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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ………………………………………………………….…………. x
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………. xi
List of Appendices ……………………………………………………………….. xiii
Frontispiece ………………………………………………………………………. xv
1. Introduction: Purpose and Significance ……………………………………… 1
List of Abbreviations ……………………………………………………. 5
Terminology ……………………………………….……………………. 5
Study Area ………………………………………………………………. 9
2. Theoretical Framework ...…………………………………………………….. 11
3. Methods .……………………………………………………………………… 15
Historic Material ………………………………………………………… 16
Digital Data Sources …………………………………………………….. 19
Paper Maps ……………………………………………………………… 19
Text Descriptions Used to Locate Details on the Map ………..………… 21
Conversations With the Winnemem Wintu …………………...………… 21
4. Putting the Wintu on the Map ………………………………….…………….. 22
Methodology ……………………………………………………………. 25
vii
Wintu Territory Boundaries ………………………………………..……. 25
Kroeber ………………………………………………………………….. 26
DuBois …………………………………………………………………... 30
LaPena, 1978 ..…………………………………………………………... 32
LaPena, 2002 ..…………………………………………………………... 34
Merriam ………………………………………………………………… 35
Powers ………………………………………………………………….. 38
Norel-Putis and the Winnemem Wintu …………………………………. 39
Winnemem Wintu Historical Villages .…………………………………. 41
Tribal Recognition……………………………………………………….. 44
Summary ………………………………………………………………… 45
5. Taking the Wintu off the Map ………………………………………... 48
Methodology …………………………………………………………….. 49
California Before Statehood …………………………………………….. 49
Squatters and Homesteaders …………………………………………….. 54
Unratified Treaties ………………………………………………………. 57
Railroads ………………………………………………………………… 60
Competition for Land in the McCloud Watershed ……………………… 64
viii
Baird Fish Hatchery ……………………………………………………... 65
Sportsman’s Paradise ……………………………………………………. 71
U.S. Forest Service ……………………………………………………… 76
Allotments ………………………………………………………………. 77
1891: Special Agent Michael Piggott …………………………………… 79
1900: Special Agent William E. Casson ………………………………... 83
1905: Special Agent C. E. Kelsey ……………………………………… 86
1915: Special Agent John Terrell ……………………………………….. 90
1922 – 1928 ……………………………………………………………... 94
1929 – 1937 ……………………………………………………………... 95
Summary ………………………………………………………………… 97
6. Shasta Dam ………………………………………………………... 100
Methodology ……………………………………………………………. 101
Building Shasta Dam ……………………………………………………. 101
USBR and the Redding Allotments …………….……………………….. 105
Central Valley Project Studies; Problem 23 (CVP Problem 23) ..….…… 106
National Archive Documents from the USBR ………………………….. 107
USBR Letters……………………………………………………………. 109
ix
Central Valley Project Indian Lands Acquisition Act, 55 Stat 612 ……... 112
USBR Transferred Payment for the Allotments to the BIA …………….. 113
USBR Had to Move Graveyards ………………………………………... 114
Were Indian Owners Treated Differently Than White Owners? ……...… 117
New Plans to Increase the Height of Shasta Dam ………………………. 121
Summary………………………………………………………………… 127
7. Putting the Winnemem Wintu Back on the Map …………..…………... 129
Spiritual Practice ..…………………………………………..…………… 130
Political Action .…………………………………………...…………….. 132
8. Summary of Results, Discussion, and Conclusion ……………………... 134
References …………………………………………………………………... 139
Appendices ………………………………………………………………….. 162
Full Text
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق