In
practice, ANCSA divvied up “aboriginal” land (about 12% of Alaskan territory)
and designated “Alaska Native corporations”, or ANCs, to administer this land.
To be a qualified member of these ANCs, one had to be born before 1971 and at
least ¼ Native blood. Within the land administered by the regional corporation,
about 200 tribal groups were organized into village corporations. Village
corporations were given surface title to lands, and the regional corporations
were given subsurface title to lands – an essential detail when considering any
potential oil reserves under the surface were, now, directly owned by the state
government, which oversaw the regional corporation.
So,
overall, ANCSA: good or bad for the Inupiat? Well, a bit of both. Many
scholars argue for mostly bad, though the good is well worth noting.
The bad:
a corporate, capitalist political system was imposed on a cooperative yet
heterogeneous culture. The corporation system fails to account for cultural
differences between the 12 representative groups – what benefits one
corporation may come at the detriment of another. Furthermore, the corporation
system’s legislative skeleton lent itself to many instances of influence from
oil-company and state-government lobbyists.
With the
passing of time, we have seen Congress and the state government take
advantage of the bill by leasing oil-rich lands to oil companies in order to
jumpstart Alaska’s economy and injecting domestic oil into American economy.
All the while, Inupiat land rights were, for the most part, disregarded. Not
only was Inupiat political culture radically changed due to ANCSA, but the
economic return to the natives has been remarkably insubstantial compared to
the oil companies’ profits.
The good:
the Inupiat went from having no say in the legal workings of their land, as of
1958, to having administrative and direct influence over their land as of 1971.
Obviously, as addressed above, this system was, and still is, riddled with
imperfections, but progress was still made – progress that the Inupiat took
part in crafting themselves. It is, also, worth noting that no other
administrative system like the Inupiat’s exists for any other American native
population.
In so
many words, the Inupiat went from being completely powerless with problems to
having problems. With ANCSA came an entirely new array of challenges for the
Inupiat as well as a new political muscle to address such challenges. The
transition to such administrative authority was in itself flawed, but at the
very least, the Inupiat have a say in their future.
Kentch
Gavin
2012 A
Corporate Culture? The Environmental Justice Challenges of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act. Mississippi Law Journal 81(4):813-837.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the scope of this issue, the central question seems to be do the needs of the many truly outweigh the needs of the few?
ReplyDeleteOn the national-historical scale, from the American perspective, leasing these lands for the economic gain was a necessary feat. The American economy was in need of these domestic oil reserves, what with the rise of OPEC and the beginnings of the 1973 oil crisis.
On the other hand, from an indigenous and postcolonial perspective, the American government has done enough to the Native populations. Genocide, land stealing, and political deviance are arguably the foundations on which America built itself. Where do we draw the line as a country?
We (Americans) are quite defective when walking the line between what is "politically wise" and what is morally wise. Our handling of the Inupiat people not only illustrates how the two sides differ, but it also shines light on how the more we blindly venture into the "politically wise" direction, the further we detach ourselves from the self-image we so dearly claim to hold
As a 19-year-old college student from the States, I find it unsettling that our country has yet to part from this habitual behavior. Throughout my early education, subjects like racism and our treatment of Native Americans were presented as past events that ended. These issues are clearly still with us.
Also, as a Puerto-Rican/Cuban American, I empathize with the Inupiat people. Imperialism has many faces - overt oppression being only one of them. While overt oppression is, for the most part, in the rear-view mirror, minority groups can relate to the myriad of subtly oppressive practices that still exist.