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.
Quin (I hope I spelled it right)- those are wonderful points. The ideas that the Native Alaskan people seemed to want protected was their rights to live the way they had always lived for thousands of years. Knowing history of people, there needed to be a law that was enforceable. If not the Native Alaskan people would have had no way to protect their land and way of life if new people tried to build on it.
ReplyDeleteOuch...that hurt. I'm glad, Chin, that you are critical of the term "own" people tend to throw that word around in general. Put you bring up a good point, the argument is:
ReplyDeleteNatives should not acquire any land, because other inhibit it now, with proof of receipt.
The other argument is that because Natives were here first, and subsist off the land, they should have the right to acquire as much land as needed.
I tend to argue for the Natives, because I am sensitive to the needs of groups of people, and individuals alike.
I also believe that if Natives did not reclaim what was rightfully theirs, their culture would have been extinct by now.
I also believe that development in Alaska would have changed the ecosystem, the topography and everything else for everybody, if the Alaska Natives, did not protect their old way of life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen Alaska was first settled by white people, it may have been true that Native Alaskans were exclusively interested in preserving their lifestyle, and required land only as a means towards that end. Needless to say, many Alaska Natives today are still committed to preserving their traditional way of life.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that many Alaska Natives have been fully integrated into mainstream American society. These days, even small villages have many of the amenities of cities in the lower 48, making it possible to survive without traditional subsistence practices.
My point is that generalizations about Native goals or lifestyles are becoming increasingly inaccurate. Just because someone has a full-blooded indigenous grandparent (which qualifies him as a Native, according to ANCSA) doesn't necessarily mean that he will care very much about his grandparent's cultural traditions.
When I was reading about ANCSA I kept thinking, "Who were the Russians to think they could sell Alaska? What made them think it was theirs to sell?"
ReplyDeleteI asked a good friend of mine who is Alaska Native. She explained to me that in her opionion, it was because the fur traders were in Alaska before any other westerners. I thought that the Natives got a pretty raw deal, but then again so did all the other American Indians... my friend went on to say that some of the Russians stayed and became part of the villages. At this point it seems like ANCSA really helped a lot of Alaska Natives. She also said her family isn't bitter at all, just happy to have the help.
I would say "lifestyle" should really say "traditional life". Losing that was definately what the real concern is and still should be.
ReplyDeleteThe villages are definately much different than the towns we are used to. My experience from the remote villages I visited tell me that although mainstream is not quite the adjective I would use, they all have the modern technology that allows assimilation with western society. I have seen subsistence and tradition turned into commercial purposes only. Granted some of the resources are used personally but for the most part it is done in order to trade/sell for the purposes of more western ideals or to buy off corruption. Argue as much as you like but what is put on paper or spoken from the biased mouth does not always tell the true story.
You know, I wonder what the indigenous people were doing prior to the influence of the outsiders (Russians, missionaries, etc.)? Umm let see, They were living in harmony with the land. Think about it, we all (native or westerner)had none of the problems or concerns prior to territory and statehood. Sometimes, I think the arrogancy of the Western persona directly or indirectly affect the way we look at others for better or worse.
ReplyDeleteHi Quin,
ReplyDeleteActually, Alaska Natives do care about "their" lands. If they were given the opportunity by the US Government and Canada one more time to become the sole owners of Alaska and the Yukon Territory, there wouldn't be any hesitation.
The Alaska Natives, and the North American Indians (as I'm called because I don't live here due to the border-lines)would like to have the opportunity to continue to live a subsistence lifestyle along with the opportunity to continue to go to the grocery or convenience store when in need of food and so on. This is not all we need and want. There is so much more that needs to be clarified and settled when it comes to Land Claims. Much of the talks in Land Claims is Legal jargen that is hard for the grassroots or lay person to understand.
Yes, you are right in that they originally did not have the will to say that they owned the land; they claimed to work with the land to be able to survive.
ReplyDeleteIn essence it is like two patches of fleas upon a dog arguing over who owns the back.
With this point of view it is easier to understand why the Alaska Natives did not claim to own the land at first.
In order for the Natives to maintain live as it was, they did need vast amounts of land. If their way of life depended on the land, they were on the land first, and had no desire to give away the land, or to leave the land; than yes they deserved land.
Its hard for me to understand how Russia came to the conclusion that they owned Alaska. They didn't exactly conquer the territory. The concept of owning property was not relevant to the lives of indigenous people. People existed with the land. It was a reciprocal relationship. For some it still is but for the most part Alaska is filled with people who hold dear to their hearts the concept of owning. The clock cannot be turned back. If you don't own it you don't have control over it.
ReplyDelete"Own" is a western word use to separate the have and have not in our culture. Yes, the native did own the land because they were here thousands of years before whites came. In the Native culture they share what resources they had with each other. There is no spoken word for who own what and where and how much of the land. Most of the tribes use unmarked boundaries for subsistence living off the land. The Russian new who the land belong to so that's why it profitable for them to sell something they did not own to the United States.
ReplyDeleteI agree with BS, in the times before Russian fur trappers showed up the natives shared everything. Shared food, water, tools, everything. They had to, without help from everyone in the tribe they put themselves in danger of not making it through the seasons.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the issue is not land. But, land is necessary for the Alaska Native people to address an important issue to them and that is to continue their traditional way of life. They deserve to live the life that they choose to live, and not the one that society tries to impose upon them.
ReplyDeleteyou know in some parts you are correct, we just want to maintain our lifestyle. we do care who the land is 'owned' by. But if we have paper work either under Russia or America that our land is not to be disrupted, why would they want to own it in the first place? why wouldn't we just be our own country? Of course we would want protection from war from other countries, but if america isn't benefiting from Alaska after owning it, why would they want it in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThinking about deserving the land, i believe that yes alaskan native do deserve the land, we respect the land, we thank the spirits for granting us the land resources to nourish our body, and we would try and keep the cycle going. Who do the Americans thank for taking the oil from the land? Maybe the Alaskans, but we're not the one's producing the oil, how would they keep the cycle going?