Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:22:09.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sovereignty, tribal government, and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Amendments of 1987

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Thomas A. Morehouse
Affiliation:
Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA

Abstract

Contemporary dimensions of a conflict over the political powers of Alaska Natives and their relationship to the larger society were set by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. This granted land and money to Alaska Natives, established corporations to use these assets, and ensured that the land and the corporations would remain under Native control until at least 1991. Under 1987 amendments to ANCSA, Congress extended these special protections indefinitely. Leaders of the tribal government movement in Alaska tried unsuccessfully to use the amendments to gain increased political power and federal recognition of Native tribes and tribal governments. They were opposed by federal authorities, Alaska's US senators, the State of Alaska, non-Native political interest groups, and Native leaders of the ANCSA corporations. Although stalled in this instance, the drive toward tribal government, or ‘sovereignty’, in Alaska remains a viable political movement. It is part of a continuing evolution of Native politics which in its modern form began with land claims and now includes a much broader concern for political claims of sovereignty, or inherent self-governing powers. In pursuing this course, however, tribal leaders will need to focus more on specific requirements for Native security and welfare than on general claims of sovereignty, and avoid direct confrontations with powerful opponents.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, K. J. 1987. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act: striking the balance in favor of ‘customary and traditional’ subsistence uses by Alaska Natives. Natural Resources Journal 27: 421–40.Google Scholar
Case, D. S. 1984. Alaska Natives and American laws. Fairbanks, University of Alaska Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, F. S. 1982. Handbook of federal Indian law. Charlottesville, Virginia, Michie Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, US Senate. 1987. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Amendments of 1987. Report 100–201 to accompany H.R. 278, 100th cong., 1st sess.Google Scholar
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, US House of Representatives. 1987. Amending the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Report 100–31 to accompany H.R. 278, 100th cong., 1st sess.Google Scholar
Medred, C. 1983. Stevens warns Alaska Natives to avoid dissention. Anchorage Daily News, 22 10.Google Scholar
Morehouse, T. A., McBeath, G. and Leask, L 1984. Alaska's urban and rural governments. Lanham, Maryland, University Press of America.Google Scholar
Morehouse, T. A. 1987a. The meaning of political development in the north. Polar Record 23(145): 405–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morehouse, T. A. 1987b. Native claims and political development. ISER Occasional Papers 18. Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska.Google Scholar
State of Alaska. 1986. Report of the governor's task force on federal-state-tribal relations. Juneau, Office of the Governor.Google Scholar
Whitney, D. 1987. Murkowski offers 1991 compromise. Anchorage Daily News, 31 07.Google Scholar
Worl, R. 1985. Kavilco's 1991 position. Alaska Native News, 06.Google Scholar