The ANCSA and the Native corporation Discussion Reponses

PART 1:

Consider the following statement: “In preparing for the Cherokee removal, state and federal officials were motivated solely by desire to seize the natives’ land.” In your post, consider the following:

Does this statement present the full picture? Revise this statement to present a more complex explanation of the motivations that drove state and federal officials (and the white citizens of Georgia) during the years immediately preceding the Cherokee removal. Explain the choices you made in your revision.

Next, consider how you can take a similar approach to your own topic in order to more fully understand the historical complexity. What other viewpoints would you want to further explore in order to more fully understand your topic?

• In response to your peers, share any preconceived notions you may have about their topic. Lastly, consider how further exploration of the viewpoints around their topic would potentially change the lens through which they currently view the event.
• PART 2 : 

Based on your reading in the webtext, select one of the following thesis statements. Your response should be two to three paragraphs in length.

1. The Alaska Native Regional Corporations (ANCSA) and the Native corporation system have been good for Alaska Natives.

OR

2. ANCSA and the Native corporation system have been bad for Alaska Natives.

Next, revise the statement you have chosen to reflect the complexity of the historical events surrounding this issue. Provide specific examples of how ANCSA and the Native corporation system have had a positive or negative impact—or perhaps both—on Alaska Natives. Further illustrate the complexity of this issue by showing how the passage of ANCSA was contingent on at least three historical events or forces.

POST

For Part 1  Peer Response 1Does

 this statement present the full picture? Revise this statement to 

present a more complex explanation of the motivations that drove state 

and federal officials (and the white citizens of Georgia) during the 

years immediately preceding the Cherokee removal. Explain the choices 

you made in your revision.This statement does not paint the full picture. A statement that 

would encompass a better picture would be, “The government and white 

settlers of Georgia wanted to seize the land from the Natives to 

capitalize on the cash crop of cotton.” Natives were using the land for 

small  family farming, and the government saw the opportunity to take 

advantage of the railway system and optimal cotton growing climate of 

Georgia.  They forcibly removed the Cherokee for economic gains.  Next, consider how you can take a similar approach to your own topic 

in order to more fully understand the historical complexity. What other 

viewpoints would you want to further explore in order to more fully 

understand your topic?To fully understand my topic regarding the ratification of the ERA, 

it is important to understand the benefits in doing so, just as the 

federal government saw benefits in seizing the land.   It seems 

ridiculous that the government seemingly had no boundaries in 

capitalizing on the land of Natives, while displacing them and forcing 

them out, yet they have yet to ratify women’s rights into the U.S. 

Constitution.  A strong argument must be made for the impact 

ratification would have for citizens of this country.   The gender gap 

can be an economic lens that can be used to show how including women’s 

rights can help to equal the playing field. Peer Respond 2 : Does

 this statement present the full picture? Revise this statement to 

present a more complex explanation of the motivations that drove state 

and federal officials (and the white citizens of Georgia) during the 

years immediately preceding the Cherokee removal. Explain the choices 

you made in your revision.The above statement does not entirely paint the picture of the events

 the preceded the removal the Cherokees. Although there was a desire to 

seize the land from the natives, that is not the whole story, and the 

push was not just from the federal and state officials. The State of

 Georgia in 1820 was becoming a growing developing Commonwealth. Cotton 

became a cash crop, and the farmers and Georgia needed more land since 

few cotton plantation land equaled 500 acres. Railroads and steamboats 

were opening agricultural trade by land and river. The states saw the 

Indians as inferior a savage culture related to the dark age of the Old 

World. These factors discuss above created a need for the state to rid 

itself of the Cherokee Indians.President Jackson ideal motivated 

some federal officials that removal was the only way that would prevent 

the destruction of the Native American and was an alternative to 

assimilation. While some official saw the Indians as a threat that 

would resist assimilation that needed killing.” The Cherokee 

constitution nullified Georgia law and made the Indian nation a “state 

within a state.” Left to themselves, the Cherokees would become a 

prosperous, independent commonwealth, and they would never sell their 

land.Next, consider how you can take a similar approach to your own topic 

in order to more fully understand the historical complexity. What other 

viewpoints would you want to further explore in order to more fully 

understand your topic?The other viewpoints that I would like approach and understand the 

historical complexity in my own topic is government corruption. Back in 

the 1800’s it was popular and a few got away with it for years before 

getting caught. In the 1900’s we had Nixon try and get caught. Now in 

the twentieth century it is happening right before our eyes but, with 

advanced technology it is easier to cover up. Government corruption 

costs our country so much, I’m glad that I chose the topic that I did. 

Researching history has opened my eyes to how crooked one can be, even 

the most innocent acting has had their hand in the little pot of 

corruption.

POST

Chosen Statement: ANCSA and the Native corporation system have been good for Alaska Natives.Based on my reading in the web text, I think ANCS and the Native corporation system have been good for Alaska Native. The main reasons are as follow. First, history contingency and complexity are to claim that every historical outcome depends on several prior conditions. These conditions interacted and developed by each other. From a sociological point of view, the United States is a big country or is a culture and nationality of multiple countries. On the one hand, the government respects and keeps the Natives’ traditional culture and custom. On the other hand, the government has its responsibilities to make all Natives and Non-Natives have the same standard of living. Only the diverse cultures could keep a friendly relationship with each other, the multicultural American nation would develop harmoniously. That is, history is complicated. Second, from an economic point of view, ANCSA and the Native corporation system created the long-term and suitable economic plan for Alaskan Natives. Only the government has the powerful capability to integrated resources, and stimulate the development. As the economists Stephen Colt says, “Economic benefits anticipated from ANCSA included development of natural resources, capital improvements such as housing, transportation, services, employment opportunities, and establishment of small business enterprises.”The revised thesis statement is: Despite the controversy surrounding the American government and the governing structure of Native populations, ANCSA and the Native corporation system have provided the long-term and suitable plan for the local Alaskan Natives. I think ANCSA and the Native corporation system have had a positive impact on Alaska Natives. According to web text, $5.4 million in scholarships for Native students have been utilized since ANCSA took effect, while Alaska Natives own seven of the top ten Alaskan operated businesses.

POST

 SECOND PERSPOND: My last discussion will be working around this statement.  The Alaska Native Regional Corporations (ANCSA) and the Native corporation system have been good for Alaska Natives.To begin, I am going to rewrite the statement above per this discussion and then go in to the why behind my rewrite.The signing of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was not without controversy.  The Act created Native corporations that caused many natives to feel as if they lost themselves. The money that was being provided and the land the government gave back to them was really not a lot.  Only 44 million acres were returned, even though nobody is sure whose land it is to sell. The ANCSA was signed into law on Dec 18, 1971.  This gave the 44 million acres and $962.5 billion dollars back to the natives of Alaska.  However, it also set up Native corporations.   The native could sign up and get 100 shares of one of 12 corporations set up. It also set up local or “village” corporations that could be signed up for as well.   As years have gone on, the dividends have been getting better.  The native corporations came under heavy fire when it was deciding who was entitled to the shares.  The shares were tied up in the court system for years. Once the shares were solved, the corporations did ok. There were several that faltered at the beginning, but have come around in making the dividend checks a pretty sizeable amount.  Another up side to the ANCSA is the Alaska Permanent Fund.  This fund is based on the oil industry in Alaska.  In 2015, the fund amounted more than $51 billion dollars.  The dividend check was $2072.00 for every man. woman, and child in Alaska.  This is part of the state fund.  It collects 25% of the oil royalties and invests it back into the benefits for Alaskans. The dark side of this whole thing really doesn’t seem like much to most people.  Some of the native Alaskans feel that the traditional way of life is disappearing.  The ANCSA is to blame.  The ANCSA has allowed natives to venture away from the traditions that have been handed down through the generations.  Three key historical events took place caused all of this to happen.  The first cause was the selling of the Department of Alaska to the US government.  The land which most natives felt was not Russia’s to sell.  The next big thing to happen was the discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay.  The last event that created the ANCSA was the need to build a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to the port of Valdez and that was not so important to natives, suddenly became so important they could not live without.  This caused the federal government to step in and negotiate a deal with the native Alaskans. Those are the three things that caused the ANCSA to be signed into law.