What is the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act?
“The land is the spirit of the people”
Alaska Native peoples have been living for tens of thousands of years on the lands now
called “Alaska” (a westernized version of the Aleut term for "great land” or "mainland”).
Current theory asserts that early peoples migrated to Alaska some 25,000 years ago over
a land bridge connecting Alaska and eastern Siberia. These immigrants then spread out
over the region, developing over time into multiple, distinct, sovereign nations.
In the 1700’s, traders from other nations – Russia, Spain, England, and what would
become the U.S. – began coming in force to Alaska to exploit the fur trade. Eventually,
Russia claimed dominion over the territory of Alaska.
In 1867, Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. government for a sum of $ $7,200,000 (about
1.9¢ per acre), transferring title to all public and vacant lands not owned by individuals,
without regard to the claims of the aboriginal peoples who had been living on the lands
for generations. These peoples -- deemed “uncivilized tribes” by the U.S. government -considered most of these lands to be their communal property, based on the principle of
“traditional use and occupancy.” The treaty with Russia “provided that those tribes would
be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States might from time to time
adopt with respect to aboriginal tribes.” (1)
In 1884, Congress passed an Act which stated that indigenous Americans “should not be
disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or then
claimed by them, but that the terms under which such persons could acquire title to such
lands were reserved for future legislation by Congress.” (2)
In 1966, Alaska Native leaders created a statewide organization called the Alaska
Federation of Natives (which is still a political force today and meets annually to discuss
Native issues). This organization pressed Congress to resolve the question of Alaska
Native land claims. From the perspective of many Native individuals and organizations,
the lands on which they had been living and subsisting from “time immemorial” had
never been the property of Russia to sell in to the U.S. in the first place. However,
pressures were building in the state which required that they negotiate some sort of deal
to resolve their claims to the lands. The State of Alaska wished to resolve issues of land
title so it could conduct business; both the state and oil companies wanted to build the
trans-Alaska pipeline and could not do so until these conflicting claims were settled.
After five years of struggle and compromise between Alaska Native groups, the state, oil
companies, and conservationists, and just over one hundred years after the purchase of
Alaska by the U.S. government, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was
passed by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon.
The official policy of the U.S. government with respect to indigenous land claims up to
that point had been to “grant to them title to a portion of the lands which they occupied,
to extinguish the aboriginal title to the remainder of the lands by placing such lands in the
public domain, and to pay the fair value of the titles extinguished.” (3) (However, many
Native Americans were forcibly removed from their traditional homelands). This official
policy was continued with the passage of ANCSA.
The passage of ANCSA on December 18, 1971, provided title to a total of 40 million
acres to be divided among some 220 Native villages and twelve Regional Corporations
established by the Act. These twelve Regional Corporations (together with a 13th
comprised of Natives living outside the State) shared in a payment of $462,500,000 over
an eleven-year period, and an additional $500 million in oil revenues derived from
specified Alaska lands. (4)
Native people across the state born in, on or before December 18, 1971 became
shareholders of these new corporations. Part of the mandate of ANCSA was that the
corporations had to manage subsurface resources found on their lands and the lands of
their related village corporations . If those resources were “developed” (mined, drilled),
70% of the revenues generated had to be shared among all twelve regional corporations
and all of the village corporations on a per capita basis – a very different arrangement
than non-Native corporations across the globe.
However, Native corporations, like all other corporations, strive to maximize profits for
their shareholders and can be sued for mismanagement if they fail to do so. Many
regional corporations have invested in real estate, secured military contracts, and
engaged in mining, logging and other economic endeavors in pursuit of profits for their
shareholders. Some make large profits from their efforts; others fail to make much
profit at all. Shareholders of the profitable corporations receive dividends; those of the
less profitable corporations share only in the largesse of the successful corporations.
The average dividend received by a shareholder of a Native corporation over the past 20
years has been $ (FIND AMOUNT).
There is considerable discussion within the broader Native community about the impact
of ANCSA. Some Alaska Natives view ANCSA as a very positive step forward for
Native peoples in terms of economic empowerment, while others see it as a necessary
compromise to prevent all-out loss of traditional lands. Some believe that ANSCA was
the first settlement in America based on self-determination for Native groups, and that it
has resulted in a renaissance of culture reflected today in the many Native cultural events
around the state and the revival of interest in preserving Native languages.
Still others agree with the sentiments expressed by Bigjim and Adler in “Letters to
Howard” that ANCSA was simply another step in a long history of the U.S.
government’s efforts to assimilate Native peoples and, ultimately, destroy their distinct
cultures. They argue that ANCSA’s use of the corporate form requires Native peoples to
embrace class relationships and values – such as profit-making from the “development of
resources” – which dangerously skew the more holistic relationships between the people
and the land and the people and their communities embodied by traditional Native
cultures. “With the President’s signature on the settlement act, the relationship between
the Native peoples of Alaska and the land was completely transformed…” say Bigjim
and Adler, “Native Alaskans whose earlier use and occupancy had made them co-owners
of shared land, now became shareholders in corporate-owned land.” (5) Dialogue and
debate over the issues raised by ANCSA and the implications for both Alaska’s Native
peoples and the entire statewide population will undoubtedly continue long into the
future.
1-4: Jones, Richard S. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-203): History and
Analysis Together with Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81-127 GOV, June 1, 1981.
www.alaskool.org/projects/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm#Introduction\
5. Alaska Native Heritage Center, Alaska Native Cultural Workshop Series packet, 2007.