1989•Polar RecordRequires access

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

Thomas A. Morehouse

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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.

Key concepts: Sovereignty, Politics, Settlement (finance), State (computer science), Government (linguistics), Political science, Law, Public administration

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Sovereignty, tribal government, and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Amendments of 1987 — Research Paper | ScholarLens