The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Teacher's Guide

Introduction: The Alaska Land Question

When Alaska became part of the United States in 1867, there was no provision in the law for private ownership in the new territory, except for the private individual property holders who had obtained written title to the land under the Russians. "Uncivilized" tribes (which included all but the acculturated Natives who had accepted the Russian Orthodox religion) were to be treated like Indians in the lower United States, which meant they had claim to their ancestral lands but no citizenship rights. "Civilized" tribes were to be given the rights and citizenship of other Americans. In practice, however, the United States government and new residents to the territory treated all Alaska Natives as "uncivilized" tribes.

The Organic Act of 1884 allowed non-Natives to own mining sites, as long as they were not in areas of use or occupation by Natives. Subsequent laws (after the turn of the century) allowed for Alaska Natives to obtain restricted title to some ancestral lands. (One example of the restrictions placed on the title was that the Native owners did not have the right to sell the land without permission of the federal government.) Various other laws allowed non-Natives to homestead large areas of land, provided they surveyed and worked it.

By the time of statehood (1959) most of the land in Alaska was claimed by the federal government, with a small amount centered around the cities being owned by individuals, almost all of whom were non-Natives. Yet, the rights of Alaska Natives to their ancestral lands had been acknowledged in a number of legal documents from the time of the purchase. The message in all the documents was that Alaska Natives own their own land, but that it is up to future generations to decide how they would get title to it. Exactly which lands were the ancestral lands had not been addressed until the 1900’s when, bit by bit, Natives began to lay claim to portions of the land in the state.

Then, because of a growing non-Native population in Alaska, the discovery of a vast oil field on the North Slope, and increasing demands for that oil in the lower 48, the question of "who owns Alaska" became a national issue in 1971.

As you begin this unit on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in your class you should:

1) Think creatively and encourage your students to do the same. ANCSA is unique worldwide both for its magnitude and for the use of corporate structure for management of the lands and monies paid. Studying ANCSA in the classroom provides an opportunity to explore hypothetical designs and situations, and to develop skills in problem solving.

2) Stimulate your students' academic sophistication. These issues are difficult. Corporation structure is abstract to many adults; much less secondary students. Encourage the students to grasp the relevance and sophistication of the subject matter.

3) Not become intimidated because you are not an expert on ANCSA. Begin by reading the background information provided and continue to learn as you explore the topic with your students. Throughout the semester, address the current issues on ANCSA as they appear in the paper. Encourage students to share personal experiences relating to corporations, business and management with the class and relate them to your study of ANCSA.

---

 

Unit: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

Activity: Predicting

1. Read the statements below and take a guess at the answer before studying the unit.

2. If you think the answer is yes, then write yes in the BEFORE column. If you think the answer is no, then write no in the BEFORE column.

3. After studying the unit, you may change the answers by writing the new response in the AFTER Column i£ the answer is different from your prediction.

Adapted from Drug Abuse Prevention is Everybody's Business, Pub. by MCRC, l977, pg. 9.

Desired Student Outcome: Students will gain historical point of view on racial discrimination.

Strategies: Read this account aloud or listen to the tape.

(Available at Alaska Native Education library)

This is a personal account by an American colonist who was alive 200 years ago. It describes how some early settlers regarded Indians.

With the narrative enclosed, I subjoin some observations with regard to the animals, vulgarly called Indians. It is not my intention to write any labored essay; for at so great a distance from the city, and so long unaccustomed to write, I have scarcely resolution to put pen to paper. Having an opportunity to know something of the character of this race of men, from the deeds they penetrate daily round me, I think proper to say something on the subject. Indeed, several years ago, and before I left your city, I had thought different from some others with respect to the right of soil, and the propriety of forming treaties and making peace with them.

In the United States Magazine in the year 1777, I published a dissertation denying them to have a right in the soil. I perceive a writer in your very elegant and useful paper, has taken up the same subject, under the signature of "Caractacus," and unanswerably shown, that their claim to the extensive countries of America, is wild and inadmissible. I will take the liberty in this place, to pursue this subject a little.

On what is their claim founded?-Occupancy. A wild Indian with his skin painted red, and a feather through his nose, has set his foot on the broad continent of North and South America; a second wild Indian with his ears cut in ringlets, or his nose slit like a swine or a malefactor, also sets his foot on the same extensive tract of soil. Let the first Indian make a talk to his a brother, and bid him take his foot off the continent, for he being first upon it, had occupied the whole, to kill buffaloes, and tall elks with long horns. This claim in the reasoning of some men would be just, and the second savage ought to depart in his canoe, and seek a continent where no prior occupant claimed the soil. Is this claim of occupancy of a very early date? When Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, went out to the three quarters of the old world, Ham to Africa, Shem to Asia, Japhet to Europe, did each claim a quarter of the world for his residence? Suppose Ham to have spent his time fishing or gathering oysters in the Red Sea, never once stretching his leg in a long walk to see his vast dominions, from the mouth of the Nile, across the mountains of Ethiopia and the river Niger to the Cape of Good Hope, where the Hottentots, a cleanly people, now stay; or supposing him, like a Scots peddler, to have traveled over many thousand leagues of that country; would this give him a right to the soil? In the opinion of some men it would establish an exclusive right. Let a man in more modern times take a journey or voyage like Patrick Kennedy and others to the heads of the Mississippi or Missouri rivers, would he gain a right ever- after to exclude all persons from drinking the waters of these streams? Might not a second Adam make a talk to them and say, is the whole of this water necessary to allay your thirst, and may I also drink of it?

The whole of this earth was given to man, and all descendants of Adam have a right to share it equally. There is no right of primogeniture in the laws of nature and or nations. There is reason that a tall man, such as the chaplain in the American army we call the High Priest, should have a large spot of ground to stretch himself upon; or that a man with a big belly, like a goodly alderman of London, should have a larger garden to produce beans and cabbage for his appetite, but that an agile, nimble runner, like an Indian called the Big Cat, at Fort Pitt, should have more than his neighbors, because he has traveled a great space, I can see no reason.

I have conversed with some persons and found their mistakes on this subject, to arise form a view of claims by individuals in a state of society, from holding a greater proportion of the soil than others; but this is according to the laws to which they have consented; an individual holding one acre, cannot encroach on him who has a thousand, because he is bound by the law which secures property in an unequal manner. this is the municipal law of the state under which he lives. The member of a distant society is not excluded by the laws from a right to the soil. He claims under the general law of nature, which gives a right, equally to all, to so much of the soil as is necessary for subsistence. Should a German from the closely populated country of the Rhine, come into Pennsylvania, more thinly peopled, he would be justifiable in demanding a settlement, though his personal force would not be sufficient to effect it. It may be said that the cultivation or melioration of the earth, gives a property in it. No-if an individual has engrossed more than is necessary to produce grain for him to live upon, his useless gardens, fields and pleasure walks, may be seized upon by the person who, not finding convenient ground elsewhere, choose to till them for his support.

It is a usual way of destroying an opinion by pursuing it to its consequence. In the present case we may say, that if the visiting one acre of ground could give a right to it, the visiting of a million would give a right on the same principle; and thus a few surly ill nature men, might in the earlier ages have excluded half the human race from a settlement, or should any have fixed themselves on a territory, visited before they had set a foot on it, they must be considered invaders of the right of others.

It is said that an individual, building a house or fabricating a machine has an exclusive right to it, and why not those improve the earth? I would say, should man build houses on a greater part of the soil, than falls to his share, I would, in a state of nature, take away a proportion of the soil and the houses from him, but a machine or any work of art, does not lessen the means of subsistence to the human race, which an extensive occupation of the soil does.

Claims founded on the first discovery of soil are futile. When gold, jewels, manufactures, or any work of men's hands is lost, the finder is entitled to some reward, chat is, he has some claims on the thing found, for a share of it.

When by industry or the exercise of genius, something unusual is invented in medicine or in other matters, the author doubtless has a claim to an exclusive profit by it, but who will say the soil is lost, or that any one can found a claim by discovering it. The earth with its woods and rivers still exist, and the only advantage I would allow to any individual for having cast his eye first on any particular part of it, is the privilege of making the first choice of situation. I would think the man a fool and unjust, who would exclude me from drinking the waters of the Mississippi river, because he had first seen it. He would be equally so who would exclude me from settling in the country west of the Ohio, because in chasing a buffalo he had been first over it.

The idea of an exclusive right to the soil in the natives had its origin in the policy of the first discoverers, the kings of Europe. Should they deny the right of the natives from their first treading on the continent, they would take away the right of discovery in themselves, by sailing on the coast. As the vestige of the moccasin in one case gave a right, so the cruise in the other was the foundation of a claim.

Those who under these kings, derived grants were led to countenance the idea, for otherwise why should kings grant or they hold extensive tracts of country. Men become enslaved to an opinion that has been long entertained. Hence it is that many wise and good men will talk of the right of savages to immense tracts or soil.

What use do these ring, streaked, spotted and speckled cattle make of the soil? Do they till it? Revelation said to man, "Thou shalt till the ground." This alone is human life. It is favorable to population, to science, to the information of a human mind in the worship of God. Warburton has well said, that before you can make an Indian a christian you must teach him agriculture and reduce him to a civilized life. To live by tilling is more humano, by hunting is more bestiarum. I would as soon admit a right in the buffalo to grant lands, as in Killbuck, the Big Cat, the Big Dog, or any or the ragged wretches that are called chiefs and sachems. 'What. would you think or going to a big lick or place where the beasts collect to lick saline nitrous earth and water, and addressing yourself to a great buffalo to grant you 'land? It is true he could not make the mark or the stone or the mountain reindeer, but he could set his cloven foot to the instrument like the great Ottomon, the father of the Turks, when he put his signature to an instrument, he put his large hand and spreading fingers in the ink and set his mark to the parchment. To see how far the folly of some would go, I had once a thought of supplicating some of the great elks or buffaloes that run through the woods, to make me a grant of a hundred thousand acres of land and prove he had brushed the weeds with this tail, and run fifty miles.

I wonder if Congress or the different States would recognize the claim? I am so far from thinking the Indians have a right to the soil, that not having made a better use of it for many hundred years, I conceive they have forfeited all pretense to claim, and ought to be driven from it.

With regard to forming treaties or making peace with this race, there are many ideas:

They have the shapes of men and may be of the human species, but certainly in their present state they approach nearer the character of Devils; take and Indian, is there any faith in him? Can you bind him by favors? Can you trust his word or confide in his promise? When he makes war upon you, when he takes you prisoner and has you in his power will he spare you? In this he departs from the law of nature, by which, according to baron Montesquieu and every other man who thinks on the subject, it is unjustifiable to take away the life of him who submits; the conqueror in doing otherwise becomes a murderer, who ought to be put to death. On this principle are not the whole Indian nations murderers?

Many of them may not have had an opportunity of putting prisoners to death, but the sentiment which they entertain leads them invariably to this when they have it in their power or judge it expedient; these principles constitute them murderers, and they ought to be prevented from carrying them into execution, as we would prevent a common homocide, who should be mad enough to conceive himself justifiable in killing men.

The tortures which they exercise on the bodies of their prisoners justify extermination. Gelo of Syria made war on the Carthaginians because they oftentimes burnt human victims, and made peace with them on conditions they could cease from this unnatural and cruel practice, If we could have any faith in the promises they make we could suffer them to live, provided they would only make war amongst themselves, and abandon their hiding or lurking on the pathways of our citizens, emigrating unarmed and defenceless inhabitants; and murdering men, women and children in defenceless situation; and on their ceasing in the meantime to raise arms no more among the American Citizens.

1. What is Mr. Brackenridge' opinion of natives?

2. What does he think of their claim to the land?

3. How does he think claim should be established?

4. Do you agree with him?

5. How would his land claim theory be regarded by environmentalists (the Sierra Club), for instance?

Desired Student Outcome: Students will look at early American history from the Indian point of view.

Strategies: Read this speech aloud or listen to tape.

In Boston, when an Indian, Frank James, was chosen to be orator at a celebration of the 350th year after the landing of the Pilgrims, he was prepared to deliver this speech.

I speak to you as a Man - Wampanoag Man. I am a proud man, proud of my ancestry, my accomplishments won by strict parental direction - ("You must succeed - your face is a different color in this small Cape Cod community.") I am a product of poverty and discrimination, from these two social and economic diseases. I, and my brothers and sisters have painfully overcome, and to an extent earned the respect of our community. We are Indians first - but we are termed "good citizens." Sometimes we are arrogant, but only because society has pressured us to be so.

It is with mixed emotions that I stand here to share my thoughts. This is a time of celebration for you - celebrating an anniversary of a beginning for the white man in American. A time of looking back - of reflection. It is with heavy heart that I look back upon what happened to my people.

Even before the Pilgrims landed here it was common practice for explorers to capture Indians, take them to Europe and sell them as slaves for 20 shillings apiece. The Pilgrims had hardly explored the shores of Cape Cod four days before they had robbed the graves of my ancestors, and stolen their corn, wheat and beans. Mourt’s Relation describes a searching party of 16 men - he goes on to say that this party took as much of the Indian’s winter provisions as they were able to carry.

Massasoit, the great Sachem of the Wampanoags, knew these facts, yet he and his people welcomed and befriended the settlers of the Plymouth Plantation. Perhaps he did this because his tribe had been depleted by an epidemic. Or his knowledge of the harsh oncoming winter was the reason for this peaceful acceptance of these acts. This action by Massasoit was probably our greatest mistake. We, the Wampanoags, welcomed you the white man with open arms, little knowing that it was the beginning of an end; that before 50 years were to pass, the Wampanoags would not longer be a tribe.

What happened in those short 50 years? What has happened in the last 300 years? History gives us facts and information - often contradictory. There were battles, there were atrocities, there were broken promises - and most of these centered around land ownership. Among ourselves we understood that there were boundaries - but never before had we had to deal with fences and stonewalls; with the white man's need to prove his worth by the amount of land that he owned. Only 10 years later, when the Puritans came, they treated the Wampanoag with even less kindness in converting the soul or the so-called savages. Although they were harsh to members of their own society, the Indian was pressed between stone slabs and hanged as quickly as any other "witch."

And so down through the years there is record after record of Indian lands being taken, and in token reservations set up for him upon which to live. The Indian, having been stripped of his power, could but only stand by and watch - while the white man took his land and used it for his personal gain. This the Indian couldn't understand, for to him, land was for survival, to farm, to hunt, to be enjoyed. It wasn't to be abused. We see incident after incident where the white sought to tame the savage and convert him to the Christian ways of life. The early settlers led the Indian to believe that if he didn’t behave, they would dig up the ground and unleash the great epidemic again.

The white man used the Indians nautical skills and abilities. they let him be only a seaman - but never a captain. Time and time again, in the white man’s society, we the Indians have been termed, "Low man on the Totem Pole".

Has the Wampanoag really disappeared? There is still an aura of mystery. We know there was an epidemic that took many Indian lives - some Wampanoags moved west and joined the Cherokees and Cheyenne. They were forced to move. Some even went north to Canada! Many Wampanoags put aside their Indian heritage and accepted the white man's ways for their own survival. There are some Wampanoags who do not wish it known they are Indian for social and economic reasons.

What happened to those Wampanoags who chose to remain and lived among the early settlers? What kind of existence did they lead as civilized people? True, living was not as complex as life is today - but they dealt with the confusion and the change. Honesty, trust, concern, pride, and politics wove themselves in and out of their daily living. Hence he was termed crafty, cunning, rapacious and dirty.

History wants us to believe that the Indian was a savage, illiterate uncivilized animal. A history that was written by an organized, disciplined people, to expose us as an unorganized and undisciplined entity. Two distinctly different cultures met. One thought they must control life - the other believed life was to be enjoyed, because nature decreed it. Let us remember, the Indian is and was just as human as the white man. The Indian feels pain, gets hurt and becomes defensive, has dreams, bears tragedy and failure, suffers from loneliness, needs to cry as well as laugh. He too, is often misunderstood.

The white man in the presence of the Indian is still mystified by his uncanny ability to make him feel uncomfortable. This may be that the image that the white man created of the Indian - "his savageness" - has boomeranged and it isn’t mystery, it is fear, fear of the Indian’s temperament.

High on a hill, overlooking the famed Plymouth Rock stands the statue of our great sachem, Massasoit. Massasoit has stood there many years in silence. We the descendants of this great Sachem have been a silent people. The necessity of making a living in this materialistic society of the white man has caused us to be silent. Today, I and many of my people are choosing to face the truth. We are Indians.

Although time has drained dour culture, and our language is almost extinct, we the Wampanoags still walk the lands of Massachusetts. We may be fragmented, we may be confused. Many years have passed since we have been a people together. Our lands were invaded. We fought as hard to keep our land as you the white did to take our land away from us. We were conquered, we became the American Prisoners of War in many cases, and wards of the United States Government, until only recently.

Our spirit refuses to die. Yesterday we walked the woodland paths and sandy trails. Today we must walk the macadem highways and roads. We are uniting. We’re standing not in our wigwams but in our concrete tent. We stand tall and proud and before too many moons pass we’ll right the wrongs we have allowed to happen to us.

We forfeited our country. Our lands have fallen into the hands of the aggressor. We have allowed the white man to keep us on our knees. What has happened cannot be changed, but today we work toward a more humane America, a more Indian America where man and nature once again are important, where the Indian values of honor, truth and brotherhood prevail.

You the white man are celebrating an anniversary. We the Wampanoags will help you celebrate in the concept of a beginning. It was the beginning of a new life for the Pilgrims. Now 350 years later is a beginning of a new determination for the original American - the American Indian.

There are some factors involved concerning the Wampanoags and other Indians across this vast nation. We now have 350 years of experience living amongst the white man. We can now speak his language. We can now think as the white man thinks. We can now compete with him for the top jobs. We’re being heard; we are now being listened to. The important point is that along with these necessities of everyday living, we still have the spirit, we still have a unique culture, we still have the will and most important of all, the determination, to remain as Indians. We are determined and our presence here this evening is living testimony that this is only a beginning of the American Indian, particularly the Wampanoag, to regain the position in this country that is rightfully ours.

1. How does his view of the cultural contact differ from that of Mr. Brackenridge?

2. How does the history of the Wampanoag Tribe differ from that of the Alaska native groups?

3. In what way are their histories similar?

 

Content Area: Social Studies - United States Government

Unit: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

Time on Unit: Approximately 10 days

Major Objectives:

Students will be able . .

1. To gain insight into the historical basis for a land claims in Alaska.
2. To know major features of ANCSA.
3. To become familiar with the thirteen (13) regional corporation village corporations, and non-profits and learn how they are interrelated.
4. To gain insight into-the implications of the act as it relates to the native and non-native population of Alaska.
5. To understand the possible future implications of the Act.
6. To become aware of Alaska native leaders and their present roles.

Key Vocabulary:

Lesson 1.

Lesson 2.

Lesson 3.

Lesson 4.

Lesson 5.

Lesson 6,7.

Lesson 9.

Lesson 1

TIME REQUIRED: Approximately 1 class period

1. Predicting Sheet for Unit - This could be used to introduce the entire unit.
2. Discuss how one becomes an "owner" of something. Have students brainstorm a list on the board including ideas such as: claim, inherit, buy, earn, steal, barter, sell, etc.
3. Relate this discussion to the "theory of finders-keepers"/ conditions of ownership. How can one claim something? Have student skim and discuss list of Land Ownership Attitudes (Day l Readings)
4. Do the enrichment activity provided "Indians and Europeans". (Included in teacher's guide)
5. Read aloud, or have taped the personal accounts of Hugh Henry Brackenridge and Frank James. Discuss in class. (Included in teacher's guide)

VOCABULARY: Aboriginal claims, document, title, deed, heirs, inheritance, encroachment

READING ASSIGNMENT: Have students read, "A Request for a Right to Hold a Claim, 1902 (Day 1 Readings). Direct students to write a paragraph with their reaction to the letter.

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR LESSON: "Land Ownership Attitudes", "The Animals, Vulgarly Called Indians", Our Beginnings, An Indian's View"

ENRICHMENT ACTIVITY: INDIANS & EUROPEANS

Divide the class into two groups.

Group I is to assume the position of being European settlers in the Americas. The group is to make up what kind of attitude representing the 13 colonies government, settler-farmer or missionary, etc. they wish to hold toward the American Indians. Have adopted that attitude, the group is to decide on one of the following courses of action regarding the treatment of American Indians and provide reasons for the choice.

1. Don't do anything -- just let the settlers gradually outnumber the Indians and gradually take over.
2. Kill off the Indians.
3. Put the Indians on reservations.
4. Encourage Indian assimilation into the dominate society.
5. Encourage Indians to keep their identity and cultural heritage and work within the larger society.

(Adapted from the teacher's guide AS IT HAPPENED: A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, Charles Sellers, ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975)

Group II is to assume the position of a community of American Indians. It is to decide (a) how it would like to relate to the European settlers migrating into the Americas and (b) why it chose that method.

After Group I and II have made their decisions (15 minutes) the class can come together and each group report to the entire group what it decided and why those particular choices were made.

Discussion should focus on the kinds of attitudes, beliefs and problems held by both settlers and Indians toward each other that contributed to the kinds of choices made by each group. Discuss also why European settlers could continue to move onto Indian lands.

Lesson 2

TIME REQUIRED: Approximately 1 class period

PRE-READING ACTIVITIES/DISCUSSION

1. Review reading and writing assignments from Lesson 1 and discuss.
2. Review Alaska Native Language Map; identify native groups.
3. The timeline could be started with-students and then researched by students and completed the next day. Possibly place a timeline on the board with a few important events as a start.
4. Have the students research additional events in Alaska history and add to the timeline.

VOCABULARY: Assimilation, treaty, Treaty of Cession, Organic Act, Native Allotment Act, Alaska Native Brotherhood, Citizenship Act, Native Townsite Act, Statehood Act

READING ASSIGNMENT: Read Tribal Sovereignty: Indian Tribes in U.S. History and Natives were second-class citizens after U.S. purchase of Alaska.

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR LESSON: Timeline, Alaska Native Language Map

Lesson 3

TIME REQUIRED: Approximately 1 class period

1. Complete timeline.
2. From reading assignment:
3. Discuss the Menominee Termination Case. Discuss its legality, morality, fairness.
4. Discuss the Dawes Act (General Allotment Act) of 1887. How did it attempt to assimilate the American Indians further into mainstream society?
5. Read the Frank St. Clair case study in class. Have the students list the benefits of citizenship and problems that lack of citizenship may bring to you.
6. Discussion: Did Frank St. Clair's citizenship status have a bearing on his court case? Why or why not? If not, what did cause his problems?
7. Discussion: What do you think the ultimate solution to the St. Clair case should be?

VOCABULARY: termination, mainstream, assimilation, Dawes Act, Organic Act.

READING ASSIGNMENT: Read the The Land Claims Struggle (Vol. 4, AMU Press) and Legal Precedents to ANCSA

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR LESSON: Frank St. Clair case study

Frank St. Clair was a Tlingit Indian from Hoonah and Glacier Bay, Alaska. In the Tlingit culture, a family had two main homes: a winter home in the village and a spring, summer and fall home at fishcamp. St. Clair's fishcamp was at Glacier Bay. His family had built a summer house, a smokehouse, and a food cache near a fish stream there, and had used that fishcamp throughout his entire life.

In May 1906, the Native Allotment Act was passed. It allowed the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to allot up to 150 acres of nonmineral land to any Alaska Native who applied, provided that he was the head of a family or 21 years old, and was the occupant of the land.

In 1909, the Tongass National Forest in Southeastern Alaska was expanded to include the St. Clair fishcamp. However, the prior rights of residents of the expanded area still existed; the proclamation expanding the forest did not wipe out traditional Native ownership.

In 1915, St. Clair filed, under the Native Allotment Act, for the 160 acres surrounding his summer fish and berrying camp. In his application, he said that his family had used the land for generations and that he still used it.

It took the government five years to take any action on St. Clair's application. Three times, in 1920, 1924, and 1927, investigators went to the land to see if there was any evidence of occupancy on it. There was: the house, cache, and smokehouse were there, and each time showed that they had been used recently.

Still, the Forest Service recommended that the allotment be reduced from 160 acres to 9.38 acres, since that was all the land that seemed, to the ranger, to be in use.

This included the land around the house only and did not include the smokehouse, the cache or food and water source (the fish creek). In 1929, 14 years after St. Clair’s application, the Department of the Interior reviewed the Forest Service’s recommendation. the decision of the Department was that, under the law, there was no reason to reduce St. Clair’s allotment. First, the Native Allotment Act did not require continuous, year-round occupation of the land. Second, it did not require that all the land claimed be "improved" by buildings or agriculture, as had the Homestead Act of 1898. (Southeastern Alaska is not, of course, suitable farmland anyway). Third, the Act did not require that St. Clair prove that Glacier Bay was his only home. And finally, no one ever asked St. Clair how he used his land; they simply assumed that, since they didn’t see evidence of any use besides as a fishcamp, that he didn’t use it for anything else.

The next year the Department of the Interior looked at the decision again. Since the Native Allotment Act stated that "up to 160 acres" could be allotted at "the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior," the Department felt it had the power to decide how much land it would convey to St. Clair. The allotment was again reduced to 9.36 acres. The decision reads:

In view of the fact that it has been nine years or more since the applicant filed his application for the allotment, and has not cleared or cultivated any portion of the land or made other improvements tending to show that he intended to make his permanent home thereon, and since the evidence indicates that he has used and intends to use the land as a fishing site it appears that 10 acres are sufficient for his purpose. Accordingly, a survey, embracing the land upon which the house is located and about 600 feet of water front, with a total net area of 9.36 acres, was made.

Lesson 4 

TIME REQUIRED: Approximately 1 class period

1. Discuss reading assignment; view video-tape.

2. Do Worksheet I in class with students, possibly in groups.

3. Discuss answers (Key in teacher's guide)

VOCABULARY: Alaska Land Claims Task Force, "land freeze," precedents

READING ASSIGNMENT: Political Pressure, Good Timing Favored Claims

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR LESSONS: ANCSA Booklets

Lesson 5

TIME REQUIRED: Approximately 1 class period

1. Divide class into groups of about 5 students each. Each group will need the student readings, Realities of the 1960's. Each group's goal is to decide how it will go about getting clear title to its ancestral lands.
2. The goal of the simulation activity is divided into 6 tasks. Tell the students they will have only 5 minutes for each subtask. Time the group work and signal every 5 minutes that the groups should move on to the next task. The tasks are detailed in the following pages.
3. At the end of the work session, get reports from each group. Judge the group solutions for effectiveness in obtaining the land.
4. As an option to activities 1-3, read Alaska Native Land Claims pp 138-144 and do Worksheet II.

VOCABULARY: Lobby, compensation, A.F.N., appropriation bill, articles of incorporation, allocated

READING ASSIGNMENT: Have students read Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Vol. 5. In addition, have them identify a native person who was active in the political arena of the 1960's from the Fairbanks area. How was this person involved?

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR LESSON: Student Group Assignment, Worksheet I

LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND THE LAND CLAIMS STRUGGLE, VOL. 4

1.

Listed below are the major laws and court cases which showed that the United States governmental system believed that Alaska Natives should be compensated for the lands they lost. Briefly tell what each says in terms of native land ownership: A. Treaty of Cession (1867) B. Organic Act (1884) C. Native Allotment Act (1906) D. Native Townsite Act (1926) E. Tlingit/Haida court settlement (1959) F. Statehood Act (1959)

2.

Briefly describe the following conflicts which indicated a land dispute in Alaska: A. Project Chariot B. Barrow duck hunting incident C. Minto Flats land selection D. Rampart Dam