Perhaps
the most significant political change the Inupiat have recently experienced is
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. Essentially, Congress
enacted ANCSA in light of two far-reaching developments: Alaskan Natives’
growing desire to obtain land rights and the
discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope in 1968. Naturally, there are concerns
about ANCSA, such as what the provisions of ANCSA are and how they have
affected the Inupiat people.
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.