Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>]

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