"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. "FROM HUNTER, FISHER, GATHERER TO CORPORATE DIRECTOR"
(Part 11 of 16)
(Margie Johnson) They were literally plucked as fishermen from
the village and put in Washington D.C. and fought toe to toe, head
to head with some of the finest that the Eastern establishment
had to offer, and a miraculous thing happened. Alaska Native people
won.
AFTER ALASKA NATIVES WON THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT
IN 1971, DRAMATIC CHANGES AFFECTED NEARLY EVERY ASPECT OF LIVING
IN VILLAGE ALASKA. PEOPLE WERE FORCED TO LEARN THE AMERICAN BUSINESS
WORLD AND GIVEN 20 YEARS IN WHICH TO DO IT. NOW A LOOK AT HOW HUNTERS
AND FISHERS BECAME CORPORATE DIRECTORS. 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.
[Wally Olsen] It would be much like if some
Eskimo handed you a harpoon and gave you a skin boat and said, "Okay, now go
out and be a successful whaler" and pushed you out to sea
and said "There you go". You're doomed to failure, you
could never make it. Well, in the same way the corporate format
was set up and they said "Okay, now be successful."
[Georgianna Lincoln] Any other corporation in this world, they
form a company for a specific task. Either they're going to be
making cars or they're going be real estate, but they go into it
already knowing what they're setting up their company to do. That's
unlike us, who inherited corporations that were told to now go
out and invest, and invest wisely because you only have until 1991.
MANY LIKE WALLY OLSEN AND GEORGIANNA LINCOLN ENTERED THE CORPORATE
WORLD QUICKLY, BUT NOT EASILY. WHEN CONGRESS PASSED ANCSA, IN 1971,
ALASKA NATIVES SUDDENLY HAD TO RUN THE CORPORATIONS CREATED BY
THE ACT--12 LARGE REGIONAL CORPORATIONS AND MORE THAN 200 VILLAGE
CORPORATIONS. THE CORPORATIONS SHARED NEARLY A BILLION DOLLARS
AND ONE-TENTH OF THE LAND IN ALASKA. BUSINESS PEOPLE HAD TO BE
FOUND QUICKLY.
LILLY MC GARVEY.
We became boards of directors, we became presidents, secretaries,
vice-presidents, treasurers of million dollar corporations. It's
just as if somebody went down
on the street of Anchorage, picked anybody coming up the street and said, "Hey,
you're a corporation president, or you're a corporation secretary". There
was no provision for any type of training to really show us what a corporation
was, how it should be run. So we have struggled.
WHILE ANCSA CORPORATIONS HAVE STRUGGLED TO STAY AFLOAT FOR MORE
THAN A DOZEN YEARS, THE STRUGGLE FOR LAND CLAIMS WAS THEIR BEGINNING.
MANY TRIBAL GROUPS HAD ASSERTED THEIR RIGHTS TO AREAS OF LAND SINCE
THE 1940'S, THE REAL STATEWIDE PUSH BEGAN IN APRIL 1967 WITH EMIL
NOTTI. HE DISCOVERED THE BIA PLANNED TO SETTLE THE LAND PROBLEM
IN ALASKA.
I thought well if the Bureau of Indian Affairs is going to draw up a final
solution the Indian people ought to have something to say about what that
solution is. I called the first meeting, I wrote letters to 14 or 15 people
around the state, most of whom I didn't know.
NOTTI'S LETTER WAS WELL PUBLICIZED AND OVER 300 PEOPLE SHOWED
UP. THESE PEOPLE FORMED THE ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES ASSOCIATION
TO PROMOTE GRASS ROOTS ISSUES THAT AFFECTED NATIVE LAND CLAIMS.
EMIL NOTTI BECAME AFN'S FIRST PRESIDENT.
THE RELATIVELY NEW STATE OF ALASKA WAS SELECTING
LANDS GRANTED UNDER STATEHOOD, AND NATIVE PEOPLES QUESTIONED "BY WHAT RIGHT" THOSE
LANDS WERE BEING SELECTED.
SPUD WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT OF TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE.
There was a large segment of land being claimed by the state itself, with no
real legal right to make those claims. Everybody knew that. Federal government
knew it, the State knew it. And you could see all of the land disappearing
under pieces of paper called deeds and claims. It was becoming apparent that
there would soon be no land left for any kind of a Native Claims Settlement
Act.
ALASKA NATIVES CONVINCED INTERIOR SECRETARY STEWART UDALL TO FREEZE
STATE LAND SELECTIONS UNTIL A SETTLEMENT COULD BE REACHED.
WILLIE HENSELY
...The State of Alaska fought vehemently because we in effect were going at
the state's economic jugular, because the State had a very small population
with a very small tax base and was in effect using the public lands, it's state
selections as a matter of fact, as a vault which they could sell leases on
and what not to try to balance the budget.
STILL ALASKA NATIVES DID NOT GET THE EAR OF CONGRESS IN A SERIOUS
WAY UNTIL OIL COMPANIES WANTED OIL FROM PRUDHOE BAY.
JOHN BORBRIDGE.
The nation needed oil. A pipeline could not be built without the
passage of ANCSA, which would be the vehicle for clearing title
to the land over which the oil companies wanted to construct the
Alaska Pipeline.
EARLY CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS WERE HELD IN 1968 AND 1969.
[John Borbridge] We asserted our rights before
Chairman Aspinall. The first questions he asked was this "Are you Native people
entitled to a land settlement? What are your rights?" Later
on, the question came of how much and how should it be administered,
but we had to get past the barrier "Were we entitled to a
settlement?" and history shows very clearly that the land
rights that had been asserted by Indian tribes had been an assertion
of aboriginal title. In Alaska there had been no extinguishment
of this Indian or Aboriginal title. We Alaska Natives were on and
using the land.
ELDERS TRAVELLED TO TELL CONGRESS ABOUT THEIR CONTINUING USE AND
OCCUPANCY OF ABORIGINAL LANDS.
[John Borbridge] The congressmen after all, were being introduced
to the users of the land and more importantly the users of the
land were being introduced to the members of the Congress. The
congressional committees were also receiving a demonstration as
was intended, that the Native leadership had the full support of
the Elders, the grass roots people, those who lived on, used, and
occupied the land on a daily basis.
IN ADDITION TO POWERFUL TESTIMONY BY NATIVE ELDERS, THE LAND CLAIMS
LEADERS WINED, DINED, AND PERSUADED THE POWER BROKERS IN CONGRESS
TO THE ALASKAN POINT OF VIEW. DETAILS OF THE SETTLEMENT BEGAN FORMING.
[John Borbridge] Congressmen were concerned as to how assets received
from settlement legislation would be used. Some of them confided
they had heard horror stories about Indian spending sprees following
per capita distributions. Testimony about constructive plans for
the use of settlement act monies reassured them and they needed
reassuring. They understood, the congressmen did, economic development,
and they approved of it as an objective. This, after all was a
concept very common in their world. So we spoke about plans for
economic development.
THE IDEA OF CORPORATIONS EMERGED AS A WAY TO HOLD ASSETS AND LAND.
THE LANDS COULD BE LOST THROUGH BANKRUPTCY AND IN 1991 THEY WOULD
ALSO BE AT RISK FROM CORPORATE TAKEOVER AND TAXATION. MANY WONDER
WHY CONGRESS AND LAND CLAIMS LEADERS WOULD PUT THE VERY LANDS THAT
NATIVE PEOPLES HOPED TO SAVE FOREVER, IN SOMETHING AS RISKY AS
A CORPORATION.
EMIL NOTTI.
We didn't want trust lands. In a lot of ways this was a social
experiment. They were trying to find a way, I think, to get the
Indian into the economic mainstream of America.
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL RAMSEY CLARK.
We were, not so much me but the other lawyers working on it were business corporate
lawyers. That was their history, that was their knowledge, that was their
joy. And their familiarity with Native ways and needs was somewhat limited.
We decided that if we were going to make mistakes, we'd do it
ourselves. (EMIL NOTTI) If we were going to be poor we'd at least
be responsible for what we did. And it's probably best to get people
independent. And one of the quickest ways to familiarize people
with the economic system is to give them a stake in it. And what
better stake is there than a hundred shares in a corporation.
ACCORDING TO BYRON MALLOT, THE LAND CLAIMS NEGOTIATORS OF A-F-N,
THE ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, WANTED TO INVOLVE THE PEOPLE
BACK HOME IN THE DECISION AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT EVENTS IN WASHINGTON
D.C. MOVED VERY QUICKLY.
Ultimately it was the board of directors of AFN that made the crucial decisions
on behalf of the Native people in Washington, we could not have made any forward
movement any other way. At some point you have to make decisions.
DON WRIGHT WAS THE SECOND PRESIDENT OF A-F-N, ONE OF THE NEGOTIATORS
WHO MADE THOSE IMPORTANT DECISIONS.
We would stand in the halls of Congress before a subcommittee room or a committee
room and wait and wonder, while representatives of the State of Alaska, senators
and congressmen, cut deals behind closed doors that we knew nothing about and
had no control over. I was told by the White House that a bill would pass and
that we had no say from that day forward. I didn't believe that. I thought
we could change it. I thought there was true democracy, that there was true
justice.
NEITHER THE DELEGATION IN WASHINGTON NOR THE FOLKS BACK HOME KNEW
EXACTLY WHAT WAS IN THE FINAL BILL. A-F-N PRESIDENT DON WRIGHT
WANTED TO KNOW ALL THE FINAL DETAILS AND GET THEM APPROVED BY THE
PEOPLE HE REPRESENTED.
So I pleaded with the White House that the President not sign the
bill until at least we could convene in Anchorage and deliberate
on the final draft that
was approved by the joint conferences of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
They said "Do what you gotta do, but it's done." I said "Well
it would sure be nice if the President could address the Native people, and
ask them what they thought and at least allow them to take a vote. They said
again "We're sorry, but that isn't the way it works."
PIECES OF THE BILLS THAT THE LAND CLAIMS NEGOTIATORS THOUGHT MIGHT
BE IN THE FINAL BILL WERE TAKEN TO ANCHORAGE FOR THE FULL AFN CONVENTION
TO CONSIDER, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS APPARENT NO CHANGES WOULD BE MADE
IN THE ACT. AT THE CONVENTION IN DECEMBER 1971, SOME DELEGATES
OPPOSED IT, MANY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT, AND SOME SUPPORTED IT BECAUSE
THEY THOUGHT IT WAS THE ONLY CHANCE. MORE THAN 500 OF THE 600 DELEGATES
VOTED TO ACCEPT THE ACT.
A total of 511 yes, and 56 no.
The vote is complete...
AFTER THE VOTE THERE WAS NO CHEER, NO APPLAUSE. THERE WERE MANY
MIXED FEELINGS. THE TAPED VOICE OF PRESIDENT NIXON WAS PLAYED FOR
THE CONVENTION.
Ladies and gentlemen of the AFN, this is the White House in Washington
calling. I present the President of the United States.
[President Nixon] I appreciate this opportunity to extend my greetings
and best wishes to the Convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives.
I want you to be among the first to know that I have just signed
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This is a milestone in
Alaska's history, and in the way our government deals with Native
and Indian peoples. It shows that institutions of government are
responsive.
JOHN SCHAEFFER REMEMBERS THAT THEY FINALLY GOT A COPY OF ANCSA
TWO WEEKS AFTER IT PASSED. A THREE-DAY MEETING WAS HELD BEGINNING
ON JANUARY 2nd 1972 TO REVIEW THE ACT.
Our consensus after a 3-day thorough review of the act was that there were
many problems with the act and some of the solutions could be handled administratively
by working with the Department of Interior, but many others would have to
take amendments to the act.
AFTER A BITTERSWEET EXPERIENCE WITH THE WORKINGS OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY,
ALASKA NATIVES TRIED TO MAKE ANCSA WORK.
THE 12 LARGE REGIONAL CORPORATIONS GOT MOST OF THE START-UP MONIES.
THEY ALSO OWNED THE SUBSURFACE OF THE VILLAGE CORPORATION LANDS.
VILLAGE CORPORATIONS HAD LITTLE SEED CAPITAL AND FEW OPPORTUNITIES
FOR SUCCESS IN MOST CASES. ALL OF THE CORPORATIONS WERE GIVEN 20
YEARS TO SUCCEED, SALE OR TRADING OF STOCK WAS SUSPENDED UNTIL
1991. THE LARGEST CORPORATE ASSET WAS LAND.
By that act, by the act of putting the land into the corporations,
the land became an economic asset, (BYRON MALLOT) under law, under
every other imaginable understanding of what it means to place
an asset into a for-profit business corporation. And so immediately
we were on a divergent course as to how that land could best be
utilized and how best it could be maintained on behalf of Native
people for the long-term future. Because that's not what the land
was for. The land was not viewed as an economic asset. It was viewed
as the touchstone and the basis from which Native people could
maintain their value systems and their cultures.
GORDON PULLAR OF KODIAK
...Individuals who had worked on the mechanics of the Settlement moved directly
into corporate management roles. While these people may have been accomplished
politicians, it did not necessarily follow that they would excel as business
managers. No one seemed to realize this at the time, and the leaders had
good intentions and worked hard. Those qualities, noble as they may be do
not ensure survival in the American business world.
MANY OF THE LAND CLAIMS LEADERS AND FIRST CORPORATION PRESIDENTS
WERE VERY YOUNG, MOST UNDERSTOOD ENGLISH WELL, AND MANY DID NOT
SPEAK THEIR NATIVE TONGUE. THEY WERE AN ENTIRELY NEW TYPE OF LEADER
OUTSIDE OF THE NATIVE TRADITIONS OF LEADERSHIP.
DENNIS DEMMERT.
As of 1971 we relate to each other very differently from the way
we did before. One of these ways that has changed is the decision
making process. One thing that I did not appreciate at the time
was the training, the very conscious training process that was
taking place with the Elders doing the training. The Settlement
Act brought about a new way of selecting decision makers, that
is the corporate model. One of the questions that I have to ask
in my own thinking about this is does this new process bring into
play the same kind of leadership skills that we had before?
We've got to go out and lobby to get elected to our regional corporations
especially, and our village corporations, and get the votes, (GEORGIANNA
LINCOLN) and kind of sell yourself as to why you think that you
do such a good job on the board and that's not really Native people's
way, to brag about how good you are in anything. And yet when you
want to get on the board you'd better explain why you feel that
you're more qualified than the next person. That's foreign to us.
[Dennis Demmert] Those old leaders did two things that I thought
were very important. One was they were very sensitive to what people
wanted and needed. And second, they had a perspective which showed
them, I think, times when there were something more important and
more necessary than what the people wanted or what people said
that they wanted. There were times when they made some decisions
when they kind of stood alone, but they had a perspective, I think,
learned through their experiences, and learned through their education
that really came to bear. And I wonder if we have that any more
with the drastic change that has taken place in the political structure
in the Native community since 1971?
AFTER THE CLAIMS ACT PASSED THERE WAS A REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IN
A-F-N. THE ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES HAD BEEN A STATEWIDE GRASSROOTS
ORGANIZATION DURING THE STRUGGLE TO GET THE CLAIMS ACT PASSED.
AFTERWARDS MEMBERS OF THE A-F-N BOARD CREATED A NEW ORGANIZATION
CALLED THE ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INCORPORATED. IT WAS DESIGNED
TO REPRESENT ONLY THE 12 REGIONAL CORPORATIONS, BOTH PROFIT AND
NON-PROFIT. THE ORIGINAL A-F-N ASSOCIATION CEASED TO FUNCTION.
UNDER THE NEW A-F-N INCORPORATED, EACH REGIONAL CORPORATION SELECTED
THEIR OWN DELEGATES TO ATTEND ANNUAL CONVENTIONS. ALASKA NATIVES
HAVE NO STATEWIDE GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION, BUT THERE ARE NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
A-F-N, INCORPORATED ALLOWED ONE THIRD OF THEIR DELEGATES TO BE
FROM VILLAGES DURING THE 1985 CONVENTION. IN 1983, A NEW GRASSROOTS
ORGANIZATION FORMED CALLED UNITED TRIBES OF ALASKA. ABOUT HALF
OF ALASKA'S VILLAGES HAVE JOINED U-T-A WHICH PROMOTES THE POWERS
OF NATIVE GOVERNMENTS. ANCSA SAID NOTHING ABOUT NATIVE GOVERNMENTS,
BUT THEY MAY OFFER PROTECTIONS THAT WILL ACTUALLY SAVE THE LANDS
PEOPLE HAD HOPED FOR WHEN THEY FOUGHT FOR THE LAND CLAIMS ACT.
CORPORATIONS AND NATIVE GOVERNMENTS COULD WORK TOGETHER, BUT THE
DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN IRONED OUT.
We forgot about the tribes, you know, and the non-profit part
of the thing sat by the wayside for oh, ten years. (JACK WICK)
It hasn't been until the last two or three years that the non-profit
side, the tribal, the social side of the Natives have been starting
to come back.
NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS EXISTED IN SOME FORM IN MOST REGIONS OF
ALASKA BEFORE THE CLAIMS ACT PASSED. IN FACT, ANCSA LANDS AND MONEY
COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO NON-PROFITS, BUT SINCE NON-PROFITS AREN'T
ALLOWED TO MAKE DISTRIBUTIONS SUCH AS DIVIDENDS, THEY WERE SEEN
AT THE TIME AS INFLEXIBLE. THE NON-PROFITS DELIVERED A VARIETY
OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BEFORE ANCSA AND CONTINUE TO DO SO
TODAY.
CALEB PUNGOWIYI, PRESIDENT OF KAWERAK, NON-PROFIT.
The Claims Settlement act was good to the non-profit. It gave us legitimacy
to work as a tribal organization, it gave us a set boundary to work within
a particular region. Although the boundaries had already been pretty much
established by the non-profits prior to the Native Claims Settlement Act.
We organized in a statewide manner to address mutual problems and concerns.
THE INDIAN SELF DETERMINATION ACT OF 1975 ALSO HELPED NON-PROFITS
BY ENCOURAGING CONTRACTS FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES TO BE CHANNELED
THROUGH THE NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS. IRONICALLY SOME OF THE NON-PROFITS
HAVE OUTPERFORMED THEIR FOR-PROFIT COUNTERPARTS.
CREDITORS ARE ALREADY DEMANDING LANDS FROM VILLAGE AND REGIONAL
CORPORATIONS. TAXATION AND CORPORATE TAKEOVER ARE ALSO THREATS
TO CONTINUED LAND OWNERSHIP BY THE CORPORATIONS.
A method must be devised (JACK WICK) to save what land they have
left. Whether corporate law precludes them from putting that land
in a land bank or in a tribal organization of some kind. But as
it stands now I think the Native corporations, there's several
filing bankruptcy, selling off assets to pay off debts. But I think
the end result if something isn't done is that we're all going
to lose the land. And on the other side of the coin, the Federal
Government can say, well, we gave it to them and they lost it.
But it wasn't easy to hang onto from the very beginning.
Were I to be involved today in the drafting of the Act and using
the hindsight that I have gained over the years and the emotional
scars of the corporate board room and the acculturation process,
I would do some things different. (PERRY EATON FROM KODIAK) Number
One there must be cultural lands in Alaska. The Native people must
have their own lands, not as corporate assets, but as Native people.
I believe any amendment that doesn't achieve that is a stop gap.
The other thing that if I were redoing the Act would be to differentiate
between the land and opportunity. I think the corporate structure
serves very well for opportunity.
BYRON MALLOT
...We took the Act at a time of expectations and hope at a fever pitch and
were ultimately thrown into the business of having to implement it with the
result that has brought us essentially to this point. The Native people have
said, "Hey, where are we? What has this meant? Has it been good for
us?" People are saying "Throw the whole thing out and start over" and
others are saying "Give us time it'll work" But in my judgment
also there were several fatal flaws in the Claims Settlement Act that have
to be fixed. I don't think that they can be fixed within the framework of
continuing implementation of the Claims Settlement Act. They're the sort
of fixes that you can't do on a moving machine. The land was placed in the
corporations without really an appreciation, I believe, of what the corporations
were and what they could do, because corporations are essentially a business
machine.
SOME NATIVE CORPORATIONS HAVE BEAT THE ODDS BY JUST CONTINUING
TO EXIST. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR'S 1985 STUDY
ON THE SUCCESS OF ANCSA ONLY 12 OR 13 OF THE 200 VILLAGE CORPORATIONS
COULD HAVE EXPECTED TO SUCCEED. MANY ARE ON THE BRINK OF BANKRUPTCY
OR EXIST ONLY ON PAPER. THE REGIONAL CORPORATIONS, IN GENERAL,
HAVE FARED BETTER. ABOUT HALF OF THE REGIONAL CORPORATIONS SHOWED
A NET INCOME IN 1985 FROM THE TIME THEY WERE FORMED. CORPORATION
FORTUNES CAN CHANGE DRAMATICALLY-FROM THE FORTUNE 500 TO HUGE DEBTS.
THEY ARE ALL SEARCHING FOR WAYS TO SAVE THE LAND AND REMAIN FINANCIALLY
VIABLE.
JOHN BORBRIDGE
...As one of the prime movers of corporations as a vehicle for the administration
of ANCSA assets, I admit I've certainly reached the point of questioning
whether corporations are up to the job. Somehow they seem to lack the closeness
to the people of tribal governing bodies and somehow they do not seem to
possess the personal timeless quality that in my opinion tribal governing
bodies have.
ANCSA HAS BEEN AMENDED TWICE ALREADY AND MORE CHANGES ARE ON THE
WAY. A-F-N INCORPORATED IS SENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONGRESS
FOR THE 1986 SESSION TO GIVE CORPORATIONS MORE OPTIONS TO RETAIN
CONTROL OF STOCK INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF TRANSFERRING LANDS
TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS. SOME GROUPS MAY CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF
ANCSA. AS OTHER GROUPS READY THEIR SUGGESTIONS MORE AMENDMENTS
ARE LIKELY TO BE PROPOSED.
DON WRIGHT.
I don't believe the door is closed and I think we've got a long way to go,
and that at some point, there will be a reconsideration and justice will
truly have been done.
JOIN US FOR OUR NEXT PROGRAM WHEN WE EXAMINE THE CHANGES THAT
ALASKA NATIVES ARE PROPOSING TO CLEAR UP THE PROBLEMS OF THE ALASKA
NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT. 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. SPECIAL
THANKS TO THE COMMUNITY OF GAMBELL FOR DANCING, SINGING, AND DRUMMING,
AND ALSO TO THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE, AND THE ALASKA NATIVE
FOUNDATION. "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