| June 24, 2005 Independence Day - Akiak, 1991 by Geoff Kennedy, insurgent49 We're approaching the 14th anniversary of a declaration of independence. On July 4, 1991, Akiak villagers held a symbolic subsistence hunt for Kilbuck Mountain reindeer. Unlike the 1776 declaration, this one led to no bloodshed. Alaska hunters know July 4th isn't a good time to hunt, and no four-footed creatures lost their lives that day. Instead, the "hunters" fired off a message: independence works both ways. If we are all created equal and are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so is the other guy. As Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did 215 years before them, Akiak villagers declared that their rights came from God, not George, the head of their country. In fact, unlike the colonists, whose ancestors had only recently arrived from England, the Yupiit had exercised their sovereign hunting rights before the United States or England existed. Still, those assembled in Philadelphia in 1776 and those living in Akiak in 1991 challenge us to consider the meanings of liberty and independence in 2005. Do we honor the ideals of our country by asserting and celebrating our own freedom and independence while ignoring and trying to suppress others' independence and freedom? Are those principles in such a limited supply that if we don't stop others from being independent and free from us, we will lose our own freedom and independence? And can we promote democracy by forcing other nations to conform to our form of government? Here in Alaska, I've heard arguments that Native sovereignty will lead to chaos. If that's true, won't American sovereignty lead to international chaos? In recent years, our leaders have unilaterally declared that the Anti-Ballistic Treaty no longer applies to us, the abuses at Abu Ghraib do not constitute torture, France and Germany are "irrelevant," international courts have jurisdiction only over countries other than ours, and the 9-11 terrorist attacks exempt the US from international law. Our leaders appear to send the message that, while we are free from all international restrictions, we are free to restrict other nations. So the US president orders Syria to withdraw from Lebanon and changes a regime, imposes gun control, and shuts down a newspaper in Iraq. With the precedent set by the American president, what principle prevents the Syrian president from ordering the US out of Iraq or the Iraqi president from imposing gun control on the US and shutting down the Wall Street Journal? Or France from declaring fraud in the 2000 election in Florida and enacting regime change in the United States? Or the Yupiit Nation, asserting that God chose it to do so, from regulating hunting and fishing in Maryland and Virginia? Or, for that matter, the Maori, declaring manifest destiny, from buying the lower 48 states from the Inupiat? No principle I know of. Most often, peoples get governed and ruled by power, not principle. But not always. The guys in Philadelphia and in Akiak asserted principles when they spoke truth to power before the phrase became fashionable. The guys in Philadelphia didn't choose July 4 to declare their independence; it just happened that way. But the guys in Akiak did. By choosing Independence Day, they demonstrated their American patriotism. Even though the 1991 Akiak culture differed a lot from the one in 1776 Philadelphia, they proclaimed their solidarity with the ideals upon which this country began. They remind us freedom and independence mean not just my freedom from your control but your freedom from mine. Geoff Kennedy is a radio journalist and former member of 'Billionaires For Bush' who resides in an undisclosed location in Alaska. He can be reached at geoff@insurgent49.com. |
-
Columnists -
|
||||||
| Copyright
2005
Insurgent Media. All Rights
Reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
|||||||
