Allison Eberhard,
Young Explorers Team
Sovereignty and
Cultural Survival
I am going to talk about
sovereignty and its connection to cultural survival. There
is no greater guarantee of cultural survival than a
government that reflects the values and understandings of
the culture it governs. This alignment of nation and state
is highly prized because it gives the understandings,
beliefs, and values of the people a political voice. For
example, the core values of the American nation include
individual freedoms of speech, religion, and thought. These
values are outlines in the Constitution as the basis of our
state, at least in theory.
The US Constitution names three
sovereigns -- the federal government, the states, and Indian
tribes. Indian tribes are considered "domestic dependent
nations" with a semi-sovereign status. This status is
incredibly ambiguous but, generally, it allows tribes
varying degrees of control over their own land and people,
so long as they do not violate federal laws. These
semi-sovereign rights are derived from tribes' nationhood,
meaning as distinct political and cultural entities they
have an inherent right to sovereignty.
In the lower 48 the US
government created reservations that tribes could govern.
When you drive onto a reservation you will pass a sign
reading, "You are now entering the Blackfeet Nation," or
"You are now entering the Oglala Sioux Indian Reservation."
You will not pass signs like these in Alaska.
Alaska Native sovereignty
differs greatly from Indian sovereignty in the lower 48.
Alaska Natives are recognized as tribes without "Indian
Country;" they do not have control over a territory, but
they do have control over themselves, as a cultural
unit.
With the exception of Metlakatla
there are no reservations in Alaska. The Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA, 1971) replaced collective
tribal land ownership with fee simple title in the hands of
Native corporations. The Act took land away from the tribes
and gave it to Native corporations. Legally, these
corporations are not regarded as being different than any
other corporation. They are not semi-sovereign entities,
they are corporations. They are not tribes, they are
corporations. Tribes in Alaska do not have territorial
sovereignty over the land they live on. In the eyes of the
law they are regular landowners.
Socially, however, Alaska Native
tribes retain their sovereign rights to manage their
internal domestic affairs, such as child custody disputes,
adoption, and membership criteria. While this control is
limited, it still enables tribes to handle their own
domestic affairs.
Where does all this leave us?
Alaska Natives are in a difficult place because they have
very limited legal access to their sovereignty. This
disparity between Western and Native values has caused great
psychological and spiritual damage to Native communities.
The poverty in many Native villages, coupled with the
disproportionate rates of alcoholism, substance abuse, rape,
and domestic abuse, are testament to the fact that
oppression is present. An effective way to combat this
oppression and rebuild Native communities is to strengthen
the access Alaska Native villages have to their
sovereignty.
Putting power back in the hands
of tribal governments will allow them to address the
problems in their communities more effectively than the
state or federal governments.
(top)
|