and sharing in the dividends. The day-to-day affairs of the corporation were handled by paid managers. The corporation supported hunting and fishing by its shareholders by providing camp sites on corporation land, but the COl:pOration focus was not hunting or fishing activities. The sitnasuak corpor...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.644.6379 http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/A/20668817b.pdf |
| Summary: | and sharing in the dividends. The day-to-day affairs of the corporation were handled by paid managers. The corporation supported hunting and fishing by its shareholders by providing camp sites on corporation land, but the COl:pOration focus was not hunting or fishing activities. The sitnasuak corporation was a major feature of the contemporary Nome economy and polity. But its membership and history were radically different from that of a traditional Inupiat society, and significantly different from the Nome subcommunities described for Kirq Island and Wales. ~INNCME The sitnasuak situation notwithstan:ling, subcommunities were a feature of social and economic life in Nome in 1985. As discussed above, subcommunities of people from King Islam and Wales were relatiVely large and distinct within the conununity as a whole. Aneo:iotal examples suggest that second and third generations were less likely to maintain subcommunity ties than first generation immigrants. Im;migrants ' children, whose natal communities often would be Nome, married across subcommunity and cultural boundaries. The longer subcommunity members lived in Nome, the more the b:Jun:1aries between subcommunities seemed to blur-- except for King Island. Although King Island's presence in Nome is as old as Nome itself, that subcommunity has remained distinct. SUbcomunities were a way for immigrants to continue in the comfortable traditional ways of the Inupiat, while their |
|---|