Native claims in Alaska remain a work in progress

In 1970, after a long public controversy, William A. Egan was elected governor on his promise to support an equitable settlement of Alaska Native land claims.  On the advice of Alaska's congressional delegation and Gov. Egan, and the Alaska Native people from Barrow to Hydaburg, now politically galvanized and organized through the Alaska Federation of Natives and comprehensive regional associations, Congress adopted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) effective Dec. 17, 1971.

The history of relations between the United States and American Indians (so called because the European discoverers of America didn't know the American continent existed and thought their ships had reached India) began with treaties, then metamorphosed into systematic killing and violent displacement.  By the end of the 19th century, as direct violence faded and Indians had been squeezed into reservations, policy shifted to assimilation — trying to make the remaining Indians into "Americans" using Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools.  BIA schools apart, none of this touched remote Alaska, purchased from Russia in 1867 with a promise to recognize Alaska Native land rights.

A romantic notion persisted among some that on these reservations, Indian life could be recreated as it was before they were forced off their land.  This style of reservation policy defined Indians as permanently different people with a permanently different culture.  From an idealistic perspective, this preservation policy was, well, ideal: Let Indians be Indians. Practically, it was a disaster. Indians had been moved to largely unproductive lands. Poverty, anomie, suicides and inadequate medical services endowed reservations with a uniformly bleak history, which persists. Alaska Natives, looking at this situation in 1967 as they began to organize to effect the purchase promise, said "no way." They were OK on assimilation, perhaps seeing the inevitability, but on their terms and schedule.

[ANCSA helped shape Alaska's future.]

Thematically, ANCSA was assimilative in that its intention, as approved by the Native leadership, was to put the tools of modern America, Alaska corporate structure, land and money into Alaska Native hands.   ANCSA can be credited with substantial success as we view modern office buildings in Anchorage and a multibillion-dollar, nationally based economy run by Alaska Natives. ANCSA also recognized a few communities, to one degree or another, as deserving different treatment of land conveyances but reservations were not to be a part of the Alaska Native future. Under Section 19(a) of ANCSA, "… the various reserves set aside for Native use … are hereby revoked …"  Instead, every Alaska Native was issued stock in a village and/or regional corporation. Until a Native sovereignty theme began to get attention in the 1980s, most Alaskans, Alaska Natives included, understood that the act was a specific rejection of the reservation approach.

There was one problem: The corporate structure brought with it one of the flaws of untrammeled capitalism —  maldistribution of wealth. The bottom 47 percent count, made permanently famous by Gov. Mitt Romney, included Alaska Natives.

Many of those not included within the favored corporate culture turned to express their grievances through the traditional Alaska village structure, a voluntary association, which had not and could not have been abolished by a federal act. But self-reference of these associations as "tribes" did not make them so under federal law.

With the revival of these village "tribal" structures, BIA administrators soon realized that they had a new client population in Alaska and started to refer to them as "tribes" notwithstanding ANCSA Section 19(a). When Congress authorized the taking of land in trust from a "tribe," the BIA enacted regulations that it would consider taking conveyances of land from any "tribe," Alaskan or otherwise, into "trust."

[All Alaska Natives are equal, and all ANCSA shareholders should be too]

The effect of trust status is to establish that land effectively is a formal reservation. Infamously, mini-reservations have been used as bases for casino gambling, commonly racketeer dominated. (See Alaska historian Don Mitchell's new book, "Wampum.") Under Alaska's present economic circumstances, tax immunity for all business development on reservations poses a special problem.

Looking at the potential for hundreds of reservations in Alaska, Gov. Sean Parnell's attorney general challenged that power in federal court, but in conceding tribal status, notwithstanding Section 19(a), the case was effectively lost on the filing of the complaint.

There is every reason to commend Gov. Bill Walker's administration (and Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott, a true father of ANCSA) and Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth for opting for negotiation, but this negotiation should not be conducted in closeted circumstances. The general public needs to hear what issues are to be negotiated. What is the state's preferred outcome or compromise? It may be that settlement is impossible without the clarification and permanence provided by judicial determination.

The outcome is of critical importance to the future of the ANCSA settlement structure and of all Alaskans, including Alaska's Natives.

John Havelock co-chaired with Lowell Thomas Jr. Supporters of Settlement, a loose association composed largely of non-Natives advocating for a liberal settlement.  As Gov. Bill Egan's attorney general, he played a supporting role in shepherding ANCSA through Congress.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.