California State Parks’ Reexamining Our Past Initiative: Redress Process and Ensuring California for All

Amid a global pandemic, the country was roiled by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25, 2020, which sparked racial justice protests on a scale not seen in the United States since the Civil Rights Movement.¹ Within days of these events, California Governor Gavin Newsom reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to “address the structural racism and institutions that fundamentally have to change,” adding an urgent call to address social justice at all levels of state government, and directly linking his call for reform to his administration’s mission statement, a “California for All.”²

In early June, calling on the twenty-six-plus departments, boards, and commissions in the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to Listen, Commit, and Act to confront inequality, racism, and unconscious bias, Secretary Wade Crowfoot connected “California for All” to the agency’s responsibility to create “more opportunities for Californians to benefit from the natural, cultural and historic richness of our state that our agency is charged with stewarding.”³ He followed this announcement by organizing a moderated panel for the subsequent Secretary’s Speaker Series on July 15, titled “What We Can Learn from Our Past to Move Toward an Equitable Future.” As part of this conversation, Susan Anderson, historian, curator, and program manager at the California African American Museum in Los Angeles, emphasized the many “hidden” histories or under-told stories of Black communities she has researched across the state, including in numerous state parks. These histories had been left out of park interpretation, and their absence highlighted the need for professional research to be incorporated across State Park exhibits and educational programs.⁴

On Native American Day, September 25, 2020, Governor Newsom, CNRA Secretary Crowfoot, and State Parks Director Armando Quintero released notices regarding coordinated efforts across the state's government to restore land and promote equity for California Native communities. Citing new executive orders, policies, legislation, and programmatic efforts, they committed to work together across multiple agencies and departments.

Shortly after these announcements were released in a guest commentary to CalMatters (https://calmatters.org/), former California State Park and Recreation commissioners Ernest Chung and Elva Yanez noted that “California State Parks and the California Advisory Committee on Geographic Names will need fortitude as they embark on this ambitious but necessary journey toward a more diverse and inclusive telling of California history.”⁵

As widening civil protests for racial justice continued in the first weeks of June, California State Parks’ legal office requested that management provide information about potentially contentious sites where honorifics associated with geographic place names, monuments, or markers within the park system might be subject to protest. The proposal to survey 280 parks units within 21 administrative districts across the system’s 1.6 million acres was an expedient strategy to ensure that State Parks’ leadership had awareness of potential public concerns within California’s state park system.

A quick internal survey tool was developed in mid-June 2020 to query each of the district superintendents about the park units they manage. The survey was organized alphabetically by district name and park units within each district. Simple checkboxes were organized across columns in three broad categories (Place names, Honorifics, and Interpretation) in order to flag any concerns by category, such as geographic feature place names and plaques (Table 1). Commemorations specifically related to the Confederacy or Confederate figures were highlighted in the cover email accompanying the survey tool sent to district superintendents; other areas of concern (for example, individuals involved in California Native American massacres, racist views or acts, etc.) were asked to be flagged in the notes field. Also included was a checkbox for whether the potential category of concern was identified by staff or the public.

The initial survey was sent to all twenty-one district superintendents responsible for managing their respective park units in their geographic area. Surveys were due by close of business the next day. Follow-up calls were made to solicit responses from the few districts that missed the deadline and to clarify feedback received. Admittedly, this was a cursory initial survey of known issues, so the quality of the responses varied in depth of documentation. Some superintendents queried their core team together and others filled the survey out individually. I, along with other members of what would become State Park’s Reexamining Our Past team, reviewed the information and added to it based on our own experience and knowledge—which, for some, stemmed from working for the California Department of Parks and Recreation for over twenty years as cultural resource professionals or planning specialists familiar with the naming processes used by the department.

Of the twenty-one districts, two reported no potential concerns in their park units. The remaining 19 districts reported a total of 140 matters of potential concern across 80 park units. There was no clear pattern among those who raised concerns. Responses were almost equal between concerns that were internally raised by staff who had noted an issue that needed addressing, such as outdated or inaccurate interpretation in exhibits, and concerns that were raised outside of the department by means such as park visitor comments and correspondence. Four prior issues were noted as resolved but are nonetheless included because they speak to the types of concerns generally raised. All other issues were noted as either ongoing or having uncertain resolutions that needed follow-up.

Place names—including those of geographic features, roads, or trails—were identified in 28 percent of the responses. In several cases, the name was used for more than one feature in a park (for example, Cuyamaca Rancho State Park has a Stonewall Peak, Creek, Road, Trail, and Historic Mine site). The majority of the noted concerns regarded features named after persons or government entities involved in the murder, dispossession, denigration, or erasure of the history and agency of California Native Americans (such as Fremont Peak State Park, Fort Humboldt State Historic Park, Patrick’s Point State Park [recently renamed Sue-meg State Park], and Sutter Buttes State Park). Other comments noted the following: negative connotations for California Native Americans in signage or other language at locations once part of the Spanish colonization of Alta California, including mission and presidio systems (e.g., Santa Cruz Mission and El Presidio de Santa Barbara); connections between individuals who both established redwood parks and promoted the eugenics movement (such as Madison Grant and other founders of Save the Redwoods League, commemorated on memorial markers at Humboldt Redwoods State Park and Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park [removed in 2021]); and finally, multiple references to Confederate General Stonewall Jackson on park features across what is today Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, as noted above.

Altogether, honorifics included 13.5 percent of the concerns flagged in the survey, most of which were related to markers and plaques; the rest had to do with more prominent monuments or statuary at five locations. Three statuary of concern were not actually on state park property, but their adjacency to a state park created a nexus to the department from the public’s perspective.

Two monuments flagged in the survey are on state park property. Fort Tejon State Historic Park has a large monument with a plaque at the park’s entrance that was placed in the 1950s by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Anza-Borrego Desert State Park has a “White Child Monument” commemorating the Juan Bautista de Anza colonizing expedition of California and a child born to two Spanish colonists (assumed to be non-Indigenous and non-Black).

A range of problematic markers and plaques were noted in the survey. Issues include markers commemorating Spanish colonization and the mission system; highlighting persons or communities involved in massacres, ill-treatment, and/or derogatory descriptions of California Native Americans; and naming redwood parks or groves after early conservationists who promoted the eugenics movement.

Taken as a whole, potential issues noted with interpretation represent most of the total self-reported concerns (58.5 percent). Not surprisingly, there is overlap between categories. Similar concerns might be noted for old and outdated interpretation panels or exhibits that may well be reflected in similarly outdated tour programs and training for docents, guides, and staff at the same park. Most often cited as problematic was content related to California Native Americans. Notes included proposed actions to resolve issues, including the need for the following:

• Tribal consultation to develop updated interpretive panels and exhibits (for example, at Armstrong Redwoods State Park, Lake Perris State Recreation Area, Millerton Lake State Recreation Area, San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area, San Pasqual Battlefield State Historic Park, Shasta State Historic Park, Sonoma State Historic Park, State Indian Museum, and an Interpretation Master Plan for Sutter’s Fort State Historic Park.⁶

• Removal of outdated exhibits that include depicting California Native Americans as life-sized figures in natural history dioramas (for example at Clear Lake State Park, Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park, Mono Lake Tufa State Natural Reserve, and Lake Oroville State Recreation Area). This once ubiquitous exhibition medium is problematic in many ways. Non-native viewers perceive Native figures in the dioramas as deceased and frozen in the past, especially where no supporting contemporary context is included.

• Rectifying the subordination of Native American historical traumas created either by failing to acknowledge, minimally addressing, or not appropriately contextualizing the local history of forced labor, removal from lands, and/or associated massacres (for example at Anderson Marsh State Historic Park, Clear Lake State Park, Fort Humboldt State Historic Park, Fort Ross State Historic Park, Fort Tejon State Historic Park, Fremont Peak State Park, Tolowa Dunes State Park). See Figure 1.

• Addressing the naming of places that emphasize stories of white settlers without fully acknowledging their support for or participation in violence against California Native Americans (as at Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park and Patrick’s Point State Park [now Sue-meg State Park]).

Interpretation broadly encapsulates programmed tours, roving interpretation, interpreter-led programs in museums/visitor centers, school programs (including environmental living programs), and related staff and docent training. Several parks reported issues related to their engagement with and interpretation of California Native Americans.

Although not an exhaustive list of concerns, the following state parks are highlighted to note places that would benefit from expanded research, engagement, and updated interpretation. Broadly summarized, there is a need for reforms that would help with the following goals:

• Better understand and reflect the diversity of people and communities where so many peoples’ stories still need to be researched and told, whether that is at historic gold mining towns (for example Bodie State Historic Park and Empire Mine State Historic Park) or former military installations (such as Fort Ord Dunes State Park and Angel Island State Park)

• Address renaming and/or broaden contextualization of African American history, whether through inclusion of Black gold miners’ stories (Folsom Lake State Recreation Area), or discussion of African American enterprise as a way of establishing autonomy in the face of Jim Crow Era discrimination (Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park)

• Expand and address immigration contexts that not only reflect past actions by state and federal governments but also serve as a safe public place for discourse on contemporary immigrant experiences (at, for example, Angel Island Immigration Station at Angel Island State Park and Border Field State Park)

• Acknowledge a fuller historical context of memorialized individuals in parks at sites where they promoted race-based laws, as Governor Leland Stanford did in supporting legislation against California Native Americans (Leland Stanford Mansion State Historic Park) and/or whose lives and work needs to be better understood with regard to their racist perspectives, such as author Jack London (Jack London State Historic Park)

• Address historical inaccuracies about the Confederacy and California’s role in the Civil War (for example at Fort Tejon State Historic Park).

Although not comprehensive, the survey did provide a quick snapshot that helped focus and prioritize the department’s subsequent actions. The survey findings and recommendations were reported in various drafts of an internal Issue Briefing Paper in late June and early July 2020. The Reexamining Our Past document continues to be circulated, discussed, expanded, and refined through conversations between upper management and agency representatives of State Parks as well as discussions with park partners.

District superintendents and their core interdisciplinary program managers are responsible for operations across parks within their administrative region. Superintendents and their staff are tasked with addressing and responding to public questions or concerns raised about place names, honorifics, or interpretation from their parks. Redressing issues, such as changes to place names, has never had a separate dedicated funding source. All previous efforts required redirecting support from existing base funding.

The process of creating and launching what has become the Reexamining Our Past Initiative has been organic, drawing on the expertise of Parks’ leadership (qualified and experienced professional cultural resources, interpretation, and planning staff, and conversations with district leadership); park partners (including California State Parks Foundation, Parks California, Save the Redwoods League, and Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation); interested department staff; and subject matter experts (such as the lead scholars Paul Spickard, Rena Heinrich, and David McIntosh who all reached out to the department making the argument for removal of the Madison Grant commemorative markers). What has formed since June 2020 is an interdisciplinary, core team that includes division chiefs from Cultural Resources, Strategic Planning, and Interpretation & Education as well as the director’s special assistant, supplemented by a manager-level state park public historian, interpretation program managers, senior park planners, representatives from legislative affairs and communications office, as well as assigned counsel from the legal office.

The authority by which a name within the state park system is adopted or changed is defined by the California Public Resources Code (PRC), State Park and Recreation Commission policy, and California State Parks policy (Table 2).

Coordination on the naming and classification of State Park units is the responsibility of the Strategic Planning and Recreational Services Division (SPRSD). They are tasked with bringing naming proposals for park units and sub-units (e.g., natural or cultural reserves, wilderness areas, etc.) to the California State Park and Recreation Commission who holds the authority to approve park units. Such park unit naming options, whether instigated internally or externally, are researched by staff, and recommendations that conform with the PRC as well as relevant policies are forwarded to the State Parks Director for consideration. The director is then authorized to select a preferred name to forward to the commission for public comment, final review, and approval at one of their scheduled public hearings.

Similarly, SPRSD also serves as the lead for coordinating the redress of specific place names and facilities within, and under the purview of, State Parks. There are several types of place names that may require redress, including both facilities (the names of buildings, campgrounds, day use areas, entrances, roads, trails, etc.) and natural features (rivers, creeks, peaks, valleys, beaches that exist within or pass through a park unit, etc.). Although natural features within a unit may not figure as facilities within State Parks geographic information system (GIS) databases, they are frequently named in other forms of information (such as signage, planning documents, printed/printable maps, and written guides) provided by State Parks to actual and virtual visitors. State Parks place and facility naming options, whether instigated internally or externally, are researched, analyzed, and prepared by staff, and will include recommendations that conform with the PRC and relevant policies. These recommendation reports are forwarded to the State Parks Director for consideration, who is then authorized to review naming recommendations and determine final approval of such name changes under their authority.

In the United States, geographic place names, such as those found on official US Geological Survey (USGS) maps, are under the purview of the US Board of Geographic Names (BGN). Established by executive order in 1890 and vested legally in 1947 [Public Law 80–242 (43 USC 364–364f)], BGN is the authorized federal body responsible for maintaining uniform geographic name usage. It also maintains, per statute, the list of official feature names as recorded in the BGN Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) and oversees the procedures and policies for governing issues such as removing derogatory names. BGN also addresses name-change requests for any feature included in the GNIS.

The BGN coordinates with statewide entities, including the California Advisory Committee on Geographic Names (CACGN), in order to provide recommendations to the BGN regarding such names in the state for official use in federal publications and the GNIS. The CACGN, established in 1963, is housed in the California Natural Resources Agency and is composed of representatives from various state government departments and agencies. State Parks, if wishing to make a change to any geographic place name in the GNIS, would need to apply to the BGN. Such applications would then be submitted to the CACGN for research and review of the proposal report, solicitation of public input, and a recommendation to the BGN to approve or deny the application. If such a request to change a GNIS listed name within a state park property is proposed to the BGN from outside the department, State Parks, as an affected landowner, would be asked to provide an opinion to the CACGN in support or against of the proposed name-change application, or for alternative naming options. In either case, the authority for final determination of name changes rests with the BGN.

All external and internal requests for renaming consideration are initiated by the district where a park unit, facility (road, trail, etc.), or geographical feature (peak, valley, etc.) exists. The process is as follows:

• District alerts SPRSD of redress request for renaming. The request is logged by SPRSD, and the multidisciplinary program team is updated.

• District receives guidance from SPRSD on the appropriate process to follow based on whether the redress is for a geographic feature, park unit, or park facility name.

The Reexamining Our Past staff provide guidance, support, or help with writing the staff report that includes recommended actions based on research findings, tribal consultation, and input from subject matter experts, stakeholders, and public engagement.

For geographic feature names, State Parks, on behalf of the district and with assistance from the SPRSD, submits a name-change proposal or response to external name-change proposals to the California Advisory Committee on Geographic Names (CACGN), which coordinates and makes recommendations to the US Board on Geographic Names (BGN). As noted above, if the request is initiated to, or by, the CACGN or BGN, the SPRSD will work with the district to prepare a response with State Parks’ position and recommendation to assist CACGN and BGN with their decision on renaming geographic place names.

The district works with SPRSD and the Cultural Resources Division (CRD), who provide support and guidance in determining cultural and historical context of the park’s name (or the individual it is named after), relevancy, and sensitivity to affected communities, as well as finding the administrative history of the park.

• If the request is not supported, the staff report would document how State Parks evaluated and determined that there was “not sufficient justification for consideration of name change” at this time. The proponent of the renaming would be notified.

• If the request is supported in the staff report, State Parks Planning & Acquisitions Committee and Reexamining the Past’s Advisory Committee are notified and tasked with review and evaluation prior to stakeholder and community engagement.

The district and SPRSD work with CRD to research the existing name, engage with stakeholders who have an interest in the existing or proposed name, and undertake community engagement. Subject matter experts, scholars, or historians are designated for the project to provide input.

SPRSD drafts a staff report and includes justification for not retaining the existing name and provides a short list of proposed names for consideration. The district and SPRSD meet with the Reexamining the Past Advisory Committee to present the recommendation for discussion and guidance. All input is reviewed and considered, and then the district superintendent forwards the recommendation to the director.

State Parks provides public notice (posting in newspapers and websites) thirty days from a public meeting as required by law. The department will also provide additional outreach through press releases, webpage updates, eblasts, and social media announcements. The director makes a presentation for the proposed name change at a scheduled public meeting of the commission. The commission takes public comment on the item, asks questions, closes the hearing, and deliberates; by the authority granted them, the commission can then approve, ask for changes, submit an alternative name for approval, or deny the request.

For park facilities (roads, trails, campgrounds, interpretive facilities, etc.) within a state park, the district can go directly to the director with a proposed name-change request. For naming requests of features that have statewide significance or controversial content, the director may opt to send these to the commission for additional input and guidance.

In January 2021, the Yurok Tribe formally requested that the California State Park and Recreation Commission change the name of Patrick’s Point State Park to Sue-meg State Park. The renaming request was the first since the launch of the Reexamining Our Past Initiative. In the letter, Tribal leadership provided a compelling and well-researched argument for why the continued use of the name Patrick’s Point was offensive and inappropriate. They made a cogent case for restoring the Yurok name for the area.

The process for considering and preparing the renaming request to go before the commission began with North Coast Redwoods District Superintendent Victor Bjelajac and his staff, who conducted formal consultations with other tribal governments in the region to discuss the proposed name change. Other entities and subject matter experts wrote letters of support, providing additional primary and secondary historical research and context.

The findings, which were presented to the commission in September 2021, noted that the Yurok people have used the name “Sue-meg” to describe the area where the park is now located since time immemorial. “Patrick’s Point,” on the other hand, came into use among settlers in the nineteenth century. In 1851, Irish homesteader Patrick Beegan recorded a preemption claim on the westernmost promontory of the peninsula and built a small cabin there. Beegan was implicated in the murder of a Native American boy in 1854, then escaped to the Bald Hills, east of present-day Orick. In 1864, he led a militia to a Native American village where numerous Indigenous people were massacred. Although Beegan lived in the Sue-meg area for less than three years, other homesteaders came to call the area “Patrick’s Ranch” or “Patrick’s Point.”

When the State of California purchased the site, which is thirty miles north of Eureka in Humboldt County, California, in 1930 for the state park system, the state adopted the name widely used by non-Native settlers: Patrick’s Point. Regardless, Yurok people continued to call the area by its original name, Sue-meg. Reflecting that tradition, in 1990, the Yurok community worked with State Parks to build a traditional Yurok village within the park, which was named “Sumêg,” honoring the ancient place name.

On September 30, 2021, the commission—after hearing the staff report and listening to calls from Yurok tribal leadership, tribal community members, supporting entities, and the director—voted unanimously for renaming it as Sue-meg State Park. (See Figure 2).

Further renaming considerations were still needed for this location. Patrick’s Point is also the geographic feature name for the promontory. State Parks worked with the CACGN to support a proposal to the BGN for a decision on changing the geographic place name in the GNIS to Sue-meg. The BGN, at its December 8, 2022, meeting approved the proposal to change the name of Patrick's Point in Humboldt County to Sue-meg Point.

The survey findings make clear that California State Parks must act to identify and remove residual derogatory place names; inappropriate honorifics associated with the historical legacy of some of our monuments, statues, and plaques; and outdated exhibits and inadequate interpretive programs that fall short in fully contextualizing California’s history.

The process for Reexamining Our Past was presented and discussed with the California State Park and Recreation Commission on December 17, 2021 (Table 3). In addition to the existing research program, an Advisory Committee and Subject Matter Expert Working Groups were also proposed, with goals for each described below.

The department is developing internal processes, professional standards, qualified staff, and resources to work both internally and with history and social science programs, professors, scholars, and students from various academic institutions and organizations. These efforts are charged with the goal of obtaining and creating contemporary and comprehensive historical scholarship, research, references, and source materials to support the development of up-to-date historiographic knowledge; the department also hopes to close gaps in the history of names, recognized individuals, and organizations associated with State Parks and its administrative history. Such scholarship will provide the foundation for informing the Reexamining Our Past efforts as well as improving and enhancing core interpretive, communications, outreach, and management programs.

Department efforts also include developing a plan for engaging highly qualified, respected, and influential representatives from the SPRC; nonprofit park advocates such as California State Parks Foundation (CSPF); Parks California; distinguished state community advocates and other leaders in applicable scholarship, community engagement, and justice; and equity, diversity, and inclusion movements to advise State Parks in formulating a process for these groups to provide input in the Reexamining Our Past Initiative efforts.

State Parks staff are also developing a process for identifying and bringing on board academics and subject matter experts with diverse cultural competency, as well as other community stakeholders, especially those from underserved and underrepresented communities, who can provide input. The working groups will provide appropriate content experts who can offer direct input or help obtain key community stakeholders’ input on specific issues or topics. Engaging representatives from California Tribal Nations in a SME working group will be especially important.

The five-year effort, which began in 2020, seeks to embed the best practices in policy, planning, and project delivery models for the department. This work will be grounded in the completion of a comprehensive survey, created through analysis, planning, and project prioritization done in concert with the Reexamining Our Past Advisory Committee. Throughout this process, public engagement and full transparency are critical to truly make Parks for All become a reality. Old and new audiences alike must seek an accurate and inclusive history in order to see themselves fully in California’s diverse and complex cultural tapestry.

Building on California State Parks Transformation Team’s Relevancy and History Program, engaging with our partners in the applied history professions will continue to be foundational in developing more relevant and inclusive interpretation and education programming. Such programming will help California State Parks serve as an institution that can host inclusive civic dialogue and enhance education on the greater experience of being Californian. The success of this journey necessarily relies on engagement with diverse communities, partners, colleges and universities, and California Native American Tribal Nations.

Several multimillion-dollar projects are underway to advance various aspects of the redress efforts under the umbrella of the Reexamining Our Past Initiative. The 2022–2023 fiscal year budget included targeting funds to support several ROP project efforts over the next five years.

The first project is the Tribal Lands Acknowledgements, and Interpretation, and Exhibit Improvements project ($9.8 million). The project will conduct formal tribal consultations with approximately two hundred federally and non-federally recognized tribes and tribal community representatives regarding appropriate land acknowledgements for all State Parks, as well as identify and prioritize the co-creation of new exhibits at nearly two dozen state parks that presently have missing, outdated, or offensive interpretations, exhibits, and educational materials about California Native Americans.

The second is the African American History and Engagement in California State Parks project ($15 million) being done in collaboration with the California African American Museum (CAAM). This project is designed to address the near absence of Black historical context in state park exhibits and education materials. CAAM’s history curator Susan Anderson is guiding the research and exhibit development. The project is engaging a network of community, public and academic historians to conduct research, document community memory, and preserve historical materials to address gaps in the representation, preservation, and interpretation of California’s significant African American history across more than two dozen California state parks. The work includes funding for cultural and historical competency training for park staff, docents, and park cooperating associations, with support from Parks California and the International Sites of Conscience.

The third newly funded project is the California Cultural and Art Installation in Parks Program ($25 million). The California Arts in Parks project seeks to expand and deepen connections between individuals, communities, and natural landscapes throughout California by: 1) supporting Tribal Nations, artists and communities in creating artwork that offers perspective on our past and present and helps us to imagine our potential, and 2) establishing art installations and programming as catalysts for community health and well-being and as a foundation of California state and local parks. Through this program, parks will become more relevant and engaging to all, and will have greater capacity to nourish, educate, and inspire individuals and communities. State Parks partner organizations such as Parks CA (https://parkscalifornia.org/) also are providing funding support for the development and launch of the department’s official Virtual Adventurer mobile application. This platform uses multimedia (such as virtual and augmented reality) to create immersive, multi-language, first-person storytelling at all State Parks.

California State Parks has indeed embarked on an ambitious journey—prioritizing efforts not only to redress but to transform the way that the department ensures inclusion, historical accuracy, and legitimacy moving forward. These efforts are but a first step that helps pave a path toward social and racial justice to help make California for All a reality. Although administrative processes will vary between local, state, and national government entities, there is a critical role for Tribal Nations, public historians, and other community advocates to speak out and challenge public administrators to redress racist legacies in public memorials, monuments, and interpretation programs. The partnership forged has the potential to create connections for a more inclusive future.