Complexity and Contingency
In response two peers, reflect on their revised statement. Describe the ways you find it shows the complexity of the event,and provide a suggestion for how they can further develop the statement or the supporting examples.
#1
I selected option one for this discussion topic: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and the Native corporation system has been good for Alaska Natives. Based on the web text for this topic, I believe the ANCSA was good for the Alaskan Natives. The settlement agreed that the Natives would receive 44 million acres of land and a cash payment of $962.5 million. The ANCSA benefited native and non-native people with a program called The Alaskan Permanent Fund which collects 25% of the oil royalties and distributes a dividend to event qualified Alaskan. Also, all natives who were alive in 1971 were able to enroll in one of the corporations and qualified for 100 shares of stock. This settlement, in my opinion, was fair, and it gave the natives land along with stock and an annual dividend. They did not seem forced out of their native land, as seen in the Trail of Tears. Based on the reading, all parties benefit from The Alaskan Settlement Act.
The events contingent on the passing of the ANCSA were the purchase of land from Russa in March of 1967 when the Atlantic-Richfield Company discovered oil in 1968 and the Alaska Federation of Natives making sure there was a fair agreenment for the land.
#2
The Alaska Native Settlements Act and the Native corporation system was better for Alaska Natives than the settlements/treaties in the past. There were lots of benefits for the Alaskan Natives, they received 44 million acres and a cash payment of $962.5 million and they were also able to negotiate these terms, not like in the past where they got nothing and had no negotiating power. Even more historic than the size of the ANCSA settlement was the way it was structured a radical departure from the traditional model of Native reservations in the Lower 48, in which the federal government holds Native lands in trust. Instead of establishing reservations ANCSA set up a system of Native corporations to administer the land and invest the monetary settlement for the benefit of Natives (Thomas, 1986).
I do believe this had a positive impact on Alaskan natives especially compared to how they were treated in the past. However, there were some implications. In recent years, many Natives have questioned the extent to which the corporation system might be supplanting some tribal structures and weakening ties to Native heritage. Economically this settlement really helped the Natives, but cultural it may have weakened their heritage and culture.
my response to this discussion
8-1
Is Highlighted
Caitlin Soto posted Aug 17, 2022 2:47 PM
The statement “in preparation for Cherokee removal, state and federal officials” were inspired solely by the desire to seize the native’s land does not present a full picture of why the Cherokee people were chased out of their lands. This native land was not the only one that inspired the government officials. My revised statement is that the federal and state governments wanted to chase the Cherokee people because their territory had natural resources like cotton, which led to an important cash crop then. It was also filled with gold, and their land was also used as an excuse to chase the Cherokee people out of the rich deposits since it could be very difficult for them to get and farm the land and gold with the natives there. The approach I would take in my research topic would be to compare how President Jackson ignored the Supreme Court ruling in Georgina that said that the people’s states could not interfere with the native tribals and the amendment that gave men from Africa America the right to vote. (Bens, 2018)
