The reaction of Native Alaskans to the Silver Hand legislation has been mixed. While some artists see it as a viable method of protecting their culture and heritage, others consider it to be limiting and think it does more harm than good.

Favorable Reactions

In terms of preventing tourists from making misinformed purchases, many artists see the Silver Hand as a positive. A 2007 article interviewed several artists, who see the certificate of authenticity guaranteed by the tag as helpful in keeping shoppers from being fooled by wrongly-identified ‘Native’ souvenirs. For artists who need sales to make a living and provide for their families,
deceptive artwork is not only culturally but financially damaging.

“Silver Hand protects the Native people who create from their own identity, from their own culture. It protects us from being imitated.” –Othniel “Art” Oomittuk Jr., Inupiat mask carver

Negative Responses

Although it seems straightforward that Native artists can be identified by the Silver Hand tag, not all artists take part in the program. Approximately one third of all Native artists are enrolled, according to the program director. 1,250 Native artists are members of the Alaska Native Arts Foundation, and not even all of those are enrolled.

 “Some of our members just say, ‘Well, I’m Native, and I produce art, I don’t need the government to tell me what kind of artist I am.”
 –Trina Landlord, ANAF director

Furthermore, there are many who don’t see the program as necessary. One argument is that non-Native artists should be the ones required to identify their wares; the onus shouldn’t be on Natives to prove their heritage.

“It shouldn’t be Natives having to identify their stuff. The responsibility should lie on the non-Native producer. Anything that is non-Native-produced ought to make the declaration. And if they don’t there should be hefty fines.”
 –Mick Beasley, Tlingit artist