"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. "THE NEWBORNS--LEFT OUT OF ANCSA"
(Part 10 of 16)
[Noah Andrews, Tuluksak] Just one minute after midnight, the morning
of December 19th, 1971, at 12:01 AM, a child was born, a newborn
child, one minute too late.
THEY ARE CALLED NEWBORNS OR AFTERBORNS-CHILDREN BORN TOO LATE
TO DIRECTLY GET SHARES IN THE CORPORATIONS THAT NOW OWN NATIVE
LANDS. ELDERS, NEWBORNS AND PARENTS ARE UNWILLING TO ACCEPT SUCH
A WEDGE BETWEEN PEOPLE AND LANDS THEY REGARD AS THEIR BIRTHRIGHT--A
SMALL PORTION OF THE LANDS THAT NATIVE PEOPLES IN ALASKA USED AND
OCCUPIED FOR COUNTLESS GENERATIONS. PEOPLE ARE NOW MOVING TO RESTORE
EQUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LAND AND EACH OTHER. THIS IS HOLDING
OUR GROUND.
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.
[Mike Albert] On these people born after 1971,
which are today called "new Natives" to us these people are not "new
Natives". They are just like all of us. They are no different
than we are. They are our own children. Under the Settlement Act
of 1971, people had a chance to get shares, stocks, but after 1971,
people born after '71 cannot have shares, cannot have land, cannot
have stock, so as the way I see it is the way they are settled
today, they are like those children that don't even belong to us.
Those children don't even exist like Natives. They exist like non-Natives
because they have no right to vote, they have no right for anything
because of this Act.
MIKE ALBERT'S WORDS ARE ECHOED IN VILLAGES ACROSS ALASKA, BECAUSE
THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT, ANCSA, STRIKES AT THE
HEART OF THE KINSHIP TIES THAT BIND THE PAST TO THE FUTURE FOR
NATIVE PEOPLES. ANCSA PUT LANDS IN JEOPARDY THAT PEOPLE HAD HOPED
TO SAVE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. ALASKA NATIVES BORN BEFORE THE
ACT PASSED GOT ONE HUNDRED SHARES IN A REGIONAL CORPORATION AND
100 SHARES IN A VILLAGE CORPORATION. THOSE SHARES REPRESENT CORPORATE
ASSETS INCLUDING THE LAND. THE ACT HAS SERVED TO DIVIDE PEOPLE
IN A VERY ARTIFICIAL WAY.
PERRY EATON OF KODIAK.
The sense of cutting off and saying because you are 14 years old you are
a Native, but because you are 12 years old you are not a Native. That's
ludicrous. That is absolutely ludicrous. The structure of the corporation
does not deal with that. You cannot have a population that constantly is
expanding, who don't belong culturally, by virtue of the fact that you
had a settlement in 1971. It will lead, ultimately, to the smashing of
the people as an identity.
CONGRESS MAY HAVE HAD SOME IDEAS TO BRING NATIVES INTO THE AMERICAN
WAY OF LIFE WITH ANCSA--ACCORDING TO DOUG JONES WHO WAS AN AIDE
TO ALASKA SENATOR GRAVEL DURING THE WRITING OF THE ACT. HE SAYS
THE LEGISLATION REFLECTED THE MOOD OF THE COUNTRY THEN.
The times here were times of the sixties where upward mobility was the theme,
economic development was the rampant national theme. It was the theme that
was used throughout this legislation. A movement toward providing a sameness
for the Native population in terms of the legal recognition and treatment
that it had, that is, being like everybody else.
GUY MARTIN WAS SENIOR STAFF ASSISTANT TO ALASKA CONGRESSMAN NICK
BEGICH DURING THE FORMATION OF THE CLAIMS ACT.
Basically what people were saying is that they were worried about cheating
in enrollment and the mistakes on enrollment and explosion of the enrollment
rolls of people entitled to benefits under the act, people who were concerned
about the way in which proportionality between the regions would be maintained
where you used a population base as the criterion for dividing certain benefits
under the act.
THE LAW SAYS THAT ONLY ALASKA NATIVES BORN BEFORE THE ACT PASSED
ARE ELIGIBLE. THE LAW DEFINES ALASKA NATIVES AS ONE-FOURTH OR MORE
ESKIMO, INDIAN, OR ALEUT, OR A COMBINATION OF THE THREE. SOME ELIGIBLE
NATIVES MISSED THE ENROLLMENT BECAUSE OF MILITARY SERVICE, NOT
PROVING BLOOD QUANTUM, OR JUST SIMPLY BEING AWAY WHEN THE ROLL
WAS MADE. THE ENROLLMENT WAS CLOSED ANYWAY.
The administration (GUY MARTIN) pressed for some kind of certainty
with regard to the enrollment, and for some kind of certainty with
regard to a cutoff date, and one was added.
DOUG JONES
...I think the Congress was just rather pragmatic about it, not wanting to
leave it open-ended, just chose a date certain, and the date certain as is
often chosen in legislative acts, is the date of the passage of the act.
ALASKA NATIVES SEE THE CLOSED ENROLLMENT AS A WEDGE BETWEEN THE
SHAREHOLDERS AND THE NEWBORNS.
I have two girls, and one was born in '69 and one was born in
'81 (JUDY BAUMAN OF FAIRBANKS). One daughter is considered Native
and eligible for the land claims and the other one is not. And
I don't like that, to me it's almost like discriminating against
your own people. They're still, to me they're both my children
and they're both Natives and it's very difficult for me to think
that they're being treated differently.
SOME CHILDREN BORN BEFORE 1971 HAVE OFFERED TO SHARE THEIR VOTING
RIGHTS AND ANY DIVIDENDS THEY MIGHT GET WITH THEIR NEWBORN BROTHERS
AND SISTERS.
HENRY AHGUPUK OF SHISHMAREF.
My oldest son, who is the only one that participated in Land Claims Act,
has two younger sisters now. So, whatever he has got to share is getting
smaller and smaller. For I feel we are second class citizens, and I think
deep inside of our younger children born after 1971, they feel that they
are third class citizens.
In my own situation my oldest son (EDNA MAC
LEAN OF BARROW) has membership with the Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation and the Upeagvik
Village Corporation, but my younger son does not. And it was very
hard for me to explain to him that he was born too late to be a
part of the Iñupiaq people of the North Slope as it was
dictated by law through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
JIM CARDIN TEACHES AT EMMONAK SCHOOL.
All the Headstart children and the preschool children in this village, according
to this act are considered non-Native. My own two children, born of a Yup'ik
mother are considered non-Native. I am quite concerned about the fact that
these Native students or these Native children, are denied any voice, not
only in the preservation of the past, but also in the determination of the
future.
My name is Anna Marie Moore. I'm a senior at the Emmonak High
School. I do not think that it is fair for the after-borns of 1971
to be left out and not be considered shareholders, even though
they are Natives. I think that they have every right to become
shareholders because they will, and I myself, will be the future
Native leaders. If they are not considered shareholders who will
control the corporations and the land?
In the rest of the world an inheritance goes on to whoever you
will it to. (LILLY MAC GARVEY) If you will your Native shares to
your children who are not shareholders, not stockholders, they
have no vote as shareholders. They can inherit the shares but they
cannot vote if they are not at least a quarter Native. Down the
line, I can see a lot of our children who will not be a quarter
Native and it's a shame that, even though they inherit from us,
that that's who we want to talk for us after we're gone, they do
not have that right at the present time.
WHEN AN ORIGINAL SHAREHOLDER DIES, SHARES ARE USUALLY DISTRIBUTED
AMONG CHILDREN, SOMETIMES INEQUALITIES RESULT OR THE VALUE OF THE
SHARES DIMINISHES.
LILLY WALUNGA FROM GAMBELL.
How would I divide my shares, if I was to have, say, 10 kids? And later
they'd give their children their shares that was given from me, there wouldn't
be much left.
SAM DEMIENTIEFF OF FAIRBANKS.
So in the first generation you can have the shares being diluted right down
to almost nothing, and in fact lost in the first two or three generations.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN PAST INDIAN LEGISLATION.
IN 1887, THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT ENCOURAGED INDIANS TO BECOME
FARMERS ON LARGE HOMESTEADS. MOST LANDS WERE LOST BECAUSE PROVING
REQUIREMENTS WEREN'T MET. LANDS THAT SURVIVED BECAME SPLIT INTO
SUCH TINY PARCELS THAT IT MEANT LITTLE TO THE MANY HEIRS, AND IT
WAS NO LONGER USABLE FOR COMMUNAL PURPOSES. THE SIMILARITIES WITH
ANCSA ARE STRIKING. UNLESS THE ACT IS CHANGED, THE NEWBORNS MAY
NOT BE ABLE TO INFLUENCE CORPORATE DECISIONS UNTIL THEY ARE GRANDPARENTS
THEMSELVES.
VERNITA ZYLIS OF UNALAKLEET.
When my daughter is 21, I'll be 51. When she's 21 I hope that she would be
in a position and desirous of being able to speak for herself. However, under
ANCSA she will have no forum in which to speak for herself and she will not
have anything until I die, and I really don't plan to die when I'm 51. My
people have a history of longevity, and if I follow in my grandmother's footsteps,
for instance, I'm going to be 79, 80 some years old before I die and she
will then be middle-aged and have children and grandchildren of her own.
ANCSA SHARES CAN BE SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET IN 1991. PEOPLE ARE
SEARCHING FOR WAYS TO INCLUDE THE NEW NATIVES. SOME WANT TO ISSUE
SHARES TO NEWBORNS LIKE DAVID LIGHT FROM HAINES.
1971 I was not a grandfather, but now I'm a grandfather three times and my
grandchildren are left out. Only seven more years be 1991. They said that
through the whole State there was something like 7,000 children that were
born after 1971 and if we let them in that's going to water down everybody's
share. Hey, water it down!
IF NEWBORNS RECEIVED SHARES, THERE WOULD INSTANTLY BE MORE SHAREHOLDERS,
AND REDUCE THE CASH VALUE OF EACH SHARE. THE GROWING POPULATION
WOULD MEAN THAT MORE AND MORE SHARES WOULD BE ISSUED.
ROBIN SAMUELSON OF DILLINGHAM.
I have two newborns or afterborns in my family. Both do not own
stock in our corporation. I am against diluting my stock or allowing
newborns into the corporation. When a person owns stock in any
corporation, that person hopes that stock will increase in value,
not decrease or get diluted. My newborn children will become shareholders
in time. They will inherit my wife's stock, as well as mine. What
I own is what they own. They are newborns today but tomorrow they
will be shareholders. They are our future.
THE FUTURE IS UNCERTAIN SINCE SHARES COULD BE SOLD AFTER 1991.
THE SHARES REPRESENT A CASH VALUE FOR ASSETS AND LAND. BEFORE ANCSA,
LAND WAS USED AND OCCUPIED FREELY, IT COULD NOT BE SOLD OR BOUGHT
AS PRIVATE PROPERTY. MANY PEOPLE WORRY THAT THEY COULD BECOME TRESPASSERS
ON THEIR OWN LAND, AND POSSIBLY LOSE SUBSISTENCE HUNTING AND FISHING
RIGHTS. MOST PEOPLE REALIZE THE LAND IS AT RISK IN THE CORPORATE
STRUCTURE AS LONG AS THE CORPORATION IS SUBJECT TO TAKEOVER, BANKRUPTCY
AND TAXATION.
BARBARA RILEY-ASHER.
So what are the alternatives? I am not really familiar with all
of the legal aspects, but I would really hope that those representing
us would find ways to protect our land forever, so it will be available
for use by Natives during my lifetime and for future generations.
We really need to find some way to provide for those born after
1971.
SHAREHOLDERS WHO LIVE IN THE VILLAGE HAVE DIFFERENT CONCERNS FROM
THOSE LIVING ELSEWHERE. A FEW PEOPLE COULD END UP CONTROLLING THE
CORPORATION WHILE A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE VILLAGE
MIGHT NOT BE SHAREHOLDERS.
MIKE ALBERT.
When 1991 comes, if we don't do something, if everything just grew
as the way it is today, when 1991 comes, how many shareholders
are going to be left in the village of Tununak? Probably just maybe
10-15% of the whole population will be shareholders. And what power
are they going to be holding?
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA PROFESSOR BART GARBER.
Who, who makes the decision? Under the current resolutions we say that shareholders
do and that the actions that are necessary to be taken are a majority of
a quorum. That tells me that as little as 15 percent of the Natives who are
shareholders, will make decisions about the destiny of Natives and the land
that they own. Given the fact that the number of Natives will double, that
15 percent is then reduced to five to six percent of the Natives who live,
who could essentially make the decision about what happens with land.
One Hundred shares represents the past life of the Native people,
it represents the culture, the land, the lifestyle, village living.
(SAM DEMIENTIEFF OF FAIRBANKS) And this portion, this hundred shares
is something that's going to become available for sale to the public
in 1991. Right now, I think, people are beginning to understand
it. One of the things that one of our shareholders said at one
of the annual meetings was that he didn't think he held the responsibility
to hold a hundred shares in his hand that represents the Native
people throughout the ages in his village and area, to have him
the to give him the opportunity to sell that in 1991. He said that
was something that never should have happened. And I think he is
speaking true. Because what is sold there is the end of the people.
The people would continue on living, but what is taken from them
is everything that they lived for, land and everything that comes
with land.
CONGRESS IS BEING ASKED TO MAKE CHANGES IN 1986 BY THE ALASKA
FEDERATION OF NATIVES INCORPORATED--A STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION OF
THE 12 LARGE ANCSA REGIONAL CORPORATIONS. ONE OPTION WOULD CONTINUE
THE STOCK RESTRICTIONS BEYOND 1991, SO THAT IT WOULD BE OWNED ONLY
BY NATIVES AND THEIR DESCENDENTS. NEWBORNS WOULD BE ABLE TO RECEIVE
SHARES EQUAL WITH THE ORIGINAL SHAREHOLDERS, OR THEY COULD BE ISSUED
A SEPARATE CLASS OF STOCK, IT WOULD BE AT THE OPTION OF THE CORPORATION.
WHILE THESE OPTIONS WILL PREVENT CORPORATE TAKEOVER, ONLY THOSE
CORPORATIONS WHO REOPEN THE ROLLS WOULD RE-CREATE EQUAL REPRESENTATION.
HOWEVER, THESE CHANGES WOULD NOT KEEP A CORPORATION FROM GOING
BANKRUPT OR BEING TAXED. SOME PEOPLE FEEL THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO
CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO SELL IN 1991.
HUBERT MC CALLUM OF SAND POINT.
I resent somebody saying, you can do this with your share, you can't do
this, it's restricted, we like freedom. I'd like to have my choice as to
what I would like to do with my share in 1991.
SELLING STOCK MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE IF THE CORPORATION GOES BANKRUPT.
CREDITORS ARE ALREADY DEMANDING LANDS PLEDGED AS COLLATERAL FROM
VILLAGE AND REGIONAL CORPORATIONS. TAXATION IS THE OTHER MAJOR
THREAT TO LOSING CONTROL OF THE CORPORATIONS. THERE IS CURRENTLY
NO TAXATION OF UNDEVELOPED LANDS BUT THAT COULD CHANGE AS ALASKA'S
OIL WEALTH DECLINES.
MIKE VIGIL OF CHENEGA.
We've got to find that way so that we can pass that land on to our children
and their children so we could keep up the heritage and the culture. But we
can't pay taxes on it. That'll just force us to pay the land...to pay the taxes.
And then eventually we'll have no land again, and then there goes our culture.
SOME CORPORATIONS ARE ALREADY SELLING LAND TO COVER ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS OR TO SHOW A PROFIT. THESE ARE ALL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE PROSPECTS
FOR SHAREHOLDERS AND NEW NATIVES ALIKE SINCE THE RELATIONSHIP TO
THE LAND HAS BEEN CHANGED.
MARY MILLER OF NOME.
When you look through the corporate eye, our relationship to the land is altered.
We draw our identity as a people from our relationship to the land and to
the sea and to the resources. This is a spiritual relationship, a sacred
relationship. And it's in danger, because from a corporate stand point, if
we are to pursue profit and growth, and this is why profit corporations exist,
we would have to assume a position of control over the land resources and
exploit these resources to achieve economic gain. This is in conflict with
our traditional relationship to the land, where we were stewards, we were
caretakers, and where we have respect for the resources that sustain us.
ONE PROPOSED WAY TO SAVE LANDS IS TO TRANSFER CORPORATE LANDS TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
BY SHAREHOLDER VOTE. IF THIS WERE DONE, SHAREHOLDERS WOULD THEN DECIDE HOW
TO TREAT THOSE WHO VOTED AGAINST SUCH A MEASURE; EITHER BOUGHT OUT FOR THE
CASH VALUE OF THEIR SHARES, OR NOT RECOGNIZE THE DESCENTOR'S CORPORATE RIGHT
TO BE BOUGHT OUT.
ANDY HOPE IS PRESIDENT OF SITKA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. HE BELIEVES
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST WAY TO HOLD LAND FOR THE FUTURE.
We could lose all the land right now. And the children that have been born
since 1971, I think to me that's the strongest argument for transferring resources
to a tribe, because the children can enroll...become enrolled full fledged
members of a tribe, and it's an ongoing process. ...the tribe continually renews
itself because it's based on enrollment and tribal membership.
THE LAND IS HELD IN COMMON BY THE NATIVE GOVERNMENT. THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
CAN DECIDE TO SELL LAND, BUT THERE IS NO THREAT OF TAKE OVER AS IN A CORPORATION.
A TRIBAL GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT GO BANKRUPT, AND WOULD NOT LOSE LAND TO CREDITORS
UNLESS THEY SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO. THE LAW IS UNCLEAR WHETHER OR NOT LAND
HELD BY TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS CAN BE TAXED. THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR HAS INDICATED
HE HAS NO PLANS TO TAKE LAND INTO TRUST TITLE WHICH WOULD FREE IT FROM TAXES.
SOME LEGAL EXPERTS SAY THAT TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE POWERS THAT PREVENT THEM
FROM BEING TAXED, BUT SOME OTHER EXPERTS DISAGREE. TAXATION REMAINS AN OPEN
QUESTION.
MOST CORPORATIONS AREN'T QUITE READY TO HAND OVER EVERYTHING OVER
TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS. THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
IN ALASKA: TRADITIONAL AND IRA, NAMED FOR THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION
ACT.
GLEN FREDERICKS, NEWLY ELECTED CO-CHAIRMAN OF ALASKA FEDERATION
OF NATIVES, INCORPORATED.
I'd be very hesitant to go out now and put my million acres in this IRA 'til
I know, if we're going into it we better go knowing what we going into, everybody
knowing what we're going into, you know. And it's very important.
CORPORATIONS CAN RETAIN LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT UNDER THEIR PRESENT
STRUCTURE AND TRANSFER CULTURAL AND SUBSISTENCE LANDS TO TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT. THE CORPORATIONS CAN EXIST SIDE-BY-SIDE OR BE CHARTERED
BY THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.
DOLLY GARZA FROM KETCHIKAN.
I think this should not separate us and our children should be continued to
have the right that we now hold. I hope that we as Natives are never that
greedy because I know when our grandmothers and grandfathers fought for the
settlement Act, they had no intentions of leaving us out and we should never
have the intention of leaving our children out.
IN CANADA'S MOST RECENT LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT, THE COMMITTEE
FOR ORIGINAL PEOPLES ENTITLEMENT GOT SEVERAL MEMBERSHIP CORPORATIONS
TO HANDLE LAND, DEVELOPMENT, INVESTMENT, AND LOCAL NEEDS. CORPORATIONS
ARE BASED ON MEMBERSHIP NOT SHAREHOLDERS. THE LAND AND CORPORATIONS
ARE HELD IN TRUSTS BY TRIBAL ELDERS. OIL, GAS, AND MINERALS ARE
STILL CONTROLLED BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT. UNDEVELOPED LANDS
ARE FREE FROM TAXATION. THE PROBLEMS OF THE NEWBORNS HAVE BEEN
ELIMINATED.
ALASKANS ARE LOOKING FOR IDEAS THEY CAN USE TO DEAL WITH CURRENT
PROBLEMS IN THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT.
SHIELA AGA THIERIAULT OF LARSEN BAY.
The concern is, with 1991 coming up, that we're going to lose our lands and
our children are going to have nothing. With all the children born after
1971 ineligible for any Native rights, rights to live by subsistence, to
live by Native values in the Native way, this actually means that when the
last person that was alive before 1971 dies, Alaska Natives will no longer
exist. Well, you can't convince me of that because this village is still
going to be here. I don't know what condition it will be in, but we're still
going to be here and our children are still going to be here, and our children's
children. And I believe they will be living according to the values that
they have been taught--by no other. We're all dealing with the same thing.
And if we get our heads together periodically and talk about it among ourselves
and decide what to do and then back that decision up all the way I don't
think it's too late. Maybe I'm overly optimistic but I don't think when a
people refuse to accept things imposed upon them, I don't thing those things
can carry on without consent.
ALASKA'S NATIVE PEOPLES ARE DEMANDING TO BE CONSULTED ABOUT CHANGES
THAT WILL BE MADE. IN AN UPCOMING PROGRAM WE LOOK AT GRASSROOTS
POLITICAL ACTION, THE POWER BROKER, AND STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE.
IN OUR NEXT PROGRAM WE LOOK AT HOW HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN BECAME
CORPORATE DIRECTORS. PLEASE JOIN US. FOR HOLDING OUR GROUND THIS
IS ADELINE RABOFF.
THIS PROGRAM IS PRODUCED BY JIM SYKES, WRITTEN
BY BILL DUBAY AND SUE BURRUS, EDITED BY SUE BURRUS, AND RESEARCHED
BY FRANKIE BURRUS.
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.
The
University of Alaska Fairbanks is an Affirmative
Action/Equal Opportunity employer, educational
institution, and provider is a part of the University of Alaska
system. Learn more about UA's notice of nondiscrimination.
Alaska Native Knowledge
Network University of Alaska Fairbanks
PO Box 756730
Fairbanks AK 99775-6730
Phone (907) 474.1902
Fax (907) 474.1957