ANCSA Argumentative Essay

1321 Words3 Pages

The United States of America originally purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 for 7.2 million dollars. When striking this deal Natives of Alaska and their lands were never taken into consideration. Ever since Alaskan Natives battled for their lands and subsistence land rights. However, it was not until 1959, when Alaska became a state, that natives pushed for a solution to their land claims and rights (Creed and Dixie). In fear of failure from previous events in the Lower 48 such as the Dawes Act of 1887, or Burke Acts, Alaskan Natives knew they did not want their culture or land to be diminished. In 1966 Native leaders in Alaska collaborated to form the Alaska Federation of Natives, which advocated for Natives rights. In 1968 the federal government …show more content…

Of major concern was that Section 5(a) prohibits anyone born after December 18, 1971, to be able to participate in ANSCA. Furthermore, This means that the majority of Alaskan natives would not be able to have shares in their land, thus defeating the purpose of ANCSA. Many considered this to be a major limitation and made it seem as if ANSCA was just a temporary solution. For further generations of Alaskan Native peoples, they would have no say, no land, and could suffer from not reaching any benefits from ANSCA (Ongtooguk). When originally passing ANSCA the economics behind it always provided a challenge and was arguably the most difficult part of the settlement (“Alaska History”). Due to the economics behind ANSCA it forced natives to become corporate leaders. Having a corporation run by natives does not align with the Alaskan culture and thus many coronations were unseussceul (Robinson). Furthermore, having a corporate structure deteriorates from Native culture, “some Alaska Natives have said that buying into corporate law doctrines was a departure from their heritage” (Robinson 338). Because maintaining a healthy economic culture in Alaska many natives were tempted to sell their lands, just to have money to live off of. While this was not their first choice, many felt economically pressured but many natives feel strongly that lands should …show more content…

The 1991 amendments did little to improve on this. Congress, when passing the amendments defeated and voted them through with little to no input from the native community (Bowen). One would think because they were trying to improve on the legislation they would consider the people living under it, however this was not the case. Due to this the amendments were still unable to met or enhance the original goals of ANCSA. Moreover, ANSCA was still not reaching the needs of the Natives. (Bowen 405). Alaka is geographically challenged, and because of this this natives had a higher cost of living. Unfountaly ANSCA after the amendments was unable to help this and many natives still reside in poverty and have limited job opportunities which in turn has stunted the economic growth (Robinson 339-340). After 1991 native land still had the opportunity to get out of native control, and because many natives were financially struggling it seemed this was their way to survive (“ “ANCSA at 40”). The 1991 amendments offered the chance for ANSCA to stay alive, but did not allow natives a sustainable option for preserving their culture, while remaining financially

Open Document