thing.'

I agree that the idea of creating two pages is the best way to address this issue. I want to respect both groups who seem very passionate about each name (and rather than doing what the city of Pomona did, as I originally thought was reached through 'agreement' and would be a way to 'mediate,' but really seems to have, as you say, created even more contention), I accept that the best course of action is to create a second page entitled Kizh as an 'alternative name' page for Tongva in order to respect how everyone chooses to identify.

As a result, I believe that I have overstepped in my attempts to do the 'right thing' and I apologize for that. Overall, since this is an inter-communal issue and since I am not a part of the community as you are, I will leave it up to you and will not revert the edits back on the Tongva page. Rather, I will place relevant edits on a separate Kizh page as you suggest and I agree would be a fair way to respect how everyone chooses to identify. I will then place a link on the Tongva page to the Kizh page so that both groups are recognized for how they choose to identify and will do the same on the Kizh page.

I am happy to have and learn from this discussion and am glad we have reached some agreement. Apologies for misunderstanding and thank you again for your time.

Xicanx (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have now created the page for Kizh and have linked both pages to one another. Thank you!

Xicanx (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Xicanx, Thank you for understanding and looking for a way to work around this contentious issue. I hope this solution works and eases tensions. It's a very recent (historically) and divisive issue in our community, and one that brings along a great deal of baggage, as you can see in some of the vitriolic attacks elsewhere on this page. It just seems reasonable to leave the Tongva page with that term used (along with Gabrieleno - which while colonial does help with disambiguation) and let the Kizh have their own page to put whatever they want.

I'm glad to hear that you are interested in these issues and in the question of the endonym. A group of Tongva scholars and academics at UCLA are preparing what we hope will be a definitive paper on this issue and it should be published next year. Interestingly, there are other sources that attest the Tongva endonym as well, and this should hopefully put the issue to rest, at least for those who are concerned with accurate scholarship. When that occurs we will do a significant overhaul of the page, but I will make sure that we discuss it here in the Talk section first and account for our efforts.

I can understand that, without knowing the deep background behind these internal divisions, themselves the legacy of colonial practice (mostly around the terrible practice of monitoring for profit), that the issue is complex and even perhaps opaque to outsiders. I honestly don't think it is resolvable as there is clear community consensus on the use of Tongva, but the group who resurrected the Kizh term are hostile to all other communities. I work with all of the other Tongva groups and even with our Acjachemen cousins.

We'll be keeping an eye on the site and I hope we can let the Tongva be Tongva and the Kizh the Kizh and let us all get on with our lives. Thank you for helping to come up with a reasonable solution here and finding a middle ground. That seems like an all to rare result these days.

Wallace CleavesWallaceC2 (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo of "two Tongva women pictured in 1830"

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)

High Country News on Gabrieleño re University Grant

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)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge given the (now) uncontested objections and no support. Klbrain (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

---

"Kizh" can refer to two things; an alternate name for the people more commonly referred to as Tongva, and one of the several groups claiming to represent said people that has adopted and advocates for the "Kizh" name. Neither seem worthy of an article of their own to me. The Kizh article is also heavily biased towards the aforementioned "Kizh" group. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes worthiness? Harryawhite (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What nonsense; from the article on the Tongva it's obvious that "Kizh" refers to three tribes of Indians not things, (1) the long-suffering Kizh Nation whose culture predates contact with the Spanish in the mid 1530s, (2) the Tongva-Gabrieleno founded in the 1990s by Yahoos in academia, and (3) the Tongva/Gabrieleno founded in the 1990s by other Yahoos in academia. Why 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 academia and the left-leaning “establishment” (nypost.com). Harryawhite (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Either the articles should be merged (which I learn toward), or the Kizh article should focus solely on the use of the endonym and not on topics which are covered adequately in the Tongva article. The usage of the term Kizh seems to be the only true endonym, and as such, the Kizh section of the Tongva article should be expanded significantly to reflect this. Ultimately, the Tongva article should probably be renamed Kizh, but this would require citation demonstrating that this is indeed the community's preferred term and that it has come into sufficiently wide and accepted use. newmila (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Having reviewed the earlier discussion on contention around whether this is indeed the accepted endonym or not, I want to retract my comments; I recognize I simply don't know enough about this issue to have a truly considered opinion on it. newmila (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Bone up Harryawhite (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"I simply don't know enough about this issue to have a truly considered opinion on it." In the early 1990s non-natives led by people in academia established the Tongva-Gabrieleno and the Tongva/Gabrieleno organizations (hoping to achieve federal recognition and a casino) began to promote the term "Tongva" while demoting the Kizh (Wikipedia, etc.), as the ivory tower of academia tends to do. There never was a tribe of Tongva before 1992. It's not the first time Native Americans have been taken advantage of; however, Kizh tribal spokesperson Ernest Perez Teutimez Salas, who will forever regret helping them make the “Gabrieleño/Tongva Springs Foundation” possible, soon cut off contact with T-G and T/G leaders after its leaders got what they wanted, (“Gabrieleño/Tongva Springs Foundation”), but the damage had been done. They had succeeded in promoting the term "Tongva" on Wikipedia, in the literary world, etc. to the detriment of the Kizh. Harryawhite (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.