Showing posts with label native corporation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label native corporation. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Enough with the commercial


I love watching the Olympics - especially when you get to see Phelps breeze through history. What I don't love watching is the ANCSA Regional Association commercial. It takes some historical strides backwards for Alaska Native people.

I am not in support of the Pebble Mine, but I also think that we tend to get into other region's business a bit too much. Alaskans hate it when the rest of the U.S. tries to assert its will on Alaska - but we do it within our own state frequently enough.

It is not the support or opposition that rankles so much. It is the selling out of Native values that really gets to me.

The first statement: "For Alaska Natives, protecting the environment has always been a priority."

In one sentence, the leaders of most of the ANCSA regional corporations took a giant leap into exactly what we fight against every day. Although I think that most Alaska Native cultural groups valued and respected the land itself historically, this cannot be a statement in which we hold our heads high in today. The ANCSA leaders here made a sweeping generalization not based on fact, but on the stereotypes we don't want non-Natives to buy into.

My grandparents take excellent care of the land. If they go into "nature," they tread lightly. When gathering subsistence, they don't take more than they need, or too much from one place. They recycle. They throw chemicals away correctly. They drive as little as possible. They truly respect the earth.

But to say that the corporations make the environment a priority is simply not true. A corporation that clears vast swaths of land for development, clearcuts miles of trees, blasts holes in the earth for mines absolutely does not have the environment in mind as a priority. Profit is a priority, and it certainly doesn't came anywhere near traditional values. I was in a talk once just for Native employees of corporations - how to navigate the seeming contrary values of Native culture and corporate culture.

The trouble with criticizing Native corporations is that many people will read what I am not saying into this. For any other corporation, profit is supposed to be the top priority. Can you imagine what Nike shareholders would say if Nike decided profit was not the top priority anymore? The corporations are just doing what they were set up by the U.S. government to do, and what shareholders prefer they do.

But taking corporate leaders and twisting them into cultural leaders is what is wrong with the picture. The message that "Alaska Natives take care of the land and therefore we're experts on whether this will be good for the earth or not" - it is dangerous and irresponsible.

The CEO's and leaders of Calista, Doyon, Bering Straights Native Corp., Koniag, Chugach, NANA, Arctic Slope Region Corp., CIRI and Ahtna can support or speak out against whatever initiative that could potentially hurt their corporation's financial interests. That is, after all, their jobs. There is certainly an argument to be made about profits and jobs hanging in the balance.

But back off the generalizing and playing into Native stereotypes. Our corporate leaders need to be honest with why and what they are doing.

In this case, they don't speak for me.

Monday, July 7, 2008

Can I get a little objectivity?

The Anchorage Daily News is going to drive me insane.

On Sunday, the Juneau Empire chose to run this headline:

Sealaska seeks resolution of land claim

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/070608/sta_300571693.shtml?p

It’s a story about Sealaska trying to resolve the land claims from 37 years ago. I don’t think Sealaska has to be held up as doing everything right (Without actually knowing the whole story, it sounds like there are some questionable decisions going on.) But here’s the headline ADN decided to run:

Sealaska’s proposed land grab raises worries

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/457552.html

Not that the tone ADN consistently uses with Native corporations is anything new, but really. Same story, but ADN editors went with a much catchier headline, only a little more biased. And just to make sure I wasn’t steeping in paranoia, here are just a few definitions of “land grab”:

“The term ‘land grab’ is almost always used in a pejorative sense to describe a hostile or unfair real estate transaction.” (WiseGeek)

“...the seizing of land by a nation, state, or organization, esp. illegally, underhandedly, or unfairly.” (Random House Dictionary)

Not that you need a definition to see the difference.

I don’t think Native corporations have always treated the land Native people paid for as they should. But in no way does the upholding of a legal transaction that should have taken place in 1971, or shortly thereafter, make for a land grab.

This is another area in which it is easy to get mired, and I really hate mentioning things that seem so small. After all, why should the “slight” difference of wording be so upsetting? Why should a few different words on a headline make any difference?

I happen to have a healthy respect for the responsibility of the media, and the Anchorage Daily News knows very well what “slight” differences in wording make. People read headlines. Many people will only read headlines. Sensationalism in any form gets people to read the story more, gets more newspapers sold. But for those that only read the headline, Native corporations (once again) come out on the wrong end. The headline sets up the whole tone for any article.

If you really want to see the difference in reader reactions, read the ADN (Anchorage reader) reactions vs. the Empire (Juneau reader) reactions. The ADN readers give out the “there go the Native corporations again” comments, the anti-Native comments, the “enough already” comments. The Empire readers discuss the ACTUAL ISSUE, which is not Sealaska trying to unfairly grab land from the government. Same story, different tone. The interesting part is Anchorage readers are the pissed off ones, while the Juneau (Southeast) readers are the ones who are actually going to have to deal with the results from this supposed “land grab.”

I would love to talk about the actual issue more. It is not something I am completely resolved on myself. But it is difficult to focus on real issues when the repeated attention of Anchorage’s only daily newspaper tries again and again to shed Native corporations in a negative light. I think it’s great that we are hearing about Native corporations, but without the bias, please.

Again, I don’t think the Native corporations are all angelic. But they certainly aren’t the devil incarnate either. There are many corporations, serving a diverse people in a completely unique circumstance, and were formed as a requirement from the government. It is frustrating, not to mention a bit ironic, that the Native people are so frequently vilified for being successful at what they were required to begin.

_