Comments on: Open Thread – Quote of the Week

By: CG

CG — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:03:11 +0000

We’re on the same page, womanwithsardinecan.

It’s a human trait to put distance between you and the other guy. To create superiority, in big ways and small. That distance is racism and gender bias. “We’re not them.”
I dunno why, we must be hard-wired that way. A primal evolutionary trait? Survival of the fittest? Kill or be killed? In Australia, a thousand-mile fence to literally keep the separation.

Hurricane Katrina was a black issue; domestic violence and sexual assault are womens’ issue; inner-city ghettos are black and Puerto Rican issues; gang violence is a Latino issue (in Alaska, a Pacific Islander issue). In Australia it’s the abo problem; in New Zealand, it’s a Maori problem. In Alaska, the villages are a native problem.
“If those people would just…”

Ironically, some of the most invested and financially motivated to not only be there, but keep villages thriving, are non-Native. Because they have businesses, capital investment, little or no competition in a captive marketplace, highly profitable in good times.
So let’s spin a different perspective just for fun. Humor me:
If those air taxi services would just move to Anchorage.
If those building supply outfits and contractors would just move to Wasilla.
If those school teachers would just move to Seattle.
If those lighterage services would just move to Kodiak.
If those snowmachine and boat dealers would just move to Fairbanks.
If those doctors, nurses, lawyers would just move…

They can if they want to, ya know. They choose to be there. They have options. They can move their businesses. There are resources and programs to help them start over somewhere else. They could if they wanted to.
Sure, it might be tough, but that’s what I would do. If I were ‘them’. ‘We’ don’t owe ‘them’ a living.

One more point about that “Native village” issue -
For decades there have been many many urban-based people who make their living and support their families as the remote-site labor pool. They fly in, work on-shift, send wages home to Anchorage and Wasilla, and fly out when the project’s done. Every successful construction company in this state and the Pacific Northwest has bid on a job in Bush Alaska.
There are permanent contracts in place right now for fly-in employees and services. It’s the ongoing Alaska “gold rush”.
Paving and roofing companies employ young men buying homes in Wasilla and Anchorage. Red Dog Mine employs heavy equipment operators and electricians from urban Alaska. A mid-level management nurse in Western Alaska “commuted” from the east coast. The comptroller is a telecommuter who lives in Mexico and flies into bush Alaska once a month. I think they’ve since retired to the Mexican villa paid for by the job in the village.
A school principal owns a ranch in Wisconsin and goes “home” as often as possible.
Two weeks ago, I met an Irishman who is living in the car that he drove up the Alcan from Chicago, studying for the Alaska electrician’s exam that he was taking at the end of the week. He’s been guaranteed work, but he’s gotta pass that exam. He’s a single parent of 5, but will not be moving them here. If he passes the exam, he’ll work in the bush and fly back and forth. Oh surprise.

Decades of biologists, geologists, surveyors, forestry people have earned their families’ living from services to villages. Everybody you meet in Anchorage has a family member who makes a living from providing services to the villages. Test it for yourself.

It’s not a Native issue. It’s a big huge geographical problem that impacts a bunch of urban people, too.
So, why not invest in bush Alaska? Seems to me to be a good investment in keeping other state residents employed as well, and not a few Lower 48 families in their jobs.

This is not meant to be a scolding or a lecture. A simple illumination of scope.

By: LiladyNY

LiladyNY — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:11:12 +0000

I think anyone who has two brain cells to rub together see her for who she is. I think most people who are not already underwhelmed by her are starting to take a deeper look at how she operates. She may pick up a few more disaffected worshippers, but not enough to make a huge difference.
I said on another thread that I don’t see Republicans falling over themselves in a mad frenzy to have her represent them and the reaching out to Democrats is not bi-partisan but a desperate move designed to pick up a few more sycophants to her “cause” – whatever that is.
I read yesterday that she speaks in slogans, not ideas.

By: trisha

trisha — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:16:08 +0000

I was married to a bullshitter for many years. The one really good thing that came out of that relationship is that I can now identify one within a few minutes after they open their mouth.

Yes, Palin is a bullshitter.

By: trisha

trisha — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:10:34 +0000

I think Sarah’s latest statement—that she is willing to campaign for Dems and Republican’s has a two-fold message.

1. She is trying to expand her base by trying to appear bipartisan. She knows she can’t win by her right-wing base alone.

2. She is an equal opportunity money grabber. Does anyone think she will be doing these speaking engagements out of the goodness of her heart? In other words, she is saying, I’ll suppport ya’ for cash.

By: womanwithsardinecan

womanwithsardinecan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:04:04 +0000

And yes, I remember now that somebody didn’t like the term lifestyle, but I couldn’t think of another word at the moment so sorry about that. Got up too early and haven’t had enough coffee.

By: womanwithsardinecan

womanwithsardinecan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:02:42 +0000

“made” sense.

By: womanwithsardinecan

womanwithsardinecan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:02:03 +0000

I will also add, concerning flood responses, that the standard response to flooding is to demand more flood control dams. That is finally changing, now that we have seen the long term impact of dams, but in the past, moving wasn’t considered, just build more dams.
The thing that the two issues have in common is a long long precedent for an established lifestyle. Concerning rivers, people have been living along rivers since the dawn of civilization. We use them for water and transport. It only mad sense to be close to them. We can’t simply pack up all the cities along rivers and move them. But we can make changes. We can make sure flood insurance doesn’t ENCOURAGE building in flood zones. We can try to use open floodplain land for its very best use, agriculture (rich soil), while building our homes on higher land farther back (like yukonbushgrandma is doing now).
And as for rural Alaska, I saw so many good ideas for change during the discussion this winter. How to make villages self sufficient without destroying their way of life. How to improve the dialogue between urban and rural. Solid, workable ideas. And CG’s plea for reframing the language is a big part of that, because we humans are funny that way. Changing how we speak and how we think tend move in tandem, with one or the other taking turns being in the lead.

By: trisha

trisha — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:53:48 +0000

I was married to a bullshitter for years. This description is perfect.

The one benefit of that relationship is that now I can spot a bullshitter in a moment. That being said, Palin is a bullshitter. Period.

By: womanwithsardinecan

womanwithsardinecan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:25:19 +0000

I should add that the tendency to categorize and think in demographics is strongly influenced by ingrained prejudice, whether against Natives, gays, women, blacks,other religious groups, or whatever group the person in power feels superior to. In my flood story, the Mormons were the superior group in power, the rural non-Mormon ranchers and other non-Mormons were the lessers, and those of us who worked for the Nature Conservancy were the lepers. That demographic influenced all of the politics in the area, and still does.

By: womanwithsardinecan

womanwithsardinecan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:15:57 +0000

My point with the “don’t constantly tell people to move” in relation to floods was that it is not the first, foremost, and most constant refrain. Yes, during the really big floods, it comes up, but fades rather quickly and isn’t a broad sentiment (I didn’t hear a peep about it during the floods this winter, though the locals may have heard the refrain).
With the Bush issue, it is the first thing that out-of-staters and urban dwellers bring up, and they bring it up forcefully and disrespectfully (that’s another difference. The people who say that about floods don’t tend to go on and on in a disrespectful manner). That’s just my opinion from having watched other floods around the country from afar over the years and having watched and listened to the debate this winter on the food and fuel crisis in rural Alaska.
CG, I’m not disagreeing with you. Your point is well taken and completely valid. I’m certainly guilty of framing the issues in Native terms. My tendency to use the term Native comes from the fact that my grammy was full blooded Aleut and was discriminated against by Colonists. So I’m very sensitive about the Native aspect and that’s the thing I see most in the rural Alaska issues from my perspective. She didn’t live in the Bush (adopted, assimilated from her home on Afognak and ended up raising kids on a homestead in Palmer) so I was never exposed to that set of issues. My point was simply from the demographic point of view, as my analogy explained. It is a human trait to categorize. And people who run government, or have other forms of power, tend to think in terms of demographics. You have a long slog ahead of you to get the controlling powers to switch from the “those damn Natives” perspective to the “remote community issues” perspective. I will do my best to reframe my own language to help.