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 you take into consideration the way that the "Lower 48 Indians" were treated it seems that the Native Alaskan tribes were treated far more fairly. The land they have been given hasn't been taken away without their consent since ANCSA law was signed (to my knowledge). This is not true of the Lower 48. Treaties were signed regularly, and then regularly broken.
ReplyDeleteThankfully the U.S. is a nation and operates as one. This allows us to ask these hard questions. The postmodern change to our culture continues to "boldy go where no man has gone before". I don't know if you watch much Star Trek but for educational purposes and ethics it really can't be beat. My favorite is the Next Generation with Jean Luc Picard. The "Prime Directive" is a great concept and looking at the show now you can see how the originator was truly a visionary. I don't think I answered any questions for you but I can assure you that if more of our nations decision makers watched this show they would be more culturally sensitive.
ReplyDeleteI agree, watching Star Trek is awesome and there are a lot of really cool messages in it. Especially in dealing with different groups just as we are still trying to figure out how to do today. I think questions like these will only be answered when more and more people become educated on a global scale because whether anyone likes it or not we are only going to continue to step on each others toes until we either fall apart or go into space like Star Trek :)
ReplyDeletewell, technically the situation has been rectified, after all ANSCA was finalized on the 18th of December, 1971.
ReplyDeleteAs to the health and well being of those people affected by ANSCA and all the history that comes with it; that is another conversation.
How does a Government "fix" a population after disturbing their way of life in such a manner that the people can never go back to that way of life?
Oops, that was to say ANCSA, not ANSCA. Sorry, I sometimes switch my letters around...
ReplyDeleteHahaha... Star Trek is pretty awesome! I never thought of it that way, but good point.
ReplyDeleteLaura,
ReplyDeleteI did not know that you are Native American! That's awesome! No wonder you like to bungee jump you are fearless!
Though it does not matter, I believe that Native Americas have a rich, unique pre and post history of America. I always wished that I was Jewish or Chinese, because of the rich history. Although I do know the names of some of my great great great great grandparents who were slaves, the older history is lost. So I think that you being a descendant of the past is cool. Make sure you get as much family history from your relatives as you can!
As for the Alaska Native, I also can see both sides of the argument, however I tend to lean towards Alaska Natives owning the land. Mostly in polite company, you wouldn't just steal something that others depend on. So I guess until I hear a better opposing argument, that is my stance.
Kalesha-
ReplyDeleteYou crack me up! I am NOT fearless, maybe just slightly imbalanced...
I am mostly American Indian, but I consider myself to be a mutt. I'm also Irish (my last name) and Portuguese. Sweet combo hua?!
You do have a rich, amazing history! That's awesome that you can trace your family back that far. Be proud of it!
The racial diversity in our class makes me feel like an unremarkable, run-of-the-mill white guy. Good thing that I have a dash of Jewish blood in my veins.
ReplyDeleteAnother digression: if I were a politician, I would hire Tamara as my PR representative. Her opinions align remarkably well with mine.
Joking aside, I think that Alaskan native, on average, made out much better than their counterparts in the lower 48. Many natives not only have access to their traditional lands, but also a means to improving their material welfare through the native corporations.
The reason that Alaskan natives were not evicted was probably that relatively few businesses or settlers were interested in the cold, barren tracts of land that many natives called home. If enough white people had expressed an interested in developing these regions, the same unfortunate chain of events seen in the lower 49 would have resulted.
We should remember, however, that the politicians who sanctioned the expropriation of native groups in the lower 49 did have some justification for their actions. Some took a Utilitarian standpoint on the issue, and argued that they were trying to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. They felt that it was senseless to allow small bands of people to roam the land when there were thousands of white settlers who also wanted to use it.
I think a starting point would be simply to say "I'm sorry" As much as this country has progressed if we are honest with ourselves, there is still work to be done to healing the ills of our past. Alaska natives are so deserving of whatever restitution can be afforded them.
ReplyDeleteI see only one side of the issue and that is the Americans took this land for selfish reason alone. In the case of the Tlingits they did not want much land since they were not migratory. I wanted enough land to maintain their way of life and heritage for subsistence living. The ANCSA agreement seem to divide up the land equitably in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe provision in ANCSA which gives the Native Alaska people the power to control millions of acres is at the least an acknowledgement of the right they have to make decisions about their own way of life. I am sure debate will continue through the years as to whether this was the best way to settle the issue.
ReplyDelete