Opinions

Proposal to close rural schools strikes at heart of Alaska, Native and non-Native alike

A recent proposal by Rep. Lynn Gattis, R-Wasilla, to close rural schools with 10 students, or even less than 25, is deeply hurtful to rural Alaska -- Native and non-Native -- the heart and soul of what Alaska has always been about. Given the great pain and population displacement such closures would cause, I believe that we in Alaska need to make very clear that we can and must do better than that in dealing with state budget issues.

But when Rep. Gattis' proposal is put in the context of her comment in a recent KTUU interview (Dec. 11), the direction of her thinking truly approaches being genocidal. There she said, referring to rural Alaska, "It's not a punishment, but people have to be realistic if you don't have an economy just like in the Midwest when they moved to where there is an economy, that's a possibility."

Having lived in the rural Midwest (South Dakota), I can say that Rep. Gattis chose a particularly telling example. I have seen for myself the painful depopulation of what once were family farms and small towns that are often portrayed as the essence of America.

Rep. Gattis easily dismisses this pain by asking what else can we do with those who "have no economy." But this is historically inaccurate, both in regard to rural Alaska and to the rural Midwest.

The fact is both places had, and in many cases still have, very workable economies. The problem was, and is, that big business (resource developers in Alaska, agribusinesses in the Midwest) have viewed those workable economies as not profitable enough to maintain. Therefore they have to go.

Rep. Gattis' comments and proposals fall most hard on Native Alaska. The proposed uprooting of entire communities (whether due to alleged lack of economy or closed schools) is bad enough, be they Native or non-Native. But in the Alaska context, where most of what is "rural" is Native Alaska, what Gattis is proposing is not just a case of relocating individuals but of uprooting and socially destroying entire distinct peoples who have occupied the land for thousands of years. In moral and international legal terms, this approaches the definition of genocide.

I don't know Rep. Gattis personally, so I can't say if she understands the implications of her remarks. I'm always willing to give a person a one-time pass for ignorance. But on an issue as critical as this, with Rep. Gattis being a public representative, she really needs to get to know the people of rural/Native Alaska and to respectfully listen and learn. Otherwise she will have to take full responsibility for the consequences of her words and proposals.

ADVERTISEMENT

Certainly we do have a difficult budget situation that must be faced by all Alaskans, Native and non-Native, rural and urban. And certainly cuts must be made but not on the basis of dislocating entire groups of people.

Native Alaskans have found very creative ways, through hard work and cooperation, to maintain to this day over 200 villages -- in spite of getting very little of the profits of the enormously valuable resources removed from Alaska lands, from fur for the Russians to oil for the international petroleum companies. And this is aside from the negative impact this removal process has had on the lands, animals and plants that were and are central to Native economies.

In this regard, it is important to remember the historical relationship of the United States with the Native peoples inhabiting all of what became America: In return for (willingly or not) giving up the amazingly rich land base that supported the Native economies and that has so benefited those who came later, the U.S. has sought to provide certain basic aid to the remaining Native peoples to help them remain distinct peoples as long as they wish to be. That aid is never enough in itself, but through the hard work and creativity mentioned above, Native peoples have managed to survive.

But now comes Rep. Gattis who says, too bad, "we" can't afford "you" so you'll just have to go. One can well ask, just where are the people from rural Alaska supposed to go that will improve their situation? Nor does Gattis consider the deep spiritual ties that rural Alaskans have to the land.

It is not "big government" or "tax and spend" to suggest that a major purpose of governments is to provide basic common social services. I believe the only way to properly and fairly deal with the present situation is to determine by extensive public discussion what programs and services are bedrock (from ferry services to education, to roads, to social services, and, yes, rural Alaska itself) and then determine what creative mix of revenue sources is necessary, fair and workable to sustain what is essential.

Tony Kaliss has worked for almost 50 years in the field of Native-non-Native relations, including work, teaching and research in Maine, South Dakota, Russia, Hawaii and Alaska. He taught at Ilisagvik College in Barrow for nine years. He now lives in Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.

Tony Kaliss

Tony Kaliss has 48 years of involvement with issues concerning Native and non-Native communities. He retired south to Anchorage in 2011 after seven years teaching at Ilisagvik Tribal College in Barrow.

ADVERTISEMENT