A Part or Apart

When Scott and I returned to the States last December and were preparing for our move back to Alaska, we came across a man who commented about Alaska finally being part of America. Even though I smiled and nodded in agreement, I was confused about what this man was talking about. Later, I asked Scott if he knew what the man meant; he didn’t really. I don’t remember who this man was, but the comment stuck with me. I’ve come to interpret it to mean that Alaska has finally gotten into the American psyche as being part of the country and not just an afterthought. It’s taken over 50 years since Alaska became a star on the flag, but Alaska is now, perhaps, actually thought of as part of the American identity despite the physical separation. 

Not including stories regarding oil and energy which abound all over national news, there are signs of this inclusion in the media. For a couple weeks recently, the entire country heard updates on the Iditarod. On NPR some weeks ago, there was even a story about the controversial one-lane gravel road that could go through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge near King Cove, a tiny community in Alaska of less than 1,000 people. Can it be that between news of drones and Pope Francis, Americans would actually care about what happens in King Cove, Alaska?

Despite signs that Americans are finally embracing Alaska as part of them, Alaska is trying to stay an arm’s length away at least in terms of its relationship to the federal government. In recent committee meetings and floor sessions in the Alaska State Capitol, resolutions and bills have been introduced that accuse Washington, D.C. of federal overreach. The purpose of these bills and resolutions is to send a message to the federal government as well as to set up infrastructure within the Alaska legislature that would challenge imposed federal laws and mandates. According to several members of Alaska’s House and Senate, the federal government is constantly reigning down orders that have to do with Alaska’s schools, Alaska’s land, Alaska’s resource development, Alaska’s cherished gun rights, among other areas, and Alaska needs to figure out a way to counter these laws. Not surprisingly, the Alaska Legislature recently passed a resolution to ignore the President’s mandates regarding gun laws. The resolution’s potential unconstitutionality doesn’t faze the legislators or the governor – their goal is to make a point.

These sorts of actions could be characterized as juvenile, childish. It’s the sort of thing a teenager might say to a parent in the face of a supposed injustice – “I don’t care if I’m making sense; I’m trying to prove a point.” Like a parent who gives a weekly allowance to a child, the federal government heavily supports Alaska through funding. Anyone who lives in Alaska knows that Alaska has a love-hate relationship with the federal government – love for the money, hate for the rules and laws.

The sponsor of one of the bills addressing federal overreach wants the federal government to let Alaska decide how to use their land. She hated to make the comparison but she did – ‘The east has been overdeveloped and overroaded. Why can’t Alaska get the chance to do that?’ (I’m paraphrasing here but that was the essence of what she said). This sort of mentality is comparable to the justification for what is happening to the developing world – it’s the outsiders that want to keep the land pristine and primitive while the people who live in those places want TVs and roads and ugly jeans and cheap plastic items.

A proponent of this particular bill used the term “conservation refugees” in his argument. ‘Conservation refugees’ are typically indigenous people who are kicked off their native lands in the name of conservation; their once home becomes a protected area and is deemed a National Forest or National Park or something of that nature. Usually the term ‘conservation refugees’ is associated with tribes like the Maasai of East Africa, the Karen of Thailand or Burma, or the Native American tribes of the lower 48. I Googled “conservation refugees + Alaska” and got nothing. I have heard stories of Alaska Natives having to move entire villages because the federal government told them to. Or of Alaska Natives getting citations from federal law enforcement for hunting on lands that they’ve always hunted on and their ancestors have hunted on for hundreds and hundreds of years. I do think that those types of situations are unjust, to restrict practices that have taken place on a land for time memoriam. But what Alaskans who accuse the federal government of overreach have a gripe with is the protection of land that indigenous people do not inhabit, large parcels of land that humans rarely touch. I’m not well versed on this subject matter, but I don’t think the term “conservation refugees” has to do with what’s currently happening to Alaska.

There’s this sentiment felt among conservatives in Alaska that those in the lower 48 want to keep Alaska as their personal National Park that they can visit whenever they want. And Alaska wants to fight this because it often means restricting access to resources or it means taking away their freedom to put in a road. None of these issues are easy, but I don’t necessarily see what’s wrong with the Federal Government trying to keep Alaska the way it is. Do Alaskans really begrudge being surrounded by natural beauty? Would Alaskans prefer to trade their clean, babbling streams for polluted ones?

I still wonder if that man is correct. Is Alaska really seen as part of America? And what does that really mean?