Alaska indigenous Land Claims

http://www.unesco.org/csi/LINKS/monaco-ppts/McClintock_ppt_MonacoUNESCOarctic.pdf

I found this PDF when I was doing research for the final project.

There's some awesome pictures in this PDF, especially the picture of Kivalina.

^_^

http://www.newsminer.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Alaska+Board+of+Game+votes+to+double+permits+for+Nelchina+caribou+hunt%20&id=8939760&instance=h

This is link discussing a recent decision to increase the number of tier 1 permits in a given area. There are comments from ADF&G and the Ahtna. The discussion gets better after you get past the background part of the story. Most of the comments in response to the article are rediculous but always entertaining to read.

Preserving language

This is of course my own opinion but I do invite others to sway my thinking in another direction. Learning is a continuous experience. Feel free to flame me or educate me as appropriate. I am interested in hearing from others. Which of course is the reason to blog!

I am looking forward to hearing what Kalesha has to say. I was interested in learning the response but was discouraged when the answer was not revealed with a scholarly reason.

Kalesha's question was consistently redirected for reason of pride. Pride is not necessarily a bad thing but it is a selfish act that is defended in order to validate oneself. This in itself is neither bad nor good but it must be recognized. To ethically monitor yourself and be aware of your own identity will allow you to understand all related bias. It is this understanding that is the purpose of advancing education. It is human nature to protect and promote your own bias but it must be understood that you may be wrong even though your are being true to yourself. Different perspective is the only true understanding.

The analogy of killing a panda or an atomic bomb versus bows and arrows are analogies that do not relate. Written language has little establishment in human nature as a whole. I would offer that spoken language is part of identity but to lose it does not mean the end of a population or even individual identity. If losing the ability to speak one specific language was detrimental to identity there would be alot of lost souls in the world.

I did find the speaker and information to be interesting but knowing the "why" of preserving language over another was NOT answered. Granted, the way Alaska native language was taken is not right, however; the preservation of a language in order to justify saving a culture is not a good argument. This is especially true when it is a forced requirement. Progress is inevitable in human nature. This should be apparant to any cognitive mind.

photo essay or rural life

Here is a link to the Anchorage Daily News with a phote essay of rural life.

http://www.adn.com/2009/03/12/721082/life-in-rural-alaska.html

Time for me is up.

It is 11:57 I am off to my Psychology class. If anyone posts a new blog between now and 2:00 I can not comment on it.

The New Migrants

Alaska Native Claims/Alaska Natives and Their Lands (Ch 10)

When the Russians first came over to look for furs, they found the Aleuts living off the land in a peaceful setting. The Aleuts welcomed them as most all the natives did and the Russian (Barbarians) Trappers took full advantage of their hospitality. They wanted fur bearing animals such as the seal and the prized beaver pelts. They overtook and/or killed the men and took away their women and all their possessions and made them into slaves to hunt for them. (Peter Kostromitin, Makushin, 1878)

The Natives (uncivilized tribes) were unaware of the fact that the Russians had claimed ownership of their lands and most were even unaware of the fact that their land was sold to the United States. They were referred to the name “uncivilized tribes” in the Treaty of the United States. The US Army moved to Sitka where Russia had been posted right after the sale.

The Tlingit chiefs heard about the sale of their lands to the United States by the Russians and talked with the officials. They told them they did not give the permission to the Russians to sell their lands. They had only allowed the Russians the right to hunt or buy their furs. Their land had belonged to their forefathers and was not for sale, but it was already too late. The Americans couldn’t turn back on the deal they made or retrieve their money from the Russians.

Eventually two Tlingit men were killed by the soldiers. According to their way of law, the Tlingit demanded a settlement but nothing happened to repay for the lives lost. They retaliated by killing two white people. (then the Military wipes out a whole village!) The actions of the soldiers and the United States makes me wonder what would have been better for the natives in Alaska of the two evils?

If the Russians stayed, would the Natives have been worse off or better? The Russians established a Fort at Sitka and had a church run by the Archbishop Veniaminov. He taught in the language of the people and did not discourage them from learning in their language. (Of course, my bias is for language preservation) By that time the Russians and Tlingits were becoming more aquainted, so why did they sell off the land? The United States on the other hand wanted to civilize the Natives who they claimed were a part of the plants and fauna, not even human. They wanted to teach them to speak English because they couldn’t understand their languages, so then began the long drawn out saga of destruction for the Native people of Alaska.

(I hope the personal comments I made has not offended anyone. It is not meant to offend, but to share my opinions and bias.)

The Battle Over Who Gets What

I have to say, first, that this is a lot of information to take in and digest in a short period of time. There are so many complicated factors involved. I feel that no matter what decisions get made, Alaska will never be what it once was. Modern progress continues to weave its way through Alaska. I mourn for those who have had their cherished way of life ripped away from them. How does one successfully live in two worlds at the same time? Very few places if any, I presume, exist where life is lived completely in the old ways. Modern conveniences can make life easier in some respects, but it creates dependence on a cash economy. It seems like subsistence living has gone, for many, from being a pure means of survival to being a means of continuing a traditional way of life while, at the same time, being a way to earn money to pay for modern conveniences. What choice is there? How do people successfully move forward without letting go of their heritage, cultural identity?

As we discussed in class, regional corporations are given the responsibility to invest in way that will bring the greatest returns to its shareholders. Does money cure what ails? It may for some. For others it does more harm that good. In a perfect world those who want to continue to live the way they have for generations upon generations would be left to do so, undisturbed. In the real, savage world we live in its every man for himself so to speak. Those who have power decide the fate of others. Even those who start with the best intentions cannot fulfill the wants and needs of everyone.

So what is my point? Human beings have done great harm to other human beings by trying to civilize them. Nothing will truly make up for what has been lost. It is my opinion that regardless of what they agree to the Federal Government can do pretty much whatever it wants to. If the land was taken before it can be taken again. That is not to say that people should not continue to fight for what they feel is right, but there is probably never going to be an end to those battles.

"Reservation or No Reservations

" Reservations or No Reservations"

The "ANCSA"was a well written documents second to the Alaskan Constitution over statehood fighting for the protection, management, and right to a fair economic system to support Alaskans.
After reading sections of this document I feel that if the Native people would have continue down the path of establishing more reservations this would have been disastrous for many tribes over the years. When oil was discovered in Alaska 1968, Congress did not want any more reservation because it would be a lenghty court proceeding over Native Claims and tie up oil companies, unions,constructions, so the pipeline could not be built. In my opinion, this gave the native people an advantage along with Congress in getting the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act passed.
Many Alaskan Native leaders and AFN were opposed to reservations and reserves. They felt being a corporation would give them more control of their own destiny. Before 1971, when Native Indians Land was controlled by the government under Bureau of Indians Affairs on reservations. There was a lot of corruptions within the agencies, money allocated for American Indians was benefiting others, sale of mineral and timber contract was far below market value on tribal land. A lot of the land was miss used by the government employees and lucrative for many of the exploratory companies. The native people received very little revenue for their land.
The push from Congress and ANCSA helped develop the 13 Regional Corporations. This new approach gave Alaskan Native sole control of their land and money without BIA involvement.
Some thought if the land was turned over to a traditional government, become a reservation, the BIA might get control of it again. What do you think would have happen?

BS

Oops! Future Generations: The Missing Piece in the ANCSA Pie?

After reading the articles and reviewing the history behind the ANCSA legislation, this piece of legislation seems to have created a win-win situation for all parties involved. The politics of ANCSA gave the Federal government an out from the establishment of additional Native Alaskan reservations. The logistics of the corporation approach to ANCSA was a push to appease the Native Alaskans represented by the momentous Alaskan Federation of Natives (AFN). Governmental constituents realizing there was a need to quickly produce a land settlement piece in order to capitalize on the rich natural land reserves, oil, mineral resources and bountiful wildlife, fish and game. Reaching this collective agreement in an expedient manner would certainly satisfy the interests of the big three: conservationalist, big oil industrialist, and professional politicians. Because of the need for speed in passing this legislation, written in the original ANCSA documentation was the royal shafting of generations of Alaska Natives born after December 18, 1971, namely the "New Natives." Was this a political oversight or intended incongruity?

Long-winded ramble forces me to make uncomfortable conclusion

Disclaimer.
I don't necessarily believe in all or any of the ideas in this blog post. I'm playing devil's advocate. My primary objectives are to provoke thought and force people to justify their convictions. Please remember that no offense is intended.

Ramble.
Many of Alaska's first white settlers regarded the indigenous tribes of the region as a relatively homogeneous race of savages, not akin to true citizens of America in any significant way. The settlers' misunderstandings of the original inhabitants of the state have become common knowledge, and most people today consider it deplorable that a better understanding was not established between the two groups of people.

I've been aware of these bigoted attitudes for a long time. But something new struck me as I browsed through the paper written by William Hensley and the Alaska Native Land Claims e-book. The language of this early legislation portrays the natives not necessarily as an inferior race, but as a childlike one which is earlier along the route towards maturation. According to the verdict of United States v. Cadzow, for instance, which Hensley cites in his paper, "the uncivilized native tribes of Alaska are wards of the government; [and the] United States has the right, and [the] duty, to protect the property rights of its Indian wards" (emphasis added). The term "ward" is often used to describe people (especially minors) who are dependent on others for their welfare. The implication in this clause seems to be that natives were helpless without the U.S. government.

Alaska's indigenous tribes, of course, never consented to being adopted either by the United States or Russia. The thousands of years that indigenous people flourished in Alaska before the conquest of the white man makes it abundantly clear that they were capable of providing for themselves, even though their conception of civilization differed from Western ideals.

But according to Cadzow, in addition to a number of other documents from the same time period (see the letter from the Office of the Solicitor in Chapter 12 of the Alaskool e-book, for instance), the U.S. government voluntarily shouldered the responsibility of protecting the natives and helping them to achieve maturity as full-fledged citizens of the United States. Only civilized, grown-up natives would, according to Article 3 of the Treaty of Cession, "be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States."

The implicit supposition in this attitude toward the "immature" native tribes is that progress is linear and unidirectional. This view holds that the tribe's abandonment of their "barbaric" cultural practices and their assimilation into the relatively homogeneous society of the United States were definitely steps in the right direction. The adult society inducted the childlike society into adulthood.

Is it really the case that the United States' industrial development and civilization made it the more grown-up of the two conflicting societies? In other words, would the Alaskan natives, given enough time, have made the same technological innovations and discoveries as the progress-driven white folks, thereby embarking on the same path toward societal maturity? Or is it possible that the progress of different peoples across the globe does not converge on a single, one-way vector, but actually diverges along any number of paths toward societal actualization?

I think that most people's gut response to this question would be that Alaskan natives were just as sophisticated as the Russians and Americans who colonized their land, and that it was therefore ridiculous for the U.S. government to act as some kind of adopted big brother or father to the natives without their invitation.

But the question is not as straightforward as it might seem. We must remember that our instinctive reactions to questions of cultural supremacy are as much a byproduct of our education and background nowadays as they were a century ago. As the European settlers were taught that their nations and culture were superior to those of the aboriginal tribes, so most Americans today are taught that different peoples and cultural practices are fundamentally equal. Like our forerunners, we are a product of our times. We don't know the absolute truth of the matter any more than they did.

We should also remember that most societies in Eurasia developed along somewhat parallel paths for thousands of years, more or less independently of one another. All across the Old World, and even in Mesoamerican societies in the New World, tribes of people eventually abandoned their subsistence lifestyle, developed a sustainable form of agriculture, and settled down in one place. These small settlements gradually grew and merged together to form towns and cities. The rest is history.

Outside of southeast Alaska, however, most natives lived off the land, traveling seasonally between a number of campsites rather than living in one place year-round. Given enough time undisturbed by colonists, would the natives have eventually embraced sedentary agriculture and urbanization like the rest of the world? Or would they maintain their traditional ways?

At least in its southcentral and interior regions, Alaska contains large tracts of fertile land. It's conceivable that natives eventually would have cultivated these lands if it were not for the intrusion of white settlers. Moreover, since agriculture has always been the impetus for a nomadic band to settle down in one place, natives would probably have abandoned their hunter-gatherer ways if this had occurred.

This train of reasoning seems to illustrate a developmental trajectory similar to that of many other early human civilizations.

The logical conclusion of these premises is that, prior to the arrival of American settlers, native Alaskans were at an earlier point along the path of societal development than the Europeans. The settlers who imperiously adopted the indigenous peoples as their "wards," and gave lip-service, at least, to the idea of integrating them into mainstream American society, truly were the adults in the partnership.

Note that this conclusion does not say anything about the inherent superiority of one race over another. It simply acknowledges that there is a certain justification in the language of the legal documents cited above.

What was lost, perhaps, when white settlers invaded Alaska was not the possibility of preserving the natives' age-old civilization, but rather their self-determination---the opportunity to travel along the same path as Europe and the rest of the world without being prematurely dragged forward.

This conclusion is rather troublesome to me, as I believe that all peoples are fundamentally equal, and the acknowledgment that Alaskan natives were, in some respects, at an earlier stage of civilization than the American settlers seems to be a sign of creeping racism. Please save me from my logic. I invite you to poke holes in my argument. Have fun.

(Please remember, of course, that I am playing devil's advocate.)

ANCSA

I found it interesting that one of the readings had mentioned William Hensley, from Kotzebue. I've learned that he was one of the founders of Alaska Federation of Natives, and ANCSA. Reading how he grew up not being able to learn about his own cultures history and traditions, made me wonder how people were chosen to become one of the spokes men for their people. When it was time for Alaska Natives to choose where their land was located, who where the people that decided where the border line was? How were those people chosen to do that job?
I also was wondering about the education system. Yes children were sent out to boarding schools, then people started to stand up for having local schools in rural villages. How did that go about? Now every Alaskan Native has the same rights as every other American. They have the right to an education. Like we were talking in class on how if they don't have more then ten students the school is shut down. It make me think of how in college they allow distance courses. How some classes are paper based, and how that might be able to apply to k-12 education. Do they allow that to take place, or do they just leave the nine students that were left with their school getting shut down, to try and get their own education?

Assignment Extension

Given that we are not where anticipated with regard to content at this point the assignment is hereby extended until Wednesday, July 26 at 1:59 pm.

Over the next 2.25 days please read your classmates posts carefully and provide feedback that relates back to the articles, or the content of the law or your experiences you might draw upon.


dave.

The "have" and "have not" Alaska Natives

According to the article about ANCSA, "As the law now stands, there is a split between the 'have' and 'have not' Alaska Natives." Since only those Alaska Natives born on or before December 18, 1971 were eligible to receive stock, it was reported that by 1991 over 50% of Alaska Natives may not be shareholders. This fact surprised me. Given the importance of the land to maintain their traditional lifestyle, I believe this is an unforseen effect of the provisions in ANCSA. I believe it was the intent of the Alaska Native people, to insure through this claims act, that the land and stock provided in the agreement would always be there to sustain them. While the "New Natives", as they are referred to in the article, will be able to inherit stock and purchase stock (when and if it becomes available), those who are not Alaska Native will be able to purchase the stock as well. As the population of Alaska Natives born on or before December 18, 1971 declines, how will the language in ANCSA that created the "have" and "have not" Alaska Natives impact the stock and land ownership? Should this issue be addressed soon? If so, by whom?
Mary

Do the Native Alaska Deserve land ?

I am wondering if there is a word “own” in Native Alaska language. They live in this land, don’t have the sense to own the land, or any other resources. They only share the land, and only take the resources on the land for living purpose.

US government used the similar methed to solve the Native Land Problem as when they deal with the Native Indian People. On the excuse of improve the living quality of Native Indian People, forcing the tribes division all the land to individuals, and sold the rest to whites, which resulted the disintegration of social structures of native Indian people.

For the ANCSA, the only difference is the Native Alaskan get much more land than Native Indian due to their special lifestyle.

I just think the issue is not the land, but their lifestyle. They don’t care the land is under Russia or America as long their way of life is not disturbed. They don’t deserve land, they just want to maintain the way of their lives.

Gimme some slack: I'm not lazy, I'm slow.

Earlier today, I had the best intentions of writing a post tonight. But now, as of ten minutes to one, I know that is impossible. Anything that comes out of my head in my current state of exhaustion, after I've toiled over the articles for far longer than the three hours I anticipated, is bound to be incomprehensible. Therefore I promise to hammer out a couple of paragraphs in the early morning tomorrow (today!), so you will have plenty of time to comment on my post before class.

In order to determine the approximate amount of time that it will take me to read a given piece in the future, I will multiply Professor Veazey's estimation by 2.5.

G'nite.

Corporations

The Readings

The Alaska Native Claims Association (ANCSA) readings.

In January 2010, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “person” to include corporations. This controversial ruling eases restrictions on corporations contributing unlimited amounts of money to general, state and local elections. The controversy comes from the fact that corporate interests could outspend legitimate candidates, or promote candidates who will serve the interests of the corporation, and or create an incentive for candidates to appeal to corporations to “elect” them instead of their constitutes in home districts.

The ANCSA reading included a paragraph on corporations:

“The concept or idea of a corporation is often difficult to grasp. We may know one when we see it, but describing one can be confounding. The above definition can be more easily understood, if it is reversed and we think of a corporation as a person. In many respects, the law treats corporations like persons. Like any other "person," a corporation can apply for and receive credit from a bank. A corporation has a "birth certificate" in the form of its charter, which is issued by the state. The "birth certificate" or charter gives a place and time of birth. Unlike a person, a corporation does not have to die. It can "live on" indefinitely. "Death" occurs only when assets (if any) are sold and the corporation is dissolved.”

I would have to disagree that a corporation is anything like a person on one major bases, that the separate legal entity that a corporation is, is designed so that shareholders are not personally responsible for the corporations liabilities and debts. A person, in its traditional sense, is responsible for its liabilities and debts.

I personally found this subject the most interesting segment of the reading, just because in some cases in the country corporations were seen as a “person”. Now the Supreme Court’s decision uniformly makes all corporations “persons”. And as if big corporations are not already embedded into the law making process (Congress), corporations are now allowed to buy our elections.

Over all, my beef with this ruling has nothing to do with the ANCSA and their corporations, in terms of the reading. I am actually indifferent to corporations in general, but against the notion that they are “people” or “persons”.

I also noticed the debate over who should be able to form a corporation. In chapter 20 of the Alaskcool readings, the debate over whether or not Alaska Natives should have the ability to create and maintain corporations goes against the pro-capitalist, pro-business mentality that so many republican and conservative politians argue for. Opposing this option for Native peoples, conservative Congressman Wayne Aspinall of Colorado suggested that Congress should not allow this power to Natives because of the "lack of democratic controls in a large corporation, particularly with unsophisticated people." Clearly the issue was race, and not business. But I am impressed that Congress was able to push through this landmark Legislation that it did, even if it did take over several years.

THE ALASKAN NATIVE AND THE TREATY OF CESSION, 1867

This reading did not give me the feeling of satisfaction at how far we have come as a country and as a state in the last 143 years since we purchased Alaska, I would say I have more of a disgraceful feeling when it comes to this country. We had already officially been the U.S. for 91 years when we bought the Alaskan territory, and we still were handling the Native people the same way we always had by showing up, claiming their land, and telling them they need to become "civilized". Alaska was and still is a huge area with lots of natural resources, and I think today we have only moved from being less forceful and openly cruel to understanding and dealing with people such as the Alaska Natives better so that we can still use their resources for the same profitable reasons while not looking like the bad guys.
Failing to recognize the simple fact that we all just happen to be different was a huge complication for Alaska and it's early policies of dealing with the Natives because we treated them the same throughout the whole territory causing the destruction of some ways of life. Although things have been worked out in Alaska regarding citizenship for Natives and some reparations, there are still problems here from what we have done in the past and I think dealing with these problems should be more of a concern than they currently are. Obviously things can't go back to the way they were but I don't think we should forget how we changed them and what we can do to really do help to Alaskan communities.

Errors in Fundamental Planning by US Government

The one message I have taken away from this reading is that the United States seems to have a terrible track record when it comes to making decisions affecting the Native people. They thought that the entire population of Native Alaskans lived in "fixed abodes" based on the small amount of knowledge they had from Tlingit-Haida Natives living in Southeast Alaska. The fact was that many of the Western and Northern natives, such as the Eskimo, were migratory.
Another embarrassing example of the American judgement system in Alaska is Project Chariot. Project Chariot was the idea of setting off a nuclear device(?!) in order to create a harbor near Cape Thompson to ship minerals. One can only imagine the implications such an act could have had on the local wildlife Natives relied on. While I do believe that this project could have had positive effects the fact still remains that the government made no effort to consult the local Natives. It's not hard for me to understand why many natives were opposed to ANCSA when even up to the Statehood movement many Natives were not even aware that their homeland was under American ownership. When someone comes into your homeland and tells you, "Ok, well, we actually own this land so were going to dig holes in the ground and disrupt the entire ecosystem but don't worry you might get some money out of it." This is one of those sensitive issues for me when it comes to American history, as far back as it goes little has changed when it comes to original inhabitants of "American" soil.

Not really Slacking

Okay, so I've read most of the readings, but I still have some to do. I will post my comments in bulk later this evening if anyone is interested in what I have to say.

kp

Early Alaska and the south eastern tribes

Not being from Alaska I never knew much about any of the history that the government had with the Natives when it first arrived. I found it very interesting that the Tlingits in South East Alaska were alot more violent then I had imagined. I have always imagined the natives of Alaska to not have much fight in them that maybe the rest of Native Americans in the lower 48 had. I guess I have always imagined them this way due to the history of Alaska that I have read about, which was usually focused on relations with the natives post-1800s. Of course the peacefulness of each tribe has to differ of course. Reading about the Tlingits really surprised me, I think that when the US army left Sitka to go fight in Idaho leaving the Tlingits in power must have really scared the American and Russian population that was left there, knowing that they had seriously changed their way of life.

Another thing which I will make short is the way that the Natives were put into this situation, in the third reading it said that the NAtives had told the Russians that they could use their lands, not own it, but that wasn't said. And when the russians sold it to the US it must have been incomprehensible to them that they now owned it.

The great debate over Alaska land…

Do Alaska Natives deserve rights to land? And if so, how much? These are tough questions I’ve been asking myself. In the reading, “What Rights to Land Have the Alaska Natives?: The Primary Question” by William L. Hensley, I thought a lot of the points made regarding how much land Alaska Natives should or should not get were interesting. I think Alaska Natives are entitled to some land. How much seems to be a much more difficult question. It had not occurred to me previously that because some of the Native Alaskan tribes were migratory, such as the Eskimos and Interior region Alaska Natives, the amount of land they would receive would be so debated. Should migratory Natives be given more land? Is that fair to the other Natives who were more sedentary, such as the Tlingits? What or who should determine how much land each group is entitled to? I have no answers to these questions, but I’ve been giving them a lot of thought. The only insight into the situation that I have, is that I’m Native American, but from the lower 48. I know, not the same. I agree Alaska is unique, but my grandparents and great-grandparents were also treated unfairly. It was common for tribes to be pushed off of their land, relocated to much smaller reservations, and “civilized”. Was it right? No. Did it happen all over the world to many different cultures? Yes. Most Native Alaskans had no idea they were considered Russian, then they were sold and became American. But how should the situation be rectified? We can’t go back to the way things were. And now all Alaskans, Native or not, are Americans. The Native Alaskans receive the same rights and benefits as all other Americans, are they entitled to more?
As always I tend to see both sides of the issue, making it difficult for me to have much of an opinion one way or the other. So I’d really like to hear everyone else’s opinion, especially because most everyone in the class has lived in Alaska longer than I have.
Thanks everyone : )

When deciding on the land distribution and allocation of money associated with ANCSA the politics got messy, and I am sure not well received by any native Alaskan who was working for improvements to their status quo. What someone would think is an easy task of even determining how to define a native proved to be difficult. The intent was to organize native into business groups and allow them to continue “tradition” while also ensuring economic success in line with the rest of the American organizations. In order to ensure proper application of the laws set forth; a clear definition of tradition, subsistence area etc had to be made. Obviously fair allocations of real estate could always be argued just as much as a true defined area of traditional subsistence. Here again the idea of subsistence was tied into commercial gain. The greediness associated with modern values struck those involved in the decision making process. Policy makers were protecting their assets, lawyers were ensuring no stone was unturned so they could extend their value, and the natives themselves did not just want their subsistence, they wanted to achieve economic status that would ensure an easier and more modern life.

I find these particular conversations very enlightening and true to how villages are today:
“A Native may be granted a single allotment of not to exceed 160 acres of land. All the lands in an allotment need not be contiguous but each separate tract of the allotment should be in reasonably compact form.”22

This has turned into 1/4 mile tracts of land extending for hundreds of miles in order to draw an imaginary line that equates to more land than initially set aside.

Imagine the line equates to 100 acres but what is inside the box is not accounted for. This is indicative of the Denali Highway corridor and much of Kodiak. I am sure there are other places as well but I am most familiar with these areas. Tracts of land are in someplaces only 20 yards wide but in order to access the land past the line, a very hefty trespass fee is required. On Kodiak it is upwards to $500 a day once you are passed the line because the only way out is across the line again.

“Senator Nelson. Do you think that if the Government gave them a good big reservation they would get along all right?
“Peter Kokrine, an Indian. I think the Government would have to take care of the reservation.”38 --WELFARE---
One of the resolutions adopted by the city of Nome contained a statement recommending that “immediate action be taken by Congress to the end that suitable reservations be set aside for the Native Eskimos of Northwestern Alaska, and suitable buildings erected in which they may be housed and maintained under the supervision of established agencies.”39

A true look at history shows Alaska natives to be nomadic in order to subsist as their identity is reliant on. There are people that continue to subsist without the continued support of government rations etc. A line of private native corporation property should not be drawn just as a line of public property accessible by only some people of a particular cultural background can be drawn. Alaska is not a land of toll booths for maintenance reasons. By allowing land grabs for no other reason than to deny access we are destroying the definition of private property and denying the concept of stewardess of nature.

ANCSA Law

Section 21 (a) stated that the $962.5 million, which Native Corporations or individual Natives would receive, could not be taken back by government through taxation.
Section 21 (b) The receipt of shares of stock in the Regional or Village Corporations by or on behalf of any Native shall not be subject to any form of Federal, State, or local taxation.
Section 21 (c) The receipt of land . . . shall not be subject to any form of Federal, State, or local taxation . . .
Section 21 (d) Real property interest conveyed, pursuant to this Act . . . shall be exempt from state and local real property taxes for a period of twenty years after the date of enactment of this Act.

I found this part of the law interesting. Section 21 (a) makes complete sense. The original amount need not be taxed. Section 21 (c) makes sense when you look at the original wording "receipt of land". To me this means the original receipt of the land not the continuing occupation or owning of the land. Generally speaking I find government to be money hungry, I am suprised that they weren't asking for tax money directly after the giving. Section 21 (d) when taking into account the intent of the law is fascinating as well. They thought enough ahead to allow the corporations time to get on their feet before taxing them.

The part that I am most curious about is section 21(b). The law reads that the shares of stock are not taxable. Is this typical? To my knowledge shares of stock are taxable, but is it only in the selling and not the receipt of the stock? Are the stock holders free from tax today? When Doyon pays its dividends are those taxed? They are dividends and therefore different from stocks correct? Again is it the word "receipt" that is important in the interpretation of the law? I can't imagine a government allowing for income to be tax free forever.

Another piece that occurred to me as I was reading was the apparent cooperation of all of the Alaska Native tribes. It seems early on that they realized more would be gained if they worked together instead of separately. Traditionally these tribes would have not interacted much if at all (ie Inupiat Eskimos and Aleuts). I think that having a united voice helped to accomplish their goal. It would have been easier for Congress to deny their wishes if every group wanted something different or if each group was asking different people at altering times.

ANCSA

Congress immediately extinguished all Alaska Native rights to traditional land [conf. section 4], it did not, in return, immediately pay Alaska Natives.

To add to the with-holding of funds,

Section 6(b): None of the funds paid or distributed pursuant to this section to any of the Regional and Village Corporations established pursuant to this Act shall be expended, donated, or otherwise used for the purpose of carrying on propaganda, or intervening in (including the publishing and distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. Any person who willfully violates the foregoing provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than twelve months, or both.

They hand cuffed the money given to the Natives. That money could not be spent to gain the help of politicians or other persons regarding Native Corporations. The fact that section 6(b) was built into ANCSA is low. I take that back, if you are on the side of a government that wants to keep Alaska Natives in a situation where it would be nearly impossible to influence their future and to gain the support of those in power such as policy makers, than section 6(b) is great.
I know it is a fact, and is now a part of history, the thing that burns me is that if given the opportunity to do it again, the government would follow the same route.

According to section 10(a) : . . . any civil action to contest the authority of the United States to legislate on the subject matter or the legality of this Act shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within one year of enactment of the Act . . .

That the Natives only had one year after enacted to dispute any of the Act was not fair. The Natives were so involved with adhering to what needed to be set up so they can function as a Corporation, they did not have time to fully go through the act with a fine tooth comb and pull out all the bugs.

To put the greed of those involved with the pipeline ahead of the need for informed consent of the Alaskan Natives is sad. With the rushed implementation of ANCSA, and with all the embedded wording, not to mention the trauma and racial discrimination that Natives have gone through, it is no wonder that there is such a need for help in Native populated areas.

Why did ANCSA became law?

Previously, I had only very general knowledge of ANCSA. I was shocked to discover through the readings that the motivation behind ANCSA becoming law was oil. I had always naively assumed that the land conveyances had finally come into being out as act of fairness and justice toward the native population of Alaska. I do however believe that the indigenous population of Alaska was fairly compensated and continues to be so. It is just unfortunate that oil was our government's motivation to settle the land claims.

Alaska Geography 302 Summer 2010: Arctic Science Policy

Alaska Geography 302 Summer 2010: Arctic Science Policy: "I hesitate to post anything from the Fairbanks News Miner because I find it to be a poorly written publication, however; I did see this toda..."

Hey guys!

Thanks Dave for re-inviting me. The first invitation I deleted because I thought you were trying to sell me something.

Arctic Science Policy

I hesitate to post anything from the Fairbanks News Miner because I find it to be a poorly written publication, however; I did see this today and found it appropriate.

http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/8858224/article-Obama-assigns-Arctic-science-policy-to-White-House?instance=home_news_window_left_bullets

President Obama has moved arctic science policy oversight to a White House council, according to a news release from the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.Arctic science policy will be organized by Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, the news release announced Thursday.Holdren is a member of the White House National Science and Technology Council. Under the new organization, the council’s environment and natural resources committee will oversee activities of the federal Interagency Arctic Research and Policy Committee.The interagency committee was created by Congress in 1984 at the urging of then-Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska. It surveys arctic research to help set federal priorities in natural resources, physical and biological sciences and social and behavioral sciences.The same act of Congress established the Arctic Research Commission, a presidentially appointed group that recommends broad arctic policy goals. The commission has seats for four scientists, two private industry representatives and an indigenous leader.“The commission has long encouraged this change, and we’re pleased with the president’s action,” Michele Longo Eder, an Oregon attorney and fishing company owner who is acting chairwoman, said of the president’s reorganization of research oversight. “IARPC needs to draft a new five-year arctic research program plan, and we’re hoping to see it completed in less than a year.”In June, Obama appointed Mary Pete, director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Kuskokwim campus in Bethel, to the indigenous people’s seat on the commission. Other Alaskans include Helvi Sandvik, president of NANA Development Corp. and Buck Sharpton, UAF’s vice chancellor for research.

continuation of pluralistic misuse of power

In response to the brushing off of public versus state issues. This is no doubt a state issue and continues to be neglected. Some examples for an easier understanding:
1. You must pay to visit chena lakes recreation area. To get around paying you can go to a close neighborhood and walk through someones privately owned law as well as park on thier property. This is a constant issue of private property and will not be enforced by either state or local police because of the "right of way" law. Meanwhile the owner of the property has posted signs and built fences but they continue to be torn down. So much for having a nice house on a lake!
2. One of the few remaining privately owned farms in the Matanuska valley in Palmer, AK that was built by pioneers and still makes money with no "farm aid" or other federal/state grants is being forced into a "right of way" passage. A 500 acre vegetable farm is being cut into thirds with no compensation to the owner in order to allow private contractors to have a road built to access new land to build on (eqestrian acres subdivision) . By doing this farming will not be able to continue and the private airstrips will not be able to be used. These airstrips are used for the owner to fly the State Fish & Game out for animal surveys (they also do not want to lose this airstrip). Basically the family income is destroyed by the state right of way law with no compensation. The local government claims it is a state issue because of the right of way laws, the State government said is a local issue since its private property. Notice the legal statement linked below: Some rights-of-way will likely be improved for access to valuable state resources, communities, and land.
Although this is not state land it will improve the community by allowing increased economical progression. Of course at the cost of a successful farm.

The first link is a good factsheet. The second is a legal study provided by an outside organization (Duke Law). The third is an interesting read. Notice the question I posted and see if you can google fu it!

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/rs2477.pdf
What are the rules for using R.S. 2477 rights-of-way?
Some rights-of-way will likely be improved for access to valuable state resources, communities, and land.


Misuse of right of way laws in Alaska.
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?19+Alaska+L.+Rev.+433


Alaska ownership of water law. Can anyone tell me where in Alaska is the only salmon spawning river that is owned by one private owner?
http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/alaska.html

The Battle of Alaska Statehood

I found it interesting that many of the issues facing the Territory of Alaska are similar to the issues that the State of Alaska is still facing. Compare the issues Mark Begich is pushing compared to what was read in the excerpt from the book.

Most interesting is the comment on page 40. What do you think Gruening had on his mind and what do you think he meant by the comment " Our coast extends to the naked-eye visibility of Asia from which will arise some of our greatest and most pressing problems in the generations to come.".

What was Gruening concerned about: the oceans natural resources, war, influx of new people? His experience with the Japanese invasion on the Aleutian chain or perhaps the knowledge that controlling the coastline against foreign fisheries was going to be a costly venture.

subsitence

I finally got my account to work! Explorer had issues but I found firefox to work perfectly.

http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/8791875/article-Ahtna-Nelchina-caribou-hunt-violates-state-constitution--court-rules?instance=home_lead_story

Also notice the previous stories linked at the bottom of this article before posting a response.

I am most interested in subsistence and what it really means to tradition. Here are some terms that can be perplexing when you compare them. I also have a personal interest in the history of potlatches and how it relates to the utilization of resources today. Who should really be able to control how much of a natural resource is used and to what extent for commercial reasons?

-subsistence
-tradition
-personal use
-tier I and II for identifying hunting/fishing regulations.

I find tradition is the most difficult to explain due to the ever changing cultures that use "tradition" as a purpose for actions. Is there a start and end point for tradition and what kind of modifications can be done to a tradition for it to still be applicable today. For example: using a fish wheel to commercial fish or high speed boats for whaling. The Makah of Washington State are allowed to use a .50 rifle and high horsepower water craft for whale hunting. Their quota is limited but should it be allowed at all knowing that whales are a declining resource?

no internet at home

So a tree falls on the power line the other night.  Quick work with the chain saw - saved the power but the internet went on the blink a day later...coincidence perhaps?  Anyway, no internet for me at home until this weekend so if you really need something you can call me on my cell.

Yuuyaraq Reading

The Harold Napoleon book can be found at the website:
http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/publications/Books/Yuuyaraq.pdf

My hope is that you will learn and understand this through two ways besides just reading the information:
1. Try to find ways that the journey of Harold and the people he describes might relate to your own life experiences. The more you are able to do this I thing the richer the understanding you will have of the events that shape Alaska Native culture.
2. When writing the essay, please try to reflect upon how the reading has changed your perspective regarding Alaska Native people and Western people.....don't just think abstractly about a "culture". When you write think about a real person. Perhaps you picture Alaska Native people in the context of a community dance in a small village, a fish camp, an Anchorage attorney or a group of drunk individuals staggering along 2nd street in Fairbanks. A western person might be a business person in Alaska, a politician, a social worker, a hunter or even individuals from history - realize they were all probably, in their worldview and at their time, doing what they thought was best and most right.