Sunday, July 25, 2010

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.

9 comments:

  1. Your thoughts made me think.... So if originally the Native Alaskans wanted to stay on their land and for white people to leave them alone, does the same hold true the other way?

    The Native Alaskan groups have for all purposes joined the "white culture". They have technology in their villages, have joined politics and many have moved into large cities. Does this mean that "white people" are now allowed access to their areas and their resources as well?

    I often find that groups of people are ok with situations going one way but not the other.

    I have been trying to get answers to questions like these from some of my Athabascan friends but haven't been able to reach them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Native land grab? What they were trying to do is claim what had belonged to their grandparents and great-great grandparents. The land grab, if you ask me, is when people form down south came to Alaska to stake land for gold.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The concept of land ownership is a western ideal. Far east cultures and Native Alaskans alike did not believe in private property therefore it did not belong to anyone.

    Futhermore, for aboriginal Alaskans the concept of selling fish and animals for commercial gain came from the greed associated with modern western ideals.

    The natives of the lower 48 were taken from thier homes. Here in Alaska it was the stolen identity that was the big issue. The land itself is a matter of real estate ownership.

    ReplyDelete
  4. James

    You are a bloggin fool! You are just going!

    I don't know if I agree or disagree with your disposition.

    All I know is that private property only works if others abide by that understanding. I believe economist Milton Friedman calls it the "Triadic Nature of Property Rights".

    Friedman also suggests that government is only useful for providing a legal framework, and litigating conflicts over property rights. Obviously the U.S. government played a role in providing that legal structure for Alaska Natives.

    In this context I do get confused by the word "own" because of all people, you'd think that Alaska Natives would agree that you cannot "own" the land. Perhaps because America abides by written law, the term "own" must be used for private property to work and for clarity.

    In terms of the no trespassing line you have to use to get to the other side...that is a tough one...

    ReplyDelete
  5. James- I agree with Kalesha, you blog like no other! Haha... I don't know if I can keep up!

    Kalesha- Way to use info from our political econ class last semester!

    The concept of "owning" land was not in Native Alaskan languages. They were much more about culture, family, art, and subsistence. As westerners forced this concept of owning land Native Alaskans did the best they could to accommodate, even if they didn’t want to. I’m sure it was extremely difficult for them. The land they had live on for years was sold out from underneath them. They lost so much in land and culture. Subsistence is pretty much a novelty now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. James:

    I hope that, with my last blog post, my word count has come close to rivaling yours. That way the two of us together can make our classmates look like slackers.

    Tamara's comment reminded me of the disageement between the clause in ANILCA which prioritizes Alaskan natives' use of natural resources and the clause in the Alaska Constitution which mandates that everyone should have equal access to the state's resources.

    I'm not sure which side to take. On the one hand, natives living in rural areas, who don't have other sources of income, probably deserve special hunting and fishing rights. On the other hand, it's possible that we might institute a system of reverse discrimination by giving preferential treatment to native villagers. As in any other ethnic group, there are a few greedy natives out there who would welcome a law permitting them to harvest more natural resources than they actually need.

    My opinion is that anyone, not just natives, who relies on subsistence practices for a substantial portion of his food or income deserves some special rights, but that there should be strict limitations to prevent their abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Something to think about: You are in your home where you were born and grew up. The landowner sells the property without acknowledging you at all.Then you find out you have to share a room with virtual strangers? Tell me how would we feel? Just a little something to make us go UMMMMM.

    P.S. Can you put a price tag on your most valued possession?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The people who decided to give out so many acres and where for natives, in my opinion, probably had no idea what he was doing. He was probably just crunching population vs. area numbers without knowing the vast differences of people, land, subsistence, etc. that this land holds.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is a hard things to do trying to divide the land. In some cases there will be more land given out to others because of certain boundaries and were the land ends. But if the land was use for subsistence wold the old "transfer of occupancy" work out. That would rule out the need for toll booths.

    ReplyDelete