Juneau Mayor Botelho came to Ketchikan last Friday to support a citizen ballot initiative aiming to restore the Coastal Management Program.
Kuiu Kwaan and other Alaska Native Nations have had a coastal management plan in place for thousands of years.
Kuiu Kwaan boundaries start at Ship Island northward to Frederick Sound westward to Baranof to Hazy Island to Cape Muzon.
We have never relinquished or ceded our inherent rights, lands, waters, and resources to anyone. No other entity can speak on behalf of Kuiu and Shakan Kwaan.
Dr. Kly, Director of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Specialist in International Human Rights Law, states, “failure to provide priority rights or what is called Special Measures in International Law to the Indian Nations, leading to their extinction would be a grave violation of International Criminal Law, particularly as it relates to the Genocide Convention, to which the US is also a party.
State officials believe Alaska has sovereign rights over navigable waters even those that pass through federal lands. How could the state of Alaska have sovereign rights when Native Nations of Alaska have title?
The United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in 1975, United States v. the State of Alaska (422 U.S. 184), in which it was found that the 1867 treaty between Russia and the United States (15 Stat 539) was a quitclaim.
A quitclaim cannot transfer title, especially since the United States itself asserted that Russia had not acquired it. Under the maxim “Nemo dat quod non habet” or no man can give another any better title than he himself has” fully applies in the case of Alaska.
This maxim particularly applies where the State of Alaska erroneously uses the 1867 Treaty of Cession as the basis and justification for the State of Alaska constitution.
Alaska is separate and distinct internationally recognized third parties that did not consent to annexation.
Bearing in mind that the United States consented to the international treaty obligations, the United States cannot legitimately claim the Territories of Alaska without the consent of the Alaska Natives.
Too much emphasis is on the Russians who were latecomers.
The Chinese were here trading with Alaska Natives in the 10th Century. People traveling into Kuiu country had to get permission from our great grandfather to hunt, trap, and fish in our areas.
They still had to do the same in my father’s time.
• James, Jr. of Ketchikan is 2nd. Chair of the Kuiu Kwaan Nation.
Comments (35)
Add commentChinese
One sentence caught my attention saying that "The Chinese were here trading with Alaska Natives in the 10th century"
I, and I am sure many historians and archaeologists would certainly welcome any factual evidence that the Chinese traded with Natives of Alaska in the tenth century. We have no proof of that at the present time that I know of. Or is this just a "story" ?
one of we
Yes, the Polynesians and others explored vast areas of the Pacific. But whether the Chinese were trading with Natives in the tenth century is a very specific claim that has not yet been reliably verified by historians and archaeologists. There are of course stories that such events took place, but the stories have not been supported by factual evidence.
both ways
Sure the sovereign native nations want to declare themselves separate from the US. Until of course there comes the rights guaranteed in the US Constitutions to US citizens not members of other nations. These sovereign nation status people have no problem accepting the native preferences for contracting with the US government or the things provided to Alaska natives such as medical and dental care.
So if you want to declare yourself as such a free nation you first need to stop accepting everything from the US government and not expect the rights of US citizens to be applicable to you.
I expect there will be those claiming I am a bigot based on my statements. But honestly folks is not honest of the native population to want to be separate from the country some of the time and inclusive other time depending upon what gives the most benefits at the time.
@islander: I think they
@islander: I think they deserve all the rights we afford to our citizens and more. Don't forget that pretty much the entire history of Native Americans and European Americans is marked by betrayal, genocide, and cultural suppression.
Germany had to pay (insufficient) reparations after World War II for committing genocide. The United States, it seems, only had to put aside its least desirable tracts of land for the survivors to inhabit.
Also, if the Chinese were trading with Native Americans in the 10th century, that'd be pretty cool. But you'd think the Chinese, as meticulous record-takers as they were, would have written that fact down.
Sovereign Rights
Nothing is to be believed except the word of colonialists who practice the policies of theft and murder to steal any and all resources and lands. They've stolen before and are actively stealing again. And the worst thing about it is the Indigenous leaders don't say a word in defense of their peoples resources and lands. They just bovinely let them take what they want.
We know what happened and happens when the illegal European immigrants and now their descendants steal resources and kick the Indigenous off their lands to do it.
We also know what happens when colonialism is practiced on countries who can't defend themselves against the policies of colonialism America practices on behalf of the multi national conglomerates who are enabled to steal their resources and and lands. It leads to terrorist attacks like 9/11.
YAWN
The Sitka tribe couldn't even agree where they built that seaweed house a couple hundred years ago when the Russians returned. And this guy wants us to believe something from thousands of years ago. Right. If the Chinese did come to Southeast Alaska, there would be written proof of it. They have had a written language for thousands of years. Nice try.
@lcummins: just because a
@lcummins: just because a written language exists doesn't mean all events get written down. Or that all records survive throughout the years. Think of all the writings of Aristotle that are forever lost. All the works kept in the Library of Alexandria that we can never recover. All the things Socrates said that were never written down.
The Chinese have lost or destroyed a lot of written records...
So anything is possible. Sure, a boat may have drifted downwind and gotten to 'Alaska' in the 10th century but what difference does that make?
What 'Gawd' gave Alaska to the indigenous people in the first place, and what court gave them permission to flip off every other kind of human that does not see everything the way they do?
For some reason, there will always be people in Alaska who do not understand that they are Americans now. I wonder why? Everybody else in America understands they are American. ~Humm~
Recommended book
For any of the commentators who are interested in oral history, that is accounts passed on from one generation to the next, the problems involved in verification, the strengths and weaknesses of oral history, I highly recommend an excellent book first published in 1961 and completely revised in 1985.
The title is "Oral tradition" by Jan Vansina - it is considered a classical masterpiece of scholarship.
How could they have title
So how could the natives have title to the land anyway? Was it written on a piece of birch bark?
Why would the government owe them anything?
Simple request for Good
Please read historical accounts and legal decisions over the past two hundred years. It takes time, but it pays off in understanding discussions and debates.
pp - I'm with islander on this one
First - all of us have in our histories betrayal, cultural repression, and quite often mass slayings of our ancestors. Why does this one group deserve particular accommodations? Time elapsed? Happened after 1800?
As to the subsistance/soveregn argument -
Mr. James' statement that the indiginous people have had a traditional "coastal management program" is just as erroneous as those who claim they 'manage' the caribou well because of thousand-year-old ancestors. The truth of the matter is that a few people with canoes and hand-made spears and fish hooks, storing food dried or in caches, simply were not physically able (nor did they have the time) to catch enough fish or caribou or whatever to make a difference. To say that is somehow equal to our modern-day practice of using rifles and snowmachines and nylon nets and freezers is silly - it's simply not the same now.
Second - I agree with islander in that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You either benefit from the collective financial and military protective umbrella that is America - which means you abide by the laws inherent to that collective - or you don't.
Simple. This does not mean that culture has to go out the window - it just means we adapt and evolve - as we have always done.
Alaska Native Land Claims Act
Did not the Alaska Natives agree to a settlement for the taking of lands by the Federal Government when they all signed applications for acceptance and payment under the Alaska Native Land Claims Act?
I believe they have waived claims of soveriegnty when they accepted money, land, and other benefits that have been offered to the Alaska Natives by the federal government.
I agree
I thought ANCSA settled everything the author complains about.
I also seriously doubt many parts of the author's claims, such as the second paragraph where he believes that indigenous Alaskans had a universal, thoroughly negotiated and understood coastal management plan for "thousands of years." I also seriously doubt his Chinese claim.
And what was that plan exactly? Hunting, subsistence and mere presence is not the same as a coastal management plan.
And just because tradition says something is true does not necessarily make it true. Mormons believe Jesus Christ visited America. Other Christian sects believe the earth is 5000 years old and that Jesus lived with dinosaurs.
That doesn't make it necessarily true.
This was a very weak letter. It's also sad that a handful of Natives such as this author still do not view themselves as Americans. It only creates division among Alaskans.
I sense the author does not speak for a majority of Natives or other Alaskans.
yeah, pretty sure this whole
yeah, pretty sure this whole "opinion" is just a complete waste of time, the writer and all of us who have read it. The United States of America owns Alaska. It is what it is, and there is nothing anyone can do about it especially the "2nd chair of the Kuiu Kwaan Nation" whatever that is. The government of the United States and the State of Alaska felt bad for playing "finders keepers" and paid the original inhabitants of the State like 7 billion dollars back in the 70's.
If this guy really want to be productive and help his people progress how about he focuses his time on the social issues they face? It would be a much bigger help to his people and our communities as a whole.
I suspect 10th century is a typographical error
Perhaps a correction will be issued.
Mike
Give back the money, then we will talk
Give back the ANCSA money, the welfare, the healthcare, the PFDs, the education, and the subsistence money. Then we can talk.
Until you stop cashing the checks, you have no rights to complain.
@ospreyy
Exactly...dont forget those 1$ cell phones!
Ignorance or intent
The Chinese connection is not the point.
the Native ownership of the land was recognized from the start, that is why the early Europeans bought land from the Natives. It was only later that the courts and laws were bastardized to allow the whole sale theft of the land from the Natives. Natives can give back the pittance they have received when all the land stolen is given back, the $7 billion dollars in trust money the BIA lost, the dignity of being first class citizens instead of wards of the state, the children taken from families, the languages destroyed, the religious practices that are still not protected under the first amendment, the hope and dreams of generations. ANCSA did not settle anything. You cannot pass on a title to land that is better than the title you own and the US never held clear title to Alaska. Check the Supreme Court.
History is just that....History!
What you want is a special position above all others in this country cause someone jipped you in the past. Guess what? There are gross injustices in all our pasts.
My grandpa was swindeled out of thousands of acres in California's central valley behind shady water dealings...no special privedlges for me there....but then...i wasnt the one who earned the acres...or lost um...so whats the harm to me really?
This is Alaska's coast. It is the state of ALASKA. I deeply respect the history and people that is Alaskas past. I respect the struggles of all people to maintain thier diginty and make thier homes here. History made us what we are today and can't be changed. Life is about moving forward. This letter seems to say...hey we think we could have done better so I want a re-do and am looking for a loophole.
It's tough out there for me too. I have bills to pay, a job to find (and its not easy) a family to provide for. I've applied at several companies that blatently advertised native preference and can't get an interview. Is that fair or right? Turn that table and say white preference... what happens?
I WISH I had free medical services, monthly checks and a chunk o good ole mother earth on which to live. I'm honestly worried about where to find work and how I'll care for my health. It hurts to to admit I envy the safety nets available to Alaska's first people. Id sure feel better and I'm sure I'd feel some gratitude instead of attitude.
what do you call the past?
Right now: Native people have no protections against destroying their sacred sites. Your church building does.
Natives have no right to set rules to govern themselves. Your home owners association does.
Native corporations do not have fee simple title to their land. You do, assuming you own land.
Natives cannot control child placement actions to assure that they go to relatives or stay in the same culture. You have that right.
Your unemployment and social security is handled by a government trust that uses modern accounting methods. Native trust money from exploitation of their natural resources does not and has "lost" $700 billion of their money.
You can be secure on your land from government intrusion. The feds can occupy native land anytime they want.
Your courts can prosecute criminal offenses. Native courts cannot.
You are considered a citizen of this nation. Natives are wards of the state.
I am sorry you have to struggle, but you have had many advantages Natives have not. Looking down on another group as competition for scarce resources is the oldest form of racism.
alaskaguy
I'm having a very hard time understanding your comments above. You make it sound like you aren't allowed to buy property with a homeowner's association, or purchase fee simple title land, or have unemployment insurance or social security or enjoy the same legal protection plus any number of other things. How are you not allowed these advantages? How are you denied these rights?
Or are you asking for a separate bill of rights in addition to the above?
thjeir already exists a seperate bill of rights for Natives
Look, I am not going to attempt to open the eyes of one who refuses to see. As is plainly stated above, natives do not have fee simple title to any land granted to them whether under treaty of by allotment. Of course they are allowed to buy property, and sell it also as they did for the first 60 years of this country when the Native ownership was not questioned. All of that was changed by several Supreme Court decisions.
If you want to comment in an informed manner I suggest you read "In the Court of the Conqueror", the ten worst Indian Law cases ever decided. Keep in mind that many of these lost rights actual affect you also, they just have never been applied to white people.
Why do you think there is no Bureau of Caucasian Affairs? au uaro auro
wrong
Alaska natives did not have to fight the US, they had to and did fight the Russians and defeated them. russia did not have title to the land and therefore could not pass it along to the US. Under law you cannot pass on a title greater than which you own.
Natives are not treated as full citizens. Have you ever wondered why there is no Bureau of Caucasian Affairs?
I find it fascinating when
I find it fascinating when individuals believe the reason entire groups of people live in poor conditions comes down to personal choice, as if it's just some very strange and improbable coincidence that all of these people from the same ethnic group make the same choices without getting together and collaborating.
Boy, you'd think with that kind of synchronization, you wouldn't need generals in war. You could just give the troops a goal and watch as all of their choices fall into place as part of some grand, not-explicitly-stated strategy.
alaskaguy - answer?
You did not answer my question. Are you prevented from doing any of the things above? Are you sure you are not saying you are entitled to more than the rest of Americans? Do you have rights as an American citizen? Would you rather be Russian? Oh, and if there were a bureau of caucasian affiars, there would be a caucasian college fund, free medical care for all, and we would all receive corporate dividends. Seems to me you want all MY rights plus take away more of my rights. You never did answer my questions.
Humanbeing errs
So please point to the formal declaration of war on the Tlingits. Without that they were not conquered, just as Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq were not conquered. Do you still think the law is not applied differently to Natives?