The Alaska Federation of Natives convention of 2010 selected "Village Survival" as this year's conference theme. This theme is critical. I wonder if the theme was intended to exclude what is often referred to as that largest of Native villages, i.e., Anchorage, as the language "village survival" seems to focus on communities of a certain size rather than peoples, cultures and regions. Nevertheless, the significance and fundamental importance of "village survival" whether construed within a narrow or a broad interpretation is not to be denied.
I suspect that no one is suggesting that all the communities that currently exist in rural or urban Alaska have a right to continue at any cost. Villages and communities have risen and disappeared in Alaska, outside of Alaska and throughout the world over time. Ghost towns dot the landscape in rural areas of Nebraska, Maine, Nevada and, yes, in Alaska. Communities are dynamic entities. The decline of U.S. industries and the consequences for communities across this country is a relevant and current example.
Some would argue that rural villages should not continue if their costs are subsidized by the government. But this assertion seems logical only until we remember that the State and all communities within the State are largely living on Federal funds and state oil revenue and that those oil revenues don't come from oil gushing beneath 2nd Avenue in any downtown area. In this sense the urban areas are living off the bounty of rural resources. School construction across Alaska is subsidized by the state and the entire university system is heavily supported by state oil revenues. If the argument is that only a small number of people live in Native villages and that the numbers don't add up to the cost of support, then a parallel argument can be applied to the State supported cost of the University.
After all, only a small population of the state call themselves UA students. The issue, rather than being framed as one of critical mass, could be viewed as one of values and perceived worth. Higher education is a goal that is costly in Alaska but perceived by most as worth pursuing. Rural Native communities are also perceived by many to be valuable to the cultural and economic lives of the State and, yes, there may be a cost. All this is to say that the issues related to government support for villages are not quite as cut and dry as some would argue.
In the long term some communities will empty out just as some subdivisions and neighborhoods of Detroit have done over the years. It seems likely some villages might be better served with a shared runway and perhaps a shared high school and health clinic. However, this time around discussions concerning village location/dislocation must reflect voices from village residents as well as policy makers and government officials.
Many of our current rural communities were started as year-round villages by missionaries and government officials based not on a consideration of local knowledge but rather by random events. Bethel is located on its current site because the mission boat became stuck on a sand bar there, and the decision was made to offload and settle. If those navigating had taken a different channel, present day Bethel might very well be located further upriver near clear water and with better soil for gardens as well as protection from winds. Present day Kivalina was a sealing and fish drying site, with the original winter village located near the mouth of a river. The missionary/government contract teachers selected the sand spit for establishing the permanent school building location, and we have all been sorting out the fiscal consequences while the people in the community have also been sorting out the social costs.
Compulsory school attendance mooted choices in the whole matter for Native peoples, but as the sea ice retreats and erodes coastal communities we can plan the next set of choices to have better outcomes. We will, as Alaskans, be better served if we invite locals to be full partners at the planning tables.
From an Alaska standpoint, we should keep in mind that it is the Alaska Native peoples who live in the great majority of Alaska lands and waters and that they have done so for thousands of years. This fact is what allows Alaska the unique claim to being the largest state. Our reach, as a State, in resource development typically exceeds the geographic commitment of most non-native residents and with the probable increased importance of ice-free northern waters for commerce and resource development, an argument could be advanced that more, not fewer, village communities should be established. The economic, social, and cultural futures of Alaska will be enriched by the places Alaska Natives call home. For without claim to these lands and water -- the footprint of time argument -- there is little reason for other states, the federal government, or even other nations to regard these lands as anything but vacant. Canada is discovering this fact now in the Arctic and is trying to reverse a hundred years of flawed policy.
The short-sighted view is to see our current, relatively scattered and small urban spots as our state and our future. The marathon view, however, is to understand that the vast lands and waters of Alaska -- traditional homes to our unique cultures and regions -- need to be nurtured, promoted and developed. All of us will be better served.
Paul Ongtooguk is Inupiat and a Bering Straits shareholder. He graduated from high school in Nome, and earned BA degrees in Religion and Philosophy and another in History. He taught high school in Kotzebue for six years, became a visiting assistant professor at UAF after earning an MA from Michigan State U., and for four years was an assistant professor at Illisagvik College in Barrow. He is currently on his 14th year as an assistant professor at UAA. In 2008, he was the Gordon Russell Visiting Professor in Native American Studies at Dartmouth College, and has published several scholarly articles about Native Alaskan culture, history and education. His opinions are his own.