" 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
I agree that reservations were not the way to go. The reservations haven't seemed to work out all that well for the American Indians in the lower 48.
ReplyDeleteANSCA was a good effort to give Native Alaskans control of their own destiny. Even though it does have some problems, overall it seems to be working. I think in a lot of ways Alaska Natives got a much better deal than many of the Native Americans in the lower 48.
Until this class I hadn't known the BIA was so corrupt. Not surprising, but still disappointing. If the federal government was to regain control of Native Alaskans, I think it would fall under the BIA. I'm not sure if the BIA is still corrupt, but it's probably better they weren't in charge. I would hope that Alaska Natives would be able to keep the regional corporations. However, the BIA might want to designate reservations because that's the way the rest of our country operates.
There is certainly power in diversification. The Native Corporations are a prime example of that. If the BIA had there way and established the reservational form of governing this would have without a doubt stagnated Alaska Native political and economical growth. Additionally, they would operate from a narrow view of
ReplyDeleteReservations definately had alot of bad qualities about them and set a precedence of racial inequalities. We should try and find the good in everything. The natives living on reservations were able to retain more of thier culutural practices which allowed them to pass on this knowledge to future generations.
ReplyDeleteRL, your comment seems to have been accidentally cut short. I'd be interested in what more you have to say.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Alaskan natives would not have made out nearly as well if ANCSA had transferred power to BIA. I'm not an expert on the issue, but it seems possible that jealousy among lower 49 Indians about the Alaskan natives' possession of much of their ancestral land might have hampered efforts to secure the best deal possible for the native people. The BIA would have been nowhere near as good an advocate for Alaska's indigenous people as they were themselves.
Not only would Reservations suck for Alaska Natives, Conservation and preservation of Alaska's resources probably would not have happened. As ANILKA was section 17 D-2 of ANCSA.
ReplyDeleteToday I over heard a conversation about how Alaska is so well preserved and I thought to myself, "lady you have know idea".
Also, Alaskans are so good looking because even the people are well preserved by the long winters.
And I just have to add that if Americans want any break through legislation to come from Congress, make sure the oil companies are waiting on the side lines.
As usual "partisan" has pointed out the flip side. If Alaska had reservations would their culture have been better preserved? I think it would have. I don't think they would have been better off in the long run but I think their culture might have been better protected. Would the effects that are still seen today from the Great Death be as prevalent or would reservations have helped heal? If they were on reservations and had minimal contact with the "white world" would that have helped heal the emotional hurt. Part of the reason the Great Death has had such a long lasting effect has been the lack of cultural support from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJuly 28, 2010 9:17 AM
ReplyDeleteMary said...
I think that the BIA would have sought to control the land and the people if this plan had been adopted rather than ANCSA. The history of the BIA speaks for itself. While ANCSA may have unresolved issues associated with it, reservations in the lower 48 have many more issues associated with their existence or lack there of. Often reservations existed as long as it was not land that the government wanted. In many cases, when the government wanted the land, the tribe was forceably moved. Economically, I believe that the Corporations in Alaska have done a much better job of managing resources than the system set up to manage resources on reservations in the lower 48.
I too think that reservations would not have been a good way to go. I grew up with the idea that reservations were places the US government herded native Americans into to keep them contained. (Has anyone seen District 9?) I never looked at reservations from a positive perspective. I am greatly bothered by the amount of injustice and corruption that has existed and continues to exist today.
ReplyDeleteDue to their prior horrible history reservations were not an option. I think it was a great idea to let the native people have stocks in their land corporations but I didnt like the 1971 deadline for stock ownership.
ReplyDeleteOk, so if they stayed with the same way of dealing with the Alaska Natives as they did with the lower 48, than I would have to say the out come would parallel what is happening to the reserves in the lower 48.
ReplyDeleteThere would be big corporations challenging the reserves for what little land or water rights they reserves have.
There may be a stronger sense of Native Pride, culture, and language, but more than likely not.
The reason that the reserves in the lower 48 have been able to hold onto more of the their culture and language,is not due to the reserves, but to the sheer number of their population.
If you have 5,000 fluent speakers and culture carriers of a particular language group than that group is better off. Here in Alaska the numbers are not as strong. Take Ahtna for example. Today there are at most 5 fluent speakers left. That is being generous. when ANCSA was signed there may have been 50 (being very generous) speakers and culture carriers left. So it was not the necessarily the corporations that has taken away the culture and language, and it was not necessarily the reserves that preserved it. It has been the population of Natives.
I dont think there is any clear answer in the issue concerning the formation or possibility of forming reservations in Alaska. It's difficult to decisively judge how much control the BIA or federal government would have excersized, keep in mind this was the middle and late 1960s and not the same time period when many of the original reservations had been formed in the lower 48. Just as a side note, no one has seemed to mention the Metlakatla reservation here in Alaska. If there was a formation of reservations in Alaska, I think today we would see a wide variety of social and economic situations among the many reservations that would have formed because of the sheer size of Alaska and the diversity among the many different cultural groups. Different regions have different natural resources and cultural practices. Even today there are large differences concerning the cultural strength and economic strength of the different corporations and their communities. Just a quick example would be a short comparison between the Calista corporation and ASRC. ASRC is a giant corporation with a large amount of financial success in comparison to Calista but if you travel up to the north slope borough english is mainly the language tought at home and some of the old traditions are fading in communities. If you look at the smaller Calista and its communities, many of the Yupik village still use yupik as the first language at home and many young people still have a rich cultural experience within their community. Just a vague example but overall its difficult to give one clear answer for all of Alaska's native populations.
ReplyDelete