Oil in Alaska

Drilling in Alaska will not help stop the oil crisis. Many colonial Americans weren’t concerned about protecting natural resources because they thought they had a lot but they also knew that they needed to preserve the oil. Should the United States drill for oil in Alaska’s wilderness? America shouldn’t drill in Alaska because of the environment wilderness, protecting environment, and economics.

In the mid to late 1800’s brought about the “Treaty of Cession referred to indigenous people of Alaska as "uncivilized tribes." Such designation in legislation and other agreements caused Alaska Natives to be subject to the same regulations and policies as American Indians in the United States” (Benson, 2015). This was also followed up the 1884 First Organic Act, disputing Alaskan Natives any claims for the land they occupied, and the Major Crimes Act of 1885 that would not allow natives to process any criminal acts. This prompted the start of the Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB), this organization united all the different tribes/clans of Southeast Alaska to bond together to press the US government for equality for all Native Alaskans (Benson, 2015). For several years, the Tlingit people fought politically against the US government for control and rights to the land they inhabited for centuries. Though the Tlingits won small advantages in the battle for ownership, such as the 1935 congressional ruling that allowed both the Tlingits and the Hiada Indians the right to sue the Federal Government for a land dispute. It wasn’t until 1971, when President Nixon signed in action the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, becoming the largest land claims settlement in United States History. According to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,

The world, as we know it, is in the midst of having an oil crisis. Our nation starves and bends at the will of this dreadful calamity. Our deprivation for this atrocious corruption has led us to look for oil deposits in the Alaskan Wilderness. The US needs oil and by drilling for oil on our own land, we would help our economy, but in doing so would destroy the beauty of the wilderness and harm many others. The matter on hand is that should we drill for oil in Alaska’s wilderness? My opinion and answer to this question would simply be no. The United States of America should not drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness.

" These lands were taken away barely 50 years after they were assessed. The United States government played a cruel game when it relocated its Indian population (some could argue this as survival of the fittest, evolution). They turned a blind and mostly bias eye when it came to Indian politics and treaties they had made twenty years prior. They made promised that were going to be broken, and which there were no way of avoiding. In short, the government in a way did the same thing to the Indians that Jackson did to the Bank:

Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a very controversial topic. On one end you have the people who want to drill for oil to help out our economy, and on the other end there are the environmentalists and the Alaskan natives who do not want their land destroyed. Our economy needs help; oil prices keep rising, gas prices have reached an all time high, and America is depending too much on foreign trade. Drilling for oil in Alaska will solve these problems. There are ways of drilling without disturbing the environment and keeping the animals in their original habitat.

During the end of the nineteenth century, the United States had formed policies which reduced land allotted to Native Americans. By enforcing these laws as well as Anglo-American ideals, the United States compromised indigenous people’s culture and ability to thrive in its society.

Native Americans are entitled to the same Constitutional protections that guard other citizens from federal government infringement. Plenary power and the accompanying seizure and use of indigenous land bases have violated the rights of Native Americans and demonstrated the inability of the federal government to manage Indian affairs. The United States should give ownership and control of original, non-privately owned land bases back to tribes. This course of action would end treaty violation, compensate tribes for land takings, prevent bureaucrats from implementing policies that obstruct the ability of Native Americans to participate in their

One tribe, the Shoshone, were promised “everything necessary to comfortable living” in exchange for fulfilling their side of the Indian Removal act [Document 8]. They remained civil even when adjusting from originally thriving in “every foot of what you proudly call America” to being “content with the little patch allowed”. They were originally promised seed, farming tools, food, and cattle during the arrangement, but the United States did not carry out their side of the bargain; killing their game, stealing their furs, and using the Shoshone meadows to feed their

Ever since the very first colonies were formed, the Native Americans have been forced out of their beloved inveterate lands in order for the Americans to be able to expand their new found territory. Yet, nothing ever changed and the same economic policies continued, bringing nothing but destruction to the Native people. Meanwhile, the political and social policies were dramatically distorted, deceiving the tribes into losing land and cultural values. Jackson’s efforts to remove any and all Cherokee Indians to territory west of the Mississippi in the 1830’s maintained the same economical attitudes as before but changed the social and political policies set by the previous colonies and the United States government towards the Native Americans.

The area known as the Standing Rock Indian Reservation located in North Dakota and along the Missouri River, has been targeted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other governmental entities, to construct a 1,172-mile-long pipe, right through the area’s clean water and ancient burial grounds. The United States Government is in favor of the project for its economic benefit, while the Indian American tribes of Standing Rock are against the project due to the harmful implications that this pipe brings to their wellbeing and their heritage. With the news that this pipe was originally headed towards Bismarck North Dakota, (90% white population) and then re-routed towards Native lands, the question can be brought up: why was the pipe rerouted?

Nevertheless, ANCSA and the Native corporation system have had a negative impact as well. Such as, ANCSA was not seen as a good deal for all the Alaskan Natives. Because ANCSA caused confusion over governing structures of the tribes, many Natives believed that ANCSA made their tribes weak. Furthermore, during their first twenty years, the Alaska Native regional corporations endured huge profits losses in their effort to parlay control of their land, their natural resources, and their capital. They lost $250 million between 1974 and 1991 by not including their natural resource assets’ one-time sales and

Despite this special government-to-government relationship, deeply rooted in the history of the United States and its treatment of Indian nations, federal policies for dealing with Indian nations have not always been faithful to this trust responsibility. Federal policy has varied radically from a policy of annihilation, to assimilation, to termination, to self-determination. Each has been influenced by the political and social climate of the era originating to the policy. So, for example, when gold fever spurred non-Indians to invade Indian Country to extract this precious metal, federal legislation removed this land from the Indian Country, resulting in broken treaty promises and removal of tribes from place to place. The trust relationship and federal supervisory authority over Indian nations rests upon Congress' plenary power over Indian affairs.

American Indians and Alaskan Natives have a relationship with the federal government that is unique due to the “trust relationship” between the US and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) who are entitled to health care services provided by the US government by virtue of their membership in sovereign Indian nations. In order to contextualize the complex nature of Indian health programs it is necessary to become versed in the political and legal status of Indian tribes. Through numerous constitutional, legislative, judicial, executive rulings, and orders that were largely associated with the succession of land and subsequent treaty rights; the health care of AI/ANs has been one of many responsibilities guaranteed by the federal government. The foundations of which can be traced back to the year 1787. The ceded land has been interpreted in courts to mean that healthcare and services were in a sense prepaid by AI/AN tribes and 400 million acres of land. The misconception of “free healthcare” and a conservative political disdain from so called entitlement programs have also led to misconceptions regarding the federal government’s responsibility to provide health care and services to AI/ANs. Rhoades (2000) has argued that tribal sovereignty is the overarching principle guiding Indian health care on a daily basis.1 This paper will examine the history surrounding federally mandated healthcare to AI/ANs, pertinent issues of sovereignty, as well as case studies in tribal

With the federal government’s support, many Native tribes have constructed Native Governments and Corporations where the rights to land and money are placed to their own responsibility. What this actually means is that the rights of the people’s land and monetary bonds are transferred from governmental trust to

America Should Reject the Oil Businesses Plan and Permanently Protect The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge