It’s important to note that while few First Nations in the United States were militarily conquered, manifest destiny and colonalization still impacted all First Nations and continues to do so (despite what some ‘leaders’ may claim).  It will be quite the healing process to decolonize and reassert ourselves as sovereign, thriving Indigenous Peoples by our own terms.  But I have confidence that that day will come.

__________________________________

In response to the article about Ed Thomas’ talk at the Sealaska Heritage Institute’s brown bag lunch series:

Sealaska Corp. has been inventing their own phrases, like “tribal member shareholder” and “economic self-determination,” because they want merge Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska and themselves into one entity. They want their own seat at the National Congress of the American Indians too.

The Native corporate oligarchy here in Alaska has been living in denial. They believe their own misrepresentations of history. I have two examples.

Example No. 1: “Alaskan tribes were not as directly affected by the idea of Manifest Destiny, the expansion of the United States and white settlers across North America.” — Ed Thomas, November 2011.

If this is true, then why are we a minority on our own homelands with only 5 percent left of our own customs and spirituality. Check Census 2010 for yourself, Alaska Natives are 13 percent of the state’s population.

Example No. 2: “I remember 1971, when the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was before Congress and there was a genuine concern in the country about wanting to improve conditions for Alaska Natives.” — Clarence Jackson, July 14, 2011.

If this is true, why do the state penitentiaries have a 45 percent Native population? And why do most Native people living in rural Alaska live in abject poverty likened to developing nations?

The state of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development website states: “ANCSA corporations’ stock is not freely tradable, Congress decided to exempt these companies from the proxy rules of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In 1971, it was thought that the shares would become tradable in 20 years, at which time the corporations would come back under the SEC’s rules. Shortly before 1991, however, the date for tradable shares became less definite in time.”

Corporate voting isn’t democratic.

Proxy votes depend on how many shares of stock any shareholder has in a corporation during each election cycle. I have 50 shares of stock so I get three votes per one share of stock and that equals 150 votes. If there are five candidates running for the board of directors I can vote for every one of them if I want by splitting it into 30 votes each. One person equals any number of votes. Proxy voting would never be accepted by the American people in elections for state or federal representatives so why should Alaska Natives have it for our political system too?

Ryan Olson

We often see tribal entities- such as governments, businesses and political organizations- fashioned after Western models.  This is not to discredit the work that they do but they should be acknowledged for what they are- business leaders and political officials, not to be confused with traditional leaders.  Below discusses some of the major players are in the Southeast Native community that must be differentiated from one another.  This information can be confusing and I appreciate that.  At the very least, I would advise people to be mindful when they read a newspaper headline that refers to “Native leaders” that their role as “leaders” is limited- if at all an accurate description. 

Tribal governments

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 (applied to Alaskan tribes in 1936) was the federal law that established the creation of federally-recognized tribal governments.  In order to receive federal recognition from the U.S government, tribal constitutions had to be approved by the U.S. Secretary of Interior.  The result was that many tribal governments were fashioned after the western model of government and don’t reflect the cultural context of true leadership or incorporated traditional laws and customs. 

Certainly, there are tribal governments that include traditional leaders in the decision making process and other IRA councils that have recently amended their constitutions to make their governance structure more culturally legitimate. However, problems of the IRA legacy still exist, since tribal governments are not a traditional governing body and don’t reflect the clan leadership (discussed in a subsection below) that is of fundamental importance to Southeast Alaska Native society.

ANCSA corporations

In 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) extinguished Native land claims in Alaska in exchange for nearly $1 billion in monetary compensation and allocation of 44 million acres of land.  Neither the money nor the land was given directly to tribal communities or tribal governments.  Instead, ANCSA created regional for-profit corporations and the land and money was given to these corporations.  ANCSA corporations are not tribes, tribal governments, or elected officials that are given authority to speak on behalf of the Native community, despite the language and rhetoric they use (i.e., Sealaska Corporation’s adopted of the term “tribal member shareholder”).  The board of directors are elected via proxy and discretionary voting- a far cry from a democratic process. 

Some have embraced this system as it benefits them well; some also accept it because they feel as though it is the only option for getting lands back in Native hands.  Others actively resist it and/or demand major reform since the corporate set up is not consistent with Native values and many do not experience any real benefit.    

Alaska Native Brotherhood

The Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) is a historic civil rights group with Native and non-Native membership.  ANB was established in 1912 and the Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANS) was established in 1915.  One of their main goals was to obtain U.S. citizenship and voting rights for Alaska Natives.  Until 1924, Alaska Natives were not considered U.S. citizens.  Prior to 1924, there was a process individual natives could go through to be considered eligible for citizenship (i.e., being recommended by several non-Natives that the individual had abandoned their traditional culture and was ‘civilized’ enough to carry on the responsibilities of citizenship).  To pursue this goal, the ANB founders encouraged assimilation, such as obtaining a Western education and learning English, and abolition of traditional culture that was considered ‘uncivilized.’  They were strongly influenced by the Presbyterian missionaries and therefore their policies were largely shaped after Christian ideals.  

Their heart was in the right place but I don’t agree with the methods and Christian demeanor (granted, I am a young 20-something year old that has the luxury of hindsight and can’t comprehend what like was like being Native in the early 1900s).  I’m happy that some of the issues ANB/ANS currently takes on include reclaiming our traditions- i.e. protecting Native Studies educational curriculums or fighting for subsistence rights. 

Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (CCTHITA)

Often referred to as “Central Council” or “T&H” the CCTHITA was established in 1935 to compliment the ANB and ANS to pursue a land claims suit.  Because of the inclusion of non-Natives in their membership, ANB and ANS were not eligible to pursue any legal battles over aboriginal land in court.  Hence, the Central Council was created to bring suit against the United States in the U.S. Court of Claims.  The U.S. Court of Claims, established in 1855 and operating until 1982, was a federal court that heard claims brought against the United States government.  This was an avenue to award monetary compensation to tribes across the United States for loss of land.  Many tribes refused to accept money for their lands and would accept nothing less than the return of land.  Other tribal governments, like Central Council, accepted monetary compensation. 

Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)

The Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) was established in the 1960s and is a group of Native representatives from across the state of Alaska that have their history based in the pursuit of a land settlement (resulting the passage of ANCSA).  The AFN’s Board of Directors and delegate voting powers gives more weight to ANCSA corporate interests over tribal.  Therefore, to label this organization as “Native leaders” is very misleading.   

Traditional leadership

Kwaans and clans- kwaans roughly translates into ‘place of dwelling’ but it is more or less equivalent to a tribe.  Yaakwdaat kwaan, for example, would the traditional tribe of the Yakutat area.  Clans are a subdivision of the kwaans and by far the most influential family unit for traditional cultural structure and leadership.  The autonomous political unit in villages was the clan- which is still relevant today.  Clan leaders are true traditional leaders yet their authority is limited to their clan only; they aren’t able to speak on behalf of all Tlingit (and Haida and Tsimpshian) people.

http://sacred-sites.org/wordpress/2011/07/08/yakutat-sacred-ground-threatened-by-mining/

—memorable quote from a meeting I attended with the Ketchikan Indian Community Way of Life Committee and the Tongass Tribe president this past February about mining activity in our ancestral lands.

Duke Island (Tlingit name is Gix), located south of Ketchikan, is a culturally significant place to the Taan ta Kwaan whom are known as the Tongass Tribe- the very people this National Forest was named after. There are 55 known archaeological and historic sites within the Duke Island area; including villages, burials, shell middens, fish traps, fort sites, battle grounds, fish camps, an abandoned customs house, housesteads, old trapper cabins, and light house.  Needless to say- rich history that is valued well beyond any dollar amount!  This land has been listed as eligible for listing as a “traditional cultural property” in the National Register of Historic Places.

Since 2001, Quaterra Alaska Inc, a Canadian junior mining company,  has staked state and federal mineral claims on Duke Island to search for copper, nickel, and platinum.  Here again, we find ourselves at odds with the federal government agencies that are responsible for the management of our ancestral lands and are obligated to cater to the antiquated Mining Law of 1872.  A resolution to protect Duke Island passed in 2008 by the Alaska Native Brotherhood Grand Camp stated that “the development for these commercial activities tend to endanger the many cultural, heritage, spiritual and traditional uses of the area; and these activities are viewed as disrespectful to many of the Native communities’ ancestors.”

It’s important to note that obtaining a traditional cultural property status does not mean an area is protected from mining activity and other types of development.  It adds “minimize and mitigate damage” provisions to the development project but it is not enough to halt a project altogether.  We must therefore stand united with our Taan ta Kwaan relations to support their efforts to protect Duke Island and assert to the world that this is not a place for a mine.

-excerpt from a June 2011 viewpoint letter in the SITnews.

Putting my views on the Sealaska legislation aside, I am addressing the red herring attack this gentleman used to ‘further’ his argument: genetics- a reductionist science still in its infancy that is not immune to producing false positives and false negatives.  I was not enthused about nor took part in the DNA analysis testing to see if I was related to the human remains found in On Your Knees Cave for I had a feeling it would backfire and end up supposedly ‘proving’ that the Tlingit are not indigenous to this region.  I do not buy into conclusions based entirely on genetics because genetic analysis is not scientifically conclusive and could have negative social and political consequences.

Potential for false positives and false negatives

The genetic markers believed to be highly prevalent amongst Natives are not unique to North America.  Many are found in Japanese and Samoans- hence, a DNA analysis could indicate a false positive for Native ancestry.

Males and females inherit their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from their mother but this genetic lineage ends with each male.  If I have children, they would inherit the mtDNA that I inherited from my mother, but my brother’s children will not.  If all of your maternal great grandmothers were Native, except one- DNA testing for Native ancestry could result as negative.  Similarly, Y-Chromosomes are only found in males and males inherit a close copy from their fathers.  Testing a male’s y-chromosome has the similar limitations as mtDNA in that it only examines one line of ancestry.  If a man had many Native great grandparents, except one paternal great grandfather, testing could result in a negative.

All it takes is one non-Native in a person’s ancestry to result in a false negative.  More info on fallacies of using genetics as a test for Native identity here.

There are over 27,000 Tlingits in the world today, many of which are not going to be undiluted ‘full-bloods.’  Taking a sample of 200 people will not be an accurate depiction of genetic code supposedly unique to Tlingit.  You are not a total and complete intricate map of your parents’ genes- let alone those more removed from your nuclear blood relations and removed by generations.

Social and political implications 

The argument that Native peoples were not the first peoples on this continent presented by the author of the letter could be expanded and used to further the genocide of Native peoples and erode our sovereignty.  The argument could be used to dismantle tribal governments and the rights that come with them- stating that we do not deserve this political status because we are all ‘immigrants’ like everyone else and don’t deserve ‘special treatment’ and sovereign recognition.  It could be used to take away more indigenous lands because the interpretation of the DNA analysis results say we’re not indigenous after all.  Anything to ignore and/or justify the systematic abuse the First Nations of this continent has been enduring since Euro/American contact.

On a related issue, I loath it when people claim that Natives have a ‘genetic predisposition’ for alcoholism.  This argument simply placing blame on the victim (and also ignores individual accountability) rather than taking a hard look at the environmental and socioeconomic factors that contribute to one’s behavior and life choices.  But let’s ignore the generations of abuse and genocidal policies Indigenous peoples have endured.  Ignore that some of these policies are still around today, just under different pretenses.  It must be their own damned fault because of their faulty DNA.

Blood quantum and biology, genetics and politics- don’t define me as Tlingit and who I can consider myself related to.  It is traditions, protocol, and the environment which I grew up in that created who I am.   Having a history that is documented for the past several thousands of years is enough to consider me and the rest of the Tlingit Nations indigenous to this area.

For more info on genetics and other related issues that impact indigenous peoples- check out the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism.

In secular governments like the U.S., individuals are afforded the constitutional right to freedom of religion.  But this freedom is limited to practices that can be contained within individual households.  In Indigenous cultures, religion and spirituality is often tied to specific geographic locations (i.e., mountains or rivers).  These sacred sites are often the location of creation beliefs and oral histories that have been passed on for generations.  They are also where people go to conduct traditional ceremonies and medicine gathering.  It is not easy to articulate the meaning sacred sites have to Indigenous peoples in terms that non-Indigenous people or government agencies can appreciate.   Nor is it easy to define borders around them, given that everything is connected. This was probably best articulated in a Statement of Custodians of Sacred Natural Sites and Territories.  “Sacred Natural Sites and Territories can be considered on the Earth, as a network of acupuncture points would be on the human body.  They have a healing effect. We also consider that the relationship between them is critical and they cannot be seen in isolation from each other…”

Indigenous religious/spiritual belief systems differ greatly from the Judeo-Christian paradigm and are distinguishable by their emphasis on location rather than a chronology of events.  Tribal religions are not based on a set of established truths (theological doctrines) like western religions.  Rather, they are based on the performance of ceremonies and rituals- many of which must be performed at certain locations during certain times.  If Indigenous Peoples do not have access to their sacred sites, they do not have access to their place of worship.

With the expansion of Western imperialism, the United States became the land managers of many traditional Indigenous lands.  Through a variety of means, such as treaties and executive orders, Tribes ceded much of their land and sacred sites to the United States.  Other federal policies have resulted in the loss of more Indigenous lands, such as removal, allotment, and termination; illegal acquisition and ‘encroachment’ by states and individual citizens.   These lands are considered publicly owned and are managed under a “multiple use policy” which opens the land to uses such as logging and mining.  This has led to conflicts regarding how to utilize the land and how to define its values.  Federal land management agencies have a well-established history of disregarding the concerns of Indigenous Peoples and their sacred sites on public lands. Western notions of resource development are simply not compatible with the needs of Indigenous peoples and their need for the integrity of their sacred sites to be protected.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)

For over a century, the United States has repressed and even outlawed Indigenous religious ceremonies.  At the same time, Christian missionaries were being given government support to promote their western religions amongst Indian reservations.  Native children were required to attend Christian missionary schools and were punished for retaining any cultural practices, such as speaking Native languages, wearing Native clothing, or practicing Native religion.  The rights of Indigenous Peoples to practice their religion had to be affirmed by an act of Congress- the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) which was passed in 1978.  AIRFA declared that it was the policy of Congress to protect and preserve American Indians’ right to believe, express, and practice their traditional religions.  Congress intended to make government agencies recognize, consider, and respect traditional Indigenous religions and to “learn about, and avoid unnecessary interference with, traditional Indian religious practices.”  However, even Congressman Udall (D-AZ), who cosponsored the bill, stated that the Act “had no teeth” because it did not create any legal rights and “depends on Federal administrative good will for its implementation.”

First Amendment

The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution includes the Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment clauses.  When religious freedom is discussed in the context of traditional Indigenous religions, the right of the practitioners to maintain relationships with the natural environment is what is at stake.  Federal agencies have routinely acted or permitted activities that compromise sacred sites.  And the federal judiciary system has consistently supported these actions based on a narrow interpretation of the First Amendment.  The main case that highlights this is Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association.

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association

Since the passage of AIRFA, several Indigenous groups had filed lawsuits against public land management agencies.  Given AIRFA’s lack of legal rights, Indigenous plaintiffs relied on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to support their claims. In the 1988 Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that unless the government affirmatively coerces or penalizes an individual or group for its religious beliefs, the government may infringe on religious conduct.  The case involved the U.S. Forest Service and three tribes- the Yurok, Karok, and Tolowa- in Northern California.  The Forest Service had proposed construction of a 6-mile paved road in the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest, which is sacred to the three tribes.  The road would have opened the area to logging and would have destroyed the isolation of ceremonial sites for the tribes.  The tribes challenged the project through the administrative process but were not successful.  They brought the case to the federal court, bringing their claims under the First Amendment.  The federal court and the Ninth Circuit of Appeals denied the construction on the grounds that it would have made religious ceremonial use in the area impossible and therefore violated the tribes’ rights as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.  The lower courts, however, did not find that the actions would coerce the Tribes into not practicing their religion and ceremonies.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court heard the appeal, the California Wilderness Act was passed by Congress and the area was designated wilderness, thereby eliminated the immediate development threat.  But the question of freedom of religion was still at hand- did the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibit the government from developing the Chimney Rock area?  The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower courts and held that the Forest Service was able to construct the road and harvest the lands.  It ruled in favor of the Forest Service based upon a conclusion that the “freedom of religion” clause in the First Amendment does not restrict the government’s management of its lands so long as: 1) government’s purpose is secular and not aimed at infringing upon a religion and 2) government’s actions do not coerce individuals to act contrary to their religious beliefs.

The result of the Lyng decision is that Indigenous religious practitioners do have not First Amendment rights to challenge land management decisions which could effect or destroy sacred sites and thereby possibly destroy an entire culture and religion.

Concluding thoughts

The United States was built to escape from the tyranny and religious persecution the pilgrims had endured.  Despite hailing under the banner of ‘liberty and justice for all,’ the United States has failed to apply these principles to this country’s First Nations.  The lack of recognition for religious freedom for Indigenous peoples is hypocritical at best. The land management decisions for public land use often goes against the needs of Indigenous communities, whom were the original land owners and are still very much dependent upon it for spiritual and cultural sustenance. Until a time has reached when Indigenous Peoples are respected as spiritual and cultural entities, the United States has yet to truly live up to the principles of religious freedom under its very own Constitution.

What can we do?

Unless there are more amendments to AIRFA to give it “teeth” or other laws are passed that protect sacred land and cultural resources, there are other means we need to seek out in order to protect our sacred lands:

Get educated on the laws and regulations that could be used for cultural resource protection, if only indirectly.  Allocate responsibilities amongst a dedicated group or committee; don’t take on too much by yourself. You can get burnt out or if you move on, momentum on the efforts you made could come to a halt if your skills aren’t able to be replaced or if the relationships you have established have to be rebuilt.

Collaborate and network; there are going to be others fighting similar battles or foster similar values and concerns.  They will have advice, ideas and experience to provide- plus combining forces and gaining broader support for your cause.

Create clear objectives so everyone is on the same page and not pulling the group in different directions.

Know your audience so you know how to frame your message; make it relevant to whom you are speaking to so they know why they should care and what they can do to help but don’t get lost in translation or end up too far removed from why it is significant to you and your people.  Always remember to speak from the heart or else risk compromising the integrity of the movement.

Educate the public on Indigenous history and issues- starting from restructuring the Euro-centric education  (“First Thanksgiving” or a glorified version of Christopher Columbus, etc) kids receive from a young age.  Education will become a preventative tool since currently, sacred sites are largely unknown by the public until a development project is in the works and then Indigenous peoples are made out to be the “bad guys” for trying to “kill the economy” by stopping “progress”, etc.

These are a few suggestions based on my limited experience thus far- comment and add your own.  Keep fighting the good fight, all my plucky Indigenous vanguards!

Dry Bay jukebox project.

I had been to a few Native Issues forums before and the master of ceremonies (depending on who it was) rarely acknowledged the Auk Kwaan people for allowing the gathering to take place on their land.  Rarely were clan leaders acknowledged, yet various people from Sealaska or Central Council- even interns- got acknowledged.  I was disappointed that the last guest speaker, Governor Parnell, did a better job than the master of ceremonies of acknowledging the prominent elders and clan leaders in the crowd.  This is only an example; there are other instances where we fail to acknowledge those that are important.  How many dance groups thank Sealaska for hosting Celebration but don’t thank the Auk Kwaan for being on their land?  etc.

Corporate folks aren’t elected officials that represent the people; corporate affairs (Native owned or not) are economic.  IRA governments, while more democratic, don’t necessarily reflect the true leadership in traditional communities either.  I don’t mean to discredit either institution for the work they do.  But acknowledge them for what they are and how they contribute- they are business leaders and political officials- not to be mistaken with clan/traditional leaders.  I grew up knowing that family, clan, and community come first and that I must be respectful of and acknowledge those around me, particularly when I am in someone else’s community.  Is it too much to ask that those who so vocally try to represent “all Native people” to do the same?

Are we at a point where being traditional is be considered irrelevant by our own people? Have we gotten that far removed from our cultural roots that we feel as though it is no longer important to follow certain protocols?  Cultures do need to evolve to survive, but there is a difference between evolving and adopting a totally different (Western) mindset and approach.

There is no singular villain to blame for the history of wrong doing to our people.  We are under attack from practically every quarter to preserve what we have and what is important to us as Native people.  But following protocols and acknowledging traditional leaders is not something we need permission to do.  We’re losing another component of who we are and how we relate to each other as Tlingit when we don’t do this.  And we can’t blame outside influences for making our traditions and traditional protocol illegal anymore for this is due to our own negligence.