To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

14th Arizona Territorial Legislature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arizona Territorial Legislature
13th 15th
JurisdictionArizona Territory, United States
House of Representatives

The 14th Arizona Territorial Legislative Assembly was a session of the Arizona Territorial Legislature which convened in Prescott, Arizona. The session ran from January 10, 1887, till March 10, 1887.[1]

The frugal nature of the session, compared to its predecessor, combined with an outbreak of mumps and measles resulted in the session being dubbed the "Measly Fourteenth".[2]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    1 258
    3 027
    5 653 298
  • ✪ Unsettled Citizens | Economic Citizenship || Radcliffe Institute
  • ✪ Native Law and Legal Strategy | Native Peoples, Native Politics || Radcliffe Institute
  • ✪ The Roman Empire. Or Republic. Or...Which Was It?: Crash Course World History #10


- Good morning, everyone. I'm Tomiko Brown-Nagin, the dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. And I'm so pleased to welcome you all here today for this important convening on unsettled citizens. Citizenship rights, or the lack thereof, affect individuals, families, and communities in very concrete ways. Citizenship also shapes our sense of identity and belonging, so much so that many people tend to think of citizenship as immutable, or at the very least, as settled. And yet, as we'll explore today, many individuals find that their citizenship is quite unsettled. Consider, for example, the US territories. Later today, we'll hear from Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto of San Juan, Puerto Rico. And as we hear from her, we should bear in mind that people born in her city, like nearly four million others across Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and the northern Mariana Islands, formerly lack full protection under the US constitution despite birthright American citizenship. And American Samoans as US nationals enjoy neither full citizenship rights nor full constitutional rights. These facts aren't well understood. In the fall of 2017, after Hurricane Maria, the New York Times ran an article under the headline "Nearly Half of Americans Don't Know Puerto Ricans Are Fellow Citizens." What's more, the federal government's response to Maria did not fully reflect the reality that the hurricane caused a domestic humanitarian crisis. Just 13 days after the hurricane made landfall, President Trump visited Puerto Rico and said, "I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico, but you've thrown our budget a little out of whack." [LAUGHTER] Language that seemingly defined Puerto Ricans as other, not a part of us. Later, in an interview, he lamented-- and I'll quote him again-- "Instead of getting in thank you, we got bad publicity," as if fulfilling the nation's obligations to Puerto Rico merited special gratitude from the islanders. Now, it's a century old legal doctrine that underlines why the US territories enjoy only limited constitutional protections. And this doctrine emerged when law and official policy were steeped in the ideologies of white supremacy and colonialism. Just five years after the US Supreme Court upheld racial segregation in the 1896 case of Plessy versus Ferguson, the court started to issue decisions that differentiated between incorporated territories that would officially get statehood like Arizona and New Mexico and unincorporated territories like Puerto Rico that would not. This doctrine, which is still in place, holds that territories acquired in and following the Spanish American War belong to but aren't a part of the United States. This entirely constructed difference help explains why Americans in the territories can, for instance, serve in the military but can't vote in national elections. American citizenship is then decidedly unsettled. As immutable as it may sometimes seem, citizenship is constructed. And it's often directly linked to histories of colonialism, discrimination, and class distinction. This conference will wrestle with several examples of unsettled citizens and unsettled citizenship. It is a crucial, and it is an urgent conversation, especially now. A conference like this isn't possible without the efforts of many, many people. I'm grateful to all of our conference participants for sharing their time and expertise with us. Thanks as well to Rebecca Wassarman, Executive Director of Academic Ventures; to Jessica Viklund, Director of Events here at Radcliffe; and their excellent teams. And let me also acknowledge the members of our Radcliffe Institute Leadership Society and all our annual donors who support the institute's work. Thank you. Finally, thanks to my colleague, Dan Carpenter, for chairing the Conference Planning Committee and to all of the planning committee members. Dan is the Faculty Director of Social Sciences here at Radcliffe as well as the Allie S. Freed Professor of Government. And it is my pleasure now to turn things over to Professor Carpenter. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] - Thank you, Tomiko. [CLEARS THROAT] In the presence of so many of Harvard's indigenous sisters and brothers, I want to begin by acknowledging the indigenous Massachusetts homeland on which we gather today. And recognizing Harvard as an organ of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, itself endowed by a charter that commits this university to the inclusion and education of indigenous peoples, I want also acknowledge the Nipmuc and Wampanoag peoples on whose traditional homelands the Commonwealth sits. People at Radcliffe, not least the thousands of women who experienced a form of citizenship at once both limited and enabled here in Cambridge, Massachusetts over many, many decades, have been thinking about citizenship for a long time, but especially in the past two years, as the nation begins to examine the centenary of the 19th Amendment and the 150th anniversary of the 14th Amendment, which established different kinds of citizenship. These initiatives are many, and they are outside of this conference, including last year's gender and citizenship conference entitled "Who Belongs: Global Citizenship and Gender in the 21st Century." They also include the long 19th Amendment initiative at the Schlesinger Library; the institute's emerging work on incarceration; research projects on lobbying and the financial services industry; our November conference on disability and citizenship and another in December on the meaning of the midterms; and not least, the digital archive of Native American petitions in Massachusetts, which Radcliffe has generally generously supported. When it came time to plan this conference, the Academic Ventures Group at Harvard, led by Becky Wassarman, put together an amazing committee of faculty from the University. I'm proud and honored to have worked with them and to have chaired them. They are, in alphabetical order of last name, Philip Deloria, Professor of History at Harvard and Chair of the Committee on Degrees in History and Literature; Ju Yon Kim, Professor of English at Harvard; and Gabriela Soto Leveaga, Professor of the History of Science at Harvard. Our word "citizen" in English and its equivalent in other European languages derives from the Latin "civitas," "the city," or more properly, "city-state." It is that city-state and that community which defines and regulates citizenship, and citizenship which in turn composes, reconstitutes, and reforms the city. We start with a panel on economics citizenship. The communities that defined and awards citizenship are also engines of social and material wealth creation. And the relationship of community belonging to wealth has always raised important and sometimes troubling dimensions of conflict. Do the duties and rights attendant to citizenship require a minimal level of material wealth in order for their realization? If so, how much wealth? What variety of goods? Do concentrations of wealth properly acquire citizenship? If so, should that citizenship be limited or fully free? The Supreme Court case, as many of you know, that endowed corporations with free speech rights sufficient to strike down a set of federal contribution limits and campaigns was entitled, in all of its delicious and disturbing irony, Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission. But corporations are far more than concentrations of capital. Harvard is a corporation. And this corporation lobbies. And as we're pleased to hear from our wonderful guest from Alaska momentarily, Rosita Worl, Alaska native corporations are corporations. And so these are often more complicated issues than they might seem. We next move to a panel on citizenship and its gatekeepers. Citizenship does not descend like manna from heaven but is made on earth. It is a human construct, humanly fashioned. The community determines the rules of citizenship and how they are applied. So how do indigenous nations, for instance, regulate belonging based on aspects of race, genetics, and the calculus of blood quantum? How do modern states such as France shape citizenship based upon language, race, and cultural belonging? And what happens when nations grant citizenship to those previously considered external to its community, but who have been let in at some level because they provided an alliance or some service? The case of the Hmong in the United States provides a window into these questions. After lunch, we'll hear from Mayor Cruz of San Juan. And she'll offer our keynote address. I met the mayor last night. And let me just tell you what an honor it is to have her join us. I cannot do justice here-- and I won't-- to the commitment, the humanity, and passion with which she speaks. But I will say this. Won't take too long getting your lunch. [LAUGHTER] And the afternoon panel is entitled citizenship on the move. It speaks to the fluidity of citizenship, it's unruliness in a world of rule, if you will. It talks about citizenship in our ever more mobile world where the migrant and the refugee challenge the notions of citizenship governed by nation states and call upon us to rethink the geography of community. We'll consider citizenship in communities that pre-date colonial and settler state borders and even the categories of citizenship fashioned by those societies. And we'll hear how white Americans consider their own identity under threat and how some of them are redefining that identity and a form of citizenship in increasingly racialized and eugenic ways. There are, of course, themes, many of them that we could've included or interrogated more profoundly today. What is global citizenship, for instance? That is, for what it's worth, a question that we addressed directly at last year's gender and citizenship conference. It figures not as explicitly in today's discussions, but it's always there. How has war and military service, or how have they defined citizenship? What is the proper balance between rights and duties in thinking about citizenship? And what is the role of education in attaining or promoting the flourishing of citizenship, the optimal balance in that way? One could also talk about other areas of our planet such as India and its caste system regulating citizenship for millennia and the way that those kinds of systems have powerful legacies today. Our discussions today are necessarily constrained by the address of time and space and in the aperture of political regime. We have but eight hours before us. But as with all such conversations at Radcliffe under its capable leadership, they will lead to still other conversations not so commonly webcast among students, scholars, and yes, citizens for days, weeks, months, and years to come. And with that, I want to ask our first panel to come up on economic citizenship. It is chaired by my fantastic colleague at the University, Professor Kenneth Mack. He is the inaugural Lawrence Biele Professor of Law and Affiliate Professor of History at Harvard. You can find other information about him in the conference program. Professor Mack and panelists. [APPLAUSE] - Well, thank you all for coming. Thank you, Dan, for that wonderful and capacious introduction to what we're going to talk about today. The title of our panel is "Economic Citizenship," which is obviously a timely issue at present. There's been a revival of interest in issues of economic citizenship over the last decade. Commonly cited causes include the global financial crisis and the still unresolved question of accountability for that crisis; the emergence of new forms of economic populism both within the United States and around the world, both on the left and on the right; questioning the relationship of membership in the nation state to social provision within and across the boundaries of nation states; the emergence of questions prompted by new forms of knowledge-- scholarly knowledge-- most famously, the research of Piketty and Saez on the history of economic inequality. But there's been an outpouring of scholarship in many, many fields on the question of economics citizenship over the last decade. And then law, my own field. As Professor carpenter noted, there's been a sustained debate in light of the Citizens United decision over the ability of corporations and the wealthy to mold the contours of citizenship to their liking. Economic citizenship obviously is also an old question. It's been debated over and over across the world ever since the advent of the transition to the system that we now call capitalism. And ever since the emergence of modern nation states that made questions of citizenship and membership of all kinds paramount. Now, today's panel is uniquely qualified to probe questions of economic citizenship that have emerged in our own time in light of the long history of such questions being raised, and also equally qualified to question the conventional contours of the debate about economic citizenship, including the conventional markers that I've outlined in this introduction. I'm going to introduce them just by title and the names of their most prominent works. You can find greater biographical summaries of their accomplishments, which are many, in the program. Our first speaker is going to be K. Sabeel Rahman, who's Associate Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School. He's the author of Democracy Against Domination, Oxford University Press 2017 and the forthcoming Civic Power from Cambridge University Press. Following Professor Rahman will be Rosita Kaaháni Worl, who is the President of the Sealaska Heritage Institute, who is the author of many, many writings and publications, among them Indigenous Value: Strengthening Resiliency in Arctic and Rural Communities and Alaska's Conflicting Objectives. Third, we're going to hear from Zephyr Teachout, who's an Associate Professor of Law at the Fordham University School of Law, who's the author of many publications, including Corruption in America: from Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United, Harvard University Press 2014. I'm going to take them, and they will present in the order I've announced them beginning with Professor Rahman. - Great. [CLEARS THROAT] [APPLAUSE] Thank you so much, Ken, and Dean Brown-Nagin, and Radcliffe, and to our panelists. Really excited for this day and this discussion. So as Professor Mack was saying, I mean, this really is such a timely moment to be thinking about these questions. And coming into this panel this morning, I was thinking about the real live fights over economic citizenship playing out in so many parts of the country and around the world, fights over the water crisis in Flint, or over the burning of gentrification in cities like New York or San Francisco or Boston even, the Fight for $15, and the changing nature of war, just to name a few. And I name that at the beginning to say that what we're talking about here is real life. And it's not just about kind of abstract notions of inequality and membership. But these are political fights that are playing out on many different terrains of context. And so for my remarks here, I want to sketch out three things. One is just to unpack a little bit the different dimensions of economic citizenship. So we're used to thinking about economic inequality, wages and income. But there's really much more going on underneath the surface. And want to kind of lay that out. Second is to make the claim that economic citizenship or citizenship more broadly is not just a legal category and an on/off switch. But I think really all of us are, in different ways, understanding citizenship as a functional concept, that it's really a spectrum. There are all these different ways in which law and policy and politics construct different levels of membership. Who gets to be a full member with full and equal dignity and standing in this society is a topic of contestation. And then the third, to say a little bit about the how. So what are the combinations of ideas, institutional changes, movement politics that are needed to change our scope and understandings of economic citizenship? So let me start at the top. So Professor Mack mentioned the new research on inequality, the work of Piketty and Saez and others. And I think that's absolutely been central to the opening up of the academic conversation. But if we think back through the political contestation over academic citizenship now and in the course of American history, I'd argue that the central concept is not just inequality, but really the problem of power and domination. So if you flashback, say, 100 years, the late 19th century, the populist parties gathering in Kansas in 1892. And they issue their party platform, and it's styled as a second Declaration of Independence. Modeled on Jefferson's, but where in place of the sovereign-- the sovereign monarch against which democracy has to rise up-- here, the framing is liberation from the concentrated economic power of the new corporate titans of then the first Gilded Age. So this is the era of J. P. Morgan, the man, not the firm. But still just as terrifying then as it perhaps is now. And Vanderbilt and the railroads and all of the rest. But the argument here was that as citizens, as economic citizens, people could not be free when they live under the effective subjugation of private power, private firms that can essentially govern the economy for their own interest and in their own profit without the kinds of checks and balances that we expect of any form of sovereign power. And so there is a broadening of the idea of democracy and citizenship and membership to take on the problem of private power. Let me give another example, more contemporary one. If we think about the fights over urban inequality in recent years, Matt Desmond's work on eviction, fights over the rise of housing prices in New York and Boston, San Francisco, part of what's going on here I think is about economic power and economic membership, but in a more subtle way. Research shows that the neighborhood that you're born in has intergenerational effects on your wealth, your well-being, your health. And the rules that govern where construction happens, how cities are zoned, who lives where, where transportation infrastructure lies, it's all very kind of behind the scenes. But we have effectively constructed-- or rather reconstructed an even more egregious form of segregation through our urban policies than what we had in the era of Jim Crow and prior to Brown v. Board. So there's another dimension. If the populace were focused on the problem of corporate power, this is something more subtle. It's sort of the accumulation of background rules of the game that changed the way the city functions or changed the way markets function, that restrict well-being and opportunity to some and create levels of economic membership for others. A third example, and then step back for a moment. The Flint water crisis in Michigan, which actually is not just about Flint. They're actually hundreds of cities that face a similar configuration of lead poisoning, decaying infrastructure, with disproportionate impacts on communities of color and low income communities. If you think about what's going on there, here you have a basic necessity, water-- the most basic thing that we need to live-- that is actually governed by a mix of failing government actors and increasingly privatized control. Many of the water systems in our country have been privatized and financialized and are actually under the ownership of different private equity firms around the country. And you have a basic good that we should be relying on for basic human well-being that has actually been converted into a form of resource extraction for the owners of the water systems, with devastating impacts on communities. And so this is a third way in which we play out the dimensions of economic citizenship over who gets to access those most basic goods that make humans and communities flourish. You can tell the same story about education, the same story about health care. These are those basic public goods that don't just appear. They're governed and provided by a mix of private and public actors. And the communities that are able to access them fully and freely are a product of those policies and decisions. So to pull all of that together, what I think this sketches out is three dimensions of economic citizenship. The first is are we free with respect to concentrated forms of private power? So think the monopolies and the trusts, which Professor Teachout might talk about more in a moment. The second is are we free in context of those background rules of the game? How we structure our city, how we structure our markets, how we structure our firms, who is able to access opportunity and wealth and well-being. And the third is how we govern our access to basic public goods. Health care, education, water. All three of these things I think are dimensions of economic membership. And all three of them are products of law and policy. And so what that means then to me is that the fight for economic citizenship is really a fight over power and governance. Who controls these economic decisions on what terms and to what ends. So then if that's the case, then I think that gives us a much broader view of citizenship as not just a binary on/off. I think what that shows us is that then citizenship can actually be tiered out as a spectrum. So you may be formerly a legal member of the polity, a legal citizen. But if you functionally can't access economic opportunity and well-being-- if you functionally have poisoned water, if you functionally are segregated from the centers of the city-- you're not really in effect a full member of the polity. So the next the next thing here though then is if you think about citizenship as being tiered, this also is not just a state of being. There is a politics here and a set of deliberate interests going on here. So when you think about why these policies exist the way they do, part of what we see is the weaponization of economic policy in order to restrict who gets to be a full citizen. So the re-segregation of our cities is in part the result of a fusion of private interests of corporations, zoning interests, coming from New York, the Citizens United reference. Real estate and lobbying and democracy in New York are sort of a pretty central configuration of battles that we're fighting in New York at the moment. But so you have a combination of corporate power, corporate interests, and ideologies of racial hierarchy. There are ways in which we start to use these hidden forms of economic rules and membership to reassert those types of economic and racial hierarchy. So to give another example, after Brown, schools are formally desegregated. But what happens is then you have a series of efforts where municipalities, suburban cities secede from the central core. So now the schools are still technically public, but they're only serving the public that you want to serve. You have the privatization movement kicks into high gear, again, pulling resources out from the formal public schools. These are all ways of manipulating economic rules to reassert a tiered notion of who gets to have access. So what then you have is a fight for citizenship and membership and inclusion that is at once about law and policy and a kind of technical policy questions, but also really about those most fundamental issues of who belongs and who gets to be part of the polity. So let me move to the last set of topics and about how we think about fighting these fights. And I think there are really three aspects here. And I think of it as ideas, institutions, and interests. So on all three of these dimensions, there's a battle to be waged for economic citizenship. On the ideas front, I think the first point here is that we need to understand economic membership in these broader terms of power and inclusion, and not just in sort of narrow terms of wages and income. And that connects us to these long standing traditions over economic freedom and domination that go back really to the founding and American political thought, but in global thought as well. On the institution side, these different dimensions of policy making really I think show that we're talking about a much wider set of structural debates. It's not just enough to talk about wages or job training or skills building. Economic citizenship really has to be tackling those underlying concentrations of corporate power, those background rules of the game, the way in which we structure our access to public goods. And then on the interest side-- so this is where I think things get really sticky. Because in a lot of ways, what we're facing now-- and Dean Brown-Nagin started with a reference to the hurricane in Puerto Rico. In some ways, it's remarkably clarifying to see the way in which the fusion of racial hierarchy, corporate power, and anti-democracy drive a political coalition that results in the kinds of highly unequal forms of citizenship that we're experiencing in American politics right now. And so that's a particular set of political interests or ideological interests that are driving and sustaining these types of unequal policies. But I'm really interested in think about what are the kinds of coalitions and fusions of interest and movements that can advance a more inclusive vision of economic citizenship? So here, I think about moments-- brief moments, perhaps-- but really important moments of multiracial inclusive-- a different kind of populism maybe where you think about that moment of reconstruction after the Civil War where you had the aspirations for racial inclusion and a transformative vision of the economy that came with that before it was often violently put down in the switch to Jim Crow. Or you think about the ways in which the civil rights movement encompassed an expansive vision of economic citizenship as well. So the welfare rights movement following after the civil rights movement. That's where you start to see some of the early debates around things like basic income as wages for citizenship. But it's coming from a movement led by women of color and not Silicon Valley folks. It's a very different approach to the issue. So we have these moments of multiracial inclusive populist movements. And I think I would argue we're in the beginnings of one such moment now. And so where I'll close is maybe a question for all of us to ponder. In this moment of unsettledness for economic citizenship, what are the kinds of openings that we see for new coalitions, new social movements that are advancing this more transformative, inclusive, and structural vision for economic reform that gets us to a more settled, but also more inclusive understanding of economic citizenship? So I'll close there. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] - Next, we'll have Rosita Worl. - [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] --most noble people of the Harvard community. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] In our culture, we have a protocol of introducing ourselves. And if I may, I would like to do that. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] My Tlingit name is Yeidiklasókw. It's an ancient name. The meaning has been lost in time. My ceremonial name is Kaaháni. It means "woman who stands in the place of a man." [LAUGHTER] I reminded that to the board members that I served on in Sealaska Corporation for 30 years. [LAUGHTER] I am an Eagle, and I am from the Thunderbird clan and the House Lowered from the Sun. And I am very proud to be a Child of the Shangukeidí, the Sockeye clan. I am entitled to wear the Eagle, Thunderbird, and Sun clan crest and the White Bear, Killer Whale, and Shark Spirit designs. In addition, our clan claims ownership and use rights to the US Naval military uniform and to the name "Lieutenant Frederick Schwatka" because Lieutenant Fred Schwatka failed to pay a debt to my great-great-grandfather. The Thunderbirds are entitled to wear Naval uniforms or semblances of them. Alaska Natives maintain dual citizenship as American citizens and of their respective tribes. They are similar to other Native Americans who are members of federally recognized tribes, but they differ in one dramatic way. They are also members of Alaska Native tribal corporations. Alaska Natives settle their aboriginal land claims through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. And ANCSA created 13 regional corporations and 200 plus village native corporations to implement the claims, thus making Alaska native shareholders in these corporations. Alaska Natives sought full control over their lands rather than allowing the federal government to have oversight over their lands. They rejected the reservation systems that are held in trust by the federal government for federally recognized tribes and instead supported conveyance of lands held under fee-simple title by corporations. ANCSA corporations differ from other profit making corporations in many respects. They are federally recognized tribes for special statutory purposes in over 100 federal legislative acts. They do not, however, have sovereign immunity or governance authorities that are prerogatives of tribes. They also have social and cultural dimensions and responsibilities as well as the profit making objective. In addition, they also have a unique form of corporate socialism in that regional agencies are required to share 70% of their profits from subsurface and timber development among themselves. To date, more than $300 million has been shared among the regional ANCs. Native American tribes outside of Alaska have full responsibilities for the welfare of their members. In Alaska, governmental responsibilities, services, and benefits are dispersed among tribes, ANCs, and several other institutions. We have 10 regional non-profit tribal organizations and two regionally federally recognized tribes that provide a range of governmental services. We have one statewide and 12 regional health organizations. And we have 12 regional housing authorities. These organizations and tribes are dependent on federal funds to provide the governmental services. And as such, they are required to comply with government eligibility requirements to receive benefits. Recipients must demonstrate that they are enrolled members of tribes and have a certificate of degree of Indian blood demonstrating that they meet the blood quantum eligibility requirements that is most often set at the one fourth native blood quantum. While discussions of the rights and responsibilities of tribes and ANCs are worthy, this discussion here provides a historical review of native membership and citizenships, which are not synonymous. In our own traditional society, we have clans and family units, and we have tribes and nations. And in these entities, we have perpetual memberships in our tribes and in our clans. In 1867, we had the Treaty of Session, under which Alaska was sold by Russia to United States. And Alaska Natives were classified as uncivilized tribes. Then we have the General Allotment Act that applied to both Native Americans and Alaska Natives. And we have the blood quantum system that was introduced. This act supposedly was to civilize Indians by introducing them to private property. Tribal lands were divided into 160 acres, and surplus lands totalling 90 million acres were transferred into the public, leaving Indian hands. The other interesting thing about it was that the Bureau of Indian Affairs introduced a competency, or what I think is an assimilationist measurement. Those Native Americans who were less than 50% native blood didn't have to have any BIA supervision. They were viewed as assimilated. Those who were 50% or more native blood had to have BIA supervision. It was possible to obtain citizenship if they severed tribal relations and adopted habits of civilizations. Not too many became citizens. In Alaska, we adopted a Territorial Act of 1915. And under this, Alaska natives could achieve citizenship if they could pass a test demonstrating qualifications to exercise the obligations of a voter. They also had to abandon tribal customs and sever tribal relations. They also had to adopt the habits of civilizations. And they had to be certified by five white citizens. And then after all of that, they had to solemnly swear to forever renounce all tribal customs and relationships. Again, we had very few that became citizens. Except for one, Charlie Jones, who was a clan leader from Wrangell area. And he had been voting for a number years and then went to the polls to vote in 1922. And he was not allowed to vote. He called on his niece, who called on her father, William L. Paul, the first Tlingit lawyer in Alaska. They litigated it, and Charlie Jones got the right to vote, thereby giving de facto citizenship to Alaska natives. In 1924, we have the Citizenship Act that gives citizenships to all Native Americans and Alaska Natives. We have then the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 that authorizes native governments and constitutions, but it didn't extend to Alaska. So we went to Congress to amend the IRA in 1936 to extend to Alaska. We now have 229 federally recognized tribes, but they are sovereigns without a territorial reach. And you also have to be one fourth native blood quantum to be a tribal member. In 1971, we enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. And under this act, our aboriginal land claims were settled. The act established 13 regional corporations and 200 plus village corporations. Our land-- we received 44 million acres under fee-simple title. We were given $1 billion for the extinguishment of our aboriginal title to 330 million acres. $1 billion for 330 million acres. A very resource rich land. But the act also established that one fourth native blood quantum for memberships. But the act also did something very different here in it created a new ethnic group called Alaska Natives. Under this, we were able to pull our blood quantum from all of the different cultural groups, the Iñupiat, Yupik, Aleut, Athabaskan, Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshians. I just wanted to introduce you to the Marine Mammal Act. This act provides an exemption to hunt marine mammals for Alaska Natives who could prove that they are one fourth native blood quantum. In the 1980s, we began to realize that there were some restrictions in ANCSA itself that conflicted with our cultural values. So we went to Congress to seek an amendment. And one of those amendments allowed us to enroll natives who were born after 1971. The original act allowed only for those who were alive in 1971 to become shareholders. We realized that our lands were owned by our children-- it was their right to own our lands. And so we wanted to make sure that we could do that. We had a big debate in Congress. Our secretary of interior didn't want us to do that. He wanted to assimilate us. And we prevailed and got the authorization. But we wanted the act to give automatic enrollment to all of our children. But the compromise was that we had to have a shareholder resolution, and it required a super majority shareholder vote. That means you had to have 50% plus one of all outstanding shares to vote in favor of enrolling new members. To date, we have six regional corporations that have voted to allow the enrollment of children who are born after 1971. We have four corporations that adopted the one fourth blood quantum; Ahtna, Doyon, NANA, and Sealaska. I chaired the committee that oversaw that enrollment. And I will tell you, I did surveys, I did look at the demographics, projections. And I also did focus groups. And it was really clear to me that it was possible that we would not be able to pass that resolution if I went with anything less than one eighth. So we went with the one eighth. And as the vote was coming in, I was really terrified because the inspector of elections called me late at night and said, Rosita, we're losing. And I was just devastated. And then he called me back about a couple hours later and said that he had made a mistake and that we were winning. [LAUGHTER] So we have another corporation. The Arctic Slope has two types of stock. And one type goes to those who are one fourth, and then the other is to those who have the less than one fourth native blood. Only Calista, the corporation that has probably still the most native blood, but went with lineal descendants. So we make a distinction between membership rights and citizenship rights. Our membership rights are based on the descendancy from an enrolled tribal member or shareholder and blood quantum criteria as defined in tribal constitutions or corporate bylaws. It establishes our eligibility for benefits, dividends, health care, housing, scholarships. And then we have citizenship, tribal citizenship. Tribal citizens' rights and responsibilities are related to the exercise of tribal sovereign rights and are similar to that of US citizens. Memberships in ANCs does not confer tribal citizenship rights, although shareholders do have the right to serve and elect leaders of a board of directors. And they have the right to vote for other businesses that may come before the corporation. I wanted you to take a look at the blood quantum as it exists right now. I don't have any data on Alaska Natives who are less than one fourth the total number. But what I thought I would do is take a look at native people who applied for their CDIB, their certificate of Indian blood, in a 10 year period from 2006 to 2016. We see that Cook Inlet, 59.3% of them who are enrolled were less than one fourth. And it goes down. The highest are those in the southern coastal regions. And you see my region at 32%. Even though we were introduced to Western society and had contact with Western society much earlier than others, we still are at the 32%. It's still problematic for us, discouraging for us. And then you see Calista at the bottom, and they're in southwestern Alaska. And 7.5% of them were less than the one fourth when they enrolled in that 10 year period. This table does not reflect the total number of Alaska Natives within each region who are less than one fourth native blood quantum. We don't have any current data that exists of the percentages of Alaska Natives who are less than the one fourth native blood quantum. However, a recent study by Sealaska Heritage Institutes demonstrates from both qualitative and quantitative data that an increasing number of Alaska Natives are less than the one fourth native blood, and particularly those in the southern coastal regions. Tribes and ANCs in Alaska allow natives to combine their native blood from parents who may be from different tribes, cultural groups, or ANCs to meet the one fourth native blood quantum eligibility requirement. The ability to combine blood quantum offsets the dilemma faced by some Native Americans whose parents are members of different tribes. The offspring may be full blooded Native American, but not meet the blood quantum requirement of either of their parents tribes. And thus, are not eligible for tribal membership in either parents' tribes. The ability to combine blood quantum of different Alaska Native cultural groups and corporations may delay an overall decreasing native blood quantum for an undetermined period. But we know it's coming. The issue of blood quantum has also become quite controversial. I mentioned to you the Marine Mammal Act. The Marine Mammal Act allows for an exemption for Alaska Natives to hunt marine mammals. We've been hunting them for over 1,000 years or more. And we use the byproducts for traditional arts and crafts, which are really important for us in our economically depressed rural communities. Unfortunately, it has the one fourth blood quantum requirement. And it's in those southern coastal regions that are affected the most by this requirement. We have been trying to amend this, but we can't come to an agreement in the native community as of yet. A continued relationship to the ancestral lands continues to be a significant cultural value for Alaska Natives. Native tribes do not have a land base. Instead, it's the native corporations that own our ancestral lands. Thus, membership in ANCs and continued land ownership are significant for Alaska Natives. The blood quantum system is a major Alaska native issue since it defines membership in tribes and native corporations as well as eligibility for federal services. Most all of Alaska natives were organized under the IRA and use the one fourth native blood quantum criteria for membership. All ANCs with the exception of one regional corporation uses the one fourth native blood quantum criteria to determine membership eligibility. The existing data suggests that if the blood quantum system continues to be utilized to determine membership, tribes may well be on a path to extinction. An increasing number of Alaska natives who are one fourth and less native blood means that native corporations will be owned by shareholders who will be predominantly less than the one fourth native blood. The greater fear is that these shareholders may not have the same cultural values of land ownership and may be more than likely inclined to lift the restrictions on the sale of land. In fact, some of our CEOs have called our land wasting assets. I might note that those are non-native CEOs. I wanted to show you my grandfather's citizenship certificate. My grandfather, John M. Tlunaut. He was required to renounce his tribal relations. He had to swear that he wasn't going to affiliate with his tribal relatives. And he had to go before five teachers who approved his knowledge that he knew about citizenship and all the responsibilities of citizenship. And then he had to have five white people sign that he was, indeed, a civilized Alaska Native. He was later pressured-- I thought this was interesting. He was later pressured by missionaries to change his name from Marx. It used to be M-A-R-X. He was persuaded to change it to Mark when this name became unpopular in the United States. [LAUGHTER] Ironically, I, his granddaughter, now serve as president of the Sealaska Heritage Institute, whose mission is to perpetuate and enhance the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian cultures of Southeast Alaska. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] [APPLAUSE] - Next, we have Zephyr Teachout. - Thank you. That was fascinating. Great presentations. Well, you just heard about how governments can be corporations. I want to talk about the ways in which-- following up on a previous conversation-- corporations can play a governmental role. And I think one of things we're all suggesting is that we have to shed our formal understanding of what government and citizenship is and look at the deep functions of what's happening. I'm going to spend some time talking about contract farming. Hopefully terrify you into seeing that that's the future of work and that radically changes the relationship of people to power. But first, I just want to use one of the oldest or one of the more terrifying examples of corporations by access to a choke point playing a governing rule. And this is the credit monopolies in the late 19th century. So late 19th century, credit monopolies in regions controlled all access to credit. So that meant that freed slaves looking for credit with which to be able to rent land had to go to a local store owner, who also had the only access to credit. And the local store owner charged totally usurious rates. And it's quite clear they charged more than they should. So we might stop there and say this is on its face unfair. But it was more than the rates. It was actually a governing relationship because the credit monopolist would say, I'm only going to lend to you if you shop at my store because I also provide all the dry goods. That effectively shut out any competitors who might come in and land at a lower level. Because if they came in, nobody was going to shop at their store because you'd lose the excess to credit. But they also said you can only plant cotton, even in cases where cotton was not the most profitable crop. Because cotton was not a product that the farmers could then use to build self-sufficiency and get out of their relationship with a credit monopolist. It had to be shipped north. They couldn't basically cultivate the land in ways to escape this governing relationship. So farming is often-- and in fact, without the boll weevil and other changes, it might have gone on for even longer. But this was an effective central role in the suppression of citizenship for African-Americans for over 40 years is the choke point of the credit monopolists. So farming is often both an example in itself terrifying, but also an example of what else is happening in a society. So I think we should always look to farming to see-- look at the nature of work. So I'm going to spend a few minutes talking about contract farming. If you are a chicken farmer, you basically have to find a way to get your chicken to market, right? So right now, in the United States, 95% of chicken farmers are basically stuck in a system where the only way they can get their chicken to market is they go through Perdue, Pilgrims, or Tyson. And if they don't go through those three, they just can't get their chickens to market. So this sounds OK, right? But these choke points-- Tyson, Perdue, Pilgrims-- play this governing relationship to the chicken farmer. They don't just extract value saying basically you have to pay these high fees to get your chickens to market. They also say to the chicken farmer, well, if you want us to distribute your chickens, you are going to have to use the hatched eggs that we provide. You are going to have to use the exact specification of the chicken houses that we tell you. You are going to have to use our advisors. You are going to have to use our watering system. You are going to have to use our dimming system. You are going to have to use our feed. And if you don't, that's fine. You are free. We just won't take your chickens to market. Now, the chicken farmers have taken out a loan typically around $1 million. And so if those chickens don't go to market, they're totally bankrupt. So you can see how, first of all, this allows for the distributor to extract enormous amount of value. And you may see both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren talking about how farmers get $0.20 per dollar or less now than they did 30 years ago for all the food that goes to market. But it's not just that. They also sign contracts that say they can't talk to their neighbors about how much Tyson is paying them. So embedded in the contract, there is isolation, social isolation. You can't even talk to the farmer you hate. So when you think of social, it's not just about solidarity. It's about the entire complicated community that comes along with economic life. You can't tell how much you have been paid. And if suddenly your chicken production goes way down, you don't know whether it's because Tyson is experimenting on you or not. Essentially, they've created a panopticon-like arrangement. You may be familiar with Bentham's panopticon. The jailer sits in the center and can see all the behaviors of the different people, but they can't see each other. So Tyson can choose. Well, let's just experiment on some feed. We'll try these five farmers with some new feed because they are forced to take the feed and they are forced not to know what else is happening. So think about what this does to you as a person. Don't forget the wage effect. But think about the kind of paranoia that arises when you are subject to the whims and experimentation of this choke point upon whom you depend. It also brings this extraordinary amount of fear-- political fear-- and pockets where the free speech rights that you may be given by the Constitution don't exist. In 2010, when there were a series of hearings on chicken farmers, several people reported that the chicken farmers weren't showing up for the hearings because they're not stupid. Perdue can cut them off and make them go bankrupt if they speak up, and they won't know whether or not it's because they spoke up or not. So essentially, this contract farming, which is what it's called, or chickenization, has cut out the farmers tongues. This isn't just chicken farming. Think about Uber drivers. What we see now is in the realm that we call technology, a lot of sort of distraction around the shiny nature of calling various things technology, which are basically just introducing the chicken farming contract farming model to the nature of work. So who owns the information in an Uber kind of relationship? Theoretically, the drivers are free. This is the whole sort of story about the gig economy, which is described as technologically determined as opposed to the nature of market organization. But the Uber driver can get cut off without a reason. I talked to some organizers who-- I'm hopefully going to meet him soon-- but were talking to an Uber driver who was cut off because a passenger attacked him. So because he was engaged in an altercation, Uber said, we don't want to be anywhere near that. But there's no appeal to Uber. There's no way to appeal because Uber is just providing this service, this platform. It's just in the private realm, right? But like the Tyson relationship to the farmer, there's a fundamental surveillance panopticon relationship happening where Uber can see all the drivers, can choose to experiment, can choose to send them to go one way or choose to experiment in all kinds of different economic forms. They can experiment well or they can experiment badly. By the way, we have to get rid of this idea that just because people are dominant in the market means they're smart. World history is littered with armies marching in the wrong direction. [LAUGHTER] So power does not mean intelligence, but it does being an incredible new relationship of the worker to these choke points. Seamless, which also owns Grubhub, they are chickenizing restaurants. Imagine if you go to Seamless and look for pizza. They can disappear your local restaurant by just choosing not to have them there and charge high fees. The full scope of that may not be happening. But when we look at the future, by owning what we call the platform, they have incredible power. And they change the relationship of whether it's the restaurant owner or the Uber driver or the chicken farmer not just to their work, but to their entire life, because you are put in a position of informational isolation. You're typically contracted out of the ability to sue. Required to go to private courts called in this gentle language, arbitration, alternative conflict resolution, which is basically a form of privatizing and isolating people's legal disputes from the public. So you have isolated, paranoid, dependent workers. And this is the direction that work is taking. More and more, work is contracted out. We can look at it in sort of gross economic terms. And I use "gross" in both senses of the word. [LAUGHTER] That more and more people are moving into outsourcing the liabilities. Basically, the Uber driver takes on the risk of the car. The chicken farmer takes on the risk of the chicken house. The restaurant takes on the risk of all the loans and what we call these platforms, distributors, don't take on any of that risk. And that's gross in that sense. But it's also gross in what it does to us as people. It turns us from a citizens into denizens. Now, what I've been talking about so far are just the minor lords of our current system. The major lords are Amazon, Google, Facebook, Monsanto, Walmart. Again, we kind of get the categories wrong. We tend to think about things in terms of tech or not tech. But tech doesn't describe what is going on. First of all, these are conglomerates. Google about a company a week in 2011. Facebook bought Instagram. Amazon is a conglomerate of the Cloud and a platform. They're neither natural nor platforms. Even the language of "platform" and "tech," both of them make us think it's about technology. And it's essentially neutral, but maybe with a little stuff at the margins. They're not platforms. They're choke points. And they're not tech. They're new business model. So if Uber chickenizes drivers, Amazon chickenizes consumer goods. Imagine you are Bounty. Not that I have any great love for Bounty. They already monopolized or quasi-monopolized the paper towel market. They already are a problem. So it's not like we want to go back to the good old days of Bounty. But Amazon's product can treat Bounty the way that Tyson treats chicken farmer. Spy on it, survey it, learn from it, experiment on it, shift it around in your answers to the question what paper towels should I buy? Squeeze it. Demand that Bounty pay its workers less because they know all the information about Bounty's business model, and therefore can say, we're going to set the price here. Because if you want to get your paper towels to market, this is the way they're coming because you're consumer goods and we're Amazon. Right? But it can also then study and say, well, we want to actually-- now we've studied Bounty well enough. We actually think there's a pretty decent profit margin there. We're just going to imitate Bounty and make our own paper towels and sell our own paper towels. So using the producers of consumer goods across the country as subjects in experiments. We talk about citizenship. And the opposite of citizenship is denizenship and being subjected. So that turns these formerly free business owners into unfree business owners. Now, some of them are terrible business owners. But if we do not have the space for freedom in our economic sphere, there's a real cost there. So I want to end with-- first of all, clearly, we need a pretty significant revolution not only to stop this growing contract farming of the nature of work. By the way, journalists, publishers. Who are they contract farmers for? Facebook and Google. Facebook can and did change the algorithm, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer goes out of business. It could change it back, and a news organization could come back into business. They are essential choke points that can not only squeeze value out of news organizations, but decide whether or not they live or die. And by the way, they are trying to ingratiate ourselves with us for recognizing some degree of their role in the murder of journalism by funding non-profit journalism. This is like the tyrant saying, don't worry. I'm putting out my own publications. [LAUGHTER] So instead of cheering them for taking control over more of journalism, we should make sure that our central communications network doesn't have this choke point kind of relationship. OK. So we clearly need a radical reformation. One of the things then in this moment-- which I hope is a revolutionary moment because when [INAUDIBLE] talks about solidarity, I think about the suicides of taxi drivers and the suicides of farmers, both of whom are living in situations of despair. And then if we can start to as a society see that they are both chickenized in similar ways, there's opportunities for solidarity to take on these choke points that will hopefully help this revolution happen. One of the things that I hope that we aim for in this revolution is something that the Dalai Lama tweeted this morning. [LAUGHS] He said, "Any idea that concern for others, though a quality, is a matter for our private lives only is short-sighted. Compassion belongs to every sphere of activity, including, of course, the workplace." Now, this seems like this might be an uncontroversial topic, conceit even on the left. But in my last few minutes, I just want to plant the seed that the idea that the economic sphere is a sphere of freedom and moral development is actually a fairly controversial on both the left and right right now. You've seen a transformation on the left from Hayek, who saw the economic sphere as a place for essential moral development to the modern neoliberals like Gautier, who say that basically moral development should happen outside the economic sphere. We should be radically profit maximizing so that we can maximize efficiencies and then go be moral elsewhere. Be moral in our church lives, in our community life, in our private lives. Morality belongs to the private sphere. But you actually see a mirror image in many thinkers on the left who have basically given up the market as an irredeemable space. They fundamentally associate the language of markets, the fact of a market, the fact of a kind of private exchange with a radical corruption of morality. And we see this in basically Sandel fighting with Sandel. I say that because I'm at Harvard, for those of you who know him. There's an old Sandel who believed in the redeemability of markets, and there's a new Sandel who in 2012 wrote a book about the corruption that markets have in our private sphere, assuming that market logic was necessarily immoral, or at best, amoral logic. And I think what we have to do is as we reconstruct a new economy, reconstruct meaningful freedom, including moral freedom, embedded so that we can just be paid well, but be compassionate and loving in our private and our economic life. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] - So all of our panelists have in some ways complicated the conventional narrative of economics citizenship that I introduced the panel with. I'd like to do two things. I think we want to have some limited discussion among the panel. I'd like to get all three of you talking to one another. And then after that, we're going to take questions from the audience. And four questions came to mind as I listened to your remarks. And you don't have to respond to my question. You can respond to each other. It doesn't matter. But here's four quick questions. There's a tension in your presentations between critiques of dominant discourses of economic citizenship, be they discourses grounded in notions of US citizenship, which is sort of imposed from above; economic citizenship imposed by corporations; and citizenship from the perspective of those who are dominated. How do we sort of get both on the table? Related to this, particular, Rosita Worl reminds us that there are many forms of economic citizenship which have been used by the subalterns to mobilize alternative frameworks for citizenship. I mean, this complicated, complex question of native citizenship in Alaska, the corporation of the tribes, the clans. Of course, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act is a congressional statute. Of course, it's in some measure imposed from above all those. But yeah, it's complicated. It was a compromise. But subaltern groups are using this thing to construct their own forms of citizenship. There are questions of plural citizenship within the nation state. "Membership" means so many things. Being an Uber driver, being a farmer, being a member of an Alaska Native corporation. What is citizenship? Has it lost its analytic power when we apply the term to so many things? And finally, is formal citizenship just blasé? We don't really talk in our discussion today about the thing that's been on lots of people's mind. 10 years ago, it was a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented. And now we're talking about all these sort of sublevels of citizenship. Formal citizenship, is it blasé? Is it passé? Does it belong in this discussion? But you guys can take any of that or anything that comes to mind. Let's do quick responses to the panel to one another. - Well, great questions. I don't think it's blasé at all, [LAUGHS] to answer your lesson question. And the thing that comes to mind to me is the extraordinary organizing of Driscoll farm workers in the last few years, who have been organizing in Washington state, many of whom are undocumented. And so they're playing at a sort of double subjugation role, both being political members of the larger political community while being undocumented. I talked about certain forms of fear, but there's a double fear that comes along with the (LAUGHING) fear of deportation and a terrifying fear of deportation. And so I think we sort of have to combine both and see a real failure in formal citizenship. This wasn't a conversation about formal citizenship. But there is a renal failure in formal citizenship when it doesn't recognize those who are essential parts of our community as citizens. And a lot of what I talked about were sort of the former quote, unquote, "middle class" Driscoll workers. Sorry. I'm sort of winding back to monopoly [LAUGHS] because I always end up there. But Driscoll farm workers are protesting-- what they did is they recognized they didn't need to just protest against their local supplier. It was actually Driscoll who was the key. So that they are subject to Driscoll, but lacking the full scope of rights in the formal realm necessarily has a chilling impact on their ability to exercise their rights in the private realm as well. So I don't think it's irrelevant at all. - Any of these questions or other questions. Doesn't matter. [LAUGHS] - You know, we fought really hard for citizenship because we wanted to control the institutions that were controlling our lives. And if we didn't have the right to vote, then we couldn't become legislators, we couldn't become teachers, what not, controlling those institutions. But yet, what happened was that in order to become citizens and have the right to vote, it meant that we had to start losing some of the things that we had as indigenous people. And we had these examples where our people would practice learning English. And they have these sessions, and they'd all say, spell cat. C-A-T. C-A-T. C-A-T. Then they would have a test. Who can spell cat? Somebody would raise their hand and says, I can. A-C-T. A-C-T. A-C-T. So in going for something that we thought was going to be beneficial to us, we found out that we were losing things. The same thing in the native corporations. We wanted to have control over our land and our resources. And we did not want to have the government say that this is what you can do with your lands. We found out from our brothers and sisters in the lower 48 that had reservations. Our vets would come back home, and they would find out that the Bureau of Indian Affairs had leased out their lands to ranchers and farmers. And so we said we don't want to do that. And so we went for a fee-simple title, and we went for corporations. We didn't know what corporations were. But we knew that under corporations, you could hold land under fee-simple title. But then we found out that, well, that means you have to develop your land. And we didn't want to develop our land. But yet, we were supposed to be profit making corporations. And so we found out that a lot of times, we had a lot of internal conflicts. And so we went to Congress, and we said, OK, let's create land banks so that we could put our land into land banks so we wouldn't have to develop the land so that they wouldn't be taxable. So what happened was that we were looking for a benefit, but then we'd find out that it was offset by something, some requirement. In our area, we have trees. We live in a beautiful rain forest. And so we started harvesting trees. And we didn't feel good about it either. Let me tell you. We shouldn't feel good, but we knew it was our duty to be making some money for our people and giving them dividends, providing them jobs. And we would do these tree ceremonies. And here we are thanking the spirit of the trees for allowing us to use them. But then when we saw that we almost cut down all of our old growth, we said something's wrong here. So we actually went on a retreat and said, what do we do? We're conflicting with our own core cultural values. So it was about 15 years ago that we really did a reassessment of where we're going as native people with these native corporations. And we also found out we weren't getting rid of poverty either. We still are very impoverished people. And so we said, OK, how do we harvest our trees without cutting them down? How do we make money without cutting them down? So we started searching forest certification. We started studying mitigation banks. We started studying carbon sequestration. And I tell you, I was so proud when we got into carbon sequestration. But then my granddaughter comes home and says, look at what you're doing to this earth. Look at what you're doing to this earth. I thought we were doing something good with carbon sequestration. So for us, it's been this whole dilemma of trying to figure out how do we live in this world? And we brought our core cultural balance values back to the forefront. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] means "our land." It means we have this spiritual relationship to the land. But it also means we utilize the land. So we found out you know that are our traditional religious practices were not going to mitigate the negative impacts on our environment. So we ended up hiring teams of scientists to try to help us figure out. Anyway, we're right in the midst all of this trying to figure out how do we maintain our core cultural values? How do we make sure that our land is protected for future generations and in accordance with one of our other core cultural values? I think we have a lot of dilemmas. But what I think is that we're fortunate in that we still have measure of control where we're trying to figure out things. But one of the things we learned is we need to have our children educated. And so we're sending our kids off to school and saying, we need to figure out how do we live in this New World? And I want to thank Harvard for educating a lot of our tribal members from southeast Alaska. But it's a journey that we're on. I don't have all of the answers. But I do know that we have core cultural values that have sustained us in our homeland for 10,000 years. We know that conclusively and scientifically. So we're trying to figure it out. But we don't have all the answers. - That's great. Just to pick up on a couple of those themes, I mean, I think this idea of citizenship and control and the way in which that control then is further conditioned or restricted is really powerful and a through line for all of us. I think in some ways what we're all touching upon is that for citizenship to be real, to have real meaning and force, that democratic control has to spread well beyond the kind of formal political realm to respond to these other types of conditioning or restricting of voice and accountability. And so even if we think about-- in some ways, the exclusion of membership has this hydraulics to it. You can gain control and membership in one domain, but then have the rug pulled out from under you in another domain. Gain political voice, but then you don't have economic voice, or vise versa, right? And so that kind of sense of whack-a-mole is I think part of what we're all trying to trying to get at. I think maybe the last thing I'll add here is that I think the unmasking of those hidden forms of control, whether it's through the conditions attached to property claims or the kind of private governance of the platforms that Zephyr was talking about. We need different models of democratic institutions and of collective action that can create the types of inclusive empowerment that respond to these other types of control. And so it's this constant experimentation, if you will, about different vehicles for collective action that aren't just the formal voting franchise, but extend to other domains as well. - OK. All right. So that's great. I think it's time for a conversation that extends to all of us. So we're going to have questions from the audience. I will remind everyone of four things. We have a microphone at the center aisle. Please come to the microphone to ask a question. This panel is being recorded. It'd be great if your question can be on the recording. Second, identify yourself. Who are you? Maybe your name. [LAUGHTER] Third, ask a question-- [LAUGHTER] --rather than just offering a comment. And fourth, don't repeat questions. Everybody, just come up with something that somebody before them didn't ask. - I'm short, so I'm putting this down. [LAUGHS] Thank you very much for all that you've said and shown to us. My name is Elise Forbes Tripp. And I happened to have been involved in a film that included North Carolina and North Carolina's voter suppression. And one thing you've done for me today-- we're just finishing the film-- is show that probably the powers that be aren't just trying to suppress African-American vote. It's poor, poverty that they are suppressing, hearing from people who are not in the economic forefront. I wonder how you respond to that, the question of the economic reasons for suppressing the vote? - Are we collecting questions? - No. I think we'll do them one by one. And either one or all can respond. - Great. So just a quick thought on that. Thank you for the question. I mean, I think it's very closely related. I mean, it's very much about reasserting a kind of racial hierarchy, but also a political and economic one. Voter suppression is a really good example of how one of those front lines for suppressing citizenship. You formally have the right to vote, but then there are all these hidden mechanisms that can be exploited, weaponized to restrict who actually is able to vote. And that has kind of racial and economic kind of focus, right? It's not just neutral across the board. So I think it's a really good example of some of the dimensions we're talking about. - And even more explicitly, the funders at the time of the initial Thom Tillis pushed voter suppression bill in North Carolina-- the bill was based on a model bill created by ALEC, which many of you may be familiar with. The American Legislative Exchange Council. At the time, ALEC was funded by AT&T, Google, Amazon, all of these different characters. One of the more successful anti corporate efforts in recent years was an effort to get many of those corporations to stop funding ALEC. But the truth is they did in the first place. And it took a lot of-- eventually actually left ALEC largely because of ALEC's funding of stand your ground gun laws. But we're relatively comfortable funding ALEC, saying it was because of other reasons while ALEC was involved in aggressively pushing the most draconian explicitly race based voter suppression law in the country. And I think it's important because we sometimes will look at a place like-- well, anywhere-- but like North Carolina and hold up the lawmakers who are pushing it as the primary drivers. But we have to understand that one of the key drivers inflaming racial hatred and division in North Carolina was AT&T, Google, and the other funders in this case. And meanwhile, AT&T is also funding the NAACP. So it's kind of a double-- making sure the fingers are in every pot. What they'll say is well, we just want to make sure that nobody can sue anybody. I mean, a lot of the reasons people fund ALEC is because of their-- they want put it like that-- but [LAUGHS] a lot of reasons the big corporations fund ALEC is to gut access to the courts. And it's just detritus. It's just sort of a side effect that we were suppressing the vote. But I think that's not acceptable. [LAUGHS] - My question go-- first of all, my name is Julia Carpenter. And communication-- and I don't know if you've heard the Ted Talk about "the other" where we can't seem to talk to each other. It's not just a matter of not being able to see the person. It's like when you see them, there's no communication. Nobody listens. Everybody's talking. How do we communicate? For instance, PBS, NPR, all of that-- the funding of that, you don't know where that's coming from. You don't know the influences behind the screen. How do you keep up to date or how do you communicate to get people to come together and to act together? [INTERPOSING VOICES] - Only that. [LAUGHTER] Well, for starters, this is not a complete answer, but it is, I think, a partial, essential answer. Too, we have essential communications infrastructure in our country. Telephone company, the mail. Imagine if the American mail service started out as a surveillance model that basically the way that mail carriers were going to make money is by reading everybody's mail and then pitching them whatever goods was the best way to pitch them. We would find that kind of problematic. It's necessarily going to distort the flow of mail and shape what happens in that essential communications infrastructure. Well, right now, we have Google and Facebook, two essential communications infrastructure, whose entire business model is based on surveillance and sales. So it's almost like if you had an essential transportation infrastructure-- I think maybe the easier model for me was the bus. If our buses made money off surveillance, they would, first of all, keep us in the bus a lot longer, right? So you have to stay in the bus as long as possible because then they can overhear our conversations more and be focused on selling you stuff. Well, right now, we have Facebook and Google, whose incentive is to make us addicted and to surveil us and make money off us. We do not have to have essential communications infrastructure that is distorting our information in this way. We don't have to. We didn't have to have a mail service that way. We didn't have to have a phone service that way. And we can say that essential communications infrastructure cannot be surveillance based. You cannot have a digital ad based surveillance infrastructure. We can do that. It's not a complete answer, but it sure would help as a start. - Anybody else? Communication? - Well, you would think this is something I would know and could master. Because in Alaska, we have our native versus non-native. We have our rural versus urban. And the lack of communication has been a great problem for us. And for my own little organization, we said that we adopted a mission to promote cross-cultural understanding and support cultural diversity. And we had to spend a lot of time educating non-native people about who we are. And I actually have to pay teachers to come in and take courses from us to learn, because we pay them, and they can get their credit. And they're really important because they're the ones that teach our children. And so in Alaska, we've spent tons of money trying to reach out to the other, to educate them about-- like our hunting and fishing rights. We still are dependent on hunting and fishing for our survival, plus a cultural attachment to the land. But we have commercial hunters and fishers, and we have sports people that control everything. We take only 2% of hunting and fishing resources for our subsistence purposes. But yet people want to-- they talk about equality, this whole issue of equality and say we have to be all equal. And I said, well, OK, I like that. How about if we have one third of all the fisheries and resources? Because right now, we're only getting 2%? But I don't know. It's just something that we live and breathe with all of the time, trying to reach out. How do we get to communicate with people? And I was thinking about the other question that was asked. For the last three or four censuses, when we do a reapportionment, I've sat on that reapportionment board for about four times trying to make sure that we could have our votes protected, our rights to vote, and making our votes count. And to me, it feels like I'm always in a battle. I'm always in a battle trying to maintain my rights as a citizen. And I don't have all the answers, but we just keep trying. And we keep trying to talk to people. I don't know the answers. - Good morning. My name is Ned Bacon. Three of four of you are active participants and deeply invested in higher education. Higher education particularly in our country is a major choke point to economic citizenship. And I'd be very interested in your three personal thoughts about that as well as maybe some policy solutions that would get our country to a more public good aspect of education the way you see it in places like Norway and other developed economies. - Anybody? - Well, again, this is something that we live and breathe is education and higher education. And we've attacked it on different realms. Number one, by providing a lot of scholarships from our native corporations. And so all of our corporations have scholarship programs, but that's not enough. We know that we have a lot of academic deficiencies. And so we spend a lot of our time teaching-- like math. I found out that our native kids weren't making it into college because they couldn't pass. They got into Cal College, but couldn't pass Math 106. So we started math programs all over, teaching, but using our cultural base. So we would teach math in a basket. We would teach around our own kinds of technology. We would teach math around the environment, things that our children saw and lived. We would make it relevant to their experiences. But then we also found out you know that we have to take over the university system. So [LAUGHS] we started putting our people on the board of regions. And I mean, you have to be able to control those systems to make it work for you. Otherwise, if you don't, you're going to have-- well, some of you might like charter schools and things like that. I found out that it only goes for those who have the means to go to charter schools. When we were working on our education, our native teachers came and said-- I said, should we start our own charter school? They said, nope. You have to work to make education good for all of our children. And so you have to attack it at multiple levels for higher education. This is not only scholarships, but it's also seeing what is preventing our children from moving forward. If it's reintroducing and changing the curricula at the high school and even earlier. We have a Baby Raven Reads project where we're teaching our children how to read. But the other part of it is also teaching our parents how to be good parents. A lot of our people were taken and put into boarding schools. And so they never learned how to be parents. So the school was something that was-- parenting was kind of alien to them. And I just can't believe that for us as native people, how we love and cherish families. But we didn't have the basic mechanics. So, again, it's at multiple levels that you have to attack issue of higher education. - I'll just add really quickly, the defunding of our higher education-- so the defunding of the system of higher education the last few decades has coincided with-- and it's not a coincidence-- with the moment at which the cohort of students attending higher education is the most racially diverse cohort in the history of the country. And so what you are actually facing is this is one of those front lines for that kind of unequal membership, I think, that we are all talking about. What we actually have now is a system of higher education that is highly tiered by race and by class. When you think about the ways in which, say, for profit colleges are subbing in for a defunded public higher education system and how extractive those for profit college mechanisms are. And then when you think about the way in which by design, public policy, especially the last few years, has tried to further defund the public education system and unleash that type of predatory higher education policies. And so in terms of solution, I mean, I think there's a lot of-- in the same way that there's a big debate right now about health care and universal access to health care, debt free college, and tuition free college, and different ways, I think, are a key part of that policy fight. There's a good argument that the focus really should be on debt free rather than just tuition free. Because when you add up all the different ways in which the financialized higher education system can create decade's worth of economic suppression for people, especially low income students and students of color who have to bear the burden of student debt for the rest of their lives. We're in a student debt crisis in this country. And that's part of what needs to be solved. - OK. - [CLEARS THROAT] Hi. My name's Heather Hoffman. And I'm here to ask for help in getting my fellow residents of this gorgeous city to believe that not only is democracy not a spectator sport, but that they should take part. Not just here, but across the country, we're turning government over to private corporations in so many ways. You can think of things like athletic stadiums where we take people's land so the government can turn it over to a private corporation that has enough money to pay people millions and millions of dollars a year to play. Locally, we have things like a toxic courthouse that is toxic not just because of the toxics in it, but toxic because it's gigantic compared to the neighborhood around it. And the only way the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the city of Cambridge can figure out how to deal with it is to turn it over to a private corporation. And then because that's not enough, have to turn over more public property to a private corporation. And what I see of my fellow citizens is a whole lot of what can we do about it? So what are ways to convince people that we deserve to be treated better and that we can demand it? - Yeah. That's a great question. Two things I'd say. I mean, one is that cycle that you're describing actually even starts even further back with the defunding of the kind of public arena more broadly, right? Cut taxes, then there's less revenue at the city and state level, then that forces a kind of austerity for state and local policies, which then seems to require the privatization [CLEARS THROAT] of those things that we think are central to a public. Public schools, public goods of all kinds. And so there's a resource question at the very back. But the wealth is there. It's just now locked away and hoarded in other pockets, right? And so if you add up all the resources available to us as a country, it's just not being channeled into public investments. So there's a policy answer in terms of how to get there. I mean, I'd actually argue that it's less about people being apathetic and not being interested in the issue and more that people don't believe that we're actually going to be able to win, right? And that I think just means zeroing in on the kinds of puppet masters behind the scenes that Zephyr was talking about. There are deliberate class interests and corporate interests at play that benefit from a defunded public sector. And often, lurking behind many layers of shell companies and kind of-- you have to kind of trace it all the way back. So I think part of it is identifying who the villains are in the story. All right? And then making the case not just that this ought to be something that we do, but that it's actually achievable. And part of what's potentially exciting I think about the debate we're having right now is that there's a degree of boldness and an unabashed ambition about economic policy ideas right now, which I think is pretty unusual and really has to be leaned into. - OK. We're unfortunately at time. So in the interest of time, I think that's going to have to be the last question. But this is a conversation that's going to continue the rest of the day at the conference. And it's going to continue outside this conference. So please feel free to continue it. I want to do two things. My colleague, Daniel Carpenter, is going to talk and say a few words about what comes next. But I also want to thank our wonderful panelists. [APPLAUSE] [MUSIC PLAYING]



Following the excesses of the 13th Arizona Territorial Legislature, the U.S. Congress had passed the "Harrison Act" which placed limits on territorial debt.[3] The act further prevented territorial legislatures from granting divorces or name changes.[4] After the election of President Grover Cleveland, C. Meyer Zulick had replaced Frederick Augustus Tritle as Governor of Arizona Territory.[5] As for events in the Apache Wars, Geronimo had surrendered on September 9, 1886, ending large scale hostilities within the territory.[6]

Legislative session

The session began on January 10, 1887, and ran for 60 days. During the session a number of the legislature's members contracted mumps and measles.[2] Of the 102 bills passed by the session, two were vetoed.[7]

Governor's address

Governor Zulick sent his address to the legislature in writing on the first day of the session.[1] He began by discussing the end of the Apache Wars, saying "The gratitude of the people of Arizona is due the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Interior for the removal of these Indians, who have for more than a quarter century stood a barrier to the progress of the Territory, a constant and ever present menace to it prosperity."[8] He then went on to thank General Nelson A. Miles and his officers for their role in the capture and relocation of Geronimo.[7] With the hostile Apaches dealt with, the governor believed it was finally possible to fully develop Arizona's wealth.[7]

Zulick went on to discuss the effects of the "Harrison Act".[4] Dealing with territorial taxation, the governor noted various counties performed property assessments in different ways and he believed most assessments were undervalued.[4] He then requested county courts be consolidated into district courts as a cost-saving method.[4]

Water availability was an important issue to the governor and he desired to see construction of water canals, noting "the Territory should never surrender control of its water supply; it is the people's heritage and should be controlled in their interest."[4] As for education he reported that a site had been secured on which to build the territorial university. A further 12 new school districts had been created since the last session, bringing the territorial total to 130.[7] In other matters, Zulick asked for a revision to be performed to the territorial legal code.[4] He also wanted the repeal of a law passed during previous session that disenfranchised Mormons.[4]


Compared to the previous session's outlay of US$294,323.00, the fourteenth legislature only authorized a meager US$44,216.73.[7] The first cut expense came with the elimination of the territorial position of Commissioner of Immigration.[2] The session was not all cost cutting as it authorized US$1,200/year in supplemental pay for justices of the Arizona Territorial Supreme Court. This was in addition to their regular pay received from the Federal government.[7]

In other actions, the session created a territorial lottery.[7] A proposal to create "Frisco" county, with its seat in Flagstaff was defeated. The proposal would be revived in a later session with the creation of Coconino County.[9]

The best remembered action of the session was creation of a Live Stock Sanitary Board.[2] This was accompanied by a set of laws requiring cattle ranchers to register their brands with their county recorder along with others intended to protect against the spread of infectious diseases.[10]


Based upon the authority granted by the new livestock laws, Governor Zulick imposed a 90-day quarantine upon imported Mexican cattle, similar to the existing quarantine on imported European cattle. This caused a potential diplomatic incident as the Mexican government protested the new requirement and suggested that they might impose a similar quarantine. A diplomatic incident was avoided when it was determined the Arizona quarantine violated the U.S. Congress' constitutional authority to regulate international trade. While the quarantine was overruled, it did establish the principle of protecting against infectious disease and prompt the Congress into action on the subject.[10]


House of Representatives[11]
Name County Name County
J. Q. Adamson Apache Robert N. Leatherwood Pima
Henry T. Andrews Yavapai A. McKay Pima
W. H. Ashurst Yavapai D. H. Ming Graham
Charles Baker Yuma A. G. Oliver Yavapai
A. A. Bean Pima B. L. Peel Cochise
J. M. Bracewell Cochise J. B. Scott Pima
P. F. Collins Mohave James Scott Apache
Andrew J. Doran Pinal John Y. T. Smith Maricopa
O. C. Felton Yavapai Eugene J. Trippel Gila
J. J. Fisher Yavapai Samuel F. Webb (Speaker) Maricopa
M. Gray Cochise Scott White Cochise
F. W. Heyne Cochise C. R. Wores Pima
Name County
J. W. Anderson Pinal
L. W. Blinn Cochise
J. H. Breed Apache
E. L. Burdick Mohave
A. Cornwell (President) Northern District
Charles R. Drake Pima
C. B. Foster Yavapai
L. H. Goodrich Maricopa
Isaac Lyons Yuma
P. C. Robertson Gila
George H. Stevens Graham
W. C. Watkins Southern District
  • The Northern District was composed of Apache, Maricopa, Mohave, Yuma, and Yavapai counties, while the Southern District encompassed Cochise, Gila, Graham, Pima, and Pinal counties.


  1. ^ a b Goff 1978, p. 101.
  2. ^ a b c d McClintock 1916, p. 337.
  3. ^ Wagoner 1970, pp. 239–40.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g Goff 1978, p. 102.
  5. ^ Goff 1978, p. 98.
  6. ^ Wagoner 1970, p. 235.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g Wagoner 1970, p. 240.
  8. ^ Goff 1978, pp. 101–2.
  9. ^ Wagoner 1970, pp. 240–1.
  10. ^ a b Wagoner 1970, p. 241.
  11. ^ a b Wagoner 1970, p. 518.
  • Goff, John S. (1978). Arizona Territorial Officials Volume II: The Governors 1863–1912. Cave Creek, Arizona: Black Mountain Press. OCLC 5100411.
  • McClintock, James H. (1916). Arizona, Prehistoric, Aboriginal, Pioneer, Modern  Vol. II. Chicago: S. J. Clarke.
  • Wagoner, Jay J. (1970). Arizona Territory 1863–1912: A Political history. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. ISBN 0-8165-0176-9.
This page was last edited on 8 September 2019, at 06:02
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.