Alaska Native Politics since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

Abstract

In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), the largest indigenous land claims settlement in U.S history. Intended to resolve disputes over land and to spur economic development, ANCSA remained silent on issues of indigenous governance, or tribal sovereignty, as well as on subsistence rights, a particularly urgent issue because many Alaska Natives remain dependent on subsistence practices for survival. Consequently, Alaska Native politics since ANCSA has centered on campaigns for sovereignty and subsistence rights. Despite these shortcomings, ANCSA accorded Alaska Natives unprecedented possibilities for economic development that enable other forms of community self-determination. This essay explores the limits and possibilities of ANCSA by examining the ways it has transformed Alaska Native communities and politics. It also traces the legal conflicts that have ensued from the settlement, including those culminating in the landmark Venetie (1998) and Katie John (2001) decisions on sovereignty and subsistence that pit Alaska Natives against state and federal authorities.

Acculturation and self-rated health among Arctic indigenous peoples: a population-based cross-sectional study

“…Important to note is that the involved populations differ greatly in terms of the legal framework conveying indigenous autonomy and self-determination [ 59 - 62 ], thus generating discrepancies between the countries with regard to the premise for developing and securing culture, languages, and land and subsistence rights. Also, the Sami are in minority in most municipalities in Sápmi (apart from the municipalities of Karasjok, Kautokeino and Nesseby), while the Iñupiat and Kalaallit are in majority in their regions.…”

“Exceeding Beringia”: Upending universal human events and wayward transits in Arctic spaces

“…Whether it be through processes of forced governmental relocation; incarcerating communities through bureaucratic land claims processes of dispossession; generating certificates demonstrating degrees of Indian blood; or legal regulations on hunting, fishing, and gathering, the conditions of legal coloniality continue to inform the daily lives of Native peoples. This is especially salient in Alaska as there are currently no legal protections for hunting and harvesting practices that mandate an Alaska Native priority (DiNovelli-Lang and H ebert, 2019), and through an unprecedented form of land claims in the State, Alaska Natives are not conventionally understood as autonomous sovereign polities (Huhndorf and Huhndorf, 2011). In particular to Kane's poem and hunting birds, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in Alaska in the 1960s-1970s prohibited and penalized Alaska Native peoples for migratory bird hunting and was not overturned until 1977 (Maxwell, 2018).…”

Ethics in retrospect: Biomedical research, colonial violence, and Iñupiat sovereignty in the Alaskan Arctic

“…By the mid-1950s, the Alaskan statehood movement was gaining momentum, due in part to the support of settlers who relentlessly lobbied Congress and the Senate (Whitehead, 2004). For Alaska Native peoples, the passage of the Alaska statehood act in 1959 would inaugurate an era of collective struggle for self-determination (Huhndorf and Huhndorf, 2002; Skinner, 1997). Alaska Native activism ushered in a new political order and generated new forms of Indigenous sovereignty within the boundaries of the settler state.…”

“…It also made self-governance dependent upon continued economic growth and left unanswered important questions surrounding issues like tribal sovereignty. It was, and has remained, controversial (Huhndorf and Huhndorf, 2002; Skinner 1997; Swensen, 2015; Tuck, 2014).…”