Holding Our Ground Part
13
"Programs are presented as broadcast in 1985
and 1986. Some of the issues may have changed. A new series is
looking at how these issues have changed over time. For more program
information please contact the producer: Jim Sykes, PO Box 696,
Palmer, AK 99645. The address given at the end of the program
is no longer correct."
TapeAlaska Transcripts, PO Box 696, Palmer, AK
99645
HOLDING OUR GROUND
(c) 1985 Western Media Concepts, Inc.
"RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ALASKA NATIVE REVIEW COMMISSION"
(Part 13 of 16)
[Don Mitchell] To the extent that the report merely turns around
and restates what people in villages are saying, I think it's a
majestic and eloquent document. To the extent that it gives those
same people a really intellectually dispassionate assessment of
the Native Claims Settlement Act and of the political and legal
and economic situation, that most people in villages are now in,
I think it really comes up far short of what I had hoped would
be achieved.
[Tom Richards] The specific solutions of how to carry out those
recommendations were not defined in the report. I think that's
good. People have been critical by saying that Judge Berger was
not specific in his recommendations, but that leaves it up to us,
on our own, to develop specific solutions to meet our particular
situations.
THE DOCUMENT IS THE REPORT OF THE ALASKA NATIVE
REVIEW COMMISSION. IT WAS WRITTEN BY CANADIAN JUDGE THOMAS BERGER
WHO SPENT TWO YEARS
TRAVELLING AROUND ALASKA, FINDING OUT WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT ABOUT
ANCSA, THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT. IN SEPTEMBER OF
1985, BERGER UNVEILED HIS RECOMMENDATIONS IN A BOOK CALLED "VILLAGE
JOURNEY". SINCE THEN, "VILLAGE JOURNEY" HAS BECOME
THE SOURCE OF VIGOROUS DISCUSSION AS ALASKA NATIVES TRY TO REGAIN
CONTROL OF THEIR LANDS AND LIVES. NOW HERE'S A LOOK AT THE PROS
AND CONS OF THE BERGER REPORT. THIS IS HOLDING OUR GROUND.
FUNDING FOR "HOLDING OUR GROUND" IS
PROVIDED BY THE ALASKA HUMANITIES FORUM, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR
THE HUMANITIES,
RURAL ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, THE NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH,
AND ZIONTZ-PIRTLE LAW FIRM.
[Thomas Berger] I think that, with goodwill on all sides, my book,
my report, can be the basis for constructive solutions to the very
real problems of ANCSA. It will remain for people, perhaps years
from now, to pass judgment on what I did and on the fate of my
recommendations.
AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF ESKIMOS CALLED THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR
CONFERENCE HIRED JUDGE THOMAS BERGER TO ASK ALASKA NATIVE PEOPLES
WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT ANCSA, THE 1971 ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT
ACT. BERGER VISITED 62 GATHERINGS IN FISH CAMPS, VILLAGES, AND
CITIES HEARING PEOPLE'S CONCERNS.
[Thomas Berger] The main concerns of Alaska Natives are land,
self-government, and subsistence. These concerns are linked. Taken
together they are the means by which the Native people seek to
regain control over their land, their communities and their lives.
WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT,
THEY GAVE THE LANDS AND MONEY TO CORPORATIONS NOT TO INDIVIDUALS
AND NOT TO NATIVE GOVERNMENTS. ORIGINALLY THE ACT CREATED 12 LARGE
REGIONAL CORPORATIONS AND MORE THAN 200 VILLAGE CORPORATIONS. THE
CORPORATIONS WERE GIVEN 20 YEARS TO SUCCEED BEFORE THE RESTRICTED
STOCK COULD BE SOLD ON THE OPEN MARKET, WHICH COULD LEAD TO CORPORATE
TAKEOVERS. LANDS COULD ALSO BE LOST IF FUTURE TAXES CAN'T BE PAID.
BUT ALREADY, CREDITORS ARE DEMANDING LANDS THAT NATIVES HOPED TO
KEEP FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
JUDGE BERGER RECOMMENDS FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES TO STOP THE LOSS OF
NATIVE LANDS.
[Thomas Berger] So I've urged that the village corporations should
transfer their lands to the village tribal governments. This
will keep the land in Native
ownership. That means that in the hands of tribal governments, the ancestral
lands of the villagers cannot be lost through corporate failure, they cannot
be the subject of corporate takeover, and they cannot be forfeited through
failure to pay state or local taxes. There is another advantage to transferring
the land from the Native corporations to the local tribal councils, and that
is that the "new Natives" or "afterborns", the children
born since 1971 who have no right to be issued shares in the Native corporations;
the "new Natives" or "afterborns" would also achieve full
rights as tribal members and would enjoy the same rights to ancestral land
as the Native people born before 1971. Now, as the law stands, village corporations
can do this themselves by unanimous vote of their shareholders, if they want
to.
THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF NATIVE GOVERNMENTS IN ALASKA TO WHICH LAND
WOULD BE TRANSFERRED, I-R-A'S CREATED BY THE INDIAN REORGANIZTION
ACT AND TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENTS. BOTH HAVE SIMILAR POWERS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT.
ANCHORAGE ATTORNEY DON MITCHELL.
Right now, as imperfect as it is, there are several statutes both in sections
of the Native Claims Settlement Act itself, and in the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act, that have been included in both of those acts, to try
and protect Native lands from involuntarily being lost to Native control, through
having taxes levied on those lands that people wouldn't be able to raise the
money to pay, from having the lands taken to pay bad debts, for example, for
losing lands as the result of trespassers gaining rights through adverse possession.
All of those protections however, key off of lands that are owned by village
and regional corporations established under the Claims Act. Now if the lands
are no longer owned by village and regional corporations established under
the claims act it is a very open question as to whether or not those kinds
of land protections would apply to exactly the same lands, except the piece
of paper exhibiting ownership were to be in the hands of someone other than
a corporation. Now many of the people who are interested in moving lands over
to the IRA's and traditional councils are interested in doing so because they
believe that the legal status that those lands would acquire merely by being
owned by the local IRA or council would not only be at least the equivalent
of the protections I just described, but might even be stronger than that.
And if they're right about that legal conclusion, then I would fully agree
that many village corporations could quite seriously consider that as an option.
But what if they're wrong? And then down the road we find that as the result
of some event where someone, either the tax man or a creditor or a trespasser,
comes to assert an ownership interest in the land, we find out that perhaps
Justice Berger or others, no matter how well-intended, they were mistaken about
the legal protection that land would enjoy after the transfer, well may end
up with at best an unsettling, and essentially a tragic situation where land
has been needlessly exposed to risk just because people really didn't take
the time to really be sure how firm the ground was they were on when they made
the transfer.
BERGER AND HIS LEGAL CONSULTANTS BELIEVE IT CAN BE DONE.
[Thomas Berger] The road to the retribalization of Native land
is plain, its implication clear; this way there is a legal path,
not a legal thicket.
SINCE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS DON'T OWN THE LAND LIKE INDIANS IN THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, THERE HAS BEEN CONFUSION ABOUT THE POWERS
NATIVE GOVERNMENTS HAVE AND WHERE THEY CAN EXERT THEM. UNDER BERGER'S
PLAN THEY COULD EXERT THEIR POWERS OVER LANDS TRANSFERRED TO THEM
BY THE VILLAGE CORPORATIONS. WHILE IT WOULD PROVIDE A DEFINABLE
LAND BASE FOR JURISDICTION, IT WOULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE STATE
OF ALASKA WOULD RECOGNIZE THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.
NELSON ANGAPUK IS PRESIDENT OF THE CALISTA REGIONAL CORPORATION.
HE POINTS OUT THAT THE RIGHTS OF NATIVE SELF-GOVERNMENT HAVE
NEVER BEEN TAKEN AWAY.
Any legislation dealing with the right to govern ourselves, i.e. the issue
of sovereignty, should be more in terms of confirmation that yes, in fact,
we have those rights and that those rights are in fact intact.
THE STATE CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES WITH 55 TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS WHERE
THERE IS NO STATE CHARTERED CITY.
BERGER RECOMMENDS THAT TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ASSUME A GREATER ROLE
IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
[Thomas Berger] Tribal governments established in all of Alaska's Native
villages should assert their Native sovereignty. The State of Alaska should
recognize tribal governments as appropriate local governments for all purposes
under state law. These measures important for Native self-rule may entail
the dissolution of some, but not all, of the state chartered local governments
in Native villages.
THE WORDS "NATIVE SOVEREIGNTY" WORRIES
SOME PEOPLE LIKE GLEN FREDERICKS, PRESIDENT OF KUSKOKWIM CORPORATION.
I talk to a lot of people, non-Natives, that are very scared
of the word "sovereignty",
you know. When you say sovereignty, in my mind, it's a little nation out there,
you make your own rules just like any other little country, I guess.
People in the bush want a greater measure of control over their lives, their
communities, and their land. (JUDGE BERGER) And they've decided that the
best way to achieve that goal, is by asserting Native sovereignty. Now that
doesn't mean that they want to set up little nation-states throughout Alaska
and send delegates to the United Nations. What it means is that the Alaska
Natives who live in these villages want to assert their right as distinct
political communities to govern themselves. They always did, before the Russians
came, before the Americans came, they were there. Let's take a look at what
these things mean. Instead of pasting a label, "sovereignty" on
Native aspirations, look behind it, see what's there. What does it entail?
Maybe we can live with it.
BERGER TALKS OF ASSERTING TRIBAL AUTHORITY OVER LANDS GRANTED
BY ANCSA, ABOUT ONE TENTH OF ALASKA. CHARLIE KAIRIAUAK IS PRESIDENT
OF A STATEWIDE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION CALLED U-T-A, UNITED
TRIBES OF ALASKA. HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE
JURISDICITON OVER TRADITIONAL BOUNDARIES, WHICH ARE LARGELY OWNED
BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, AND MAKE UP MOST OF THE STATE.
[Charlie Kairiauak] The villages have to establish their jurisdictional
boundaries. The villages themselves have to recognize them first
by establishing them through legal documents, then they can address
these issues to the federal government. And the federal government,
once they recognize those jurisdictional boundaries, will probably
mandate the state to recognize it, because the federal government
supercedes the states authority. And by the mere fact that it does
supercede state authority, the state would have to recognize whatever
the federal government recognizes.
DON MITCHELL SEES COMPLICATIONS AS LONG AS THE LAW REMAINS VAGUE
WITH LAWYERS ON ALL SIDES.
The Congress has the authority, and has exercised that authority,
to establish whatever rules with whatever conditions it wants,
relating to Native-American
people, including Alaska Natives. And so the legal question becomes "What
rules has Congress intended"? It's so complicated, it's so ambiguous,
that pretty much anyone can read into this set of statutes whatever it is they
think is the result they'd like to see. And until it's decided what is the
actual result that Congress intended, there's enough there on all sides of
the issue, to arrive at any result you are sympathetic with intellectually
and politically.
THE LAND IS THE SOURCE OF PEOPLES' LIVELIHOODS AND IT IS THE ECONOMY
IN PLACES WHERE THE CASH ECONOMY WILL PROBABLY NEVER TAKE OVER.
JUDGE BERGER.
I recommend that tribal governments should have exclusive jurisdiction
over fish and wildlife on Native lands, whether owned by Native
corporations or by tribal governments. There, they should manage
the resources themselves. Native lands comprise only 10 per cent
of the state and are inadequate for Native subsistence.
BERGER SAYS THAT NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING RIGHTS SHOULD NOT
BE REGULATED EXCEPT FOR CONSERVATION.
Native people must have guaranteed access to their other fishing,
hunting, trapping and gathering areas on state and federal lands.
Also in partnership with state and federal authorities they should
have jurisdiction over fish and wildlife in those areas. Simply
put, the members of Alaska Native tribes ought to have exclusive
hunting and fishing rights and jurisdiction over Native lands and
waters, and shared rights and jurisdiction over state and federal
lands and waters.
DON MITCHELL.
Most people who live in most villages, and most village economies are dependent
in large measure upon continued access to healthy populations of game and
fish stocks. And that that is really a non-negotiable element of any kind
of policy relating to protecting or recognizing the unique reality of village
life in Alaska. I think that goes without saying. And I think that Justice
Berger did a more than adequate job of explaining why people believe that
is important, and suggesting that it is something that does need to be protected.
I think, however, that allowing every village to adopt hunting and fishing
regulations outside of the state structure on just its lands completely ignores
both the political realities, that are involved in such a suggestion, on
the one hand, and also the actual realities of fish and wildlife management
on the ground, in the other. The idea that game populations would sit within
the somewhat capricious boundaries of village corporation selections, that
game populations would move around their range somehow would be susceptible
to some kind of regulatory situation that involved as many as 20 or 30 different
sets of regulations, and if in fact there's going to be some kind of organization
of village management activities, how that would be funded. I mean, the amount
of money that the government now spends on fish and wildlife management at
both the state and federal level is just extraordinary. And to make no mention
of the practical and political realities associated with the suggestion that
village control of hunting and fishing regulations would somehow be a step
that would be an improvement, I just think is regrettable.
Who more is qualified on the local level to know who needs to go out and hunt
and fish, in a village. (NELSON ANGAPAK) Certainly Fish and Game or Fish
and Wildlife Service sitting out of their Anchorage offices cannot determine
who could qualify for subsistence hunting and fishing. And I think at this
time, having seen attempts of the State of Alaska and the federal government
to enforce their laws, I believe that local enforcement would have a lot
more effect than enforcement out of Fairbanks, Anchorage, or Juneau. I would
say that enforcement should be on the local level because those folks certainly
can, through peer pressure and through cultural training, can enforce the
laws of conservation. You know one can't forget, and one has to remember
the fact that prior to the arrival of Western man the Native was out there.
And the Native was taught to catch what they need and what they need only.
I believe that before even the advent of your Sierra Clubs, Friends of the
Earth, Wilderness Society, and what have you, the art of conservation was
practiced and if it wasn't practiced we wouldn't be here today.
THE LAND, SUBSISTENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES ADD UP TO A DIFFERENT
WAY OF LIFE IN THE ALASKAN BUSH. JUDGE BERGER.
Is America willing to acknowledge the persistence of Native culture and Native
values in Alaska, the legitimacy of distinct modes of Native land holding and
Native governance as essential expressions of Native culture and values? Does
America's cultural pluralism extend to all of its Indigenous peoples?
THAT QUESTION REMAINS TO BE ANSWERED. BERGER'S
RECORD IS IMPRESSIVE. BEGINNING IN 1974, HE DID AN IN DEPTH STUDY
ABOUT BUILDING A PIPELINE
FROM ALASKA'S PRUDHOE BAY THRU CANADA TO THE CONTINENTAL U.S. HE
TRAVELLED TO NATIVE VILLAGES ALL OVER CANADA AND HEARD PEOPLE'S
CONCERNS THERE. HE WROTE A REPORT CALLED "NORTHERN FRONTIER,
NORTHERN HOMELAND". HE RECOMMENDED AGAINST THE PIPELINE, AND
FOR GAME RESERVES PLUS POLITICAL AND SUBSISTENCE RIGHTS FOR NATIVE
PEOPLES. MOST OF HIS RECOMMENDATIONS WERE APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED.
DON MITCHELL HAS DOUBTS THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN VILLAGE JOURNEY
WILL CARRY THE SAME WEIGHT.
Probably one difference, between this situation and the situation that Justice
Berger experienced with his work in Canada in the McKenzie Valley, is that
it was the government that had asked him to come in and make this analysis
and give it his thoughts on what should be done. And certainly what that meant
was that his series of recommendations had a sponsor, someone who had some
ability to alter that political reality in a manner that Justice Berger suggested.
I think it is a very open question whether or not such a patron exists here
in Alaska for the work that Justice Berger has completed here. And you look
at the people that can influence the system and you've got the State of Alaska,
you've got the Alaska Congressional delegation, you would have members of Congress
off the Alaska congressional delegation who might be prepared to try and implement
certain recommendations over the objections of the delegation, and you have
certainly the Secretary of the Interior who might be able to do some things
administratively, and then you have the Native community itself, which can
suggest certain courses of action to these other people, but really cannot
impose the implementation of the series of recommendations unilaterally. And
so, once you go through the list, and you start considering, well, who is it,
other than a large segment of the Native community who has embraced the report
and the recommendations that can actually do something about them, the list
gets fairly narrow.
DALEE SAMBO RUNS THE ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR
CONFERENCE WHICH SPONSORED BERGER.
I think the Berger hearing process was useful to at least provoke the dialogue
and to generate the dialogue on a village level, on a regional level, and
on a statewide level. And I think it has been successful in doing that. I
think village Alaska Native people speaking their minds has prompted the
controversy. They're going to do whatever they can to protect their values
and concerns, and their land. It's clear that nothing could be compared to
what's at stake. We're talking about 44 million acres of Native land, the
largest single Indian landholding in the United States. We're talking about
the lives of, what, 80 thousand plus Alaska Native people. And really nothing
can be compared with what is at stake here.
This Berger Report does represent, (CHARLIE KAIRIAUAK), the concerns
of the villages. It should be considered one of the key documents.
They, in those villages, do have real life concerns. They should
consider any and all legal actions that they can take in order
to make people realize that there is legitimate reasons for fearing
land loss.
TOM RICHARDS, VICE-PRESIDENT OF A-V-C-P, THE ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS
...I think some of the strongest things about the report, strongest points,
are perhaps what are being given the most criticism by others in the Native
community. He was criticized for taking a global perspective, but I think that's
very good because we now have an opportunity to take a look at a number of
models for ownership and control of Native resources and land. And it will
give a very clear indication to people that the corporate system is not the
only means available to Native people for controlling and managing their resources.
A-F-N, THE ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES REPRESENTS THE LARGE REGIONAL
CORPORATIONS. THEY ARE ALSO THE MOST WELL-KNOWN NATIVE POLITICAL
LOBBYING GROUP.
JANIE LEASK IS A-F-N PRESIDENT.
While coming short of endorsing the recommendations that have come out
in the Berger Report, we acknowledge the work and the testimony, and all,
that have been put into this report. And we strongly urge that village
corporations and regional corporations consider the Berger Report and the
recommendations along with other recommendations as a tool from which they
would make their own determination of what works best for them within their
own situation.
THE REGIONAL CORPORATIONS OWN THE SUBSURFACE OF VILLAGE LANDS--ANOTHER
ONE OF THE QUIRKS OF THE CLAIMS ACT. SOME ALASKA NATIVES HAVE SUGGESTED
THE REGIONAL CORPORATION MAY WANT TO TRANSFER THE SUBSURFACE VILLAGE
LANDS THEY OWN TO THE VILLAGE SO THAT SUBSURFACE AND SURFACE LAND
WOULD AGAIN BE TOGETHER. THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN SUGGESTIONS THAT
CORPORATIONS WOULD BE CHARTERED UNDER TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS INSTEAD
OF THE STATE. THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS THAT COULD PROVE USEFUL. PEOPLE
ARE APPROACHING THE PROBLEMS CAUTIOUSLY TO TRY TO DETERMINE THE
LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS OF ANY GIVEN ACTION, BUT A WIDE DISCUSSION
OF THE PROBLEMS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS HAS BEGUN.
If I've been able to write for the Native people of Alaska, a report, (JUDGE
BERGER) if they can take that report to decision-makers in Juneau, take that
report to decision-makers in Washington, and the administration and in Congress,
and say, look, this is a book that tells you what it is that concerns us,
and what we want to do about it, then I will be pleased. That is what I conceive
my job to be and that's what I tried to do. I hope I've done something useful
for the people of Alaska, the Native people and the non-Native people to
enable them to build a true partnership in the State of Alaska.
BOB KOKRINE OF TANANA.
Just for the future, this is a good start anyway, it's a good truthful start,
just to find out what everybody thinks and do something that's gonna be productive
for all of us--not only us, but the ones after us, and everything.
DALEE SAMBO.
It is going to take the work of Alaska Native people. It's going to have to
be the will of the Alaska Native people to effect some kind of positive change.
THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT HAS UNDERGONE MINOR CHANGES
SIX TIMES ALREADY. MAJOR CHANGES ARE BEING DISCUSSED AND PROPOSED,
AND VILLAGE JOURNEY WILL BE AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.
ANCSA WAS A LANDMARK SETTLEMENT, AWAKENING
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ALL OVER THE WORLD TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SETTLING
LAND CLAIMS WITH
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS. NOW ALASKA NATIVES ARE LOOKING AT SOME OF
THE SETTLEMENTS MADE SINCE ANCSA PASSED, IN A SEARCH FOR WAYS TO
CORRECT THE FLAWS AFFECTING THE CLAIMS ACT. JOIN US NEXT TIME FOR
A LOOK AT "OTHER SETTLEMENTS WITH INDIGENOUS PEOPLES." FOR
HOLDING OUR GROUND, THIS IS ADELINE RABOFF.
THIS PROGRAM IS PRODUCED AND WRITTEN BY JIM
SYKES AND SUE BURRUS, EDITED BY SUE BURRUS AND RESEARCHED BY
FRANKIE BURRUS. ADDITIONAL
TAPE WAS GATHERED BY LAURIE HILL, PATTY HARPER, AND MARK BAUMGARTNER.
SPECIAL THANKS TO THE COMMUNITY OF GAMBELL FOR DANCING, SINGING,
AND DRUMMING, AND ALSO TO THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE. "HOLDING
OUR GROUND" IS A PRODUCTION OF WESTERN MEDIA CONCEPTS, WHICH
IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT.
FUNDING FOR "HOLDING OUR GROUND" IS
PROVIDED BY THE ALASKA HUMANITIES FORUM, THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT
FOR THE HUMANITIES,
RURAL ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, THE NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH,
AND ZIONTZ-PIRTLE LAW FIRM.
[Western Media Concepts no longer exists. Please Contact
TapeAlaska, PO Box 696, Palmer, AK 99645 for information about
Holding Our Ground.]
PROGRAM SUMMARIES:
1. The People, the Land, and the
Law
Comprehensive 30-minute survey of the burning issues facing Alaska's Native
community in the second half of this decade. This tour over the vast landscape
of Alaska Native affairs serves as an overview of the topics to be treated
in depth during the other 14 segments.
2. The Land and Sea
The ages-old Native feeling about the land comes across the airwaves like a
fresh breeze. Two starkly different realities are presented—the Native
concept of oneness with the land and the Western notion of land ownership
and development. How do these contrasting philosophies fit the Native in
rural Alaska?
3. Subsistence—A
Way of Life
Far from the political and legal controversies surrounding subsistence, Natives
carry on their traditional subsistence lifestyles. Hear their very personal
descriptions of subsistence, what it is, and what it means to them. An important
aspect of this documentary will be to delve into the mix of subsistence and
cash economies.
4. Sovereignty—What
it Means to People
Self-determination is the heart of a rising grassroots political movement.
The listener will learn that this quest by Native people to control their own
futures reaches far into the past. And the listener will discover that American
political theory is not as much at odds with the sovereignty movement as one
might think.
5. Traditional Councils and Corporate
Boardrooms
Who calls the shots in the Native community: A look at power, history, and
decision making. The audience will consider change from the perspectives of
traditional village rule to government and corporate bureaucracies.
6. The Land and the Corporations
Traditional Native lands became corporate assets because the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act created profit-making Native corporations to hold the
land. This segment will look at one of the toughest questions facing the
Native community today: "Do these Native corporations have an obligation
to develop their lands to earn a profit for their shareholders, or do they
have an obligation to preserve those lands for subsistence and for generations
to come?"
7. Risking and Saving the Land
Land owned by Native corporations can be lost through sales, corporate takeover,
bankruptcy, or taxation. This has generated so much concern among Natives
trying to save their land that there are now a number of options to prevent
loss of these lands. This program is an exploration of the major risks and
what alternatives are available.
8 Subsistence and the Law
Carrying on the subsistence lifestyle without interference from the law is
a thing of the past. Traditional ways of hunting fishing, and gathering are
now subject to political and legal changes and challenges in what may well
be Alaska's most bitter controversy. Hear discussion of the new role of Alaska
Natives as treaty-makers and game managers.
9. Sovereignty - How it Works
in Real Life
Local government control is a reality in some areas of Native Alaska. In other
areas Natives are working to implement their own unique forms of self- government.
Some have found self-determination in traditional government. Take a close
look at the communities where sovereignty is becoming a reality.
10. The Newborns—Left
Out of ANCSA
When the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. passed on December 18, 1971,
all those yet to be born were left out. Now thousands of teenagers and toddlers
alike are on the outside of ANCSA looking in. The Native community is divided
into ANCSA shareholders and newborns, and the problems could get worse. Natives
young and old speak out in eloquent terms.
11. From Hunter, Fisher, Gatherer
to Corporate Director
The corporation idea—how and why it was chosen as a vehicle
for land claims. Was this a good way to give Alaska Natives
a piece of the American
dream, or was it a way of assimilating them? This program examines how Natives
have made the transition from traditional life to corporate director or shareholder
12. Changing
the Claims Act—The
Key Players
Nearly every Native organization in the state is jumping on
the "Let's
do something about ANCSA" idea. What began as grassroots dissatisfaction
with the act has now shifted into a well-organized movement. There is the Inuit
Circumpolar Conference, the United Tribes of Alaska, the Alaska Federation
of Natives, and Association of Village Council Presidents, and others.
13. Recommendations of the Alaska
Native Review Commission
An historic journey by Canadian Judge Thomas R. Berger has culminated in some
provocative recommendations about the options open to Alaska's Natives. Listeners
will hear a cross-section of views about what Berger reported and how this
may affect changes in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
14. Other Settlements with Indigenous
Peoples Settlement Act
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act inspired other indigenous peoples in
the world to seek land claims in the settlements with their countries. This
program will look at those efforts in Canada, Greenland, Australia, Norway,
and elsewhere. Now some of the land claims proposals of others are being studied
by Alaskans seeking to improve ANCSA.
15. The Dream versus the Reality
The final segment considers what people wanted all along in land claims and
what they got. Should all the hard work of the past be scrapped? How has
the dream changed? Voices of many people speak of the future, what they want
and how they will go about getting it for themselves and their Children.
16. Special Program--Berger's
Recommendations
|