STILL HERE: Portraits in Place 2 Native American’s Ideas about Land and Place

Share Via...

Twitter

STILL HERE: Portraits in Place 2
Native American’s Ideas about Land and Place

By:  Louise Russell

Kumeyaay History 2

Kumeyaay Community College
Spring 2019

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ......3
NATIVE AMERICAN IDEAS OF LAND AND PLACE ..... 4
NATIVE AMERICAN LAND FROM PRE-CONTACT TO SELF-DETERMINATION OVERVIEW .... 7
VOICES AND IMAGES OF NATIVE AMERICANS ...... 25
NATIVE AMERICANS SPEAK ....... 27
INTERVIEW AND PHOTOGRAPHY SUMMARY ..... 41
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 25

STILL HERE: NATIVE AMERICAN PORTRAITS IN PLACE

I acknowledge that the land on which I wrote this paper is the traditional territory of the Kumeyaay Nation.

INTRODUCTION

What is the history and significance of land and place to Native Americans?

This paper responds to this question with some traditional Native Americans ideas about land and place, and an overview of the Native American land management policies during the different eras from pre-contact to self-determination.

This question is also addressed through interviews with eight (at the time of this paper) Native Americans in San Diego County. A companion photographic project includes quoted selections from the interviews. Each participant selected a place that is important to them and we met there where I recorded and photographed them. There are many more voices and images to record. The photographic project will be available online at a later date.

NATIVE AMERICAN IDEAS OF LAND AND PLACE

Land has many possible meanings. Land is wealth, is capital. Land is spirit, is culture. Land is history, is life, teacher, healer. Land is sacred, is beauty, is love. Land is provider and sanctuary. Land is a relationship, is a community of human and non-human beings. Land is nature, spirit, home. (Kimmerer) Land is alive.

The literature indicates that traditional indigenous Native Americans had a place-based religion and spiritual relationship with the land, and a culture centered on place-based ceremonies and relationships with plants for food, shelter, medicine and spiritual practices.

The geography of Kumeyaa land resulted in a culture of Shmulq/clans traveling from coast to mountain to desert for food, a sharing of resources and land management practices that cared for the land and ensured they did not over harvest to the detriment of the plants, the land, and the future.

A few supporting examples of these ideas follow.

Vine Deloria, Jr. in God is Red: A Native View of Religion notes that almost any tribe has stories about how the people used spiritual powers to live, and these powers are almost always made available to us in a sacred place where time and space do not define the terms of the experience. (Deloria, pg. xvii) He elaborates on the value of place saing, American Indians hold their landsplacesas having the highest possible meaning, and all their statements are made with this reference point in mind. (Deloria, p.61) He contrasts this with the Western European value of histor saing, Immigrants review the movement of their ancestors across the continent as a steady progression of basically good events and experiences, thereby placing historytimein the best possible light. (Deloria, p.61)

Native Americans land-based religions result in practicing religion in specific locations. These sites are like churches. Not until the passing in 1978 of The American Indian Religious Freedom Act were Native Americans legally allowed to practice their faith freely and have access to sacred sites. (Lapier, p.1) Even so tribes have struggled for years to explain why
certain landscapes are sacred and thus be successful in protecting and having access to these sites. (Lapier, p.3) The Kumeyaay were successful in protecting Kuuchamaa, the sacred mountain, from an overhead power line. This mountain is named after an ancient Kwaipai and is also known as Tecate Peak, The Kumeyaay believe this mountain is the central location for acquiring power for good, for healing and peace. (Shipek, p.69)

The land is owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management, (BLM), a federal government agency, and in 1979 they were planning to put power lines over the mountain. Some Kumeyaay elders and Florence C. Shipek, anthropologist, informed the BLM of the sacred nature of the mountain and asked the BLM to pass the power-transmission line below rather than over the mountain. (Shipek, p.69) The elders took the BLM on a tour of the mountain and shared many aspects of its sacred nature which was done only after much consideration and for the future protection of the mountain. With the information provided by the Kumeyaay and further verification of its sacred nature, the BLM nominated, and the mountain was granted as The National Register of Historic Places. Being listed in the Register does not guarantee protection but does require that tribes be consulted before any development decision is made. (Greenberg, p.33) The public is allowed on the mountain.

All cases are not won. In a 1988 Supreme Court decision The American Indian Religious Freedom Act did not uphold stopping a road construction at a sacred site. But the dissenting opinion of Justice William Brennan said, Native American faith is inextricabl bound to the use of land. The site-specific nature of Indian religious practice derives from the Native American perception that land is itself a sacred, living being. (Lapier, p.3) Two of the struggles today are the loss of land at Bears Ears National Monument and the danger of the Keystone XL Pipeline to the rivers, ground water and land it traverses from Alberta, Canada through Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri to Oklahoma and Illinois.

Mike Connolly Miskwish, Kumeyaay Campo Reservation, in a presentation at The Native American Student Alliance at San Diego State University, Nov. 6, 2018, explains the differences between the Western European and Kumeyaay sense of nature. Western Europeans see nature as everything except humans, they are separate from nature.

Traditionally Indians saw themselves as part of nature. He notes how language, a reflection of culture, supports this. Said another way by Greenberg in Native American Narratives as Ecoethical Discourse in Land-Use Consultations, Native American reverence for sacred sites indicates the strong place-sense experienced in traditional cultures. (Greenberg, p.40) On the other hand, non-indigenous Americans are by definition detached from place they are dis-placed. (Greenberg, p.41) Miskwish goes on to sa that the Kumeaa word for our bodies and for land is the same word, emutt. As Kumeyaay revitalize their language, they may revitalize their culture and their relationship with land and place. Miskwish said, Return of fullness to the community is something that we seek to address on many different levels.
Emutt Mohay, Love of the Land. (Miskwish presentation)

Kumeyaay ethnobotany instructor Richard Bugbee, Luiseño, who was taught by elder Jane Dumas, Kumeyaay, suggests that when collecting plants, one should always show respect for the land and plants by doing the following:

Ask for permission. Tell your intent for the plant. Say a prayer for the plant.

Environmental and Native American activists often work together to protect the land as seen at Standing Rock and KXL and Bears Ears National Monument. The Rights of Nature Movement is working to protect land and water in the courts. While there is positive action on restoring the land, there are others who continue to extract resources, develop the land, and pollute it.

U.S. LAND MANAGEMENT FROM PRE-CONTACT TO SELFDETERMINATION OVERVIEW

Removal to recovery, that is the story of Indian land. For the Kumeyaay this is since the Spanish occupiers landed in 1769, during the Mexican Californios, 1821- 1848, and United States colonization, 1848 on.

From the beginning of the U.S., the governments goal of land management was driven by taking over and owning land for the United States westward expansion and for the natural resources and industrial development for the colonizers, not for Native Americans. Today Native Americans are empowered and working to determine the future of the land. This overview addresses the U.S. land management that was developed prior to and throughout the Spanish, then Mexican occupation of Kumeyaay territory. These policies were already established when California became a territory of the United Sates, 1848, then a state, 1850. This paper does not address the land management in present day California during the Spanish and Mexican periods.

Land Eras 

Pre-contact to Contact Kumeyaay Land

As the first people of what is now known as San Diego, all of the territory was Kumeyaay land. It was rich and diverse in its geography and covered a vast area from the coast to the desert. Its northern border was near current day Oceanside and the southern border was near present day Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Oceans, coastal chaparral, grasslands, mountains, high desert chaparral, riparian, oak woodlands, desert and the numerous rivers within these areas were all Kumeyaay.

 Map: Miskwish, p.44.

From both a philosophical and spiritual sense Native Americans had no concept of land ownership in the sense that it could be bought and sold. Land was sacred and shared in common by all people. (Stainbrook, The Message Runner, p.1) The idea of land as a transferable asset emphasizing its exploitation for monetary gain was in conflict with Native ideas of respectful occupation and use of the land as gifts from the creator. (The Message Runner, p.2)

Earliest contact in Kumeyaay territory was September 28, 1542 when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, a conquistador and enslaver, (Biography) and the first Spanish Expedition landed at present day Ballast Point, San Diego. Looking for more riches and the mythical Straits of Anián, a water passage, he came to explore the California coast, mapping landmarks and identifing Native villages. (Biograph) His three ships spent 6 das in San Diego.

The first permanent European settlement in present day San Diego was in 1769 when Spanish ships, The San Carlos and San Antonio from La Paz, and Spanish soldiers under

Gaspar de Portola with Franciscan Father Junipero Serra arrived and founded the first California Mission. In 1821, Mexico gained independence from Spain and governance of Alta California. The occupiers have never left. (Miskwish, p.44 & 45). The land policies of the Spanish and Mexican occupiers of Kumeyaay land is not covered in this paper.

U.S. Treaty-Making Era Late, 1700s – 1871

While Kumeyaay land along the coast and a small amount inland was occupied and governed by the Spanish, 1769 1821, and then Mexicans from 1821 - 1848, the U.S. government was establishing its policies and treatment of Native Americans elsewhere in the U.S. These policies were applied which to the Kumeyaay when California became a state in 1850.

The first official U.S. treaty was in 1778 with the U.S. government and the Delaware which affirmed perpetual peace and friendship between the two. And like other early treaties was done as nation to nation. But soon the U.S. pursued the acquisition and control of Indian Lands. (The Message Runner, p.3). The U.S. government treaty making was based on European practices of using treaties as a means of diplomatic negotiation between two sovereign nations ratified by designated individuals. Most treaties began with a promise of peace, and early treaties were supposed to guarantee certain of the tribes rights and privileges including land use and occupation rights as seen in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The utmost faith shall alwas be observed toward Indians: their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent (The Message Runner, p.3) The federal government established themselves with the sole right to purchase Indians lands, first with the 1790 Act to Regulate Trade and Intercourse with the Indian Tribes, then further acts. They excluded states or other entities from negotiating with the Indian nations. As expansion grew, treaties were the primary way the federal government dealt with and acquired Indian land. While tribes were reluctant, the were pressured. Treaties, war, and the threat of war became the means through which the U.S. was able to persuade Indian nations to extinguish title to their increasingly sought-after lands. (The Message Runner, p.3)

Immigration growth created competition for Indian land and resources in the East and South after the Louisanna Purchase in 1803. The expansionists and land speculators found ways to exploit treaty negotitions and protections. Next came the Indian Removal Act of 1830. It initiated treaty-making with an exchange of land in the East for comparable land west of the Mississippi River where the Indian nation would be guaranteed exclusive use and occpation. (The Message Runner, p.4) This resulted in a large reduction of the land base through removal and relocation to mostly barren regions. The 1838 Trail of Tears, one of the events due to this act, forced Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, Cherokee, and later the Seminoles from their land to what was named Indian Territory, and what is now part of Oklahoma. They not only lost their home land, thousands lost their lives during this removal. (The Message Runner, p.4)

Marshal Trilogy

Three Supreme Court Decisions shaped American Indian Land Law and Policy and established the concept of Indian sovereignty.

1823 Johnson v McIntosh
This case defined Indian title as one of occupanc and possession and subject to the dominion of the first discovers or their political and legal successors. The underlying title of lands passed to the discovering country, England and then to the U.S. It held that tribes could only sell their land to the federal government. This is based on the Doctrine of Christian Discover, 1493. (Miskwish, p.73 and The Message Runner, p.5) This is the case that allowed for the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

1831 Cherokee Nation v Georgia
An Indian nation was defined as a distinct political entit, but not a foreign nation. This case described the relationship of an Indian nation to the U.S. as a ward to his guardian. This supports that tribes had limited title to their lands. It said sales would be voluntary, but history shows otherwise. Many think this laid the foundation for the trust relationship between the federal government and tribes that was formally established after the general Allotment Act of 1887. (The Message Runner, p.5)

1832 Worcester v Georgia
This case established that a state governnment could not exert authority or laws over an Indian nation. Therefore the Cherokees felt they did not surrender their independence by having a treaty with the U.S. It also reinforced the federal governments duty to protect tribes from state government. However it made way for the federal government abuse of power such as sales and congressional actions that overruled tribal authority. (Miskwish, p.73 and The Message Runner, p.5)

California, Kumeyaay and the Treaty Era

Manifest Destiny, western expansion, and the 1849 Gold Rush in California brought treaty making and related laws to the new state of California,1850, and the Kumeyaay. Regardless of The Worcester v Georgia, 1832 that only the federal government can negotiate and make laws regarding the Indians, in 1850 California passed the Act for the Government and protection of Indians which stated Indians were to be regulated at the state level. California's first governor, Peter H. Burnett, stated in 1851, "that the war of extermination will continue to be waged until the race becomes extinct must be expected. (Kumeyaay.com)

In 1851 the San Diego Sheriff said Indians were to pay local taxes and the failure to pay would result in taking away their land and property. (Miskwish, p.85) California authorized $1.1 million in 1851 and 1852 for militia expenses as part of the Indian extermination called for b Californias governor Peter H. Burnet in 1851. The Yreka (Eureka) Herald newspaper stated in 1853 Extermination is no longer a question of time the time has arrived, the work has commenced, and let the first man that says treaty or peace be regarded as a traitor. (Miskwish, p.88) A leader of volunteers in Humbolt claimed his men had killed over 200 Indians to open up land for immigration. (Miskwish, p.89) California wanted land and the authority to take land away from Indians.

In order for California to become a state the U.S. government required that the Indians would surrender their lands in return for receiving land reserved by the federal government (or Reservations). California Indians negotiated in good faith thinking this was protection from Californias extermination path, and they gave up claims to 7.5 million acres, 7.5%, in 18 treaties by 1853. The 1853 Treaty of Santa Ysabel was the Kumeyaay Treaty. The treaty no longer included any coastal areas and as can be seen on the map below was a considerable reduction in land area of their homeland.

 Map: Miskwish, p.87.

Even so this treaty and NONE of the 18 California treaties were ever ratified by the United States government. The new California state government opposed them and kept them from being ratified. They did not want this land to be given to the Indians. The Santa Ysabel treaty had an injunction of secrecy until January 18, 1905. Without a treaty the Kumeyaay had no legal protection for their lands. Lacking citizenship, they were unable to homestead. If they did settle on land they would be evicted as soon as a white person filed a claim. (Miskwish, The American Period, web)

In 1871 Congress abolished treaty-making with Indian nations. Congress determined that the U.S. would no longer acknowledge an Indian nation as an independent nation, tribe or power. (The Message Runner, p.4) While the treaty-making process was manipulated to serve U.S. interests to acquire land for settlers, railroads, and business, treaties remain the supreme law of the land and Indian nations use them today to assert and defend their rights to their land and its natural resources. (The Message Runner, p.4)

During the treaty making period, a combination of political, social and economic factors accelerated Indian land loss. The governments words were often changed taking away promises they made and Indian land.

Reservation Era,1850s - 1887

The Reservation Era overlapped the Treaty Era (1700 - 1871). The 1851 Indian Appropriations Act established the reservation system by allocating funds to acquire land to relocate tribes. (The Message Runner, p.5) Treaties since the 1850s included the creation of reservations. For some this meant reducing their land from their original homeland that had been reserved such as the Great Sioux Nation. (The Message Runner, p.5), while others gained ownership of new land such as the Creek when removed to Oklahoma in exchange for their land in the East through the Indian Removal Act. Others got reservations through executive order rather than treaty. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Orlando Brown, commented in 1850, Reservations are adapted to agriculture, of limited extent and [have] well-defined boundaries; within which all [Indians], with occasional exceptions, should be compelled constantly to remain until such time as their general improvement and good conduct may supersede the necessity of such restrictions. (The Message Runner, p.5)

Kumeyaay Reservations

While San Diego County has more Indian reservations than any other county in the United States, 19, of which 13 are Kumeyaay, the reservations are small, with total land holdings of just over 124,000 acres, or about 193 square miles of the 4,205 square miles in San Diego County, a little less than 5%. (USD)
The Kumeyaay reservations and some data follows.

The Kumeyaay reservations and some data follows

San Pasqual was the first Kumeyaay reservation. It was created in 1870 by Executive Order. However, many Indians objected as they thought it was a plan to dispose them of the land and to keep them nearby for ranch labor. Many whites objected because they would no longer be able to purchase any land they desired. Since both objected the Executive Order, it was rescinded in 1871. The 1875 Executive Orders created permanent reservations. (Miskwish, p.93) 

So, the first permanent reservations are the 5 created in 1875 by Executive Order, Capitan Grande, Inaja & Cosmit, Mesa Grande, San Pasqual, and Sycuan. The 3 Southeastern San Diego County reservations, Campo, La Posta, and Manzanita and also Santa Ysabel and Cuiyapaipe were created in 1893 due partly to the publicity of the plight of the dispossessed Kumeyaay by Helen Hunt Jackson. (Miskwish, p.95)

Barona, 1932, and Viejas, 1934 were created when the clans of Capitan Grande and Los Conejos were removed to new reservations in preparation for flooding the San Diego River as a water supply for the city of San Diego. The Capitan Grande reservation land that remains is part of the Barona and Viejas enrolled members land. (Thorne)

All of these Kumeyaay reservations are active today.

Notes on the above table data.

• Most of the data is from USD dated 2000 so the population figures are likely changed.
• The acreage should be the same.

 Map: Miskwish, Appendix A.

By the 1880s most U.S. Indians were living on reservations. The land on reservations was owned and managed by all members of the nation in common. Reservation tribal land ownership was estimated at 138 million acres. (The Message Runner, p.6)

In the U.S. today there are 362 reservations for 567 recognized tribes. Not all tribes have a reservation. (Wikipedia 3) And today, more than half of land on Indian reservations in the U.S. is privately-owned and controlled by non-Indians even though these lands were guaranteed for the exclusive use and occupation of Indian people through treaties and other agreements. (Stainbrook, p.1)

The Allotment Era, 1887- 1934

Through the 1880s reservation land was held communally. Eventually the federal government saw this as an obstacle to assimilation. The General Allotment Act, 1187, led to a shift in Indian land ownership from collective to allotment of parcels of land to individual Indians.

There were several aims for allotment, to give Indians specific plots of land, to provide a path to U.S. citizenship, to sell residual reservation lands to outside interests, and to get the federal government out of the Indian business. (Thorne, p.66) The allotment sstem however did not give the Indians normal land ownership. It believed Indians were incompetent to handle their land ownership, management and related decisions. The federal government held the title to the land in trust for the allottee (The Message Runner, p.7) After 25 years, later extended indefinitely, the Indian could sell or lease the property only with government approval. While Indian nations were wary of allotments most tribes went along. Later the amendment known as the Burke Act authorized converting the land from trust to fee title if the Secretar of the Interior determined the Indian was competent. Fee title land was taxed and could be sold b the allottee. An estimated 27 million acres were lost due to forced fee patents and other sales as a result of the Burke Act. (The Message Runner, p.7)

The General Allotment Act, or Dawes Act, passed in1887 is considered the single most destructive piece of legislation aimed at Native land (Native Land Law, p.7) It and its amendments created the framework for removing reservation land from communal tribal land to non-Indians. Any reservation land that was not needed for the individual allotments was considered surplus and removed from tribal ownership and could be purchased for a nominal fee paid to the U.S government. The land became available for homesteading by nonNatives. With the Allotment Act the land titles became fractionated (collectively owned by multiple heirs) and there was checkerboard land ownership (patterns of mixed land ownership, native and non-native, on the reservation) and the possibility of continued land loss. (Native Land Law, p.7)

"118 reservations more than half of all existing reservations in the U.S. - were alloted." (The Message Runner, p.7). The Indian land base was reduced from nearly 138 million acres to less than 48 million. From 1887 to 1934, 90 million acres of Indian reservation land were transferred to non-Indian ownership and control. Land was lost through being declared surplus, given to homesteading, and ceded back to the federal government. (The Message Runner, p.8)

Kumeyaay Allotment

Helen Hunt Jackson, author of Century of Dishonor and Ramona, and Indian reform activist, tried to persuade Southern California Indians that citizenship and private property were positive actions for them. Kumeyaay mostl were spared assimilation policies in land allotment (Banegas, p.9) The Mesa Grande reservation resisted. Some of the Indian opposition was due to lack of adequate agricultural land and water. Other opposition was that it was at odds with historical Indian land use practices moving from mountains to lower lands, coastal and desert. Other Indians did not want to become U.S. citizens.

A plan for allotments in Capitan Grande along the San Diego River in 1895 proceeded without Indian resistance. But by 1916 city leaders and the Interior Department decided in favor of a reservoir and that removing the Indians was the pragmatic and moral action as the rights of 131 Indians must be sacrificed to benefit the approximatel 40,000 San Diegans (Thorne, p.96). The U.S. government purchased new land to create Barona and Viejas reservations and removed Capitan Grande and Los Conejos villages to these new reservations. Their villages and the river valley were flooded. The allotments no longer existed.

According to the following map from the California Department of Water Resources, (no date), there are some alottments on Kumeyaay reservations. More research is needed to identify the number and location of these. No allotment information was found on these tribes web pages.

California Indian Tribal Homelands and Trust Land Map

Across the U.S. allotment resulted in a deterioration of communal tribal life and a scattered, landless Indian population. (The Message Runner, p.8) In 2017, 78% of Native Americans lived off-reservation, and 72% lived in urban or suburban environments. (The Guardian)

Allotment ended with the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1934.

Indian Reorganization Act to Termination Era, 1934 – 1960s

During the Great Depression, the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt supported the US Indian Reorganization Act, which authoried a New Deal for Native American Indians alongside the other New Deal reforms. It allowed Indians to organize and form their own tribal governments and ended the land allotments created by Dawes Act. (Kahn Academy, web)

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), 1934, recognied Indian nations sovereign status and encouraged them to form tribal governments, reclaim their land bases and manage their lands more independently. It extended the trust period indefinitely. However after 50 years of allotment Native Americans ability to take control and manage their land was not easy. Those that tried focused on strengthening their tribal communities and management of their land and resources. Tribes worked to address treaty grivenaces and although the court often ruled in their favor that the land was in fact of aboriginal title, the damages were often money, not the land. Now the land was officially lost as it had been ruled and paid for. At the same time through the 30s and 40s the federal government continued to take land for infrastructure projects such as for the reservoir at Capitan Grande.

During the 40s the lawmakers felt the federal system wasnt working and that tribes didnt need government protection. In 1953 House Concurrent Resolution 108 was designed to end the federal responsibility to tribes and to assimilate them. (The Message Runner, p.10) This would end the trust status of Indian Land and Indian nations would be terminated, tribal lands would be taken out of trust and sold, and state laws would be imposed on former reservation lands. (The Message Runner, p.10) This meant the loss of tribal nation status and liquidation of tribal assets, including land. The proceeds were distributed to tribal members. Supporters said it gave Indians the right to be treated equally. The government pursued termination into the 1960s.

Tribes that were considered the most self sufficient were the first to be terminated. Termination dismantled the reservation system that was created to guarantee lands of Indian people and tribes. (The Message Runner, p.10).

In 1953 Public Law 280 was also passed. It further compromised tribal sovereignty by giving states jurisdiction over reservation lands in cases arising from criminal matters and some civil matters within reservation boundaries. Public Law 280 is still in effect. It gives California law enforcement authority on tribal lands.

The termination policy withdrew federal recognition of 109 tribes across numerous states, California being one of the states. 1,365,801 acres of land were removed from trust status. 13,263 individuals lost tribal affiliation. Many programs of education, health and welfare assistance to Indian communities ended. (The Message Runner, p.10) Today there are 567 federally recognized tribes and 362 reservations.

Kumeyaay and Termination

The Mission Federation of Indians was formed in 1953, which included Kumeyaay, who went to Washington, D.C. to fight termination of local bands. (Kumeyaay.com) No Kumeyaay reservations were terminated. However qualit of life on reservations experienced further decline witout protection of the land base or federal support for the communits needs. (The Message Runner, p.12)

Self-Determination Era, 1960s to present day

In the 1960s and 70s Native activists challenged the unfair federal policies that led to massive Indian land losses and attacks on tribal sovereignt. (The Message Runner, p.11) They were looking for a new approach to U.S-Indian relations and governance.

President Richard Nixon, July 1970, said The time has comefor a new era in which the Indian future is determined b Indian acts and Indian decisions. The U.S. government later returned millions of acres of ancestral Indian land and passed more than 50 legislative proposals supporting tribal self-rule. (Andrews, web)

The Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act, 1975, pointed to a change in federal policy from terminating tribes to supporting tribes. The Act provided political and legal support for tribes to regain tribal recognition and to rebuild their land bases. Some tribes have had land returned to trust status. Even so the majorit of lands, 1,365,801 acres, that were lost through the termination of over one hundred tribes still remain out of Indian control. (The Message Runner, p.11)

Success of having land returned through legal means varies. Some received land and money, others only a money settlement such as the Black Hills. The Black Hills tribes refused the money judgement and are continuing legal work for the return of the lands. After 30 years the Sandia Pueblo won the right to use the Sandia Mountains for religious purposes and got some control over land use. Tribes continue to work for the return of land or restitution for the wrongful taking of their lands. (The Message Runner, p.11) The 1983 Indian Land Consolidation Act promoted the consolidation of small ownership interests, placed restrictions on inheritance of reservation land and encouraged tribes to take greater control over the probate of Indian-owned land. (The Message Runner, p.10) The Department of the Interior was sued for mismanagement of trust funds on behalf of 500,000 individual Indian money accounts. President Obama signed legislation approving the Indian Trust settlement authorizing $3.4 million.

Kumeyaay and Self-Determination

Today Kumeyaay are using land conservancies to acquire important ancestral lands outside of the reservations. (Logan) The Kumeyaay Digueño Land Conservancy (KDLC), a nonprofit (2010) started in 2005 has three preserve properties, Sacred Mountain Ranch at the base of Kuuchamaa Mountain (Tecate Peak), 42 acres, the Mosler Property in Julian, CA, 38 acres, located within Cuamaca Rancho State Park, one of KDLCs partners, and Sloan Canon in the Dehesa Valley, 608 acres. (KDLC 2 web). They also work with other government agencies and non-profits to protect sites and educate the public. (KDLC 1 web).

In 250 years Kumeyaay U.S. land has gone from 100% to a little less than 5%. Fortunately, the Kumeyaay have maintained proximity to sacred land. This is important as a means to recover their spiritual life. (Banegas, p.96)

Summary

The fact that Native Americans are still here after the years of government and individual attempts to exterminate them, take their land, and assimilate them, is a powerful testament to their strength and resilience. Work is ongoing across the country in this era of SelfDetermination to maintain and grow their cultural power and land base.

As to the future of the land, Native American opinions run the gamut from the concern that an Executive Order could end all Indian communal land ownership to the belief in continued legal success to maintain Indian authority of existing land, to regain lost land and grow their economic ability to purchase other important ancestral homelands.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, Evan, Native American Activists Occupy Alcatraz Island, 45 Years Ago A&E Television Networks, https://www.history.com/news/native-american-activists-occupyalcatraz-island-45-years-ago, August 31, 2018, May 2, 2019.

Banegas, Ethan, The Socioeconomic Impact of Indian Gaming on Kumeyaay Nations: A Case Study of Barona, Viejas, and Sycuan, 1982-2016, Masters of Arts In History Thesis, 2017.

Biography, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, https://www.biography.com/explorer/juan-rodriquezcabrillo, May 1, 2019.

California Water Resources, California Indian Tribal Homelands and Trust Land Map, https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/About/Tribal/Files/Maps/CaliforniaIndian-Tribal-Homelands-and-Trust-Land-Map.pdf, May 3, 2019.

Campo Kumeyaay Nation, History/Modern Era, http://www.campo-nsn.gov/modernera.html, May 4, 2019.

Deloria, Vine, Jr., God is Red: A Native View of Religion, Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colorado, 2003.

Greenberg, Joy H. and Gregory, Native American Narratives as Ecoethical Discourse in LandUse Consultations, Wicazo S Review, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Fall 2013), pp. 30-59.

Khan Academy, The Dawes Act, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/thegilded-age/american-west/a/the-dawes-act, May 10m, 2019

Kimmerer, Robin Wall, Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants, Milkweed Editions, 2013.

Kumeyaay.com, Kumeyaay Millennium, https://www.kumeyaay.com/kumeyaay-history/68kwahup-to-san-diegos-indian-country.html, May 2, 2019.