Land as competing overlapping claims
One piece of Alaskan ground is read at once as wilderness to preserve, resource to extract, Native subsistence territory, state revenue base, and a homesteader's refuge. Each claimant's vision is internally coherent, so conflict comes less from ignorance than from incompatible definitions of what the land is for. Setting the claims side by side, rather than picking a hero, shows that 'the land question' is really a contest over meaning.
