DOCSLIB.ORG

Abstract Peters, Brian Anderson

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ABSTRACT PETERS, BRIAN ANDERSON. "My Education, Not Only for Me and My Family but My People”: Storied Experiences of Native American Students' College Choice at Four-Year Institutions in North Carolina. (Under the Direction of Dr. Joy Gayles). While increased scholarship has begun to explore the stories of Native American students in higher education, less research has explored Native American student college choice. In this qualitative, narrative study, the experiences of seven Native American students’ college choice at four-year institutions in North Carolina were explored. Perna’s (2006) conceptual model of college choice provided a framework for the analysis. One research question guided this study: What were the storied experiences of Native American students from North Carolina when they chose to attend college? Findings from this study indicate that Native American students described their college choice process through four themes: family, Native identity and community, external factors, and growth and opportunities. Native American students in this study were inspired by their families and Native communities to pursue higher education. The participants pursued medical and human services disciplines to return and support their Native communities after completing their degrees. To be successful and have a “home feeling” on campus, they looked for universities with thriving Native communities through student organizations and supportive Native faculty and staff. Factors such as distance from home, academic preparation, and federal recognition impacted the participants choice. Through the four themes of Native college choice, higher education researchers, policymakers, and administrators have a better understanding of how to connect and serve Native American students. With increased attention, Native American student participation rates within higher education may increase as they have a home feeling on campus and perceive higher education as a gateway for success for their families and communities. © Copyright 2018 by Brian Anderson Peters All Rights Reserved "My Education, Not Only for Me and My Family but My People”: Storied Experiences of Native American Students' College Choice at Four-Year Institutions in North Carolina by Brian Anderson Peters A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Research & Policy Analysis Raleigh, North Carolina 2018 APPROVED BY: _______________________________ _______________________________ Dr. Joy Gayles Dr. Susan C. Faircloth Chair of Advisory Committee _______________________________ _______________________________ Dr. Meghan M. Manfra Dr. Paul D. Umbach ii DEDICATION To my wife, Brooke Bailey Peters. iii BIOGRAPHY Brian Anderson Peters grew up in Roanoke, V.A. He started his higher education journey at Virginia Tech. Completing a bachelor’s degree in history, Brian completed the University Honors Program, graduated sum cum laude, and salutatorian of his class in 2008. He completed his undergraduate thesis under the direction of Dr. Bud Robertson. After the tragic events on April 11, 2017, Brian was inspired to work in higher education where he could support college students. He moved to Williamsburg, V.A. where he completed his master’s in education from the College of William and Mary. He completed his master’s thesis under the direction of Dr. Pamela Eddy in 2010. After completing his first two degrees, he worked for a year in Residence Life at the University of Tennessee: Chattanooga. He then moved to Raleigh, N.C. where he worked at N.C. State as the Honors Village Community Director with the University Honors Program and University Housing for four years. During this time, Brian began his doctoral degree at N.C. State. In 2015, Brian transitioned across campus to academic advising with the Poole College of Management. He was then promoted to senior academic advisor in 2017 and serves as the college’s representative to the University’s American Indian Advisory Council. Brian has published scholarship in multiple disciplines: higher education, Native American student experiences, cooperative extension, and history. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are several people I would like to thank for helping me complete not only my doctoral degree but my entire educational journey. First, I want to thank Dr. Joy Gaston Gayles for her mentorship and guidance as my chair and advisor. Her ideas and challenging feedback made me a better scholar and inspired me to conduct research that could have a positive impact on others. I would also like to thank the rest of my committee for giving critical feedback and support: Dr. Paul Umbach, Dr. Meghan Manfra, and Dr. Susan Faircloth. I would also like to thank the N.C. State Higher Education and School of Education faculty for their teaching, scholarship, and mentorship over the past six years: Dr. Audrey Jaeger, Dr. Alyssa Rockenbach, Dr. Stephen Porter, Dr. Tiffany Davis, Dr. Lance Fusarelli, Dr. Deleon Gray, Dr. Brad Mehlenbacher, Dr. Demetrius Richmond, Dr. Kay Moore, and Dean Mary Ann Danowitz. I always felt included as a part-time student due to the teaching style of the faculty, the support of the college in my education, and funding my study abroad experience in St. Petersburg, Russia. I would also like to thank the many NC State staff for their friendship, inspiration, and motivation. To my fellow Poole advisors: Melusian Wright, Jennifer McLamb, Megan Van Hook, Julie Lawson, Dr. Lauren Brown, Alissa Dodds, Christin James, DeWhitney Upchurch, and Keith Martin, I thank you all for being my daily partners in bringing positive change to the lives of our students. To Dr. Jason DeRousie, Brad Wingo, and Dr. Tamah Morant, thank you for your strong leadership within the office. And thanks to the rest of the Poole Office of Undergraduate Programs staff and faculty for their support and encouragement as I finished my degree, especially: Bonnie Yarboro, Stephanie Jares, Brian Newton, Dr. Janet Rakes, Tayah Butler, Rob Sandruck, Ellen Frost, Terry Price, Kathy Ford, Devona Mazyck, and Chandra Russell. In the University Honors Program, I would like to thank: Dr. Aaron Stoller, Carolyn v Veale, Dwayne Barnes, Marquette Russell, Dr. Sheryl Cornett, Dr. Tiffany Kershner, and Dr. Larry Blanton. Thank you for all the work you do to support NC State Honors students. And to my colleagues across campus, thank you for all the support and friendship the last few years at NC State. I would like to especially acknowledge the hard work and devotion of Division of Academic and Student Affairs and other NC State staff and friends for supporting our students. Thank you to Brittany Hunt, Dr. Barry Olson, Dr. Tim Luckadoo, Dr. Carrie McLean, Mindy Sopher, Mike Giancola, Adam Culley, Brian Matthis, Jennie Liner, Ralph Recchie, Sahana Sankar, Patti Baynes, Leigha Krick, Dr. Mike Mullen, and Dr. Tom Stafford for their support in my education. I also would like to thank my colleagues in the Executive Council for Phi Beta Kappa at N.C. State for their support and friendship the past several years. I also would not have completed my dissertation, or remained at N.C. State, if it had not been for the N.C. State students. As my participants taught me in this study, your community on campus is essential for feeling at home and being successful. First, I would like to thank my cohort members for taking this journey with me: Nicole Guistwite, Alex Waldie, Dr. Callie Womble, Ariel Cochrane-Brown, Dr. Alicia Keating Polson, Ashley Gray, Ginger Draughon, and Darren Smith. In addition, there are several doctoral students who supported me along the way: Greg King, Dr. Beth Vincent, Nicole Ditillo, Chelsea Doub, Ben Dictus, Nathan Williams, Helen Wu, Katie Johnson, Katie Smith, Ashley McMillan, Sharbari Dey, Dr. Rob Moore, Whitney Richardson, Megan Ennes, Whitney McLaughlin, Desiree Unselt, Dr. Ashley Clayton, Dr. Alessandra Dinin, Dr. Shauna Morin, Dr. Matt Starcke, Dr. Thomas Green, Dr. Becky Crandall, Dr. Racheal Brooks, Dr. Regina Williams, Dr. Mary Medina, Holley Nichols, and Sarah Andrea. Thank you all for being continual inspirations and great friendship. And to the N.C. State undergraduates, especially from the University Honors Program, the Poole College of vi Management, and the University Recreation and Wellness Fitness instructors, thank you for inspiring me every day. I would not have been able to complete a doctorate if I had not had the strong mentorship from scholars outside of N.C. State. To Virginia Tech faculty who first inspired me to conduct research: Dr. Nancy Franz, Dr. Barry Garst, and Dr. Bud Robertson, and to my advisors and mentors at the College of William and Mary: Dr. Pamela Eddy, Dr. Dot Finnegan, Dr. Eddie Cole, and Dr. James Barber, I thank you all for supporting me through the years and for your friendship. I would also like to thank Dr. Tim Cain from the University of Georgia for his advice and support. And thanks to my international colleagues who attended Summer School 2017 in Russia for their friendship and advice on my research. Over the years, I have developed close friendships with many wonderful people. I would like to thank Hunter Simmons for the many fun memories at Virginia Tech and beyond. To Kyle Lumsden for showing that true friendships last a lifetime. Thanks Caitlin Flynn, Helen Jones, Brittany Moore, Jen Eden, Jesse Oswald, and Sarah Davenport for their many years of friendship. I would also like to acknowledge the summer camp staffs that I had the pleasure of working with at W. E. Skelton 4-H Center who helped me become a better person. And thank you to my many friends I met at the College of William and Mary, especially: Kent Miller, Josh and Carolyn McCrea, Leila Derstine, Kelly Walker, Emily Miller, Dr. Justine Okerson, and Terry Fassanella. To the Native American tribes and nations of the United States and Americas, I thank you for allowing an outsider to learn about your cultures and sharing your stories.
Recommended publications

  • 1835. EXECUTIVE. *L POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

    1835. EXECUTIVE. *l POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. Persons employed in the General Post Office, with the annual compensation of each. Where Compen­ Names. Offices. Born. sation. Dol. cts. Amos Kendall..., Postmaster General.... Mass. 6000 00 Charles K. Gardner Ass't P. M. Gen. 1st Div. N. Jersey250 0 00 SelahR. Hobbie.. Ass't P. M. Gen. 2d Div. N. York. 2500 00 P. S. Loughborough Chief Clerk Kentucky 1700 00 Robert Johnson. ., Accountant, 3d Division Penn 1400 00 CLERKS. Thomas B. Dyer... Principal Book Keeper Maryland 1400 00 Joseph W. Hand... Solicitor Conn 1400 00 John Suter Principal Pay Clerk. Maryland 1400 00 John McLeod Register's Office Scotland. 1200 00 William G. Eliot.. .Chie f Examiner Mass 1200 00 Michael T. Simpson Sup't Dead Letter OfficePen n 1200 00 David Saunders Chief Register Virginia.. 1200 00 Arthur Nelson Principal Clerk, N. Div.Marylan d 1200 00 Richard Dement Second Book Keeper.. do.. 1200 00 Josiah F.Caldwell.. Register's Office N. Jersey 1200 00 George L. Douglass Principal Clerk, S. Div.Kentucky -1200 00 Nicholas Tastet Bank Accountant Spain. 1200 00 Thomas Arbuckle.. Register's Office Ireland 1100 00 Samuel Fitzhugh.., do Maryland 1000 00 Wm. C,Lipscomb. do : for) Virginia. 1000 00 Thos. B. Addison. f Record Clerk con-> Maryland 1000 00 < routes and v....) Matthias Ross f. tracts, N. Div, N. Jersey1000 00 David Koones Dead Letter Office Maryland 1000 00 Presley Simpson... Examiner's Office Virginia- 1000 00 Grafton D. Hanson. Solicitor's Office.. Maryland 1000 00 Walter D. Addison. Recorder, Div. of Acc'ts do..
  • 2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2010

    2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2010

    2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2010 Description of Table 1. This table shows data for American Indian and Alaska Native tribes alone and alone or in combination for the United States. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native only and one tribe are shown in Column 1. Respondents who reported two or more American Indian or Alaska Native tribes, but no other race, are shown in Column 2. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native and at least one other race and one tribe are shown in Column 3. Respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native and at least one other race and two or more tribes are shown in Column 4. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native in any combination of race(s) or tribe(s) are shown in Column 5, and is the sum of the numbers in Columns 1 through 4. For a detailed explanation of the alone and alone or in combination concepts used in this table, see the 2010 Census Brief, “The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010” at <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf>. Table 1. American Indian and Alaska Native Population by Tribe1 for the United States: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, special tabulation. Internet release date: December 2013 Note: Respondents who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native were asked to report their enrolled or principal tribe. Therefore, tribal data in this data product reflect the written tribal entries reported on the questionnaire.
  • 2020 Census National Redistricting Data Summary File 2020 Census of Population and Housing

    2020 Census National Redistricting Data Summary File 2020 Census of Population and Housing

    2020 Census National Redistricting Data Summary File 2020 Census of Population and Housing Technical Documentation Issued February 2021 SFNRD/20-02 Additional For additional information concerning the Census Redistricting Data Information Program and the Public Law 94-171 Redistricting Data, contact the Census Redistricting and Voting Rights Data Office, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 20233 or phone 1-301-763-4039. For additional information concerning data disc software issues, contact the COTS Integration Branch, Applications Development and Services Division, Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 20233 or phone 1-301-763-8004. For additional information concerning data downloads, contact the Dissemination Outreach Branch of the Census Bureau at <[email protected]> or the Call Center at 1-800-823-8282. 2020 Census National Redistricting Data Summary File Issued February 2021 2020 Census of Population and Housing SFNRD/20-01 U.S. Department of Commerce Wynn Coggins, Acting Agency Head U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Dr. Ron Jarmin, Acting Director Suggested Citation FILE: 2020 Census National Redistricting Data Summary File Prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION: 2020 Census National Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Technical Documentation Prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Dr. Ron Jarmin, Acting Director Dr. Ron Jarmin, Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Albert E. Fontenot, Jr., Associate Director for Decennial Census Programs Deborah M. Stempowski, Assistant Director for Decennial Census Programs Operations and Schedule Management Michael T. Thieme, Assistant Director for Decennial Census Programs Systems and Contracts Jennifer W. Reichert, Chief, Decennial Census Management Division Chapter 1.
  • 8 Tribes, 1 State: Native Americans in North Carolina

    8 Tribes, 1 State: Native Americans in North Carolina

    8 Tribes, 1 State: North Carolina’s Native Peoples As of 2014, North Carolina has 8 state and federally recognized Native American tribes. In this lesson, students will study various Native American tribes through a variety of activities, from a PowerPoint led discussion, to a study of Native American art. The lesson culminates with students putting on a Native American Art Show about the 8 recognized tribes. Grade 8 Materials “8 Tribes, 1 State: Native Americans in North Carolina” PowerPoint, available here: o http://civics.sites.unc.edu/files/2014/06/NCNativeAmericans1.pdf o To view this PDF as a projectable presentation, save the file, click “View” in the top menu bar of the file, and select “Full Screen Mode”; upon completion of presentation, hit ESC on your keyboard to exit the file o To request an editable PPT version of this presentation, send a request to [email protected] “Native American Art Handouts #1 – 7”, attached North Carolina Native American Tribe handouts, attached o Lumbee o Eastern Band of Cherokee o Coharie o Haliwa-­­‑ Saponi o Meherrin o Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation o Sappony o Waccamaw Siouan “Create a Native American Art Exhibition” handout, attached “Native Americans in North Carolina Fact Sheet”, attached Brown paper or brown shopping bags (for the culminating project) Graph paper (for the culminating project) Art supplies (markers, colored pencils, crayons, etc. Essential Questions: What was life like for Native Americans before the arrival of Europeans? What happened to most Native American tribes after European arrival? What hardships have Native Americans faced throughout their history? How many state and federally recognized tribes are in North Carolina today? Duration 90 – 120 minutes Teacher Preparation A note about terminology: For this lesson, the descriptions Native American and American Indian are 1 used interchangeably when referring to more than one specific tribe.
  • Federalism and the State Recognition of Native American Tribes: a Survey

    Federalism and the State Recognition of Native American Tribes: a Survey

    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 48 | Number 1 Article 2 1-1-2008 Federalism and the State Recognition of Native American Tribes: A Survey of State-Recognized Tribes and State Recognition Processes across the United States Alexa Koenig Jonathan Stein Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexa Koenig and Jonathan Stein, Federalism and the State Recognition of Native American Tribes: A Survey of State-Recognized Tribes and State Recognition Processes across the United States, 48 Santa Clara L. Rev. 79 (2008). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol48/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEDERALISM AND THE STATE RECOGNITION OF NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES: A SURVEY OF STATE-RECOGNIZED TRIBES AND STATE RECOGNITION PROCESSES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES Alexa Koenig* and Jonathan Stein** I. INTRODUCTION The territory that comprises the state of Virginia has been home to Native Americans for hundreds-if not thousands-of years. Documentary and other evidence establishes that Indians were present in the area long before the building of the Jamestown colony. American lore and numerous historic records tell the tale of "Pocahontas," a Native American from present-day Virginia who fascinated London society as early as the 1610s as a tribal member who * Alexa Koenig is an assistant professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law.
  • Duke Forest Land Acknowledgement

    Duke Forest Land Acknowledgement

    Duke Forest Land Acknowledgement The Office of the Duke Forest has the benefit of presenting this land acknowledgement because of the research and synthesis provided by Duke Faculty and Duke Forest Advisory Committee member, Nicolette Cagle, Ph.D. We understand that a university-wide committee is now in the process of developing a land acknowledgement statement for all of Duke University’s landholdings, which we will also provide here once it is completed. As part of our mission to facilitate teaching and research across all disciplines and for all students, we actively support efforts to investigate, reveal, and hold-up the histories and legacies of people on Duke Forest land that have yet to be understood and told. As Gould (1992) acknowledges, “there is not a university in this country that is not built on what was once native land.” That is true for Duke University and its Duke Forest landholdings. What is now Durham and Orange Counties was originally the territory of several Native nations, including Tutelo (TOO-tee-lo) and Saponi (suh-POE-nee) - speaking peoples. Many of their communities were displaced or killed through war, disease, and colonial expansion. Today, the Triangle is surrounded by contemporary Native nations, the descendants of Tutelo, Saponi, and other Indigenous peoples who survived early colonization. These nations include the Haliwa-Saponi (HALL-i-wa suh-POE-nee), Sappony (suh-POE-nee), and Occaneechi (oh-kuh-NEE-chee) Band of Saponi. North Carolina’s Research Triangle is also home to a thriving urban Native American community who represent Native nations from across the United States.
  • Guide to Working with Non-Federally Recognized Tribes in the Section 106 Process

    Guide to Working with Non-Federally Recognized Tribes in the Section 106 Process

    GUIDE TO WORKING WITH NON-FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES IN THE SECTION 106 PROCESS Table of Contents Introduction and Purpose………………………………………………………….Page 1 Terminology…………………………………………………………………..…...Page 2 Involving Non-Federally Recognized Tribes in the Section 106 Process………...Page 3 Why Some Tribes Are Not Federally Recognized………………………………..Page 4 (Including several examples of non-federally recognized tribes) Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...Page 7 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………..Page 9 Introduction and Purpose The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)1 established a comprehensive program to preserve the historical and cultural foundations of the nation. Section 1062 of the NHPA is central to that program and requires federal agencies to consider the effects of projects they carry out, assist, fund, permit, license, or approve (undertakings) on historic properties.3 As part of this review process, federal agencies consult with interested parties to identify and evaluate historic properties, assess the effects of the undertakings on these properties, and attempt to negotiate an outcome that will balance project needs and historic preservation values.4 Federal agencies must consult with certain parties, including the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) (when projects are on or affect historic properties on tribal lands), and Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs) when historic properties of religious and cultural significance to them may be affected by undertakings. Federal agencies should also consider reaching out to other parties when gathering information about historic properties or to obtain their views about historic properties that may be important to them, which is the focus of this guide. This document provides information and guidance for federal agencies regarding engagement with non- federally recognized tribes in the Section 106 process.
  • American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States

    American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States

    Arctic Ocean Arctic Slope RUSSIA NANA CANADA Doyon Bering Straits ALASKA Ahtna Cook Inlet Calista Chugach American Indians and Bristol Bering Sea Bay Sealaska Gulf of Alaska Annette Island Aleut Koniag 0 200 400 Kilometers Pacific Ocean Alaska Natives 0 200 400 Miles Lummi Makah Nooksack in the United States Lower Elwha Upper Skagit Quileute Samish Swinomish Jamestown Stillaguamish Hoh S'Klallam Sauk-Suiattle Port Gamble Tulalip Quinault Port Madison Colville Kalispel Kootenai Skokomish Snoqualmie Squaxin Muckleshoot Shoalwater Island Puyallup Blackfeet Aroostook Band Bay Spokane Chehalis Nisqually of Micmac Turtle Mountain Kalispel WASHINGTON Turtle Mountain Rocky Turtle Mountain Houlton Boy's CANADA Penobscot Maliseet Turtle Mountain Red Lake Coeur Flathead r Pacific d'Alene ve Fort Peck Yakama Ri Turtle Mountain Red Lake Fort Penobscot Indian Nation ri Penobscot Township ou Belknap Ocean olumbi ss C a i Turtle Mountain Bois Passamaquoddy Pleasant Grand Ronde M Spirit Lake Red Minnesota Grand Portage River Nez Fort Lake Forte ake Superio Point Berthold Chippewa L r Passamaquoddy Celilo Village Perce Turtle Penobscot Siletz MONTANA Mountain Leech Penobscot Warm Umatilla Lake MAINE Springs White Red Ontonagon NORTH DAKOTA Earth Cliff Coos, Lower Umpqua, Bad and Siuslaw L'Anse stone ver River Bay Passamaquoddy w Ri Minnesota Chippewa VERMONT ell o L'Anse Sault Sainte Mills Y Fond du Lac Vieux Sault Sainte Marie St. Regis Lac Marie Mohawk Crow Desert Sault Sainte Marie Lake Coquille Mille Lacs Lac du Champlain OREGON Lac Flambeau Little L Cow Creek Crow Forest Traverse ak Standing Rock Lake Courte County Hannahville e Coos, Turtle Traverse Oreilles Sokaogon Bay Lower Umpqua, Northern Mountain St.
  • Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes

    Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes

    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Honorable Dan Boren, GAO House of Representatives April 2012 INDIAN ISSUES Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes GAO-12-348 April 2012 INDIAN ISSUES Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Highlights of GAO-12-348, a report to the Honorable Dan Boren, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found As of January 3, 2012, the United Of the approximately 400 non-federally recognized tribes that GAO identified, States recognized 566 Indian tribes. 26 received funding from 24 federal programs during fiscal years 2007 through Federal recognition confers specific 2010. Most of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes were eligible to receive this legal status on tribes and imposes funding either because of their status as nonprofit organizations or state- certain responsibilities on the federal recognized tribes. Similarly, most of the 24 federal programs that awarded government, such as an obligation to funding to non-federally recognized tribes during the 4-year period were provide certain benefits to tribes and authorized to fund nonprofit organizations or state-recognized tribes. In addition, their members. Some tribes are not some of these programs were authorized to fund other entities, such as tribal federally recognized but have qualified communities or community development financial institutions. for and received federal funding. Some of these non-federally recognized For fiscal years 2007 through 2010, 24 federal programs awarded more than tribes are state recognized and may be $100 million to the 26 non-federally recognized tribes. Most of the funding was located on state reservations.
  • 2020 Census Tribal Consultation with State-Recognized Tribes FINAL REPORT

    2020 Census Tribal Consultation with State-Recognized Tribes FINAL REPORT

    2020 Census Tribal Consultation with State-Recognized Tribes FINAL REPORT Issued Summer 2017 TM Acknowledgements Our gratitude is extended to the tribal delegates, American Indian and Alaska Native organization representatives, and other American Indian and Alaska Native participants who attended the tribal consultation meeting and whose input is contained in this report. We also appreciate the support and advice of members of the Census National Advisory Committee on the American Indian and Alaska Native Populations, and the partnership of the North Carolina Commission on Indian Affairs in promoting attendance at the tribal consultation. Census Bureau executive leadership who participated in the consultation included: John H. Thompson, Director; Albert Fontenot, Acting Chief, Field Division; Jeannie Shiffer, Associate Director for Communications; Deborah Stempowski, Chief, Decennial Census Management Division; and Tim Olson, Associate Director for Field Operations. Atlanta Regional Director George Grandy, Jr., and Atlanta regional staff also participated in the tribal consultation. The following headquarters Census Bureau staff delivered short presentations at the meetings: Dee Alexander, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; Deborah Stempowski and Maryann Chapin, Decennial Census Management Division; Roberto Ramirez, Population Division; Laura Waggoner, Geography Division; Kendall Johnson, Communications Directorate; and Sydnee Chattin, Decennial Programs Field Division. Dee Alexander (Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma), Tribal Affairs Coordinator, had primary responsibility for the tribal consultation and the final report. Special thanks to Office of Intergovernmental Affairs staff Van Lawrence, Bina Kawe Saafi, Melissa Bruce and Akenabah Begay for their support and help with the tribal consultation meetings. Kauffman & Associates, Inc., (KAI) an American Indian-owned firm, was contracted to provide logistical support for the 2020 Census tribal consultations and develop the final reports.
  • Nomination Form

    Nomination Form

    NPS Form 10-900-b VLR Approved: 9/17/2020 0MB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior NRHP Approved: 4/26/2021 National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (formerly 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. __x_______ New Submission ----Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing The Nottoway of Virginia B. Associated Historic Contexts (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) The Nottoway ofVirginia, c. 1650- c. 1953 C. Form Prepared by: name/title Buck Woodard, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator; Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator; and Megan Victor, MA, and Berek Dore, MA, RP A, Contributors organization Department of Anthropology, American Indian Resource Center, at the College of William & Mary street & number city or town Williamsburg state VA zip code e-mail telephone date February 2021 D~ Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. Director Title 7 Date Virginia Department of Historic Resources State or Federal Agency or Tribal government I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
  • Indians of Virginia (Pre-1600 with Notes on Historic Tribes) Virginia History Series #1-09 © 2009

    Indians of Virginia (Pre-1600 with Notes on Historic Tribes) Virginia History Series #1-09 © 2009

    Indians of Virginia (Pre-1600 With Notes on Historic Tribes) Virginia History Series #1-09 © 2009 1 Pre-Historic Times in 3 Periods (14,000 B.P.- 1,600 A.D.): Paleoindian Pre-Clovis (14,000 BP – 9,500 B.C.) Clovis (9,500 – 8,000 B.C.) Archaic Early (8,000 -6,000 B.C.) Middle (6,000 – 2,500 B.C.) Late (2,500 – 1,200 B.C.) Woodland Early (1,200 – 500 B.C.) Middle (500 B.C. – 900 A.D.) Late (900 – 1,600 A.D.) Mississippian Culture (Influence of) Tribes of Virginia 2 Alternate Hypotheses about Pre-historic Migration Routes taken by Paleo- Indians from Asia or Europe into North America: (1) From Asia by Water along the Northern Pacific or across the land bridge from Asia thru Alaska/Canada; or (2) From Europe on the edge of the ice pack along the North Atlantic Coast to the Temperate Lands below the Laurentide Ice Sheet. 3 Coming to America (The “Land Bridge” Hypothesis from Asia to North America thru Alaska) * * Before Present 4 Migrations into North and Central America from Asia via Alaska 5 The “Solutrean” Hypothesis of Pre-historic Migration into North America The Solutrean hypothesis claims similarities between the Solutrean point- making industry in France and the later Clovis culture / Clovis points of North America, and suggests that people with Solutrean tool technology may have crossed the Ice Age Atlantic by moving along the pack ice edge, using survival skills similar to that of modern Eskimo people. The migrants arrived in northeastern North America and served as the donor culture for what eventually developed into Clovis tool-making technology.