The Denali debate continues

It has become a regular feature of the US legislative session. The tactics unchanged for so many years. The session opens and the Ohio delegation introduces legislation to prevent the adoption of the name Denali for our continent's highest peak. The legislation is never debated, never voted on, never adopted. It doesn't need to be. This is a case where the mere suggestion of legislation has the same effect as enacting that legislation as law. As described in an editorial in yesterday's Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, this legislative sleight-of-hand relies on a bureaucratic policy maintained by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names. The policy states:

"The U.S. Board of Geographic Names will not render a decision on a name or its application if the matter is also being considered by the Congress of the United States.”

Having a bill pending before Congress--even a bill which will never be considered or acted on--counts as "being considered" by Congress, so the Board is powerless to act. Except, as the News-Miner editorial points out, the rule which currently binds the Board was put in place by the Board itself. In theory the Board could change its mind at any time and withdraw the rule that blocks Denali. What the News-Miner overlooks is the political nature of such a rule change. The Board is a part of the Department of Interior, an agency which receives its funding from Congress, so there is little incentive for the Board to risk ruffling feathers by changing this rule.

As we noted in a previous post, the Board of Geographic Names actually endorsed the name Denali back in 1975. It was that act that initiated the biennial Ohio legislative trickery. Unsurprisingly, this is an issue which crosses the usual partisan political lines. The anti-Denali campaign was for many years led by a Republican, Rep. Ralph Regula. Now the latest salvo has been launched by Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan. But this time Alaska is returning the favor. On January 28th -- five days after Ryan filed his anti-Denali legislation -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski again filed legislation supporting the adoption of the name Denali. The question is, will Murkowski's proposed legislation stand any more chance of seeing the light of day than Ryan's?

That remains to be seen. Unfortunately, all this debate about history and legislative actions and which is the "rightful" name overlooks the most significant aspect of the name debate. As E.J.R. David notes in a Feb 1 Anchorage Daily News opinion piece, calling the mountain McKinley "perpetuates oppression. It sends the message that a white man's name is more official, desired, recognized, and acceptable." By pretending that the debate is about whether or not to recognize a former President, we lose sight of the potential impact of place names on the present and future generations. There can be no doubt that Denali is the original indigenous name for the mountain, and the name McKinley a colonial invention which deliberately ignores the existing name. Nor can there be any doubt that, as Dr. David points out, continued opposition to the name Denali is a form of oppression which only serves as a reminder of Alaska's rather dark colonial past. Do we really need such a prominent geographic reminder of cultural oppression? Adoption of the name Denali will not erase President McKinley from the history books (or Wikipedia pages); nor will it erase the colonial past. But it could help to inspire a future which not only recognizes but also celebrates the indigenous heritage of Alaska.

As we celebrate the centennial of the first expedition to the summit of Denali, we are reminded that the first person to set foot on that summit was a Native Alaskan, an Athabascan named Walter Harper. This summer the Denali Centennial Expedition will retrace Harper's steps, led by direct descendents of the original expedition members. How fitting it would be to use this occasion to also officially recognize the mountain as Harper would have called it: Denali.