EDUCATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN ALASKA
The Collected Essays of Patrick J. Dubbs

Someone Else's Vision: Alaska Native Education and Development Ideologies

© Patrick J. Dubbs

The relationship between education and development is, at best, a tenuous one and nowhere is this more evident than in the North. Generally, commentaries on northern Native education tend to focus more on its role in the destruction or preservation of traditional cultural components, particularly such concrete cultural manifestations as language and physical artifacts, and much less on its seemingly assumed positive role in shaping societal patterns. In this brief, exploratory paper, I take a look at this latter, neglected role of education in rural Alaska Native society, specifically I examine the thesis that the "colonization of education" in Village Alaska has greatly and not necessarily positively influenced what I view as the "colonization of development" in Village Alaska.

Several years ago the French economist, Francois Partant, attempted to describe the ethnocentric developmental perspective of most of his colleagues engaged in planning the development of colonial economies by stating that:

...they do not see the country whose future they are going to plan, they compare it. (Francois Partant quoted by Buchanan: 1985)

While I have no reason to take issue with this view of traditional western developmental economics, I think it has broader applicability than was originally intended and I hope to broaden its applicability in this paper. Specifically, I think this view also pertains to the way in which colonized people approach their own socio-economic development. That is, to rephrase Partant, they, the colonized, do not see their country whose future they are planning, they compare it to that of another country.

Internal Colonialism

The essence of the colonization process is external power to determine and/or shape events for one's own external ends, irrespective of local needs, desires, or consequences. Be it physical, intellectual, economic, psychological, or social power, it is power that resides in the hands of an external nation-state or its representatives. The manifestations of this power are many and its exercise throughout the world seems much less monolithic and consistent than as once was assumed by students of colonialism (Watson 1988). Whether the results of its exercise are closer to being monolithic and consistent is another matter entirely. Certainly, individuals like Fanon (1968) and Memmi (1967) suggest there is a painful common brotherhood of the colonized.

In attempting to place Alaska Native societies within a colonization framework, an Internal Colonial or Fourth World perspective seems to most accurately deal with both the historical and contemporary structural position of Alaska Native society. The application of an Internal Colonial/Fourth World model to the Subarctic and Arctic is nothing new. For example, Ritter (1979) uses an internal colonial model in her macro-level statistical analysis of occupational structures in Alaska. Klausner and Foulks (1982) introduce the concept in their analysis of Alaska’s North Slope Borough government. Berger certainly suggests it is being utilized in the Mackenzie Valley pipeline study (1977) as well as his research related to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1985). Dryzek and Young (1985) use such a perspective to describe the general relationships between Alaska Native villages and the larger core industrial society. And, O’Neil (1986) employs an internal colonial approach to health issues in northern Canada. While this seeming conceptual convergence does not necessarily disregard the more traditional approaches to Northern Native affairs, i.e., assimilation and acculturation studies, it puts these types of processes into a larger system of power relationships related to economic exploitation, socio-economic dependency and political domination of indigenous Northern Native societies by the larger surrounding industrial settler nation-states (Dryzek and Young 1985). While this orientation emerges directly from the colonialism and dependency strand of development thinking, its significant departure from that strand centers around the recognition of a distinct Fourth World that is not merely a rural, agrarian periphery of an urban, industrialized core, nor is it simply a Third World hinterland state connected to a First or Second World metropolitan state. The Fourth World is most eloquently described by Peter JullÌs (1986:6) succinct phrase "old peoples in ancient homelands." O'Neil (1986:119-120) expands on this idea when he states that:

".....the populations involved are the original inhabitants of the area, whose lands have been expropriated and who have become subordinate politically and economically to an immigrant population. Fourth World peoples generally inhabit marginal geographic regions relative to central metropolitan areas, and their resources have historically been exploited by the dominant group without local consultation [original footnotes not included]."

The key features, then, of an Internal Colonial perspective seem to be: a previously independent indigenous population (usually referred to as a tribal population) with its own established cultural system, occupying a traditional land base, who are now in a subordinate relationship with a surrounding permanent immigrant nation-state. It is in the interest of the nation-state to maintain this subordinate relationship as long as it allows for access to and the advantageous exploitation of resources. It attempts to do this by maintaining "control" through a variety of political, economic and cultural techniques

(for examples see Bodley 1982). Of particular interest to this paper is the use of absorptive techniques to incorporate the Fourth World into the nation-state so there is enduring and conflict-free access to its resources on the supposed basis of a mutuality of interests and goals. In this context, education becomes a primary technique for control by absorption.

Alaska’s Colonial HIstory

In attempting to describe Alaska's on-going colonial history, the basic assumption I make is that the historical development of Alaska in general and Village Alaska in particular has been caused by, conditioned by or occurred in response to external factors. These external factors were, for the most part, economic factors and while there is no monolithic colonization process in Alaska, any non-economic explanation of historical events in Alaska would be, in my opinion, a shallow explanation. As Chance states:

To understand the process of modernization of the Alaska Eskimo—as opposed to their culture history—it is necessary to take fully into account the historical relations between Native and Euro-American populations, including economic and political factors promoting such contact, and only then analyze the ways in which Eskimos have tried to adapt to these conditions. To disregard the first area of inquiry is to lose sight of the long history of economic exploitation of the Eskimo, a factor that must be thoroughly understood if one is to comprehend their present status and future attempt at cultural survival (1984:647).

Such an economic interpretation of Alaska’s history would reveal a succession of externally induced and oriented economic activities which, because of their production requirements, caused significant changes throughout Alaska, especially Village Alaska. While admittedly sketchy, the historical synopsis in Table l suggests that most colonial incursions into Village Alaska, with the possible exception of missionary and health activities during the American and Statehood periods, were directly or indirectly tied to economic pursuits carried-out to benefit externally-oriented individuals or institutions, particularly corporations and governments. Even Alaska's importance in World War II can be seen to derive primarily from its strategic location in relation to the larger United States economic system.

What seems clear from this historical record is that Alaska Native societies were gradually dislocated from their surrounding environment by external economic institutions and practices, albeit at differential rates and during different time periods. This dislocation tended to marginalize Alaska Natives within the larger economic system, rendering them to subordinate positions whose existence and nature were determined by external production requirements. It also created and maintained an insidious dependency system that, for the most part, shaped the pattern of relationships between Village Alaska and the various institutions of the larger capitalistic nation-state. This dependency system resulted in: the pursuit of activities leading to individualistic economic gain as opposed to cooperative economic endeavors; the acceptance of diffuse corporate structures dictating both the time and place of work as opposed to following seasonal cycles; reliance upon highly efficient, imported productive technology as opposed to the ecologically sounder but less reliable and productive local technology; the pursuit of cash generating and external market oriented activities over local subsistence consumption activities; population relocation and centralization in sites of external production activities rather in locations related to traditional ecological niches and most of all, the development of a new set of values that both accepted and supported this new economic system. In some ways, this conversion to the corporate/capitalistic economic system resembles Anderson and Eells’ (1935:207) description of the Moravian missionaries conversion process employed along the Kuskokwim River during the early 1900’s:

No attempt has been made to destroy sweepingly native Eskimo traditions and habits, but rather the attempt has been to enable the Eskimo gradually and in a natural manner to see from example that certain modes of life are superior to their old tribal ones. It is a slow process, but it has kept the Eskimos anchored in the past while at the same time casting a line forward to the white man’s world of the present and the future upon which they can haul.

While this conversion to the corporate, capitalistic economy was widespread, there is little historical evidence to suggest that it was beneficial to most Alaska Natives. In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite --- the economic dislocation, while providing natural resources for the support and benefit of the external system, did not significantly materially improve local communities. It merely made them more dependent upon and hence vulnerable to economic and ecological fluctuations beyond their control. In describing the condition of Alaska Eskimos on the eve of World War Two, Jenness (1962:38) states:

Fishing and sea mammal hunting, fur trapping, reindeer herding, handicrafts, and occasional wage-employment of these occupations helped keep the wolf of hunger from the Eskimos’ doors but provided no more than mere subsistence; they did not improve the diet, build homes as comfortable as those of white Alaskans, or supply the material and social amenities the latter enjoyed. Contact with whites had increased the number of nativesÌ necessities and desires without furnishing sufficient means to satisfy them; and between Eskimo living conditions and those of white Alaskans yawned a gap. The latter enjoyed better education, better health, and firmer associations with the outside world.

At statehood, Jenness (1962:57) is moved to observe that:

...a high percentage of the natives will still remain jobless; and they must either migrate...or else continue today's heart-breaking struggle to provide themselves and their families with the barest necessities of life through the old-time pursuits of hunting, fishing, and trapping, and resignedly trust to social security payments and services to keep their heads above the drowning level.

More recently and even after some economic improvement resulting primarily from increased state government expenditures in rural areas facilitated by large oil revenues, Kruse (1984:10) indicates that Native family incomes, while having increased 39% over the 1969-79 period, are approximately 100% less than those of non-Native families. This discrepancy in incomes becomes even more magnified when one considers the significantly higher cost of living in rural areas. In fact, even after the historically unsurpassed economic activity of the 70’s in Alaska related to the booms in the oil, construction and state government sectors, 26% of the Alaska Native population was still below the national poverty level in 1980 and if this were adjusted for the cost of living in Alaska, the percentage would be much larger.

Why, after more than three quarters of a century of relatively intense involvement with the western corporate economy and relatively little alteration of their position within this economy, have Alaska Natives continued to support the externally oriented corporate economy? Why have the economic activities of most of the economically powerful ANCSA regional for-profit corporations been outer-oriented, with some having virtually no in-region activities? Why have most of the village corporations created by ANCSA only invested in businesses located out of the village? One even wonders why, beyond some sense of wanting to capture the local source of necessary services, have many village corporations only invested in the externally-linked, capitalistic enterprises that have been in the villages for numerous years, e.g., stores, fuel distributors, or air taxi firms? The answer to this pronounced replication of the immigrant economy or the "colonization of development" is found, I think, in the historical "colonization of education" in Village Alaska.

Colonization of Education in Village Alaska

While one can argue that the "colonization of education" in Village Alaska started when the Russians opened a school for Native students at Three Saints Bay over two hundred years ago (Morgan 1979: 286), the overall impact of formal education during the Russian period seems rather negligible when compared to the persistent attempts by Americans over the past century to "educate the Natives". This American effort has been anything but uniform, having been carried out at various times by different missionary societies, the Federal Government, the Territorial and later State Government, and finally by local and regional educational authorities. This complex historical mosaic, unlike its economic counterpart, has been fairly well documented over the past 50 years and need not be summarized here (e.g., see Anderson and Eells 1935, C. Barnhardt 1985, Darnell 1979, Jenness 1962, Ray 1959 and 1974, and Rogers 1972). What is of importance to the thrust of this paper is not so much the various particular historical events and administrative structures related to Alaska Native education, but the implicit and explicit policies that tended to shape what went on in the schools throughout Village Alaska, albeit the individual teacher’s interpretation of these policies was probably anything but uniform.

Until quite recently, the important policies shaping Alaska Native education were derived, for the most part, from policies that had been tried or advocated for Native Americans in the continental United States. As the U.S. Commissioner of Education, William Cooper, stated in 1934:

After the Civil War, when we purchased Alaska, we acquired several more native peoples. When Congress found it advisable to set up a school system for these people, they placed it under the Commissioner of Education, and office likewise in the Department of the Interior. . . . In so far as we acted at all for the education of these peoples [ethnic minorities] our policy was to expose them to the system of schools which had grown up in the United States. It had occurred to no one that there might be a better system of schools for such people (Anderson and Eells 1935: vii).

These externally designed absorptive policies started in Alaska in the 1880’s with the passage of the First Organic Act (1884) which placed education in Alaska under the authority of the Department of the Interior and which mandated that education be provided for all school age children without reference to racial and presumably, cultural background (Jenness 1962:8). Quoting governmental sources, Jenness (1962:9) states:

"...the education to be provided for natives of Alaska should fit them for the social and industrial life of the white population of the United States and promote their not-too-distant assimilation...The children shall be taught in the English language, reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, oral history, physiology, and temperance hygiene. No text-books printed in a foreign language shall be allowed."

In this early period, the Federal Government, with the Reverend Sheldon Jackson as the General Agent of the Bureau of Education in Alaska, supported and used various Christian missionary societies to further its educational aims. It was not surprising that the Sitka Industrial Training School that was established earlier by Jackson was one of the recipients of these Federal educational funds. This combination of external political and moral power no doubt had a corrosive effect on local cultural systems even at this early stage of application.

As in so many colonial situations (see Altbach and Kelly 1978), there was soon a movement on the part of the immigrant or colonizer population to develop an educational system paralleling that of the "home country." In Alaska, the non-Native population grew dissatisfied with the supposed inferiority of the Federal system and wanted a separate and obviously better system for their children. The U.S. Congress acquiesced to these demands in 1905 when it passed the Nelson Act and thereby allowed for a dual system of education in Alaska---a locally controlled system of education for "white children and children of mixed blood who lead a civilized life (Act of January 27, 1905 quoted in Ray 1974:2)," and a Federal system of education for Alaska Natives. In the local or territorial schools, schooling was intended to continue and reinforce the socialization of immigrant children into the adult United States society and was intended to conducted much like schooling in any other place in the United States. In the Federal or Native schools, schooling was designed to transform the cultural system of Alaska Native children into one that was compatible with that of the larger United States society and in so doing, it was assumed cultural and learning "obstacles" would need to be overcome to reach this end. Since few communities actually had dual structures, Alaska Natives attended whatever system was locally available. These were not so much really two different educational systems as they were crystallizations of the two positions which have dominated the history of Alaska Native education---should Alaska Natives attend schools designed for continuing the socialization of non-Native Alaskans and thereby, in some social Darwinian sense, quickly evolve into individuals who can function effectively in the larger society; or, should they attend schools which will be structured to gradually transform Native values and skills into ones compatible with the larger United States society. The true dual system of education was not concerned with the goal of formal educationÛthe incorporation of Alaska Natives was a givenÛbut in how this colonizing end was to be achieved. At the risk of over-simplification, almost all efforts directed to Alaska Native education in this century can be traced at attempts to implement either a "socialization" or "transformational" program (see Zachariah 1985 for parallels with this type of functional differentiation in other colonized areas).

Anderson and Eells (1935), in their classic study of Alaska Native education up to the mid-1930’s, found that most Federal schools were trying to abruptly transform Alaska Natives by a seemingly immersion curriculum that:

has been made by culling the existing courses of study of various American school systems, patching together what seemed to be workable parts,...It is wholly dependent upon American textbooks which are graded for American pupils (373).

This curriculum was delivered by immigrant teachers who also assumed an influential cultural brokerage role between the local Native community and the larger United States society, e.g., they carried-out

...health work, medical and dental service, village economic activities, social and recreational activities, counseling, and legal aid. [and assumed]...a place as social engineers designing and executing their particular parts of a larger, more complete plan for the cultural assimilation of the native races of Alaska (Anderson and Eells 1935: 282).

After some meager transformational efforts during the Collier administration of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the post-World War II approach to education was not only geared at cultural incorporation, it was designed to encourage physical relocation to take advantages of economic opportunities in the larger United States economy within and outside Alaska. As Ray (1959) states:

The newer idea is to educate the intellectually advanced native for personal rather than group development so that he is prepared on the basis of his individual ability to take advantage of opportunities anywhere in society (40).

The infamous boarding school/boarding home programs of the 60's and early 70’s are extensions of this desire to facilitate the relocation of Alaska's Native people but they are clearly based on a "socialization" orientation.

Up to this point in time, the eve of potential self-determination in Alaska through a land claims settlement, it seems quite evident that Alaska Native education was a colonized system of education which supported and reinforced the institutions and values of the larger, immigrant United States society, usually at the expense of Alaska Native institutions and values. The continued existence of an externally oriented, corporate, cash economy was the unquestioned stage on which education was to play its assigned role. Particularly disturbing was the increasingly explicit devaluation of the traditional Native homelands as being places without economic hope and value in this new economic system. Programs purporting to prepare Alaska Natives for opportunity wherever they might find it really were preparing folks for life in the valued urban, industrialized consumer economy. Even such an usually perceptive observer as Diamond Jenness described post-World War II Eskimo villages as being "...squalid and opportunity poor villages (1962:59)" and fully supported out-migration as the only alternative to persistent poverty. It appears that very few educators or politicians in the quarter of a century after World War II took the intent, much less the results of the early Anderson and Eells study to heart, i.e., a study that was to "...furnish a basis for a system of schools adapted to the native people and the environments in which they find themselves (1935:vii)."

It is this historic "colonization of education" that I feel has supported the "colonization of development" in Village Alaska today because it did not provide or support alternatives to the immigrant corporate cash economy and accompanying institutional structure. Indeed, instead of serving to liberate and expand the horizons of Alaska Natives, education served to constrict and narrow them to the point where the legitimacy of any proposed development activity becomes defined by how well it fits into and contributes to the maintenance of the existing external economy rather than the well-being of the local community. As Chance (1984) states:

Although full access into the dominant Alaska society was not an option available to most Eskimos, . . . the implication was still that the industrial-urban sector of American society had all the advantages and these should be shared with the Eskimo (651-652).

Under this system, then, the referents for Village Alaskans are not the village and tradition but the urban center and western culture. Many Alaska Natives, however, in spite of intense education, were not prepared for and did not want to live in an urban center or adopt western culture. Unfortunately, the colonized educational system did not provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to develop and/or enhance a viable alternative life style in the village. Thus, returning back to Partant’s earlier statement, the foundation has been laid for development decisions to be made without a locally generated vision of how the future might be; instead, a comparative external vision is accepted as the only vision of the future. It should not be too surprising to find that the development strategies of the to-be-formed ANCSA corporations will tend to be decisions attempting to fit the corporation into the conventional corporate economy where economic growth and profit, regardless of where they are generated, become the proverbial "bottom-line" measure of success.

Education and the Future

It is hard to pinpoint when Alaska Natives began to publicly be concerned about this externally imposed vision of their own future, or at least an externally imposed educational system which increasingly allowed for the removal of their children to "socialization" educational settings in regional and urban centers. While Alaska certainly was not immune from the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960’s, my guess is that educational change did not become a widespread concern until after a very real concern for traditional lands led to the formation of the Alaska Federation of Natives in 1966. Since then, there have been several promising educational avenues that could lead to a self-defined, alternative future for Rural Alaska.

The threat to Native lands, probably more than any other incident, led to a much greater Native awareness of external events and how they have been impacting their societies. With the land threat primarily framed as a cultural threat, more people became aware of and concerned about other cultural threats and losses, particularly those easily discernible losses attributed to education---language and values. Demands for culturally relevant programs were widespread and cultural heritage and bilingual programs soon were found in most all Village Alaskan schools in the 1970's. However, as I have indicated elsewhere (Dubbs 1982), I am not sure these programs are providing a real alternative to the dominant western cultural form and, in fact, they often seem to be a more culturally sensitive and perhaps more insidious means of transformative education.

The 1971 passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act immediately generated a spate of manpower studies and training demands (for examples, see Kleinfeld, et. al. 1973 and Alaska Native Foundation 1974). These needs ranged from vocational technicians to financial managers. Without any education or training provision in the settlement act, Alaska Natives had to either depend upon the existing system to meet their new needs, or to try and develop their own educational system. An initial shortage of funds and the enormous amount of time and energy needed to implement the complex settlement did not allow for many alternative educational efforts. The Tanana Chiefs Conference Land Claims College and North Slope Borough’s Inupiat University were two notable exceptions, but neither lasted very long or was very successful. Unfortunately, I do not think that the today’s formal educational system has yet adequately addressed the manpower requirements stemming from ANCSA, let alone the fostering of a comparative development ideology that Native decision-makers might employ in defining their own future (see Dubbs 1984). Most school districts have some component related to ANCSA, but all too often it is isolated from the regular curriculum and consists merely of a bundle of historical facts as opposed to a dynamic springboard for getting students engaged in the issues affecting their lives. The formal education system clearly could and needs to do more in terms of training Alaska Natives to satisfactorily deal with ANCSA as part of a package to manage and decide their own future.

Another significant issue emerged from the practice of relocating high school students in external "socialization" schools and called into question the constitutionality of the provision of equal educational opportunities within Alaska. A consent decree settled a class action suit (Tobeluk v s. Lind) and required the State of Alaska to provide an on-site secondary education program to any community who had an elementary program and which wanted a secondary program (see Darnell 1979:440-441). In terms of moving away from the "colonization of development" the yet to be answered question is whether or not these new small rural high schools will be anything beyond another transformative educational institution attempting simply to fulfill external state guidelines for secondary schools (21 credits---4 language arts, 3 social studies, 2 science, 2 mathematics, 1 physical education or health, with the remaining 9 to be decided upon by the local district). Even though they have been in existence for over a decade, the small high schools still seem to be trying to define their task and the latest research is inconclusive about their success:

Some small high schools offer a high-quality educational program well adapted to local circumstances and community priorities. Others are having serious problems (Kleinfeld, et.al. 1985).

The final formal educational hope for the future seems to revolve around the notion of local control of education and seems premised on the assumption that a local decision-making institution will make more informed and indeed, better decisions than were made by the previous external institutions. In 1976, the Alaska State legislature decentralized education in the unorganized areas of the state and created Rural Education Attendance Areas or school districts covering most all of Village Alaska except the organized government of the North Slope Borough and a small handful of first class cities. These school districts were to be funded by the State and controlled by elected regional school boards. What seems to have been forgotten in their formation was that initially, at least, the school system in place was a "colonized system", most of the elected board members were products and supporters of the "colonized system", and that the total administrative staff and most of the teaching staff were immigrant cultural brokers for this "colonized system." This colonial legacy and a fairly widespread transformative orientation among the REAA's notwithstanding, there appears to be a growing stability and maturity among the REAA’s and this could result in more innovative and locally responsive educational systems. The incorporation of the regional corporation-generated "Inupiat Spirit" program into Northwest Arctic School district is an example of this. However, whether these systems will help provide the knowledge for and help support viable local-level development alternatives remains to be seen.

In all, the press of the historical legacy of "colonized education" throughout Alaska is formidable and may well require a radical departure from the existing formal education system to provide Alaska Natives with self-defined, alternative visions for Village Alaska. One nascent attempt along these lines is the sovereignty-related effort by the western Alaskan communities of Akiachak, Akiak and Tuluksak to form a "Yupiit Nation" and thereby better control their own lives. As part of this effort, they have formed their own independent REAA, the Yupiit School District, and are now exercising more direct control over the education of their children than ever before. By attempting to break with the status quo and develop some version of self-government and control over their own members and the traditional land-base, these emergent sovereignty advocates seem to be rejecting externally imposed solutions which threaten their cultural existence (such as ANCSA corporations) and are consciously seeking self-defined, alternative futures for themselves. They are, in reality, decolonizing themselves---which may be the necessary first step in appropriate and sustainable local development.

References

Alaska Native Foundation. 1974. Higher and Adult Education Needs in Rural Alaska. Anchorage: The Alaska Native Foundation.

Altbach, Philip G. and Gail P. Kelly (eds.). 1978. Education and Colonialism. New York: Longman.

Anderson, H. Dewey and Walter Crosby Eells. 1935. Alaska Natives: A Survey of Their Sociological and Educational Status. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Barnhardt, Carol. 1985. Historical Status of Elementary Schools in Rural Alaskan Communities: 1867-1980. Fairbanks: Center for Cross-Cultural Studies University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Berger, Thomas R. 1977. Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: The Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services. 1985. Village Journey: The Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission. New York: Hill and Wang.

Bodley, John H. 1982. Victims of Progress. Palo Alto: Mayfield. Buchanan, Keith. 1986. In The Worlds of Different Peoples. IFDA Dossier 55:53-62.

Chance, Norman A. 1984. Alaska Eskimo Modernization. In Handbook of North American Indians: Arctic (Vol. 5), David Damas, ed. pp. 646-656. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Clark, A. McFadyen. 1981. "Koyukon", in Handbook of North American Indians: Subarctic (Vol. 6), June Helm, ed. pp. 582-601. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Darnell, Frank. 1979. Education Among the Native Peoples of Alaska. Polar Record 19 (122): 431-446.

Dryzek, John and Oran Young. 1985. Internal Colonialism in the Circumpolar North: The Case of Alaska. Development and Change 16:123-145.

Dubbs, Patrick J. 1982. "Cultural Definitions and Education Programs", in Cross-Cultural Issues in Alaskan Education, Vol. 2, Raymond J. Barnhardt, ed. Fairbanks: Center for Cross-Cultural Studies University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 1984.

"Development Training in Village Alaska". Education With Production 3(1):69-93.

Fanon, Frantz. 1968. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.

Hosley, Edward H. 1981." Intercultural Relations and Cultural Change in the Alaska Plateau". In Handbook of North American Indians: Subarctic (Vol. 6), June Helm, ed. pp. 546-555. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Jenness, Diamond. 1962. Eskimo Administration: Alaska. Montreal: Arctic Institute of North America.

Jull, Peter. 1986. Politics, Development and Conservation in the International North. Ottawa: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.

Klausner, Samuel Z. and Foulks Edward F. 1982. Eskimo Capitalists: Oil, Politics, and Alcohol. Totowa, New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun Publishers.

Kleinfeld, Judith S., Peter Jones and Ron Evans. 1973. Land Claims and Native Manpower: Staffing Regional and Village Corporations under Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Fairbanks: Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska.

Kleinfeld, Judith S., G. Williamson McDiarmid and David Hagstrom. 1985. Alaska’s Small Rural High Schools: Are They Working?. Anchorage: Center for Cross-Cultural Studies and Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska.

Kruse, John A. 1984. "Changes in the Well-being of Alaska Natives Since ANCSA". Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions 21(3):1-12.

Memmi, Albert. 1967. The Colonizer and the Colonized. Boston: Beacon Press.

Morgan, Lael (ed.). 1979. Alaska’s Native People. Alaska Geographic 6(3).

O’Neil, John D.. 1986. The Politics of Health in the Fourth World: A Northern Canadian Example. Human Organization 45(2):119-128.

Ray, Charles K. 1959. A Program of Education for Alaska Natives: A Research Report. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Education Project-University of Alaska.

Ray, Charles K. 1974. Alaska Native Education: An Historical Perspective. Juneau: pt. 2 of Alaska Native Needs Assessment in Education, Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Ritter, Kathleen V. 1979. "Internal Colonialism and Industrial Development in Alaska". Ethnic and Racial Studies 2(3):319-340.

Rogers, George W. 1972. "The Impact of Economic Conditions on Cross-Cultural Education in Alaska". In Education in the North. Frank Darnell, ed. pp.177-210. Fairbanks: University of Alaska.

Senungetuk, Joseph E. 1971. Give or Take a Century: An Eskimo Chronicle. San Francisco: Indian Historian Press.

VanStone, James W. 1984. "Exploration and Contact History of Western Alaska". In Handbook of North American Indians: Arctic (Vol. 5), David Damas, ed. pp. 149-160. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Watson, Keith. 1982. "Colonialism and Educational Development". In Education in the Third World. Keith Watson, ed. pp. 1-46. Beckenham, England: Croom Helm, Ltd.

Zachariah, Mathew. 1985. Lumps of Clay and Growing Plants: Dominant

"Metaphors of the Role of Education in the Third World, 1950-1980". Comparative Education Review 29(1):1-21.