Mission Indians and Indians of California Land Claims
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4880002 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Florence C Shipek (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1989 |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 409 |
| Publication date | 1989-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The American Indian Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0095-182X • E-ISSN: 1534-1828 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/1184524 |
| OpenAlex | W2014228172 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
SEVERAL ARTICLES AND MONOGRAPHS (Heizer and Kroeber 1976, Heizer 1978, Stewart 1978, Sutton 1985) have described aspects of Indian Claims Cases, primarily discussing Dockets 31 and 37, the of California Case. Although some described the Pitt River Case (Docket 347), none discussed the Mission Indians Claims Case, Docket 80. All Claims Cases had complex histories leading to the joint offer for an out of court settlement from the United States government. Complexities were due to the diverse nature and history of various regions of and to influences exerted by non-Indian advisors and attorneys. In fact, non-Indians determined the nature and wording of claims filed. The out-of-court settlement was accepted after meetings held separately by members of each case, the Mission Indian Case, Indians of Case, and Pitt River Case. The Pitt River vote was unsuccessfully contested. After settlement, non-Indians were among those prominent in expressing dismay at the 47 cents per acre, apparently without reading the Indian Claims Commission Act (H.R. 4497) of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat 1049:25 U.S.C. Sec. 70ff.) and without data on 1851 land values. This paper' presents a background sketch of the major claims, the nature of influences determining the wording of petitions and difficulties resulting therefrom, particularly, the Mission Indian Claims Case, Docket 80. In this case difficulties arose because anthropologists and non-anthropologists misconstrued contact period socio-politicalterritorial organizations due to post 1850 historical change. The 47 cents per acre settlement value is discussed. The first claim, Docket 31 before the Indian Claims Commission, was filed July 19, 1948 by representatives, and on behalf of the Indians of California. Several band members and representatives of intertribal organizations joined to obtain an attorney to file this case. Many bands and intertribal groups believed that the fictitious of California had become an identifiable group based upon a previous act of Congress (May 18, 1928: 45 Stat. 602) which defined it as all Indians who were residing in the State of on June 1, 1852, and their descendants now living in said state. This act allowed the Indians of to bring suit (known as K-344) against the United States for taking land without just compensation, specifically the
Archaeology · Geography · American Environmental and Regional History · History
Researching Indigenous Indians in Southern California
Where Have All the Anthros Gone? The Shift in California Indian Studies from Research “on” to Research “with, for, and by” Indigenous Peoples
Native Land Trusts
Tribal sovereignty in land use decision making
Archaeology and Social Justice in Native America
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,25 |
| Citation span | 2006 - 2025 (20) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |