DOCSLIB.ORG

CARES Act Final Distributions for ATG and Welfare Assistance Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CARES Act Final Distributions for ATG and Welfare Assistance Region CARES Act Final Distributions for ATG and Welfare Assistance Welfare ATG Final Region Tribe Assistance CV Distribution Distribution ALASKA Afognak 218,806 4,158 ALASKA Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove 437,612 8,391 ALASKA Akhiok 100,025 1,657 ALASKA Akiachak 593,901 11,769 ALASKA Akiak 312,580 5,793 ALASKA Akutan 116,965 1,765 ALASKA Alakanuk 593,901 11,856 ALASKA Alatna 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Aleknagik 218,806 3,800 ALASKA Algaaciq (St. Mary's) 312,580 5,955 ALASKA Allakaket 156,290 2,783 ALASKA Alutiiq (Old Harbor) 375,096 6,561 ALASKA Ambler 218,806 3,909 ALASKA Anaktuvuk Pass 218,806 3,768 ALASKA Angoon 312,580 5,998 ALASKA Aniak 375,096 6,810 ALASKA Anvik 194,246 3,335 ALASKA Arctic Village 250,064 4,450 ALASKA Asa'Carsarmiut (Mountain Village) 718,933 14,660 ALASKA Atka 156,290 2,339 ALASKA Atmauthluak 194,246 3,259 ALASKA Atqasuk (Atkasook) 116,965 1,776 ALASKA Barrow 1,250,319 43,482 ALASKA Beaver 156,290 2,663 ALASKA Belkofski 77,698 1,256 ALASKA Bill Moore's Slough 116,965 1,830 ALASKA Birch Creek 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Brevig Mission 250,064 4,699 ALASKA Buckland 437,612 7,536 ALASKA Cantwell 100,025 1,527 ALASKA Chalkyitsik 116,965 1,743 ALASKA Cheesh-Na 100,025 1,516 ALASKA Chefornak 437,612 7,287 ALASKA Chenega (Chanega) 100,025 1,624 ALASKA Chevak 843,965 18,742 ALASKA Chickaloon 156,290 2,750 ALASKA Chignik Bay Tribal Council 156,290 2,458 ALASKA Chignik Lagoon 194,246 2,945 ALASKA Chignik Lake 194,246 2,977 ALASKA Chilkat (Klukwan) 194,246 2,977 ALASKA Chilkoot (Haines) 218,806 4,255 ALASKA Chinik (Golovin) 250,064 4,872 ALASKA Chitina 156,290 2,707 ALASKA Chuathbaluk (Russian Mission, Kuskokwim) 116,965 2,274 ALASKA Chuloonawick 77,698 1,223 ALASKA Circle 116,965 2,274 ALASKA Clark's Point 100,025 1,494 ALASKA Council, Native Village of 116,965 1,992 1 Welfare ATG Final Region Tribe Assistance CV Distribution Distribution ALASKA Craig 375,096 6,410 ALASKA Crooked Creek 100,025 1,624 ALASKA Curyung (Dillingham) 968,997 29,926 ALASKA Deering 194,246 3,032 ALASKA Diomede (Inalik) 250,064 4,796 ALASKA Dot Lake 116,965 2,111 ALASKA Douglas 250,064 5,024 ALASKA Eagle 116,965 2,165 ALASKA Eek 312,580 6,117 ALASKA Egegik 194,246 3,530 ALASKA Eklutna 156,290 2,663 ALASKA Ekuk 100,025 1,321 ALASKA Ekwok 156,290 2,620 ALASKA Elim 375,096 6,334 ALASKA Emmonak 718,933 15,310 ALASKA Evansville (Bettles Field) 62,516 1,000 ALASKA Eyak 375,096 6,702 ALASKA False Pass 77,698 1,039 ALASKA Fort Yukon 437,612 7,579 ALASKA Gakona 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Galena (Louden Village) 500,127 8,878 ALASKA Gambell 593,901 10,589 ALASKA Georgetown 100,025 1,278 ALASKA Goodnews Bay 250,064 4,547 ALASKA Grayling (Hokikachuk) 250,064 4,363 ALASKA Gulkana 100,025 1,429 ALASKA Hamilton 62,516 1,000 ALASKA Healy Lake 62,516 1,000 ALASKA Holy Cross 437,612 7,514 ALASKA Hoonah 718,933 12,310 ALASKA Hooper Bay 843,965 22,640 ALASKA Hughes 100,025 1,505 ALASKA Huslia 437,612 7,189 ALASKA Hydaburg 218,806 3,692 ALASKA Igiugig 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Iliamna 100,025 1,505 ALASKA Iqugmuit Traditional Council (formerly Iqurmiut) 312,580 5,522 ALASKA Ivanof Bay 62,516 1,000 ALASKA Kaguyak 62,516 1,000 ALASKA Kake 593,901 11,076 ALASKA Kaktovik 156,290 2,458 ALASKA Kalskag 194,246 3,205 ALASKA Kaltag 250,064 4,374 ALASKA Kanatak 100,025 1,440 ALASKA Karluk 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Kasaan 116,965 2,220 ALASKA Kasigluk 500,127 10,102 ALASKA Kenaitze 843,965 18,081 ALASKA Ketchikan 1,500,382 50,454 ALASKA Kiana 593,901 10,556 2 Welfare ATG Final Region Tribe Assistance CV Distribution Distribution ALASKA King Island 375,096 6,659 ALASKA King Salmon 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Kipnuk 593,901 11,715 ALASKA Kivalina 312,580 5,273 ALASKA Klawock 312,580 5,381 ALASKA Kluti Kaah (Copper Center) 250,064 4,407 ALASKA Knik 968,997 28,151 ALASKA Kobuk 156,290 2,588 ALASKA Kokhanok 116,965 2,057 ALASKA Kongiganak 437,612 8,532 ALASKA Kotlik 437,612 8,283 ALASKA Kotzebue 1,250,319 35,914 ALASKA Koyuk 218,806 4,353 ALASKA Koyukuk 194,246 3,032 ALASKA Kwethluk 718,933 13,913 ALASKA Kwigillingok 375,096 6,875 ALASKA Kwinhagak (Quinhagak) 593,901 10,491 ALASKA Larsen Bay 312,580 5,706 ALASKA Levelock 116,965 2,263 ALASKA Lime Village 62,516 1,000 ALASKA Lower Kalskag 250,064 4,710 ALASKA Manley Hot Springs 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Manokotak 437,612 7,254 ALASKA Marshall (Fortuna Ledge) 218,806 4,342 ALASKA Mary's Igloo 116,965 2,111 ALASKA McGrath 218,806 4,201 ALASKA Mekoryuk 312,580 5,457 ALASKA Mentasta 312,580 5,414 ALASKA Minto 250,064 4,591 ALASKA Naknek 375,096 6,951 ALASKA Nanwalek (English Bay) 194,246 3,118 ALASKA Napaimute 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Napakiak 375,096 7,016 ALASKA Napaskiak 375,096 6,832 ALASKA Nelson Lagoon 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Nenana 500,127 10,372 ALASKA New Koliganek 156,290 2,837 ALASKA New Stuyahok 375,096 6,496 ALASKA Newhalen 194,246 2,891 ALASKA Newtok 312,580 5,587 ALASKA Nightmute 156,290 2,848 ALASKA Nikolai 116,965 1,808 ALASKA Nikolski 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Ninilchik 500,127 10,188 ALASKA Noatak 312,580 6,042 ALASKA Nome Eskimo Community 968,997 33,662 ALASKA Nondalton 312,580 5,435 ALASKA Noorvik 593,901 11,022 ALASKA Northway 312,580 5,489 ALASKA Nuiqsut (Nooiksut) 218,806 3,779 3 Welfare ATG Final Region Tribe Assistance CV Distribution Distribution ALASKA Nulato 500,127 10,297 ALASKA Nunakauyarmiut (Toksook Bay) 593,901 10,589 ALASKA Nunam Iqua (Sheldon's Point) 156,290 2,848 ALASKA Nunapitchuk 437,612 8,174 ALASKA Ohogamiut 116,965 1,786 ALASKA Orutsararmuit (Bethel) 1,250,319 35,242 ALASKA Oscarville 77,698 1,018 ALASKA Ouzinkie 312,580 6,085 ALASKA Paimiut 77,698 1,007 ALASKA Pauloff Harbor Village 62,516 1,000 ALASKA Pedro Bay 100,025 1,462 ALASKA Perryville 194,246 2,912 ALASKA Petersburg 312,580 5,706 ALASKA Pilot Point 156,290 2,512 ALASKA Pilot Station 500,127 9,896 ALASKA Pitka's Point 116,965 1,808 ALASKA Platinum 77,698 1,083 ALASKA Point Hope 500,127 10,394 ALASKA Point Lay 116,965 1,992 ALASKA Port Graham 218,806 3,692 ALASKA Port Heiden 100,025 1,278 ALASKA Port Lions 250,064 4,363 ALASKA Portage Creek 100,025 1,299 ALASKA Qagan Tayagungin (Sand Point) 437,612 8,391 ALASKA Qawalangin (Unalaska) 500,127 10,481 ALASKA Rampart 194,246 3,486 ALASKA Red Devil 62,516 1,000 ALASKA Ruby 375,096 6,648 ALASKA Saint George Island 100,025 1,418 ALASKA Saint Michael 375,096 6,767 ALASKA Saint Paul Island 375,096 7,070 ALASKA Salamatoff 218,806 4,114 ALASKA Savoonga 500,127 8,694 ALASKA Saxman 194,246 3,508 ALASKA Scammon Bay 500,127 9,755 ALASKA Selawik 593,901 11,444 ALASKA Seldovia 375,096 6,345 ALASKA Shageluk 218,806 3,898 ALASKA Shaktoolik 250,064 4,872 ALASKA Shishmaref 593,901 10,741 ALASKA Shungnak 250,064 4,612 ALASKA Sitka Tribe (Baranof Island) 1,500,382 48,127 ALASKA Skagway 77,698 1,180 ALASKA Sleetmute 100,025 1,667 ALASKA Solomon 100,025 1,624 ALASKA South Naknek 156,290 2,653 ALASKA Stebbins Community Association 593,901 11,228 ALASKA Stevens Village 218,806 3,941 ALASKA Stony River 194,246 3,097 ALASKA Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak (Shoonaq') 843,965 18,937 4 Welfare ATG Final Region Tribe Assistance CV Distribution Distribution ALASKA Takotna 62,516 1,000 ALASKA Tanacross 116,965 1,830 ALASKA Tanana 593,901 10,979 ALASKA Tangirnaq (Lesnoi) 250,064 5,035 ALASKA Tatitlek 218,806 3,757 ALASKA Tazlina, Native Village of 100,025 1,592 ALASKA Telida 62,516 1,000 ALASKA Teller 116,965 2,187 ALASKA Tetlin 218,806 4,331 ALASKA Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes Central Council 2,407,613 342,181 ALASKA Togiak 718,933 13,718 ALASKA Tuluksak 375,096 6,875 ALASKA Tuntutuliak 375,096 7,027 ALASKA Tununak 375,096 6,377 ALASKA Twin Hills 100,025 1,451 ALASKA Tyonek 437,612 7,297 ALASKA Ugashik 116,965 1,786 ALASKA Umkumiut 77,698 1,000 ALASKA Unalakleet 843,965 17,551 ALASKA Unga 156,290 2,588 ALASKA Venetie, Village of 250,064 4,634 ALASKA Wainwright 375,096 7,135 ALASKA Wales 156,290 2,555 ALASKA White Mountain 250,064 4,764 ALASKA Wrangell 437,612 8,012 ALASKA Yakutat 843,965 19,684 ALASKA Yupiit of Andreafski 156,290 2,685 EASTERN Aroostook Band of Micmacs 593,901 11,910 EASTERN Catawba Indian Nation 1,250,319 35,177 EASTERN Cayuga Nation 312,580 5,143 EASTERN Chickahominy Indian Tribe 500,127 9,734 EASTERN Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division 116,965 1,895 EASTERN Chitimacha Tribe 593,901 11,932 EASTERN Coushatta Tribe 500,127 10,004 EASTERN Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 2,407,613 170,040 EASTERN Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians 843,965 19,489 EASTERN Jena Band of Choctaw Indians 156,290 2,631 EASTERN Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe 593,901 11,661 EASTERN Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe 968,997 30,641 EASTERN Miccosukee Tribe 218,806 4,331 EASTERN Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 1,750,446 102,674 EASTERN Mohegan 843,965 22,737 EASTERN Monacan Indian Nation 968,997 25,985 EASTERN Nansemond Indian Tribe 218,806 4,006 EASTERN Narragansett Indian Tribe 968,997 29,580 EASTERN Oneida Indian Nation of New York 593,901 10,827 EASTERN Pamunkey Indian Tribe 218,806 4,309 EASTERN Passamaquoddy Tribe 1,250,319 36,574 EASTERN Penobscot Nation 843,965 25,628 EASTERN Poarch Band of Creeks 968,997 31,669 5 Welfare ATG Final Region Tribe Assistance CV Distribution Distribution EASTERN Rappahannock Tribe, Inc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Delaware Indian Land Claims: a Historical and Legal Perspective
    Delaware Indian land Claims: A Historical and Legal Perspective DAVID A. EZZO Alden, New York and MICHAEL MOSKOWITZ Wantagh, New York In this paper we shall discuss Delaware Indian land claims in both a histori­ cal and legal context. The first section of the paper deals with the historical background necessary to understand the land claims filed by the Delaware. In the second part of the paper the focus is on a legal review of the Delaware land claims cases. Ezzo is responsible for the first section while Moskowitz is responsible for the second section. 1. History The term Delaware has been used to describe the descendants of the Native Americans that resided in the Delaware River Valley and other adjacent areas at the start of the 17th century. The Delaware spoke two dialects: Munsee and Unami, both of these belong to the Eastern Algonquian Lan­ guage family. Goddard has noted that the Delaware never formed a single political unit. He also has noted that the term Delaware was only applied to these groups after they had migrated from their original Northeastern homeland. Goddard sums up the Delaware migration as follows: The piecemeal western migration, in the face of white settlement and its attendant pressures during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, left the Delaware in a number of widely scattered places in Southern Ontario, Western New York, Wisconsin, Kansas and Oklahoma. Their history involves the repeated divisions and consolidations of many villages and of local, political and linguistic groups that developed in complicated and incompletely known ways. In addition, individuals, families and small groups were constantly moving from place to place.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wintu and Their Neighbors: a Very Small World-System
    THE WINTU AND THEIR NEIGHBORS: A VERY SMALL WORLD-SYSTEM Christopher Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, ND 21218 ABSTRACT The world-systems perspective analyzes the modern international system. This approach can be applied to long range social evolution by studying smaller regional intersocietal systems such as the late pre-contact Wintu and their neighbors. Three questions: 1. What was the nature of integration among wintu groups and between them and neighboring groups? 2. What are the spatial characteristics of this network regarding fall­ off of the impact of events? 3. Was there regional soc~ally­ structured inequality in this system? Archaeological data may allow estimation of extent and rate of Wintu expansion, obsidian trade patterns, settlement sizes, and other features of this little world-system. INTRODUCTION This paper describes a theoretical approach for the comparative study of world-systems and a preliminary consideration of a small regional intersocietal system composed of the Wintu people and their neighbors in Northern California. I am currently engaged in the study of two "cases" of relatively small intersocietal networks -- the Wintu-centered system and late prehistoric Hawaii (Chase-Dunn 1991). This paper describes my preliminary hypotheses and examines possibilities for using archaeological, ethnographic, and documentary evidence for answering questions raised by the world-systems perspective. The world-systems perspective is a theoretical approach which has been developed to analyze the dynamics of the Europe­ centered, and now-global, political economy composed of national societies (cf. Wallerstein 1974, 1979; Chase-Dunn 1989; and a very readable introduction in Shannon 1989). One important structure in this modern world-system is the core/periphery hierarchy -- a stratified system of relations among dominant "advanced" core states and dependent and "underdeveloped" peripheral areas.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2018/19 Tribal Nation Grant Fund
    FY 2018/19 Tribal Nation Grant Fund Disbursements Tribe Name Application Title Awarded Amount 1 Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California Economic Diversification & Community and Housing Development $ 400,000.00 2 Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California Eastside Housing Development Project $ 400,000.00 3 Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria Self Governance $ 400,000.00 4 Big Lagoon Rancheria Community Services $ 400,000.00 5 Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation) Indigenous Wellness $ 400,000.00 6 Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California (previously listed as the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California) Work Force Development and Housing $ 400,000.00 7 Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria Renewable Energy and Economic Development $ 400,000.00 8 Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony) Equipment Acquisition $ 400,000.00 9 Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California) Generators and Forklift $ 400,000.00 10 Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria Community Development $ 400,000.00 11 Cahuilla Band of Indians (previously listed as the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation) Governmental Infrastructure Development and Training $ 400,000.00 12 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation Economic and Community
    [Show full text]
  • Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Testimony in Response to the Department of Army
    OFFICERS Shakopee Mdewakanton Charlie Vig Chairman Sioux Community Keith B. Anderson 2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW • PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA Vice Chairman TRIBAL OFFICE: 952-445-8900 • FAX: 952-445-8906 Freedom Brewer Secretary/Treasurer Testimony in Response to the Department of Army, Department of Interior, and Department of Justice’s Tribal Consultation on Infrastructure Development Projects November 15, 2016 Federal Agency Consultation Prior Lake, MN The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (“SMSC” or “Tribe”) is a federally-recognized tribal government, located in Prior Lake, Minnesota. In recent decades, there has been a steady march of economic development toward our Reservation community. We are now surrounded by it. Our Tribe has been fortunate to play a significant role in the economic revitalization of our neighbors. With 4,200 employees, SMSC is the largest employer in Scott County. Our success with our tribal enterprises has allowed SMSC to provide a range of governmental services to our members. It has also enabled SMSC to partner with local governments to meet our broader community’s shared needs such as roads, water and sewer systems, and emergency services. Our Tribe administers social services for children and families, mental health and chemical dependency counseling, employee assistance, emergency assistance, public works, roads, water and sewer systems, health programs and a dental clinic, vehicle fleet and physical plant maintenance, membership enrollment, education assistance, regulatory commissions, economic planning and development, enterprise management and operations, cultural programs, an active judicial system, and many other governmental services. Our tribal government assumes full responsibility for the construction of all on-Reservation infrastructure. And in many instances, our infrastructure serves the needs of the neighboring communities surrounding our Reservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Was Gen. Henry Sibley's Son Hanged in Mankato?
    The Filicide Enigma: Was Gen. Henry Sibley’s Son Ha nged in Ma nkato? By Walt Bachman Introduction For the first 20 years of Henry Milord’s life, he and Henry Sibley both lived in the small village of Mendota, Minnesota, where, especially during Milord’s childhood, they enjoyed a close relationship. But when the paths of Sibley and Milord crossed in dramatic fashion in the fall of 1862, the two men had lived apart for years. During that period of separation, in 1858 Sibley ascended to the peak of his power and acclaim as Minnesota’s first governor, presiding over the affairs of the booming new state from his historic stone house in Mendota. As recounted in Rhoda Gilman’s excellent 2004 biography, Henry Hastings Sibley: Divided Heart, Sibley had occupied key positions of leadership since his arrival in Minnesota in 1834, managing the regional fur trade and representing Minnesota Territory in Congress before his term as governor. He was the most important figure in 19th century Minnesota history. As Sibley was governing the new state, Milord, favoring his Dakota heritage on his mother’s side, opted to live on the new Dakota reservation along the upper Minnesota River and was, according to his mother, “roaming with the Sioux.” Financially, Sibley was well-established from his years in the fur trade, and especially from his receipt of substantial sums (at the Dakotas’ expense) as proceeds from 1851 treaties. 1 Milord proba bly quickly spe nt all of the far more modest benefit from an earlier treaty to which he, as a mixed-blood Dakota, was entitled.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal and House District Boundaries
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribal Boundaries and Oklahoma House Boundaries ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 22 ! 18 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 13 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 20 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cimarron ! ! ! ! 14 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11 ! ! Texas ! ! Harper ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n ! ! Beaver ! ! ! ! Ottawa ! ! ! ! Kay 9 o ! Woods ! ! ! ! Grant t ! 61 ! ! ! ! ! Nowata ! ! ! ! ! 37 ! ! ! g ! ! ! ! 7 ! 2 ! ! ! ! Alfalfa ! n ! ! ! ! ! 10 ! ! 27 i ! ! ! ! ! Craig ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! h ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 26 s ! ! Osage 25 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! a ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 21 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 58 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 38 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes by House District ! 11 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Absentee Shawnee* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Woodward ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 36 ! Apache* ! ! ! 40 ! 17 ! ! ! 5 8 ! ! ! Rogers ! ! ! ! ! Garfield ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 40 ! ! ! ! ! 3 Noble ! ! ! Caddo* ! ! Major ! ! Delaware ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! Mayes ! ! Pawnee ! ! ! 19 ! ! 2 41 ! ! ! ! ! 9 ! 4 ! 74 ! ! ! Cherokee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ellis ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 41 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 72 ! ! ! ! ! 35 4 8 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5 3 42 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 77
    [Show full text]
  • The Prairie Island Community a Remnant of MINNESOTA SIOUX
    MR. MEYER is a member of the English faculty in Mankato State College. His familiarity with the history of Goodhue County, of which he is a native, combined with an interest in the Minnesota Sioux, led him to undertake the present study. The Prairie Island Community A Remnant of MINNESOTA SIOUX ROY W. MEYER A FAMILIAR THEME in American Indian recognition by the government and were al­ history concerns the tribe or fragment of a lowed to remain on Prairie Island, where tribe who either avoid government removal their children and grandchildren make up to some far-off reservation or who return to one of the few surviving Sioux communities their original homeland after exile. The in Minnesota today. Cherokee offer the most celebrated example. The Mdewakanton were one of the seven When they were removed from their native bands that composed the Sioux nation, and territory in the Southeastern Uplands and re­ the first white men to visit the Minnesota located west of the Mississippi in 1838-39, a country found them living near Mille Lacs few families remained behind and were Lake. The advance of the Chippewa, who later joined by others who fled the new area had obtained firearms from the whites, set aside for them. Their descendants hve forced them out of this region about the today on the Qualla Reservation in North middle of the eighteenth century, and they Carolina. moved southward to the lower Minnesota A Minnesota band of Mdewakanton Sioux River and the Mississippi below the Falls of provide another instance of this sort of back- St.
    [Show full text]
  • [Nps-Waso-Nagpra-Nps0031649; Ppwocradn0-Pcu00rp14.R50000]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/01/2021 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2021-06655, and on govinfo.gov 4312-52 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0031649; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Princeton University, Princeton, NJ AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Princeton University has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to Princeton University. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed. DATES: Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Princeton University at the address in this notice by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: Bryan R. Just, Princeton University Art Museum, Princeton, NJ 08544, telephone (609) 258-8805, email [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • LAND-USE CONFLICT at SHASTA DAM, CALIFORNIA a Thesis
    THE ROLE OF CRITICAL CARTOGRAPHY IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: LAND-USE CONFLICT AT SHASTA DAM, CALIFORNIA A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Geography by Anne Kathryn McTavish San Francisco, California January, 2010 Copyright by Anne Kathryn McTavish 2010 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read The Role of Critical Cartography in Environmental Justice: Land-use Conflict at Shasta Dam, California by Anne Kathryn McTavish, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree: Master of Arts in Geography at San Francisco State University. ____________________________________________________ Nancy Lee Wilkinson Professor of Geography ____________________________________________________ Jerry Davis Professor of Geography THE ROLE OF CRITICAL CARTOGRAPHY IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: LAND-USE CONFLICT AT SHASTA DAM, CALIFORNIA Anne Kathryn McTavish San Francisco State University 2010 The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) is conducting a feasibility study to increase the height of Shasta Dam. The Winnemem Wintu Indian Tribe contend that any increase in the storage capacity of Shasta Lake would inundate their remaining cultural and historic sites, tribal lands, and current homestead, an act they describe as “cultural genocide.” Critical Cartography plays a valuable role evaluating the Winnemem Wintu claim, revealing how the tribe’s claim to land was mapped, then unmapped, over the past two-hundred years. I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis. ___________________________________________ ________________ Chair, Thesis Committee Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have been amazed, delighted, appalled, and humbled as I learned about the rights, issues, and status of the Winnemem Wintu.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence and Decline of the Delaware Indian Nation in Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Country, 1730--1795
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2005 The emergence and decline of the Delaware Indian nation in western Pennsylvania and the Ohio country, 1730--1795 Richard S. Grimes West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Grimes, Richard S., "The emergence and decline of the Delaware Indian nation in western Pennsylvania and the Ohio country, 1730--1795" (2005). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 4150. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/4150 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Emergence and Decline of the Delaware Indian Nation in Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Country, 1730-1795 Richard S. Grimes Dissertation submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Mary Lou Lustig, Ph.D., Chair Kenneth A.
    [Show full text]
  • Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes
    National Plant Data Team August 2012 Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes and the Klamath Tribe of Oregon in the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology Collections, University of California, Berkeley August 2012 Cover photos: Left: Maidu woman harvesting tarweed seeds. Courtesy, The Field Museum, CSA1835 Right: Thick patch of elegant madia (Madia elegans) in a blue oak woodland in the Sierra foothills The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its pro- grams and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sex- ual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Acknowledgments This report was authored by M. Kat Anderson, ethnoecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Jim Effenberger, Don Joley, and Deborah J. Lionakis Meyer, senior seed bota- nists, California Department of Food and Agriculture Plant Pest Diagnostics Center. Special thanks to the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum staff, especially Joan Knudsen, Natasha Johnson, Ira Jacknis, and Thusa Chu for approving the project, helping to locate catalogue cards, and lending us seed samples from their collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware Indians V. Cherokee Nation, 193 US
    DELAWARE INDIANS v. CHEROKEE NATION. 127 193 U. S. Syllabus. beneficiaries of the $300,000, but the disposition of that under the treaty was to be in the United States, and only to be used for freedmen who should remove from the territory. None have removed. There is an intimation in the brief of their counsel that in their memorials to Congress they ex- pressed a willingness to remove, but Congress did not choose and has not chosen to remove them; indeed, has provided for the exact opposite-provided for the allotment of homes to them out of the lands of the Indians and for payment to the Indians therefor if it should be determined, in this suit, that the freedmen were not, independently of that agree- ment, "entitled to allotments in Choctaw and Chickasaw lands." As we hold the freedmen were not so entitled, the decree of the Court of Claims is Afirmed. DELAWARE INDIANS v. CHEROKEE NATION. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 240. Argued December 1, 2, 1903.-Decided February 23, 1904. In a suit brought under § 25 of the act of June 28, 1898, 30 Stat. 495, by the Delaware Indians residing in the Cherokee Nation for the purpose of determining their rights in and to the lands and funds of the Cherokee Nation under their contract and agreement with the Cherokee Nation of April 8, 1867. Held that the registered Delawares acquired in the 157,000 acres set off to them east of the ninety-sixth meridian only the right of occupancy during life with a right upon allotment of the lands to not less than 160 acres together with their improvements, and their children and descend- ants took only the rights of other citizens of the Cherokee Nation as the same are regulated by law.
    [Show full text]