I thought this article by Timothy Aqukkasuk Argetsinger in Alaska Dispatch was great - "Uqaġupta naalaġniuruksraurusi: When we talk, you listen." It's about the recent issue regarding legal action taken against parents for truant students.
While I think there is risk to then excuse some of the parental action (or inaction) regarding ensuring kids are at school, where they might actually be just negligent, he has great points that are almost never addressed. Specifically, he cites examples in which indigenous culture is worked with Western education for success, rather than a power struggle.
In any case, I can only imagine what he proposes is radical and maybe a little scary to some, but what he's really talking about is getting back to how things were done for millenia. I encourage you to read the WHOLE article before judging!
Showing posts with label inupiaq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inupiaq. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Does keeping Native languages alive even matter? Part 3
I've loved seeing the great comments left by my previous two posts on the question of language revitilzation and extinction. Here's the third installment in this subject I could go on and on (and seemingly have) about, and discussion of the many arguments I've heard against keeping Native languages alive:
"We're all Americans now!" - or "Why do we have to dwell on the past?"
This is possibly one of the more frustrating arguments for me, personally, mostly because it's not an argument with anything except an attitude of "This is how I want it to be" behind it, and not trying to understand what's actually going on.
While the oft-cited "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" comes to mind, it is a woman who was in the same school my grandmother was that I think of when this is the argument.
You see, I was pretty hard-headed myself about language, only in a different way. I did not think much of my grandparents "giving up" their language. I mean, in exactly one generation, they'd "decided" to give it up. They chose to not pass it on to their children, who in turn could NOT pass it on to me!
But then I heard this woman tell her story, the story of what happened when she went to school. She said what I'd heard before, but I'd never heard it from someone who experienced it, much less someone who experienced it in the same school, at the same time as my grandma. These children, five and six years old, were beaten for speaking Tlingit. They were whipped if they uttered it. Try to imagine yourself at five years old, speaking how you speak at home, and getting hit.
But then she said, "The smart ones got hit the most." And they learned to undo it the fastest.
The "smart ones" - the natural leaders, the ones not afraid to speak out... at least at first. These are the ones most cruelly treated, and the ones who were most dead-set on not passing on that kind of cruelty to their children.
Could you, having gone through this experience, have sent your five year old to kindergarten knowing how to speak the language you were beaten for speaking? I don't know that I would.
It is in this light I remember that the past is not irrelevant. And forgive me if it also brings to mind a certain animated movie in which there may or may not have been big musical numbers with warthogs and hyenas. Remember in the "Lion King" when Simba tells the monkey it's in the past, and the monkey whacks him on the head? Yeah, the past still hurts.
Okay, searing political insight it may not be, but I would hope the next person who talks about forgetting the past or "just being American" keeps in mind how hurtful those comments can be. I'm proud to be American, and I think speaking the tongue that was spoken here for millenia is an incredibly patriotic thing to do. I wish I knew more, I wish I was committed enough to be bilingual, and I don't see how my nation could be anything but benefitted by me and my children and my children's children being the same.
And how can I forget the past that brought me to where I am today? Why would I want to? What's more, why would we, as a nation want to forget that? If it makes you uncomfortable, if it makes you sad, or feel ashamed - fine. It makes me feel those things too. But if we forget the things that make us uncomfortable, we must also forget that which makes us proud, and comforted, and passionate. The brief discomfort I may feel by remembering all the true history of our not-so-distant past is a small price to pay for that.
"We're all Americans now!" - or "Why do we have to dwell on the past?"
This is possibly one of the more frustrating arguments for me, personally, mostly because it's not an argument with anything except an attitude of "This is how I want it to be" behind it, and not trying to understand what's actually going on.
While the oft-cited "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" comes to mind, it is a woman who was in the same school my grandmother was that I think of when this is the argument.
You see, I was pretty hard-headed myself about language, only in a different way. I did not think much of my grandparents "giving up" their language. I mean, in exactly one generation, they'd "decided" to give it up. They chose to not pass it on to their children, who in turn could NOT pass it on to me!
But then I heard this woman tell her story, the story of what happened when she went to school. She said what I'd heard before, but I'd never heard it from someone who experienced it, much less someone who experienced it in the same school, at the same time as my grandma. These children, five and six years old, were beaten for speaking Tlingit. They were whipped if they uttered it. Try to imagine yourself at five years old, speaking how you speak at home, and getting hit.
But then she said, "The smart ones got hit the most." And they learned to undo it the fastest.
The "smart ones" - the natural leaders, the ones not afraid to speak out... at least at first. These are the ones most cruelly treated, and the ones who were most dead-set on not passing on that kind of cruelty to their children.
Could you, having gone through this experience, have sent your five year old to kindergarten knowing how to speak the language you were beaten for speaking? I don't know that I would.
It is in this light I remember that the past is not irrelevant. And forgive me if it also brings to mind a certain animated movie in which there may or may not have been big musical numbers with warthogs and hyenas. Remember in the "Lion King" when Simba tells the monkey it's in the past, and the monkey whacks him on the head? Yeah, the past still hurts.
Okay, searing political insight it may not be, but I would hope the next person who talks about forgetting the past or "just being American" keeps in mind how hurtful those comments can be. I'm proud to be American, and I think speaking the tongue that was spoken here for millenia is an incredibly patriotic thing to do. I wish I knew more, I wish I was committed enough to be bilingual, and I don't see how my nation could be anything but benefitted by me and my children and my children's children being the same.
And how can I forget the past that brought me to where I am today? Why would I want to? What's more, why would we, as a nation want to forget that? If it makes you uncomfortable, if it makes you sad, or feel ashamed - fine. It makes me feel those things too. But if we forget the things that make us uncomfortable, we must also forget that which makes us proud, and comforted, and passionate. The brief discomfort I may feel by remembering all the true history of our not-so-distant past is a small price to pay for that.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Sundance Film Fest Native Showcase
All right, I wanna go to Sundance!
From Indian Country Today Media Network:
"Native Films Showcase at 2011 Sundance Festival"
Including the Inupiaq film "On the Ice"!
I actually knew about On the Ice, but didn't know Sundance actually had a Native Forum going:
"The Native Forum is a cluster of events for the international indigenous film community that includes panel discussions, filmmaker discussions, and networking opportunities for indigenous filmmakers to share their expertise and experience with each other and the independent film community."
Very cool!
From Indian Country Today Media Network:
"Native Films Showcase at 2011 Sundance Festival"
Including the Inupiaq film "On the Ice"!
I actually knew about On the Ice, but didn't know Sundance actually had a Native Forum going:
"The Native Forum is a cluster of events for the international indigenous film community that includes panel discussions, filmmaker discussions, and networking opportunities for indigenous filmmakers to share their expertise and experience with each other and the independent film community."
Very cool!
Monday, January 17, 2011
Alaska Native news roundup
A few topics/stories I've seen making the online rounds:
A Yup'ik Swan Lake
Too cool! The Alaska Dance Theatre, Alaska Dance Theatre School, Alaska Native Heritage Center and Eugene Ballet Company are collaborating on a revision of the classic Swan Lake ballet with Yup'ik storytelling and dance. I used to be skeptical of these kind of attempts, but several years ago I went to the Anchorage Symphony's collaboration with Native hoop dancing and flute music - AWESOME PERFORMANCE. I'm ready to see more mixin'! I hope it runs longer than this week!
Native corporations sue over polar bear decisions
This is being reported many places, and I'd love to see some polling of the region. For Pebble Mine, for instance, BIG difference between whether the people of the region support it, and the corporations of the region support it. I don't have a very informed opinion of this, outside of the documentaries and talking heads, but I certainly lean toward long-term wildlife preservation over immediate wants of commerce.
Lots of talk about Alaska Native suicide numbers
So, it seems like nothing new - the Alaska Native suicide rates are still horrible. I've even heard people talk about not bothering putting any more resources into stopping suicide if it doesn't seem to change the numbers. ADN has reported on it in multiple ways, the most recent a little revisit of their "People in Peril" series from 20 years ago. KTUU has done a few segments in just a few days, Alaska Newspapers, and many, many more, mostly due to the state's annual report that recently came out.
But let's not stop trying. IIt may seem like "the same thing over and over again" over the past 20 years." But over the past few years, I've been looking at research and case studies in suicide, especially suicide in indgenous populations. Here's the news I hope people also pay attention to:
1) The "science" of trying prevent suicide at a mass level is very, very new. Or rather, the only way it was done before not very long ago was through religious belief (suicide as a sin, etc.) The "answer" was never going to be simple, quick, or gauranteed the first, second, or hundredth round out. Twenty years may seem like a long time to be trying, but in the life of a disease, is but half a moment.
2) Is there a cure for cancer yet? I don't see anyone saying, after all this time, and all this money spent without a cure, MUCH longer, and many more billions spent than suicide prevention, that we should give up on our attempts at preventing cancer.
3) Suicide is not as simple as people would like to think. It is hugely misunderstood, and it is truly a disease, as are the many underlying factors leading up to it.
A Yup'ik Swan Lake
Too cool! The Alaska Dance Theatre, Alaska Dance Theatre School, Alaska Native Heritage Center and Eugene Ballet Company are collaborating on a revision of the classic Swan Lake ballet with Yup'ik storytelling and dance. I used to be skeptical of these kind of attempts, but several years ago I went to the Anchorage Symphony's collaboration with Native hoop dancing and flute music - AWESOME PERFORMANCE. I'm ready to see more mixin'! I hope it runs longer than this week!
Native corporations sue over polar bear decisions
This is being reported many places, and I'd love to see some polling of the region. For Pebble Mine, for instance, BIG difference between whether the people of the region support it, and the corporations of the region support it. I don't have a very informed opinion of this, outside of the documentaries and talking heads, but I certainly lean toward long-term wildlife preservation over immediate wants of commerce.
Lots of talk about Alaska Native suicide numbers
So, it seems like nothing new - the Alaska Native suicide rates are still horrible. I've even heard people talk about not bothering putting any more resources into stopping suicide if it doesn't seem to change the numbers. ADN has reported on it in multiple ways, the most recent a little revisit of their "People in Peril" series from 20 years ago. KTUU has done a few segments in just a few days, Alaska Newspapers, and many, many more, mostly due to the state's annual report that recently came out.
But let's not stop trying. IIt may seem like "the same thing over and over again" over the past 20 years." But over the past few years, I've been looking at research and case studies in suicide, especially suicide in indgenous populations. Here's the news I hope people also pay attention to:
1) The "science" of trying prevent suicide at a mass level is very, very new. Or rather, the only way it was done before not very long ago was through religious belief (suicide as a sin, etc.) The "answer" was never going to be simple, quick, or gauranteed the first, second, or hundredth round out. Twenty years may seem like a long time to be trying, but in the life of a disease, is but half a moment.
2) Is there a cure for cancer yet? I don't see anyone saying, after all this time, and all this money spent without a cure, MUCH longer, and many more billions spent than suicide prevention, that we should give up on our attempts at preventing cancer.
3) Suicide is not as simple as people would like to think. It is hugely misunderstood, and it is truly a disease, as are the many underlying factors leading up to it.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Nudging my way into existence
Bearing in mind my voice might be echoing in the halls here, I still felt a desire to comment on something I saw in the ADN Newsreader today. Or rather, something the Newsreader brought from the Stop and Smell the Lichen blog.
Nuna Inua starts out, "I do not exist."
It goes on more about how it is her position, her job that does not exist as far as traditional culture. What position is there of "artist" in traditional culture, and how can creating art possibly trample upon culture?
It is something I have struggled with as a Tlingit fiction writer. While engaging since high school in nonfiction forms of publication, it is creative fiction that has my heart. Tlingit culture, I think, embraces the idea of "artist" more readily than what Nuna Inua describes her own culture as being able to define. There is no traditional "artist" who "only" created art for a living, but it was a position nontheless. People talented and disciplined in beautiful carving would supplement their own living by creating commissioned pieces to wealthy folk. This kind of practice goes far, far back in our culture.
But, as my mother said, "There's no such thing as Tlingit fiction."
In trying to recreate ficitonal stories from traditional legend, I now begin to wrestle with how I can do this without "lying" by creating a part that is not true to history, without plagiarism, without taking from what belongs to others. You see, while Native stories are more often labeled as "myth and legend" in educational circles, these stories were passed down for millenia as history. Fact. Only in very modern times has society begun to play with our culture's history as fiction, with little regard to the ramifications.
So, as a fiction writer trying to honor my culture's past, how do I fictionalize it and honor it at the same time?
To be honest, I'm not completely sure that my story isn't going to be rejected outright by many Elders immediately, despite the care I've taken for that not to happen, and despite my own fears.
There are many things in my culture, and I imagine in other Native cultures, that honor the past by "dishonoring" it. Tlingit people have so much complicated protocol, a traditional political and familial system that still weaves its way into contemporary politics and family life - and I love it. But it does present some difficulties for the modern Tlingit fiction writer.
Whenever you see a traditional Tlingit dance group, remember that there used to be no such thing. Everybody danced, everybody knew their clan songs, and they sang them with the clan. The need for, or the entertainment value of, a dance group would be quite strange. Being a member of one, I'm not saying there isn't a need now - but you see how things that are even now considered "traditional" become a little hairy when you talk about how traditional they really are? Yet a culture that does not change is not alive.
I was very intrigued by the inherent questions posed in the blog, because they are things I've long struggled with, and, clearly, I'm not alone in. How do you balance the razor's edge between tradition and adaptation? How do you keep a culture alive if it never changes - yet how much change makes the culture extinct? I like a friend's description of how Alaska Native cultures are in a twilight period between what they were, and what they will become... but it is still a bit bittersweet to think of.
'
I'm a firm believer that art will play a monumental part in the revival of Native culture in Alaska. So how do we artists, we Native people, we "real human beings" navigate this new realm built on the shoulders of our ancestors?
_
Nuna Inua starts out, "I do not exist."
It goes on more about how it is her position, her job that does not exist as far as traditional culture. What position is there of "artist" in traditional culture, and how can creating art possibly trample upon culture?
It is something I have struggled with as a Tlingit fiction writer. While engaging since high school in nonfiction forms of publication, it is creative fiction that has my heart. Tlingit culture, I think, embraces the idea of "artist" more readily than what Nuna Inua describes her own culture as being able to define. There is no traditional "artist" who "only" created art for a living, but it was a position nontheless. People talented and disciplined in beautiful carving would supplement their own living by creating commissioned pieces to wealthy folk. This kind of practice goes far, far back in our culture.
But, as my mother said, "There's no such thing as Tlingit fiction."
In trying to recreate ficitonal stories from traditional legend, I now begin to wrestle with how I can do this without "lying" by creating a part that is not true to history, without plagiarism, without taking from what belongs to others. You see, while Native stories are more often labeled as "myth and legend" in educational circles, these stories were passed down for millenia as history. Fact. Only in very modern times has society begun to play with our culture's history as fiction, with little regard to the ramifications.
So, as a fiction writer trying to honor my culture's past, how do I fictionalize it and honor it at the same time?
To be honest, I'm not completely sure that my story isn't going to be rejected outright by many Elders immediately, despite the care I've taken for that not to happen, and despite my own fears.
There are many things in my culture, and I imagine in other Native cultures, that honor the past by "dishonoring" it. Tlingit people have so much complicated protocol, a traditional political and familial system that still weaves its way into contemporary politics and family life - and I love it. But it does present some difficulties for the modern Tlingit fiction writer.
Whenever you see a traditional Tlingit dance group, remember that there used to be no such thing. Everybody danced, everybody knew their clan songs, and they sang them with the clan. The need for, or the entertainment value of, a dance group would be quite strange. Being a member of one, I'm not saying there isn't a need now - but you see how things that are even now considered "traditional" become a little hairy when you talk about how traditional they really are? Yet a culture that does not change is not alive.
I was very intrigued by the inherent questions posed in the blog, because they are things I've long struggled with, and, clearly, I'm not alone in. How do you balance the razor's edge between tradition and adaptation? How do you keep a culture alive if it never changes - yet how much change makes the culture extinct? I like a friend's description of how Alaska Native cultures are in a twilight period between what they were, and what they will become... but it is still a bit bittersweet to think of.
'
I'm a firm believer that art will play a monumental part in the revival of Native culture in Alaska. So how do we artists, we Native people, we "real human beings" navigate this new realm built on the shoulders of our ancestors?
_
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Begich gives maiden speech, introduces Inuvikput bills. Love it.
I was really expecting a sort of typical, "Let's drill!" sort of focus, not because that's what Begich tends to do, but when an Alaskan politician gets in front of the U.S. Senate, that's kind of what I expect. Okay... not really fair, but it was a pretty long time, with a pretty big spotlight, to have the floor, and I think it's awesome that it was about the Arctic - preservaton, responsiblity, focus on those most affected in the regions. He mentions drilling, but in the light of needing more responsibility, including ensuring safe drilling in the first place, and ensuring those in the region aren't affected, and protection if they are.
He uses an Inupiaq word to describe the package of bills - Inuvikput - and really gives an awful lot of attention and focus on Native and rural issues and impact. Worth a listen to:
There's more details on some of the bills on Shannyn Moore's page, including:
Yes - this is EXACTLY why I voted for Begich!!
He also mentioned something about a bill he is still considering giving - something that got tabled - on an Arctic advisory council:
He uses an Inupiaq word to describe the package of bills - Inuvikput - and really gives an awful lot of attention and focus on Native and rural issues and impact. Worth a listen to:
There's more details on some of the bills on Shannyn Moore's page, including:
Arctic OCS Revenue Sharing Act – Alaska Natives who have subsisted on marine mammals and other arctic resources for thousands of years would bear the direct risks of increased commercial activity in their waters. This bill directs a portion of federal revenues from offshore oil and gas development – the same share Louisiana receives from drilling in the adjacent Gulf of Mexico – to the State of Alaska with a percentage of those funds directed to those most affected.
Arctic Health Research Act – People of the Arctic suffer from increased rates of alcohol abuse, diabetes, high blood pressure, and death from injury and suicide. This act would initiate a study into the mental, behavioral and physical health problems in the Arctic, institute an Arctic health assessment program at the Centers for Disease Control and create an “Arctic desk” at the National Institute of Health that was called for in 1984 but has never been established.
Yes - this is EXACTLY why I voted for Begich!!
He also mentioned something about a bill he is still considering giving - something that got tabled - on an Arctic advisory council:
Begich said he is considering introducing an additional piece of legislation focused on providing the people of Alaska's Arctic with more of a voice in the decisions affecting their lives. The bill would establish an Arctic Regional and Citizens Advisory Council, modeled after similar councils which successfully operate in the Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet regions of Alaska. At the request of the North Slope Borough mayor, Begich said he held off introducing the bill pending further discussions with the people of Alaska's North Slope, as well and industry and regulatory stakeholders.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Real Native Myths and Legends - Revisited #4
I'm going to be out of Internet access for a few days. I'd like to start revisiting somethig I paused when the Palin stuff came out last fall - "Real Native Myths and Legends." I started it because there's so much stereotyping, misundestandngs and common beliefs about the Native people of Alaska, and America in general. I meant the posts to shed some light, as well as start some conversations, or even some questions. I'm going to do some new posts about this, but first, since it's been so long, I'm going to be reposting the old ones to revisit.
Real Native Myths and Legends #5 - Free money for Natives from Uncle Sam - August 17, 2008
I've heard this one again and again - tons of money from the U.S. government being thrown at Natives for "all their problems." But this kind of comment (from a comment thread) is what keeps cropping up:
Really? Nobody told me about this program (and where can I sign up?)
I think this is a combination of confusion about land held in trust by the government, Native corporations and... well, not knowing what they're talking about. Unfortunately, most of the argument on the other side is, "The government treated them so bad, so don't they deserve it?" It's not about giving one group money because they were treated poorly. At all. There is little understanding of the complex issues here.
Some tribes in the Lower 48 do receive trust money from land agreements between the U.S. government and their individual tribe. This is not the government giving money to the poor, victimized Indians because of past misconduct on behalf of the U.S. It is NOT reparations. It is NOT welfare. I believe some groups in Alaska do as well, though in a different sort of set up.
I must be honest in saying that I do not have first-hand knowledge of land trust/trust fund agreements between the U.S. and tribal governments, simply because it is not at all a part of my life. As far as I can tell, it is not a part of most Alaska Native people's lives either. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act made things very different in Alaska. If the confusion is about Alaska Native corporation money, I responded to that here. In any case, the government is not just handing out money to Native people for no reason.
When it comes to land trust issues, there is still quite a bit wrong with the system. Okay, so that's an understatement. There has been a bit in the news recently about land trusts - mismanagement on the part of the U.S. Nearly 30 years ago, the Saginaw Chippewaw wanted to see about changing their investments, and brought in the president of the First Nations Institute, Rebecca Adamson, to look at it. A memorable quote from when she started looking at their land trust situation:
At a council meeting, she reported back to the tribe as follows:
Now, the ruling 26 years later was that the U.S. government mismanaged the land (Gee, didn't see that one coming...) After various numbers were thrown around in the decades long court battle, a federal judge decided that 121 years of mismangement amounted to an award of $455.6 million. This is where, I think, people hear the numbers, and go, "Wow, they're getting a lot of money from the government!" - discounting that it's not the governments money in the first place.
But there were 500,000 plaintiffs. So 121 years of mismanagement means $455.6 million goes to 500,000 plaintiffs. You do the math on that.
The other assumption of that is that the Indians don't "deserve" the money. It's past - it's history. But pushing aside the fact that this is one of the few cases that the U.S. government is holding to (with fingernails) the treaties agreed upon (read - lawful contracts,) the length of time that has passed isn't (or shouldn't be) a factor in deciding whether it's "really still their land/money" to have a say in. It's not about deserving it or not - it is rightfully theirs. I don't think Paris Hilton "deserves" all her money just because she's a Hilton - but I won't dispute the fact that she lawfully has a right to it.
Using the logic that it's ancient history, can we discount the government's claim to the White House? I mean, they claimed that land hundreds of years ago, and the clearly nomadic lifestyle that the family that lives there every four to eight years means they can't sustain that area, right? Unless the residents can prove they have a right to live there, I'm all for going in and claiming it. Or at least the West Wing.
Yes, it's absurd. It's just as absurd to think that just because something is an historic agreement means it is less valid today. The times I've heard something like, "Just because my ancestor killed your ancestor doesn't mean you should get something better than me."
Well, I've never gotten anything out of that deal, and I would like one person to point out the time that the U.S. government has EVER awarded a profit to a Native person because of the acts of the U.S. government hundreds of years ago. The government hasn't even conceded anything wrong was done in the first place - it isn't ready to start handing out money to make everyone feel better.
The U.S. government did not pay for my car. Or my college education. Or my groceries. In fact, in the awkward relationship between the U.S. government and myself, I've given it a pretty good portion of the money I earn, every paycheck. In return, the government paved the roads and built some schools.
It's an ok deal - I do enjoy being able to drive places, and though public schools are demonized, I thought my experience was pretty good. All I ask is that the government remember the agreements made for the land those roads and schools were built on - and the people the agreements were made with. Then we'll get along just fine.
Real Native Myths and Legends #5 - Free money for Natives from Uncle Sam - August 17, 2008
I've heard this one again and again - tons of money from the U.S. government being thrown at Natives for "all their problems." But this kind of comment (from a comment thread) is what keeps cropping up:
"...if you fill out some forms, prove you are an indian to a certain degree,
each year you get a certain ammount of money from the government."
Really? Nobody told me about this program (and where can I sign up?)
I think this is a combination of confusion about land held in trust by the government, Native corporations and... well, not knowing what they're talking about. Unfortunately, most of the argument on the other side is, "The government treated them so bad, so don't they deserve it?" It's not about giving one group money because they were treated poorly. At all. There is little understanding of the complex issues here.
Some tribes in the Lower 48 do receive trust money from land agreements between the U.S. government and their individual tribe. This is not the government giving money to the poor, victimized Indians because of past misconduct on behalf of the U.S. It is NOT reparations. It is NOT welfare. I believe some groups in Alaska do as well, though in a different sort of set up.
I must be honest in saying that I do not have first-hand knowledge of land trust/trust fund agreements between the U.S. and tribal governments, simply because it is not at all a part of my life. As far as I can tell, it is not a part of most Alaska Native people's lives either. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act made things very different in Alaska. If the confusion is about Alaska Native corporation money, I responded to that here. In any case, the government is not just handing out money to Native people for no reason.
When it comes to land trust issues, there is still quite a bit wrong with the system. Okay, so that's an understatement. There has been a bit in the news recently about land trusts - mismanagement on the part of the U.S. Nearly 30 years ago, the Saginaw Chippewaw wanted to see about changing their investments, and brought in the president of the First Nations Institute, Rebecca Adamson, to look at it. A memorable quote from when she started looking at their land trust situation:
At a council meeting, she reported back to the tribe as follows:
''I have good news and bad news. The good news is, you can do better than the BIA at investing your trust funds. The bad news is, so could a chimpanzee.''
Now, the ruling 26 years later was that the U.S. government mismanaged the land (Gee, didn't see that one coming...) After various numbers were thrown around in the decades long court battle, a federal judge decided that 121 years of mismangement amounted to an award of $455.6 million. This is where, I think, people hear the numbers, and go, "Wow, they're getting a lot of money from the government!" - discounting that it's not the governments money in the first place.
But there were 500,000 plaintiffs. So 121 years of mismanagement means $455.6 million goes to 500,000 plaintiffs. You do the math on that.
The other assumption of that is that the Indians don't "deserve" the money. It's past - it's history. But pushing aside the fact that this is one of the few cases that the U.S. government is holding to (with fingernails) the treaties agreed upon (read - lawful contracts,) the length of time that has passed isn't (or shouldn't be) a factor in deciding whether it's "really still their land/money" to have a say in. It's not about deserving it or not - it is rightfully theirs. I don't think Paris Hilton "deserves" all her money just because she's a Hilton - but I won't dispute the fact that she lawfully has a right to it.
Using the logic that it's ancient history, can we discount the government's claim to the White House? I mean, they claimed that land hundreds of years ago, and the clearly nomadic lifestyle that the family that lives there every four to eight years means they can't sustain that area, right? Unless the residents can prove they have a right to live there, I'm all for going in and claiming it. Or at least the West Wing.
Yes, it's absurd. It's just as absurd to think that just because something is an historic agreement means it is less valid today. The times I've heard something like, "Just because my ancestor killed your ancestor doesn't mean you should get something better than me."
Well, I've never gotten anything out of that deal, and I would like one person to point out the time that the U.S. government has EVER awarded a profit to a Native person because of the acts of the U.S. government hundreds of years ago. The government hasn't even conceded anything wrong was done in the first place - it isn't ready to start handing out money to make everyone feel better.
The U.S. government did not pay for my car. Or my college education. Or my groceries. In fact, in the awkward relationship between the U.S. government and myself, I've given it a pretty good portion of the money I earn, every paycheck. In return, the government paved the roads and built some schools.
It's an ok deal - I do enjoy being able to drive places, and though public schools are demonized, I thought my experience was pretty good. All I ask is that the government remember the agreements made for the land those roads and schools were built on - and the people the agreements were made with. Then we'll get along just fine.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Real Native Myths and Legends - Revisited #3
I'm going to be out of Internet access for a few days. I'd like to start revisiting somethig I paused when the Palin stuff came out last fall - "Real Native Myths and Legends." I started it because there's so much stereotyping, misundestandngs and common beliefs about the Native people of Alaska, and America in general. I meant the posts to shed some light, as well as start some conversations, or even some questions. I'm going to do some new posts about this, but first, since it's been so long, I'm going to be reposting the old ones to revisit.
Real Native Myths and Legends #4 - Indians and Eskimos - August 12, 2008
Indian. Eskimo. Native American. Tribe. Clan. People group. FirstNations. First Peoples. American Indian. Indigenous.
It's dang confusing sometimes, I know, and I've grown up with allthese terms. I have some sympathy for every (non-Native) friend I'veever had who has worked up to (usually unsure of how to approach it)asking me, "So… what do you call yourself?"
There are actually many different forms of this question, but it boilsdown to, "How on earth do I say what you are?" I know there are thosewho will argue we should be "color-blind" and not look at a person'sculture. I disagree. I think we should honor and celebrate a person'sculture, we would be robbing them of a huge part of who they are notto – we just don't have to judge a person by their culture. It's alsojust a reality – having to define someone's background is not goinganywhere.
Kind of reminds me of a discussion I had about this topic in highschool, and my "African-American" friend was asked how to address hisrace. He said, "We're 'Black' now. But I'll let you know if itchanges."
If you ask the government, they would consider me from the "Indian"people group (as opposed to "Eskimo" or "Aleut". On a federal documentI am "American Indian or Alaska Native." On my Certificate of IndianBlood, I am from the Tlingit "tribe."
If you ask me, I will tell you I am Tlingit or Alaska Native,depending on where I am and who you are. I will not say the Tlingittribe – no such thing. There's also no "Tlingit Nation". I won't tell you I am Indian – as far as I'm concerned, Indians are from India. Iwon't tell you I'm Native American, and I won't tell you what tribe I'm from – as far as I know, I have no tribe.
Much of the problem stems from trying to group an entire continent'sworth of culture into one identifiable group. Even here in Alaska, thecultures are incredibly diverse. I have a Yup'ik friend that I share values and experiences with as an Alaska Native woman, but when itcomes to so many other cultural values, she seems to be speakinganother language (though, often times, she quite literally IS speakinganother language.)
There is also the problem of Native people only just being able todefine how they were called by the general public in the lastgeneration or two, and so it seems quite changeable, and no two peopleagree on the perfect way yet.
Last year at the World Eskimo Indian Olympics (WEIO,) one of theassistants came to get our dance group, "We need the Indian groups!" Adozen sets of furrowed brows and he quickly answered, "Hey, if I haveto be Eskimo, you have to be Indian!" Fair enough. Point is, even ourown institutions are outdated in the terms we use.
But all the background and why and how aside, there still remains theissue of, "What do I call you?"
The simplest answer I can say is, "Just ask."
I have often wondered if this is not a very "polite" thing to do outside of Alaska Native cultures. Maybe the sensitivities of being PC or a Western etiquette – but generally when I am asked it is with anembarrassed tone, usually an apology. A "I'm sorry if this is rude, but…" Recently, a friend of mine described a non-Native woman who was offended when a Native woman asked her race.
Although I am generally loathe to group such diverse cultures into one"group think," my own experiences in my culture and other Nativecultures in the state is that the first thing you want to do is get toknow someone's background. As an example, a dialogue of me meeting another Native person:
"Nice to meet you – so where are you from?"
"Akiachak."
"That by Fairbanks?"
"Bethel area."
"Cool – you know John James?"
"Yeah, he's my cousin."
"Sweet."
And we switch. I threw in my own lack of geographical awareness inthere for realism. But basically, I now know where he's from (and can deduce his 'people group' from that,) and who his general family is.
Actually, if it were really real, we would find out all the differentpeople we know and/or are related to in common. Many times we will askand talk directly about what racial background we are from.
In short, the "polite" or friendly thing to do in the culture I know is to introduce and let your own background be known. Many Native people who are born in urban areas will identify themselves as being"from" whatever village or rural area their family is from. I was delighted to meet a man "from Klawock" last Summer, very near where I was born, but then he said, "Oh – but I've never been there." I have a feeling as more and more Native people are born in Anchorage, thiswill become even more common.
I believe the Tlingit people have elevated introductions to an art. My Yup'ik friend is fond of telling me that "Tlingits complicateeverything!" Maybe true, but there are some pretty solid reasons behind it.
Do you know that scene in "Lord of the Rings," where the trees are talking amongst themselves all day, and when they finally talk to the Hobbits, you find they've only just introduced themselves? I believethat this must have been based off of a traditional Tlingit celebration. You introduce pretty much your whole background andgenealogy. Basically, when I begin my speech, you should know my name(or names,) my parents, my teachers, my grandparents and great-grandparents, my moiety, clan and sub-clans, where I am from –or my family is from, and where I live now. And that's the short version.
Although I cannot tell you what all Native people would like to bereferred to as – even between my siblings and I this would vary – I can tell you it doesn't hurt to ask. Of course, basic politeness applies here too. I don't suggest a "So what's your racial make-up?"or questions at times that would be ethically inappropriate - job interview anyone?
A few tips:
-Start with asking where they are from. It wouldn't hurt if you knew(in general) where people groups were from.
- Don't ask anyone if they are "Eskimo." Really. I mean it. The few people who are okay with being identified by others as such will let you know in good time, but this will lose you more respect than it will gain. And don't assume because one person of that background prefers to be called "Eskimo" the next is. A friend and I will joke around, calling each other "Eskimo" and "Indian," but I made a mistake thinking I could joke like that with another coworker - she did NOT appreciate being called Eskimo, although from the same background as my friend.
- As an Alaska Native person, the above also applies to the word "Indian." From what I understand, in the Lower 48 this can be a pretty common identifier, but not so popular up here.
- Don't attach a "tribe," "clan," "nation" or other grouping word when asking. I get asked a lot if I am from the Tlingit tribe, or what tribe I am from. Federally, this is correct. There are people groups in the U.S. which embrace the word. But no Tlingit person I know identifies themselves this way. Likewise, there is no Tlingit clan. I DO belong to a clan, as well as a house and a moiety, but the same will not be true of every Alaska Native culture.
Basically, just see how the person identifies themselves, and treat them with respect. You do not have to do things "traditionally" - most Native people do not address or introduce traditionally, unless in a formal setting, and do not expect that of you. But to "gain friendsand influence Native people," showing a respect for their individuality as a person, and within a culture, will go far.
Real Native Myths and Legends #4 - Indians and Eskimos - August 12, 2008
Indian. Eskimo. Native American. Tribe. Clan. People group. FirstNations. First Peoples. American Indian. Indigenous.
It's dang confusing sometimes, I know, and I've grown up with allthese terms. I have some sympathy for every (non-Native) friend I'veever had who has worked up to (usually unsure of how to approach it)asking me, "So… what do you call yourself?"
There are actually many different forms of this question, but it boilsdown to, "How on earth do I say what you are?" I know there are thosewho will argue we should be "color-blind" and not look at a person'sculture. I disagree. I think we should honor and celebrate a person'sculture, we would be robbing them of a huge part of who they are notto – we just don't have to judge a person by their culture. It's alsojust a reality – having to define someone's background is not goinganywhere.
Kind of reminds me of a discussion I had about this topic in highschool, and my "African-American" friend was asked how to address hisrace. He said, "We're 'Black' now. But I'll let you know if itchanges."
If you ask the government, they would consider me from the "Indian"people group (as opposed to "Eskimo" or "Aleut". On a federal documentI am "American Indian or Alaska Native." On my Certificate of IndianBlood, I am from the Tlingit "tribe."
If you ask me, I will tell you I am Tlingit or Alaska Native,depending on where I am and who you are. I will not say the Tlingittribe – no such thing. There's also no "Tlingit Nation". I won't tell you I am Indian – as far as I'm concerned, Indians are from India. Iwon't tell you I'm Native American, and I won't tell you what tribe I'm from – as far as I know, I have no tribe.
Much of the problem stems from trying to group an entire continent'sworth of culture into one identifiable group. Even here in Alaska, thecultures are incredibly diverse. I have a Yup'ik friend that I share values and experiences with as an Alaska Native woman, but when itcomes to so many other cultural values, she seems to be speakinganother language (though, often times, she quite literally IS speakinganother language.)
There is also the problem of Native people only just being able todefine how they were called by the general public in the lastgeneration or two, and so it seems quite changeable, and no two peopleagree on the perfect way yet.
Last year at the World Eskimo Indian Olympics (WEIO,) one of theassistants came to get our dance group, "We need the Indian groups!" Adozen sets of furrowed brows and he quickly answered, "Hey, if I haveto be Eskimo, you have to be Indian!" Fair enough. Point is, even ourown institutions are outdated in the terms we use.
But all the background and why and how aside, there still remains theissue of, "What do I call you?"
The simplest answer I can say is, "Just ask."
I have often wondered if this is not a very "polite" thing to do outside of Alaska Native cultures. Maybe the sensitivities of being PC or a Western etiquette – but generally when I am asked it is with anembarrassed tone, usually an apology. A "I'm sorry if this is rude, but…" Recently, a friend of mine described a non-Native woman who was offended when a Native woman asked her race.
Although I am generally loathe to group such diverse cultures into one"group think," my own experiences in my culture and other Nativecultures in the state is that the first thing you want to do is get toknow someone's background. As an example, a dialogue of me meeting another Native person:
"Nice to meet you – so where are you from?"
"Akiachak."
"That by Fairbanks?"
"Bethel area."
"Cool – you know John James?"
"Yeah, he's my cousin."
"Sweet."
And we switch. I threw in my own lack of geographical awareness inthere for realism. But basically, I now know where he's from (and can deduce his 'people group' from that,) and who his general family is.
Actually, if it were really real, we would find out all the differentpeople we know and/or are related to in common. Many times we will askand talk directly about what racial background we are from.
In short, the "polite" or friendly thing to do in the culture I know is to introduce and let your own background be known. Many Native people who are born in urban areas will identify themselves as being"from" whatever village or rural area their family is from. I was delighted to meet a man "from Klawock" last Summer, very near where I was born, but then he said, "Oh – but I've never been there." I have a feeling as more and more Native people are born in Anchorage, thiswill become even more common.
I believe the Tlingit people have elevated introductions to an art. My Yup'ik friend is fond of telling me that "Tlingits complicateeverything!" Maybe true, but there are some pretty solid reasons behind it.
Do you know that scene in "Lord of the Rings," where the trees are talking amongst themselves all day, and when they finally talk to the Hobbits, you find they've only just introduced themselves? I believethat this must have been based off of a traditional Tlingit celebration. You introduce pretty much your whole background andgenealogy. Basically, when I begin my speech, you should know my name(or names,) my parents, my teachers, my grandparents and great-grandparents, my moiety, clan and sub-clans, where I am from –or my family is from, and where I live now. And that's the short version.
Although I cannot tell you what all Native people would like to bereferred to as – even between my siblings and I this would vary – I can tell you it doesn't hurt to ask. Of course, basic politeness applies here too. I don't suggest a "So what's your racial make-up?"or questions at times that would be ethically inappropriate - job interview anyone?
A few tips:
-Start with asking where they are from. It wouldn't hurt if you knew(in general) where people groups were from.
- Don't ask anyone if they are "Eskimo." Really. I mean it. The few people who are okay with being identified by others as such will let you know in good time, but this will lose you more respect than it will gain. And don't assume because one person of that background prefers to be called "Eskimo" the next is. A friend and I will joke around, calling each other "Eskimo" and "Indian," but I made a mistake thinking I could joke like that with another coworker - she did NOT appreciate being called Eskimo, although from the same background as my friend.
- As an Alaska Native person, the above also applies to the word "Indian." From what I understand, in the Lower 48 this can be a pretty common identifier, but not so popular up here.
- Don't attach a "tribe," "clan," "nation" or other grouping word when asking. I get asked a lot if I am from the Tlingit tribe, or what tribe I am from. Federally, this is correct. There are people groups in the U.S. which embrace the word. But no Tlingit person I know identifies themselves this way. Likewise, there is no Tlingit clan. I DO belong to a clan, as well as a house and a moiety, but the same will not be true of every Alaska Native culture.
Basically, just see how the person identifies themselves, and treat them with respect. You do not have to do things "traditionally" - most Native people do not address or introduce traditionally, unless in a formal setting, and do not expect that of you. But to "gain friendsand influence Native people," showing a respect for their individuality as a person, and within a culture, will go far.
Real Native Myths and Legends - Revisited #2
I'm going to be out of Internet access for a few days. I'd like to start revisiting somethig I paused when the Palin stuff came out last fall - "Real Native Myths and Legends." I started it because there's so much stereotyping, misundestandngs and common beliefs about the Native people of Alaska, and America in general. I meant the posts to shed some light, as well as start some conversations, or even some questions. I'm going to do some new posts about this, but first, since it's been so long, I'm going to be reposting the old ones to revisit.
Real Alaska Native Myths and Legends #3 - What's a "traditional" Native? - July 30, 2008
The news about the slaughtered caribou brought out the usual - anti-Native hate, calls for an end to subsistence and "special rights", I don't know how many upstanding citizens dragging alcohol into the mix - something not mentioned in the case thus far, except by those spewing ignorance.
But one thing always gets brought up eventually, and that is the idea that "if they want to be traditional, then they need to go back to bows and arrows." One less enlightened man a few weeks ago put it as needing to go back to "making fires out of caribou dung."
Now, I will confess something. This is something that many Native people struggle with. There are many expectations about what you should be as a Native person, from without and within.
Be traditional - not "too traditional" - assimilate already! - just be "American" - why don't you dress in buckskin?
Some of the irony of the situation is that from the non-Native crowd, there is a constant mixed message. Native corporations are the most open to vicious attack for their successes - how dare they succeed? Yet corporations are the government requirement, not the Native neccessity. Hate comments about "needing to go back to the village" can be soon followed by "if things are so tough in the village, then move out!" Even the well-intentioned, friends and colleagues, can encourage this sort of dichotomy by having expectations about what a Native person should be, versus what they are.
But this kind of confusion is not something exclusive to non-Natives. This is maybe most confusing within the community. Be proud of your culture! But be more American this way... Learn your language! But don't think you're better just because you can. How come you don't know your culture? But your Western education should come first.
It's not always as clear cut as saying it so, as few few things are. It can be as subtle as a supervisor asking a group of us what we would do if an Elder gave us a very expensive gift at work. My look of panic was not the only one. You don't dare refuse a gift from an Elder! But this is not Western corporation practices.
The idea that you must succeed in two worlds is not new, nor is it going to go away anytime soon. But we can get rid of this cut and dry vision of what it means to be a "traditional" Native person.
It does not mean going back to "bow and arrow" days. If this is what someone really wants, it goes both ways. Not every great invention came from the Western mind. In fact, I'll make the next person who says this to me a deal - I will start encouraging the "old days," no snowmachines, no rifles, no electric heat - if they will fulfill two requests. Two requests for a whole lifestyle here, it's a good deal.
First, the agricultural products that we had in the "old days" are our and our alone. That means we own the patent/license/whatever to tomatoes, potatoes, turkey, rubber, chocolate! No Hershey's syrup. No peanut butter and jelly, because no peanuts. And it might literally mean the shirt off their back, because no cotton.
Second, if we don't receive the benefit of Western invention, we take back the benefit of our invention. Here in Alaska alone, that means no kayaks, snowshoes, moccasins. Not to mention popcorn.
Now, this isn't a serious claim, it is only meant to highlight the absurdity of demanding people "turn back the clock". I don't want to take back tomatoes (especially since the Tlingit and Athabascan people didn't have a lot to do with that) and I don't think that my wanting to honor my traditions means I need to do away with the Internet.
Bottom line is, the learning and invention and benefit went both ways. We were not a "primitive" people, who would never have survived without Western intervention. But the history of American would be much changed - in fact quite a bit briefer - with the knowledge and skill of the "First Peoples."
As to what a good "traditional" Native person is, the minute you spot one, let me know. The most honorable, respectful Native people I know drive cars and speak English as good or better than traditional languages. It is their drive to keep traditional lines open, to remember the values of ancient times and apply them to a modern world that makes me - and others - admire and respect them.
Our ancestors did not sit and dream of a world in which everything stayed exactly the same (despite some TV movies that say otherwise). They were innovators themselves. They dreamed of children, and grandchildren, and grandchildren's grandchildren that were healthy, that knew the Earth for what it was and respected it, that treated others with respect due to them. And this is how we respect them - by pursuing just that, fighting for it, expecting and hoping that it will come.
Real Alaska Native Myths and Legends #3 - What's a "traditional" Native? - July 30, 2008
The news about the slaughtered caribou brought out the usual - anti-Native hate, calls for an end to subsistence and "special rights", I don't know how many upstanding citizens dragging alcohol into the mix - something not mentioned in the case thus far, except by those spewing ignorance.
But one thing always gets brought up eventually, and that is the idea that "if they want to be traditional, then they need to go back to bows and arrows." One less enlightened man a few weeks ago put it as needing to go back to "making fires out of caribou dung."
Now, I will confess something. This is something that many Native people struggle with. There are many expectations about what you should be as a Native person, from without and within.
Be traditional - not "too traditional" - assimilate already! - just be "American" - why don't you dress in buckskin?
Some of the irony of the situation is that from the non-Native crowd, there is a constant mixed message. Native corporations are the most open to vicious attack for their successes - how dare they succeed? Yet corporations are the government requirement, not the Native neccessity. Hate comments about "needing to go back to the village" can be soon followed by "if things are so tough in the village, then move out!" Even the well-intentioned, friends and colleagues, can encourage this sort of dichotomy by having expectations about what a Native person should be, versus what they are.
But this kind of confusion is not something exclusive to non-Natives. This is maybe most confusing within the community. Be proud of your culture! But be more American this way... Learn your language! But don't think you're better just because you can. How come you don't know your culture? But your Western education should come first.
It's not always as clear cut as saying it so, as few few things are. It can be as subtle as a supervisor asking a group of us what we would do if an Elder gave us a very expensive gift at work. My look of panic was not the only one. You don't dare refuse a gift from an Elder! But this is not Western corporation practices.
The idea that you must succeed in two worlds is not new, nor is it going to go away anytime soon. But we can get rid of this cut and dry vision of what it means to be a "traditional" Native person.
It does not mean going back to "bow and arrow" days. If this is what someone really wants, it goes both ways. Not every great invention came from the Western mind. In fact, I'll make the next person who says this to me a deal - I will start encouraging the "old days," no snowmachines, no rifles, no electric heat - if they will fulfill two requests. Two requests for a whole lifestyle here, it's a good deal.
First, the agricultural products that we had in the "old days" are our and our alone. That means we own the patent/license/whatever to tomatoes, potatoes, turkey, rubber, chocolate! No Hershey's syrup. No peanut butter and jelly, because no peanuts. And it might literally mean the shirt off their back, because no cotton.
Second, if we don't receive the benefit of Western invention, we take back the benefit of our invention. Here in Alaska alone, that means no kayaks, snowshoes, moccasins. Not to mention popcorn.
Now, this isn't a serious claim, it is only meant to highlight the absurdity of demanding people "turn back the clock". I don't want to take back tomatoes (especially since the Tlingit and Athabascan people didn't have a lot to do with that) and I don't think that my wanting to honor my traditions means I need to do away with the Internet.
Bottom line is, the learning and invention and benefit went both ways. We were not a "primitive" people, who would never have survived without Western intervention. But the history of American would be much changed - in fact quite a bit briefer - with the knowledge and skill of the "First Peoples."
As to what a good "traditional" Native person is, the minute you spot one, let me know. The most honorable, respectful Native people I know drive cars and speak English as good or better than traditional languages. It is their drive to keep traditional lines open, to remember the values of ancient times and apply them to a modern world that makes me - and others - admire and respect them.
Our ancestors did not sit and dream of a world in which everything stayed exactly the same (despite some TV movies that say otherwise). They were innovators themselves. They dreamed of children, and grandchildren, and grandchildren's grandchildren that were healthy, that knew the Earth for what it was and respected it, that treated others with respect due to them. And this is how we respect them - by pursuing just that, fighting for it, expecting and hoping that it will come.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Real Native Myths and Legends - Revisited
I'm going to be out of Internet access for a few days. I'd like to start revisiting somethig I paused when the Palin stuff came out last fall - "Real Native Myths and Legends." I started it because there's so much stereotyping, misundestandngs and common beliefs about the Native people of Alaska, and America in general. I meant the posts to shed some light, as well as start some conversations, or even some questions. I'm going to do some new posts about this, but first, since it's been so long, I'm going to be reposting the old ones to revisit.
Real Native Myths and Legends #2 - Native Corporation Dividends - July 27, 2008
The first of this series is a pretty easy one to answer. Do all Alaska Native people receive big checks from Native corporations?
In a word - no.
And I'd like to add, if this were true, the college loan office wouldn't be calling quite so much.
All the background about why these corporations exist in the first place is incredibly rich and complicated, and most Native people my age don't know half of the history, much less the general public. I took a semester long class on the subject, and we barely scratched the surface. But here's an attempt at boiling a huge, generations-long battle into a few sentences:
The 12 original regional corporations were created in 1971, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA.) The act is what it sounds like, the settlement of Alaska Native Land Claims, although that's a much tighter package to wrap it in than what it encompasses.
Every Alaska Native person born before the act was passed in 1971, and met the qualifying amount of Native blood, was eligible to apply as a corporation shareholder. All those born after the date (like yours truly) can not be original shareholders, and (until last year) could only receive shares through inheritance or gifts. The original funds were a legal exchange between Alaska Native people and the government, payment for land. The corporations invested in many different ways. Now, all the regional corporations - there are now 13 - as well as the dozens of village corporations, have different ways of distributing dividends, if they get one at all.
But I can gaurantee one thing - very, very few corporations are distributing big checks. And ALL of what any shareholder may receive is dependant on how the corporation operated during the year. If they invest well, the shareholders do well. If they do poorly, you see my point...
This is not an attempt to rehash what you might know, but it is an extremely common question, or assumption, about Native people and corporation checks.
Did I leave anything out?
Real Native Myths and Legends #1 - July 26, 2008
Some conversations lately have led me to begin a series on "real Native myths and legends." I don't mean the kind of "myths" that are actually historical and spiritual stories. I mean the common misunderstandings, fictions, or just plain ignorance about Native people and culture. Some of the misunderstandings Native people believe.
For instance, what is the real situation of the "Native alcoholism problem?" Do Natives really get free health care? What makes a Native person "traditional?" Why is subsistence such a big deal? Does every Native person get a bunch of money from the corporations? For that matter, do they all get a bunch from the government?
Some of them are really just questions of cross-cultural communication. I was speaking with a friend recently, about a coworker of hers that was upset over something a Native man had said, she felt it was extremely rude. When we heard about it, it was easy for us to see he was actually being very formally polite, it was a total cultural difference.
In any case, beginning tommorrow, I would like to begin addressing many of these issues. Now, I don't mean all of what I say is what "all Native people think" - that's an unrealistic spot to put anyone in. But many of these issues just aren't addressed in print, and many times they can make it uncomfortable to ask about.All that being said, I hope people will post or e-mail their questions, comments and opinions.
Real Native Myths and Legends #2 - Native Corporation Dividends - July 27, 2008
The first of this series is a pretty easy one to answer. Do all Alaska Native people receive big checks from Native corporations?
In a word - no.
And I'd like to add, if this were true, the college loan office wouldn't be calling quite so much.
All the background about why these corporations exist in the first place is incredibly rich and complicated, and most Native people my age don't know half of the history, much less the general public. I took a semester long class on the subject, and we barely scratched the surface. But here's an attempt at boiling a huge, generations-long battle into a few sentences:
The 12 original regional corporations were created in 1971, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA.) The act is what it sounds like, the settlement of Alaska Native Land Claims, although that's a much tighter package to wrap it in than what it encompasses.
Every Alaska Native person born before the act was passed in 1971, and met the qualifying amount of Native blood, was eligible to apply as a corporation shareholder. All those born after the date (like yours truly) can not be original shareholders, and (until last year) could only receive shares through inheritance or gifts. The original funds were a legal exchange between Alaska Native people and the government, payment for land. The corporations invested in many different ways. Now, all the regional corporations - there are now 13 - as well as the dozens of village corporations, have different ways of distributing dividends, if they get one at all.
But I can gaurantee one thing - very, very few corporations are distributing big checks. And ALL of what any shareholder may receive is dependant on how the corporation operated during the year. If they invest well, the shareholders do well. If they do poorly, you see my point...
This is not an attempt to rehash what you might know, but it is an extremely common question, or assumption, about Native people and corporation checks.
Did I leave anything out?
Real Native Myths and Legends #1 - July 26, 2008
Some conversations lately have led me to begin a series on "real Native myths and legends." I don't mean the kind of "myths" that are actually historical and spiritual stories. I mean the common misunderstandings, fictions, or just plain ignorance about Native people and culture. Some of the misunderstandings Native people believe.
For instance, what is the real situation of the "Native alcoholism problem?" Do Natives really get free health care? What makes a Native person "traditional?" Why is subsistence such a big deal? Does every Native person get a bunch of money from the corporations? For that matter, do they all get a bunch from the government?
Some of them are really just questions of cross-cultural communication. I was speaking with a friend recently, about a coworker of hers that was upset over something a Native man had said, she felt it was extremely rude. When we heard about it, it was easy for us to see he was actually being very formally polite, it was a total cultural difference.
In any case, beginning tommorrow, I would like to begin addressing many of these issues. Now, I don't mean all of what I say is what "all Native people think" - that's an unrealistic spot to put anyone in. But many of these issues just aren't addressed in print, and many times they can make it uncomfortable to ask about.All that being said, I hope people will post or e-mail their questions, comments and opinions.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Protecting Sovereignty & Our Way of Life Meeting
I was sent this press release for an event I didn't know was going on, right here, this week. There are some huge issues they're putting on the table, and I will be very interested to see the outcomes of this meeting, who gets involved, and what they say. If you are attending, please let me know! I'd like to post your thoughts, what you see!
Mike Williams, Chairman of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council announced today the convening of a special meeting of Alaska’s 229 federally recognized tribes on May 26-28, 2009 at Anchorage, Alaska to take up “issues that we can no longer ignore; issues that are undermining our governments, endangering our Way of Life, and putting in jeopardy the very future of our children and grandchildren.”
According to Williams, this gathering of Alaska’s tribes will “begin the necessary task of seeking the restoration of our hunting and fishing rights along with our rights to self-governance which have been compromised and rendered useless by adverse court decisions, hostile “riders” written into federal budgets, and executive orders without the input of Alaska’s federally recognized tribes.”
Williams said that the issues to be taken up include:
1.By Congressional act, the repeal of language in Section 4(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which purports to have “extinguished” Alaska Native hunting and fishing rights.
2.The imposition of a moratorium on Bering Sea trawler fishing until such time the impact of this activity is better understood by the scientific community, or, at the very least, the immediate lowering of the Yukon King Salmon by-catch by the trawler fleet to 20,000 or less of King Salmon.
3.By congressional action, the designation of village corporate lands as “Indian Country” under the jurisdiction of the tribes that created them through PL 92-203, vacating, in affect, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in ALASKA v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE
4.By congressional act, the removal of Alaska as a PL-280 state as this designation hamstrings the tribes in their fight against crime, illegal alcohol and drug trafficking in their communities and nullifies their inherent responsibility to protect and care for their members and to enforce and adjudicate laws they may have enacted for the general good.
5.By congressional act, the return of the responsibility of educating Alaska Native children to the tribes and to the US Bureau of Indian Education.
Williams, further states that The Executive Council of AITC has decided that Alaska Natives have “a small window of opportunity made possible by the election of a US President who, more than any other previous President, would understand what it means to be discriminated against, marginalized, disenfranchised and as mired in poverty as Alaska Natives have become.” Williams says that “an opportunity like this may not come our way again to restore the birthright that has been lost to our children.” Williams further states that Alaska Natives “owes it to our nation to assist it in doing the “right thing” by its first citizens, of which we are the last.”
Willams says that the issues determined to be paramount for the continued viability of Alaska Native cultures, communities and governments will be brought to the mid-year convention of the National Congress of American Indians in June to enlist the support of America’s 500+ Indian tribes. He also says that the Inter-Tribal Council, “with the support and assistance of the National Congress of American Indians” will set up meetings with the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, the Alaska Congressional delegation and with President Barack Obama to enlist their support.
Williams says that what the Alaska Native tribes are hoping to achieve “will require unity, and no less an effort than the one that Alaska Natives put forth to secure title to their lands.” The tribal leaders summit, entitled “Protecting Sovereignty & Our Way of Life,” will be held at the Millennium Hotel in Anchorage, Alaska on May 26-28, 2009. All Alaska Native tribes and ANCSA corporations have been invited.
For information: call the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council at 563-9334
Mike Williams, Chairman of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council announced today the convening of a special meeting of Alaska’s 229 federally recognized tribes on May 26-28, 2009 at Anchorage, Alaska to take up “issues that we can no longer ignore; issues that are undermining our governments, endangering our Way of Life, and putting in jeopardy the very future of our children and grandchildren.”
According to Williams, this gathering of Alaska’s tribes will “begin the necessary task of seeking the restoration of our hunting and fishing rights along with our rights to self-governance which have been compromised and rendered useless by adverse court decisions, hostile “riders” written into federal budgets, and executive orders without the input of Alaska’s federally recognized tribes.”
Williams said that the issues to be taken up include:
1.By Congressional act, the repeal of language in Section 4(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which purports to have “extinguished” Alaska Native hunting and fishing rights.
2.The imposition of a moratorium on Bering Sea trawler fishing until such time the impact of this activity is better understood by the scientific community, or, at the very least, the immediate lowering of the Yukon King Salmon by-catch by the trawler fleet to 20,000 or less of King Salmon.
3.By congressional action, the designation of village corporate lands as “Indian Country” under the jurisdiction of the tribes that created them through PL 92-203, vacating, in affect, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in ALASKA v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE
4.By congressional act, the removal of Alaska as a PL-280 state as this designation hamstrings the tribes in their fight against crime, illegal alcohol and drug trafficking in their communities and nullifies their inherent responsibility to protect and care for their members and to enforce and adjudicate laws they may have enacted for the general good.
5.By congressional act, the return of the responsibility of educating Alaska Native children to the tribes and to the US Bureau of Indian Education.
Williams, further states that The Executive Council of AITC has decided that Alaska Natives have “a small window of opportunity made possible by the election of a US President who, more than any other previous President, would understand what it means to be discriminated against, marginalized, disenfranchised and as mired in poverty as Alaska Natives have become.” Williams says that “an opportunity like this may not come our way again to restore the birthright that has been lost to our children.” Williams further states that Alaska Natives “owes it to our nation to assist it in doing the “right thing” by its first citizens, of which we are the last.”
Willams says that the issues determined to be paramount for the continued viability of Alaska Native cultures, communities and governments will be brought to the mid-year convention of the National Congress of American Indians in June to enlist the support of America’s 500+ Indian tribes. He also says that the Inter-Tribal Council, “with the support and assistance of the National Congress of American Indians” will set up meetings with the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, the Alaska Congressional delegation and with President Barack Obama to enlist their support.
Williams says that what the Alaska Native tribes are hoping to achieve “will require unity, and no less an effort than the one that Alaska Natives put forth to secure title to their lands.” The tribal leaders summit, entitled “Protecting Sovereignty & Our Way of Life,” will be held at the Millennium Hotel in Anchorage, Alaska on May 26-28, 2009. All Alaska Native tribes and ANCSA corporations have been invited.
For information: call the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council at 563-9334
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Barrow's SUURIMMAANITCHUAT DANCERS performing at Obama Inaguration
Very cool. Just got this e-mail that a Barrow Inupiaq group will be performing in the inaugural parade!
They will be the only Alaska Native group doing so, and so they will not only be representing Inupiaq people, but Alaska Native people.
I'll be looking for them Jan. 20!
In other, very cool, Alaska Native news, I read in the Anchorage Daily News' Newsreader (originally in the Bristol Bay Times) that an Aleut Language Christmas CD is being released! Aleut, or Unungan, is one of the most endangered Alaska Native languages, and it's definitely a good Christmas present to hear this!
Monday, August 25, 2008
Natives gettin' in the mix
Sweet! The Obama campaign is having a "regular American" or two speak every night, in prime time, at the convention. Here's one slotted for Tuesday night:
Native American educator, David Gipp of North Dakota, has spent more than three decades working towards the development of tribal colleges. Speaking on Tuesday, Gipp is also an enrolled member of the Standing Rock Hunkpapa Lakota (Sioux) Tribe.
There is now a Native American "regular American" speaking at the convention, and Holly Stebing, an Alaska Native (Inupiaq) will be meeting Obama backstage.
Native American educator, David Gipp of North Dakota, has spent more than three decades working towards the development of tribal colleges. Speaking on Tuesday, Gipp is also an enrolled member of the Standing Rock Hunkpapa Lakota (Sioux) Tribe.
There is now a Native American "regular American" speaking at the convention, and Holly Stebing, an Alaska Native (Inupiaq) will be meeting Obama backstage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)