ANCSA Argumentative Essay

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

noticed and discussion began for settling Native lands (“Alaska History”). ANSCA gave Natives almost forty million acres of land and 962.5 million US dollars. ANSCA also spilt up Alaska into 13 corporations where natives received stock and became shareholders in their respective corporation (Walsh, 227-8). (Appendix A). While ANSCA answered natives call to keep their land and culture alive, it did not serve Natives complete justice that were living under it even after the 1991 amendments.
When ANCSA passed it genuinely attempted to balance Native Land claims while ensuring economic and cultural benefits for shareholders. ANSCA was drafted carefully and seemed to always take consideration of the Natives. Moreover, the Alaska Federation of Natives President Don Wright met with President Nixon just before ANSCA was passed, and stated: “He left me with the impression he was very sincerely interested in doing justice and in satisfying the needs of the Alaskan native people” (“Don Wright”). It was important that Nixon do right by the Alaskan natives as the situation with Natives in the lower 48 was less than desirable. Shortly following, ANSCA or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was introduced and signed by Nixon in 1971. Natives seemed content with this because ANSCA allowed for an “enormous land and financial compensation to the Alaska Native Peoples” (Walsh 262). It was vital that the Alaskan Native Land stay in the hands of Natives because some Natives feel without their land, they were nothing (Walsh 263). Additionally, some even claim that ANSCA was the last hope for “cultural preservation” (Thomas). One can infer that maintaining native lands was a priority and ANSCA allowed for natives to remain in complete control of their lands. Without ANCSA Native Lands risked being sold to large oil companies looking to profit from them because of Alaskas richness with natural resources. Instead of this happening Natives were able to lawfully receive their land and set up their own business which they could profit from (Robinson 333-34). ANSCA allowed for natives to maintain their land and ANSCA helped natives turn a profit, or economically benefit, from their lands. With this Natives were satisfied and ANSCA seemed to be a success.
Inevitably when ANCSA passed there were flaws in it that lead to potentially serious consequences that worried the majority of Natives.

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

never be sold (Nelson 289). Consequently ANSCA was not as successful as hoped for, however, while some parts satisfied the natives, there were parts that did not and therefore many amendments were made, most notable in 1988.
In 1988 Ronald Reagan signed amends to ANSCA known as the 1991 amendments. Within the amendments, there were provisions that fixed the original problems with ANSCA. Due to corporations economically failing 1991 amendments strived to fix this by expanding native shareholders within the corporation (“ANCSA at 40”). The key was to make sure land stayed within the Natives and 1991 amendments allowed for corporations to build capital and still remain native land (Bowen 402). Expanding corporations and building capital prevent corporations from having to declare bank rupency, and thus ultimately having to sell their land. 1991 offered three options for the fate of ANCSA corporations, either a corporation could opt-In, opt-out, or recapitalise. These three options left ANSCA and corporation fait into the hands of the leaders and shareholders, as shareholders could vote on the solution they found most fitting (Hirschfeld). The value of self- determination left natives with the opportunity to create a structure in which they favoured. Without the 1991 amendments to ANSCA it is likely that alaskan natives would not have been able to keep up there corporate structure from failing them both culturally and economically.
1991 amendments kept ANSCA alive, but Natives still struggled to keep economically sustainable while preserving their heritage and land.

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

stable.

Throughout the course of ANSCAs history there have been numerous shortcomings but in the end Natives were able to keep what mattered to them most. Their land. If it weren't for the 1991 amendments ANSCA and alaska's future would have been a distar. Now that the 1991 amendments are implicated and Alaska natives have a better chance at keeping their land but at a financial risk to them. To measure the success of ANCSA before and after the amendments it crucial you think what success might look like for the natives. Most typically success is measured in money, however, for natives, the success of keeping their land is what mattered most. One native even stating, "Money is not going to get us anyplace, but our land will get us someplace. Not only us but the future generations, the kids, and their kids. But if we sell our land, what are we going to have?"