Of Thieves and Debtors? The Dakota Access Pipeline

Since the beginning of summer 2016, Standing Rock Sioux tribe members and their allies have vehemently and violently opposed the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The DAPL, a 1,200 mile long pipeline and estimated at $3.7 billion, supposedly puts the Standing Rock Sioux’s sacred tribal grounds at risk. Recently, President Trump has issued an executive order to continue with the construction of the pipeline, causing extreme distress.

The DAPL is a more efficient alternative to the current railroad oil transportation system; it also promises to create more revenue for crude oil miners. The DAPL begins in the oil fields of North Dakota and ends in southern Illinois. The director of this pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, has already completed most of the pipeline, excluding the area near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation.

Construction on the pipeline had been halted because of complaints concerning the desecration of sacred burial grounds near the area — namely Sacred Stone, Oceti Sakowin, Red Warrior, and Rosebud Sicangu. Despite the claims made about safety hazards, the sacred lands are located more than two miles north of the burial grounds. A few environmentalists expressed concern that this pipeline would perpetuate fossil fuel mining and contaminate the water sources. Others made claims that the land was stolen away from the Native Americans in an 1868 treaty, and could not be repurposed for profit.

One of President Trump’s new executive orders has strongly encouraged the continuation of construction on the pipeline, yet the question stands: would halting work be an act of respect, in heeding the Standing Rock Sioux’s wishes or wastefulness, in dismantling an expensive and nearly-completed pipeline?

As Americans, we cannot truthfully say that our early historical treatment of Native Americans was anywhere near acceptable. On multiple occasions, settlers cheated them out of their land, as they appeared to be in the way of the settlers' progress. In 1830, Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which gave him authority to remove all Native American tribes into what is now Oklahoma. There is no doubt that our treatment of them has not been fair.

Does our previous maltreatment of Native Americans guarantee their correctness, and right of way in every matter? What does ‘too risky’ mean in circumstances like these, where historical and religious artifacts may be unsafe?

The feelings of the Standing Rock Sioux are not echoed throughout the opinions of most Native American tribes — in fact, many tribes have positive feelings towards the oil business. Heard on the Morning Edition of NPR, Edmund Baker, an environmental tribal director, located just north of the Standing Rock Sioux, weighed the risks and benefits of the pipeline. “We are in this oil play already,” said Baker. “We want to be able to do it responsibly. We want to be able to do it competently. We want to show other tribes that it can be done."

Perhaps in matters like these, it would’ve been a wise decision to weigh the consequences and benefits of a pipeline, before protesting or building.

By: Sophia Marcus, Writer