Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Southern California fires

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>
  • To: <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Southern California fires
  • Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:36:07 -0800

Well, as a native historian, I can answer those questions.

The population was permanent in the "idealic" areas, of which there were many in Southern California. Once upon a time there were forests with year-round creeks, streams and rivers. Once upon a time there were lovely green valleys.

The tribes whose permanent homes were in those areas were forced out into the "white man doesn't want them" areas.

That is, those that survived the mission system of slavery and/or death for not becoming good little Catholics. Although some ran to the hills to hide rather than become slaves or be beat, tortured or killed for not becoming good little Catholics.

California's tribes weren't nomadic. Some were semi-nomadic in that, such as mine, we had more than one home for specific purposes all within a mile or two of each other. One didn't have a home in the flood plains during the winter and spring and one didn't stay up in the hills where it would be brown and dry during the summers but rather moved down to the coast/flood plains for the summer and fall.


----- Original Message ----- From: "EarthNSky" <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>


I think most native populations were nomadic or semi-nomadic. If the
natural water sources aren't there, I would think it unlikely that
natives would take up permanent residence.

***This wouldn't be true of California tribes. At least not in how you are thinking of nomadic, or even semi-nomadic. Most tribes had a permanent home. *Some* tribes were semi-nomadic but even those had actual permanent homes. Mine would be such a group. The houses had four wood plank walls, the equivalent of shake roofs. One on high ground for winter/spring and one down on the rivers/coast for summer/fall. Usually only a mile or so apart.

I was only talking about Southern California, basically LA and points south.

***Southern California had as many "oasis" as any other part of the state. That's the first place the white man wanted and that's the first place he moved the native population out of. Well, actually, that would have been the Spanish, French and Portugese and those who became known as Mexicans. Enthusiastically helped by the good Fathers and their Missions. Most of the native population died from disease, slavery or flat out murder because they wouldn't become good little Catholics. Those who survived were forced out into the undesireable portion of Southern California.

I understand. But, were the mission Indians truly native to the area as
permanent residents, or were they rounded up by the missionaries and
then shoved aside? Europeans move to a place and stay, and I can
imagine that they wouldn't like natives moving in, even seasonally to
hunt or fish. Likewise, I doubt the natives liked having their culture
eroded.

***Yes they were, both natives of the area and permanent residents AND rounded up by the missionaries and then shoved aside by the land grant folks. Those that survived the mission system, that is.

Their culture wasn't eroded. They were made slaves or simply killed. Their culture was deliberately and systematically destroyed. First by the missionaries and then by the land grants (wholesale murder) and finally by the boarding school system put into place by the U.S. government.

And, what most folks don't realise is that L.A. County was one of the favorite dumping grounds for the government when they busted up the various Cherokee groups back East. They took the children, sent them off to the boarding schools and when they turned 18, shipped them out to Southern California and told them sink or swim.

Lynda




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page