Talk:Vincent Medina

Deleted information

Hi @Saturndr: Could you please explain this edit? Your edit description said "Corrected information," but the content that you removed was supported by statements from Medina himself, so how is removing it a correction? Blackberryrose (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic identity and reversion

Hi User:Bohemian Baltimore,

I have reverted your edits, starting with the one with the summary "not Native American", in which you modified the categories and inserted phrases such as "self-identified," "identifies as," and changed "Ohlone cuisine" to "Ohlone-inspired cuisine," etc. These changes are not consistent with the sources, which consistently refer to Medina as Chochenyo Ohlone and to the food served at Cafe Ohlone as Ohlone cuisine. I assume that your changes were motivated by the fact that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is not recognized by the United States government. However, this fact does not mean that Medina is not Native American.

The policy developed by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America to determine who is Native American states, in relevant part: "Some of these unrecognized groups do indeed have Indigenous ancestry, particularly in California, where the US created but never ratified 18 treaties. Some of those groups are seen as legitimate by recognized California tribes. ... In the case of California, in which several historic tribes lack federal recognition, search for published confirmation by respected sources such as News from Native California, the Indian Basketweavers Association, or the Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival. This is not foolproof but will still help." As stated in the article, Medina is a member of the board of directors of AICLS, one of the organizations listed in the policy, and has written pieces included in News from Native California, another source the policy cites.

The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe's lack of recognition does not mean they or Medina are not indigenous to California. In fact, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe was previously recognized by the U.S. federal government as the Verona Band of Alameda County. In the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Proposed Finding against acknowledging the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, the Bureau determined that it is the successor to the Verona Band. In the Final Determination, the BIA researchers concluded that "Ninety-nine percent of the current members descend from the Verona Band proxy or siblings as defined in the Proposed Finding" (page 156), and on the previous page it explains that only five members' membership files did not contain sufficient proof of their parentage, but this did not mean that they were not Verona Band descendants. Throughout the Final Determination, the BIA consistently refers to the Verona Band and their descendants, including the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, as "Indian(s)." On page 119, the BIA write that Mary (María) Archuleta, Medina's great grandmother, was a descendant of Victoria Marine, a member of the Verona Band. Medina's family have also been included in the 1928 Census of the Indians of California and the later California Judgment Fund rolls. For example, the 1928 census includes Dario Marine (Roll No. 11901), Trina Marine (Roll No. 11911), and numerous other Marines.

Stanford University returned human remains to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe for reburial in the 1980s; Rosemary Cambra, former Chairwoman of the tribe, was a member of the congressional Advisory Council on California Indian Policy; re-recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone tribe is supported by individuals such as former Congressman George Miller, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Lieutenant Governor of California Cruz Bustamante (see muwekma.org and the Final Determination); and it is recognized as an Indian tribe by Santa Clara University, the California Native American Heritage Commission, and others. DNA testing has also confirmed that members of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe are indigenous to California. As stated in the WikiProject policy, federal recognition is not the end-all-be-all of who is Native American. A multitude of sources state that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is a California Indian tribe, Medina and Louis Trevino are Ohlone, and Cafe Ohlone serves Ohlone cuisine. For these reasons I found your edits inappropriate and reverted them. I apologize for being verbose, but I felt it necessary to be thorough in correcting the record, and I hope you are not offended by my reversion. Blackberryrose (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Blackberryrose Thank you for the detailed response. I see now that the Indigenous WikiProject has a California caveat:

"Some of these unrecognized groups do indeed have Indigenous ancestry, particularly in California, where the US created but never ratified 18 treaties. Some of those groups are seen as legitimate by recognized California tribes."

I would also note the section about DNA tests not being able to determine Indigeneity. I edited a handful of articles related to the Ohlone, Tongva, and Acjachemen. I'm happy to go back and look over my edits if any mistakes were made. It isn't clear to me though how exactly these descendants should be referred to as (should they be called Native people? descendants of Natives? detribalized?) and which groups exactly are considered to be actual descendants versus fraudulent groups.

@CorbieVreccan @Yuchitown Your input is valued. Thank you. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking into this, but Yuchitown has more experience with California tribes. I do know there are a variety of groups claiming Ohlone. I'm checking to see if this is the group I know about, or if I'm thinking of someone else. They're mentioned in the Ohlone article and in List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Blackberryrose, Your summation of the "Summary under the Criteria for the Proposed Finding on the Ohlone/Costanoan Muwekma Tribe BIA response is quite different from what I'm reading. You say they were confirmed as the same group as the Verona. But this is from p.8 of the pdf:

The BIA informed the Muwekma petitioner, in a letter dated May 24, 1996, that it had concluded, "on a preliminary basis," that the Pleasanton or Verona band of Alameda County was previously acknowledged by the Federal Government between 1914 and 1927. As a result of this finding, the BIA advised the petitioner that it would be able to complete Its petition documentation with the expectation that it would be evaluated under section 83.8 of the regulations and would have to demonstrate its continuous existence as a group only from 1927 to the present (BIA 5/24/1996)

A preliminary finding. So they were encouraged to petition. But after their petition was submitted, it was evaluated and rejected. There are numerous passages saying why they do not meet the criteria. Notably, that the presence of a few Indian individuals is not the same as a tribal community. On p. 24 of the pdf:

From 192'.7" when a Verona band of Alameda County was last identified by an official of the Indian Office, until 1985, when a "Muwekma Ohlone" group in San Jose was first identified by local newspapers, a period of more than half a century, there is insufficient evidence in the record for this case of the identification of the petitioning group as an Indian entity. Even should the petitioner make a persuasive case for its continuity from the Ohlone Indian Tribe, Inc., which was identified in 1971, there would still be a period of more than four decades during which the petitioning group was not identified as an Indian entity by external observers, plus a lack of such identifications for more than a decade between 1971 and 1985. Because the acknowledgment regulations for this criterion require that the petitioner has been identified as an Indian entity "on a substantially continuous basis," the petitioner does not meet the unmodified requirements of criterion 83.7(a)

There is more, but this is already a notable discrepancy. I'll wait to see what Yuchi says, but petitioning isn't recognition, and DNA ethnicity results aren't accepted. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I pointed out in the article that the Muwekma Ohlone are not federally recognized (no Ohlone groups are AFAIK). Muwekma Ohlone probably needs its own article to explain its ambiguous state. Adding "descent" might be an acceptable compromise. —Yuchitown (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

BTW on the Verona Band of Alameda County article, I summarized the final determination of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe (who need their own article), which basically states that they descend from Ohlone people but are not a tribe in the political sense (continous existence as a distinct, governing entity). So of "Ohlone descent" which acknowledges ancestry and cultural connections, might be the best compromise. Yuchitown (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Indeed, the petition was rejected. The BIA determined that while the members of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and other descendants of the Verona Band are Indians (in their words), insufficient evidence was presented that they were collectively identified as an Indian entity by outside observers on a substantially continuous basis from the last time of unambiguous federal recognition (1927) to 1965 and from 1971 to 1985. They rejected evidence from J. P. Harrington's 1930s field notes, determining that while he used the present tense, he was referring to the past and did not identify an "entity" in his present. They did accept documents from the American Indian Historical Society from the 1960s and '70s as outside identifications—On pages 31 and 32 of the Final Determination, the BIA write "Therefore, this Final Determination concludes, in a revision of the Proposed Finding, that Rupert and Jeannette Henry Costo of the AIHS [American Indian Historical Society] identified an unorganized group of Ohlone descendants, that was larger than the Ohlone chapter of the AIHS, as an Indian entity between 1965 and 1971, and that this group was a precursor of the modern petitioner." They rejected Malcolm Margolin's brief mention at the end of The Ohlone Way (1978) because it was too vague and they determined he was referring to individuals and not an entity, and other evidence presented by the tribe. The BIA determined that the gaps in the record from 1927-1965 and 1971-1985 meant the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe failed on that criterion (83.7(a)). The BIA also found there was insufficient evidence that the tribe was a distinct community (83.7(b)) and that political influence was maintained over the members (83.7(c)). The BIA noted that some evidence was apparently withheld to avoid exposing personal disputes. The BIA found that they met criteria 83.7(d) (governing document and membership criteria), 83.7(e) (descent from a historical Indian tribe, in this case the Verona Band which was recognized as of 1927 and until some unspecified date, never having been terminated), 83.7(f) (most members are not members of any other tribe), and 83.7(g) (they were never terminated). Since all seven criteria must be met for a positive determination, the petition was rejected.

Note that many currently federally recognized tribes were previously in a very similar situation to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. For example, the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Koi Nation, and California Valley Miwok Tribe were left out of the list of federally recognized tribes despite never having been terminated, just like the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, but were later re-recognized without having to petition. The Little Shell Band of Chippewa Indians petitioned for recognition and were denied on the basis that they failed to meet criteria 83.7(a), (b), and (c), just like the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, but the U.S. Congress passed a law in 2019 granting them recognition anyway.

Regardless, the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America policy states that "several historic tribes [which] lack federal recognition" are nevertheless legitimate, and recommends consulting News from Native California, the California Indian Basketweavers' Association, and Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival as sources to determine whether someone who identifies as or is described as a California Native American really is. Two of these three sources, News from Native California and AICLS, indeed confirm that Medina is Native American. See News here and AICLS here. Therefore, I believe Medina meets the standard to be considered Native American under the WikiProject policy, regardless of the lack of federal recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. The current wording, written by User:Yuchitown, "He is a Chochenyo Ohlone member of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, an Indigenous people of California who are not federally recognized," is accurate. Blackberryrose (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)