Ending Jim Crow in Alaska

I didn't really know much about the history of Alaska. I knew a little about the Jim Crow laws, but nothing beyond that. Something like this is comparable to the discrimination of the Jews and the native americans that lived in the United States. I found it really interesting the Alaska was the first to pass any sort of anti-discrimination law, a big step for American history.
Although they only showed reenacments in the movie, you can almost feel the pain that people had to go through with this discrimination. It was interesting when they would comment that people were willing to "gladly" take their money, but they still had to sit in the back of the theatre or in a different area of the place they were in. They were glad for the business, and made them pay the same amount, but did not give them the same options.
The best part of the movie was the deliberation of passing the law. The speech the woman gave was very empowering for their people. Her mention that she was not allowed in places where dogs were also not allowed was a powerful statement, along with her description of the three types of discriminating people. She took what was real to her and put it out there for those who had never experienced discrimination of this magnitude. It always seems like whites feel they are the "superior" race and can look down on others, but there is no real difference between the groups. She was just as educated as they. It is a perpetuating problem when the discriminated against have to go to a lesser school, not getting the education they deserve, and then being devalued when they lack the education necessary to be deemed equal to the superior race.

Unfortunately there was not much in this movie that surprised me. Although I did not know the history of the Civil Rights struggle in Alaska, I was not surprised by how the native populations were treated by the settlers. Many of the same tactics that were employed to discriminate against African Americans in the lower 48 states were present in Alaska at this time. The most notable of these being White's claim to "civility" and the derogation of the native populations as "uncivilized" and not worthy of full citizenship.

It was very easy to track the path that stereotyping and prejudice took in order to pervade everyday life in Alaska. Initially there was a realistic threat over resources when the White settlers came to settle. The Native populations were looking forward to a harmonious trading relationship, but they actually were disrespected and cheated. As the rift grew and the dehumanization of the Native populations continued direct discrimination and segregation became a part of the day-to-day.

What strikes me as bizarre in this and many situations where there is a public policy of discrimination is the lack of perspective involved. A symbolic representation of an "uncivilized" native holds rule, and few are able to challenge that representation because it has become a part of their script for how things should be. Cases of 'passing', where a Native Alaskan is not recognized as such and is treated justly until they are 'found out' directly reaffirms that this is seemingly an illogical practice. Unfortunately, this practice has persisted in many different places and between many different populations where there have been discrepancies in power and resources.

In closing, I was not only impressed with the passage of the anti-discrimination laws but also the continuation of the movement beyond that passage. According to the documentary there has been a persistent desire for the rich culture of the Native populations to become active parts of the communities. Instead of marginalization, there finally is a wide appreciation for what the diverse cultures offer and represent. This multicultural acceptance is something that marks this story as a unique and truly successful movement for civil rights.

Also, Cassy - I agree that the woman's speech in front of the officials was the best part of the movie. It may not have been acted well but it still got the point across. Her words were very powerful. Does anyone think it would have looked different if this were a high budget, Hollywood film?

I think what surprised me most was I had never heard of these issues in Alaska. I'm pretty interested in history, but I think this is one part of American history that hasn't been talked about a lot. One thing that I kept thinking of when watching the movie was a similar movie that I have seen. Has anyone see the miniseries Into the West (I think it was on TNT)? It basically chronicles the history of the West, including the history of the Native Americans and the various incidents that occurred in history. It's another movie that shows how racial discrimination towards Native Americans was pretty horrifying. One of the scenes in that movie was how the children who were forced to go to boarding schools to become "civilized" basically tried to retain their culture when the adults who ran the boarding school weren't around. When the Nelson Act was mentioned in For the Rights of All, that was the particular image that came to mind for me.

I learned that stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination have been commonplace in our history for quite some time. It is disturbing to watch people outwardly express extreme racist attitudes (at a certain point, it becomes uncomfortable). Today, our social norms prohibit that extreme racism. One of the other most surprising parts of the movie was when they discussed World War II and how the POWs were basically treated better than the natives who lived in Alaska. I really couldn't believe that actually occurred in our country.

I also believe that one of the most powerful points in the movie was when Elizabeth made her speech to the Senators. She was just as educated as they were and she really tried to express how she felt about discrimination, along with the three types of it. One part of the movie I did like was when they showed what is happening today. I think it is good that the schools are teaching the children about the rich cultural diversity that exists and allowing them to embrace it. It is way better than trying to eradicate the culture as was done in the past.

I wasn't surprised by much in the film. When the title includes Jim Crow laws it is pretty self explanatory what was going on. The one thing that did surprise me a little is that the natives were actually an active part of the territorial process. There were very few native groups in the lower 48 that were as involved as the Alaskan natives were. They were extremely well organized, and amazingly willing to deal with people who had taken everything that had been theirs. Even when their children were being taken to the government schools they were willing to work with the government. Even the "civilized" tribes in the rest of the states were pretty unwilling to deal with the government after their culture was being striped from their children.

I don't think I learned very much about the everyday workings of discrimination, but the film did a good job of explaining the common thinking of the time. Some of the white state senators had arguments that were extremely ethnocentric, but I can remember hearing people say similar things about other cultures today. It is different because the people today say things about cultures that they aren't necessarily actively oppressing, but that they understand equally as poorly. If there is something I did gain a greater insight into because of this film it is the the thought process behind the group definitions that makes the "us" and "them" distinction. This was most evident when the senator was talking about differences in the years each group had been "civilized" and using it as a reason to keep the natives down.

One of the main points that I personallly took away from watching this video is the importance of voting and democracy. Native Alaskans held very little to no rights when Americans claimed Alaska as a territory. I think that one of the reasons native Alaskans were able to take control of their rights a decade before the civil rights movement really got going in the lower 48 was because of their ability to get their voices heard. Power played a big role in this as well. Simply having somebody in a position of power that holds your same believes about rights is a big step towards equality. Native Alaskans had a few people (as the video mentioned) who they were able to look towards when it came to getting things done socially and politically. When you look back on American history, and more specifically African American history, there were no blacks in politics or that held high social status (e.g., Groening, Paul, Peratrovich). Alaska was fortunate enough to have somebody to look towards when it came to starting a movement, which in my opinion, is what led to a more 'rapid' civil rights movement in the natives having the right to vote, and then getting people to vote which eventually led to their raise in power.
Part of this documentary that really made me realize how far Alaska has come is how they initially treated native Eskimo culture. Whites would segregate schools, and the only natives that could attend white schools were those who were mixed blood, and if they were mixed blood they were required to have proven that they had "abandoned" their culture and become "civilized". Growing up in Alaska, this is definitely not the case anymore, which is definetly a good thing! Most Alaskans now embrace their culture, and even a lot of white people who live in Alaska and have no native roots embrace the Eskimo culture. Alaska as a whole has now taken what they once saw as "uncivilized" and embraced it as they see it as part of their state's history. Although, it is kind of sickening to know where people once stood on Eskimo culture and now see people with no ties to it claiming it as part of their identity. I guess we should just be thankful for how things have evolved.

I hate to sound redundant here but I too had never learned anything about Alaskan history. I wasn't surprised about natives being treated as second class citizens however, I was very surprised and not to mention impressed that Alaskan natives were so active in pushing for equal rights 20 years before the Civil Rights Movement even materialized.

I also noticed a lot of common themes that are disheartening and discouraging to those currently fighting for equal rights. In the film they mentioned how the natives were viewed as "savages" and "uncivilized". That is nothing new. European settler's and later on, American settler's had the same views about natives in the lower 48 states hundreds of years before the events in Alaska.

A second theme was that of the introduction of disease that devastated the native population in AK. This too occured hundreds of years prior.

Also, the idea of Manifest Destiny and enacting legislation to remove natives from their land was nothing new.

It's sad to think that we have learned nothing from our mistakes over the last 400+ years.

In regards to Jim Crow laws, I'm not sure to what extent this topic is covered in Iowa's school curriculums but in Texas we learned about this topic extensively, albeit in the context of the Civil Rights Movement. I learned that Jim Crow laws were used in order to circumvent the system and continue to deny minorities their rights. For instance there were the grandfather laws that prevented African Americans to vote unless their grandfather had voted. The literacy tests that were mentioned in the film were also used during the 1960s in order to keep African Americans disenfranchised. I would also go so far to say that in many parts of the country Jim Crow laws continue to be present. A great example would be banking/lending practices in real estate. Banks will make loans and homes unaffordable to minorities in order to keep them from moving in to certain communities.

Ryan also made an excellent point in regards to the material that is taught in our history classes. We do fail to mention our own attrocities. The U.S. is notorious for disguising all their abuses of power with "we're a democracy. we like to help people." blah blah blah. And people buy that crap! Anyhow, didn't mean to rant... I just wish they would teach what REALLY happened. Things such as how George Washington gave natives blankets infected with small pox, or how Abraham Lincoln was in fact a racist (he wanted to ship African American's back to Africa), how we were selling weapons to Nazi Germany and Japan before we got involved in 1941, how we placed Japanese Americans in "Interment" Camps, and the list goes on.

My husband, who is a history teacher, was telling me that they are currently trying to change the curriculum for U.S. history in Texas. Some of the people who are on the committee include a minister. He said that students do not need to learn about historic figures such as Thurgood Marshall or Martin Luther King. Students need to learn more about people such as George Bush and I forget who else he mentioned. This to me was FRIGHTENING, and it made me both angry and embarassed to be from Texas. My husband and other teachers banded together however and managed to get the minister kicked off the committee. It makes me wonder what is being taught in more conservative states such as Tennessee and Alabama. Any thoughts on that?

I also did not know anything about this brave struggle for equal rights in Alaska, but what I found most interesting is the similarity of the histories of the native peoples throughout the American continent. European settlers came to America and without variation, treated the natives (Alaskan, Mayan, Native American, Incas, Aztecs, etc.) as their inferiors, based on the imposition of a new culture and social order which was completely foreign to the natives. Sadly, in many Latin American countries the fight for equal rights is just starting after centuries of oppression and discrimination that left the native peoples almost completely powerless. They are currently learning about civil rights movements around the world, and this is inspiring them to organize and fight for equality. I believe that a main difference in the Alaskan history is the promotion of assimilation, which although detrimental for the natives’ pride in their culture, perhaps might have allowed them to become more educated (e.g. the “the literacy test”) and that might have been an important factor leading to their empowerment.

Regarding stereotypes and prejudice, I found that some scenes of the documentary presented an example of the self-enhancement function of stereotypes, particularly when characters opposing the anti-discrimination law made statements such as “Who are these people barely out of savagery who want to associate with us whites, with five thousand years of recorded civilization behind us”. They use arguments as this to place themselves in a superior position, using the natives as an inferior reference. Elizabeth Peratrovich realized this, and even included it in her moving speech, saying that people who like to maintain an oppressed group includes those who need it in order to feel superior.