Tuesday, July 27, 2010
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You make a valid point. But I believe the intent was to determine a cut off date and limited the amount of stockholders so it would maintain a strong value for years to come. To many shareholders would decrease the value of the stock and lower the profit margin. In addition, it would make it easier for family members to sale their share if they did not select a period in time to cut off an eligibility requirement date.
ReplyDeleteI think the writing of ANCSA was intentional, but I don't think they were trying to screw the Alaska Natives either. At least not completely...
ReplyDeleteThe "new natives" weren't included so that the value of their stocks wouldn't drop. If there are too many shareholders it won't help people as much. There would be a lot less profit, which I think defeates the purpose.
Even looking past the monetary value of the stocks. There has to be some point when future generations no longer rely on a stipend. It is good that elder people have something to pass on to thier children etc. Otherwise it turns into a continuation of "government owes me" and the true meaning of the payments are lost.
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with James on this topic. ANCSA was a SETTLEMENT act, which means it has an end. The debt has been paid.
ReplyDeleteI can't remember the language, or even what reading it came from, but one of the two provisions was a "land loss" provision. If I remember correctly, it signified land that was given back to Alaska Natives, and not acquiring all of the land of Alaska that was not in use. From my understanding, because future generations did not use or "lose" land at the time, only those born before the bill would be eligible.
ReplyDeleteI think the people who wrote the language of the law understood corporations. They also would have understood that the more stock out there the less each is worth. They were coming from a paper money based society. I don't think they would have set it up so that each stock would be worth less and less as time went on. That would have been counter productive in their minds.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading several articles about ANCSA, I don't believe that the omission of the "New Natives" was political on the part of the government or intentional on the part of the Alaska Natives. I believe that the "New Natives" were an unfortunate casualty in a long war over the land. The government and oil people wanted quick access to the oil with no lawsuits later. I believe that it may have been intentional on the part of the government to leave them out because it would have taken more time to figure out a settlement that wouldn't be challenged in court later. The Alaska Native people had fought long and hard for their right to compensation and may have thought that this settlement was the best for the majority.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government was trying to do what it could to ensure an end to the whole ordeal. They were banking on each family taking care of their own children, and taking care of their own affairs. IF someone in your family was into the stock exchange, and they locked into some great stock, they would ensure that their children were taken care of.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was a settlement act and but I don't necessarily agree with the 1971 deadline. I'm sure the government knew what they were doing when they put that stipulation into writing and they probably thought it was a way to keep people paid well as opposed to spreading the money so thin people would spite it.
ReplyDeleteDrawing the line where they did was most likely done address the needs of the people that were affected at that moment. Take for example Social Security. It pays for those who need it now, and it is anticipated that it will not be there for future generations (including mine). Hopefully families will make it priority to pass shares down to family members born after the cut off date.
ReplyDeleteGood Point,yes the elders and those born before december 1971 do deserve stock in a company, and i do see it as fair to have a cut off point. But within ASRC they do allow people to share their shares, like we talked about in class. They are allowed to give it as a give or to pass it on after death, i even have the right to give half my shares to my husband if i truly wanted to. Now i have a son and me being a shareholder of ASRC i can apply for him to get dividends each year. But it is my responsibility to apply, if i'm to lazy it's my fault. In that case it's up to the native to be up to date with things in order to get shares.
ReplyDeleteSince we've already covered this issue thoroughly in the classroom, I'll try to keep it short to avoid redundancy.
ReplyDeleteThe authors of ANCSA needed to draw the line somewhere. Perhaps they were lacking in foresight, but they believed that the original members of the native corporations would pass down their stock to their children, simultaneously ensuring fair treatment of all natives and avoiding the dilution of existing stock. I already described how the package of amendments passed in 1988 altered ANCSA's original provisions on corporate membership. See Mary's post:
http://akgeography302.blogspot.com/2010/07/have-and-have-not-alaska-natives.html
If we want to get to the heart of the matter, I think that we should research the state of corporate membership today, rather than debating about the original legislation. Is the system actually working? Or has it created significant inequalities between those who are enrolled in native corporations and those who are not?