tag:theconversation.com,2011:/es/topics/dapl-33978/articlesDAPL – The Conversation2017-03-21T18:41:00Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/747322017-03-21T18:41:00Z2017-03-21T18:41:00ZWhy is water sacred to Native Americans?<p>The Lakota phrase “Mní wičhóni,” or “Water is life,” has become a new national protest anthem. </p>
<p>It was chanted by 5,000 marchers at the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/american-indians-to-march-on-white-house-in-rally-for-rights/2017/03/10/8b327e84-04e3-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.af983e52c1a2">Native Nations March</a> in Washington, D.C. on March 10, and during hundreds of protests across the United States in the last year. “Mní wičhóni” became the anthem of the almost year-long struggle to stop the building of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-will-native-tribes-fight-the-dakota-access-pipeline-in-court-72839">Dakota Access Pipeline</a> under the Missouri River in North Dakota. </p>
<p>This chant mirrors the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDbSjkkHPGs">civil rights anthems</a> of the past, which emerged out of the African-American church. “Mní wičhóni” in the Lakota language also has spiritual meaning, which is rooted in a connection to nature. As a <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-mountain-hill-or-prairie-a-sacred-place-for-native-americans-73169">Native American scholar</a> of environment and religion, I understand what makes the relationship between Native people and the natural world unique. </p>
<p>For Native Americans, water does not only sustain life – it is sacred.</p>
<h2>Water and the American West</h2>
<p>The Great Plains of North America, home to the Lakota, the Blackfeet and other tribes, is a dry, arid place. The U.S. government spends billions of dollars to control and retain water in this “<a href="http://www.lib.msu.edu/branches/map/US/800-c-reg4-D-1823-400/">Great American desert</a>,” as it was described in the early 19th century.</p>
<p>Geologist <a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/9780060955861/down-the-great-unknown">John Wesley Powell</a>, an early director of the U.S. Geological Survey, pointed out in an important <a href="https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70039240">1878 government study</a> that the defining characteristic of the Great Plains and the West was its lack of water. He attempted to promote land ownership that was based on watersheds, instead of dividing land into the rectangular lots still in use today. </p>
<p>Powell also recommended that America adopt a new type of land development – one that worked with nature, so everyone had access to water.</p>
<p>The U.S. government, however, ignored Powell’s ideas. Writing on this issue later, author <a href="https://wallacestegner.org/bio.html">Wallace Stegner</a>, who was passionate about the West, <a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/7374/american_west_as_living_space">commented</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“[W]hat do you do about aridity….You may deny it for a while. Then you must either adapt to it or try to engineer it out of existence.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Lakota, the Blackfeet and the other tribes understood how to live with nature. They knew it was best to live within the restrictions of the limited water supply of the Great Plains. </p>
<h2>Water as sacred place</h2>
<p>For thousands of years, Native American tribes across the <a href="http://www.oupress.com/ECommerce/Book/Detail/272/common%20and%20contested%20ground">Great Plains</a> developed their own methods of living with the natural world and its limited water supply. They learned both through observation and experiment, arguably a process quite similar to what we might call science today. They also learned from their religious ideas, passed on from generation to generation in the form of stories.</p>
<p>I learned from my grandparents, both members of the Blackfeet tribe in Montana, about the sacredness of water. They shared that the Blackfeet believed in three separate realms of existence – the Earth, sky and water. The Blackfeet believed that humans, or “Niitsitapi,” and Earth beings, or “Ksahkomitapi,” lived in one realm; sky beings, or “Spomitapi,” lived in another realm; and underwater beings, or “Soyiitapi,” lived in yet another realm. The Blackfeet viewed all three worlds as sacred because within them lived the divine.</p>
<p>The water world, in particular, was held in special regard. The Blackfeet believed that in addition to the divine beings, about which they learned from <a href="http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Invisible-Reality,677467.aspx">their stories,</a> there were divine animals, such as the beaver. The divine beaver, who could talk to humans, taught the Blackfeet their most important religious ceremony. The Blackfeet needed this ceremony to reaffirm their relationships with the three separate realms of reality.</p>
<p>The Soyiitapi, divine water beings, also instructed the Blackfeet to protect their home, the water world. The Blackfeet could not kill or eat anything living in water; they also could not disturb or pollute water.</p>
<p>The Blackfeet viewed water as a distinct place – a sacred place. It was the home of divine beings and divine animals who taught the Blackfeet religious rituals and moral restrictions on human behavior. It can, in fact, be compared to Mount Sinai of the <a href="https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-1/">Old Testament</a>, which was viewed as “holy ground” and where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments.</p>
<h2>Water as life</h2>
<p>Native American tribes on the Great Plains knew something else about the relationship between themselves, the beaver and water. They learned through observation that beavers helped create an ecological oasis within a dry and arid landscape. </p>
<p>As Canadian anthropologist R. Grace Morgan hypothesized in her dissertation “<a href="https://era.library.ualberta.ca/files/df65vb64j#.WMxDHW_yvX4">Beaver Ecology/Beaver Mythology</a>,” the Blackfeet sanctified the beaver because they understood the natural science and ecology of beaver behavior. </p>
<p>Morgan believed that the Blackfeet did not harm the beaver because <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/leave-it-to-beavers-leave-it-to-beavers/8836/">beavers built dams</a> on creeks and rivers. Such dams could produce enough of a diversion to create a pond of fresh clean water that allowed an oasis of plant life to grow and wildlife to flourish.</p>
<p>Beaver ponds provided the Blackfeet with water for daily life. The ponds also attracted animals, which meant the Blackfeet did not have to travel long distances to hunt. The Blackfeet did not need to travel for plants used for medicine or food, as well. </p>
<p>Beaver ponds were a win-win for all concerned in “the Great American desert” that <a href="https://theconversation.com/give-beavers-permanent-residence-wed-be-dam-stupid-not-to-55256">modern ecologists and conservationists</a> are beginning to study only now.</p>
<p>For the Blackfeet, Lakota and other tribes of the Great Plains, water was “life.” They understood what it meant to live in a dry arid place, which they expressed through their religion and within their ecological knowledge.</p>
<h2>Rights of Mother Earth</h2>
<p>Indigenous people from around the world share these beliefs about the sacredness of water. </p>
<p>The government of New Zealand recently recognized the ancestral connection of the Maori people to their water. On March 15, the government passed the “Te Awa Tupua <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2016/0129/latest/DLM6830851.html?src=qs">Whanganui River Claims Settlement</a> Bill,” which provides “personhood” status to the Whanganui River, one of the largest rivers on the North Island of New Zealand. This river has come to be recognized as having “all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person” – something the Maori believed all along. </p>
<p>Many other countries have come to view the natural world and water from a similar perspective. In Bolivia, for example, the government passed laws in 2010 and 2012 for the “<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41268-016-0001-0">Law of the Rights of Mother Earth</a>,” which were motivated by the belief that nature has legal rights. The <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html">Ecuadorian constitution</a> in 2008 recognized the rights of “Nature, or Pacha Mama,” with “respect for its existence,” which included water.</p>
<p>The United States does not have such laws. This is why the Standing Rock Lakota have been demanding for almost a year a right to clean water – free from the threat of potential environmental harm and to protect its sacredness.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74732/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosalyn R. LaPier does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For the Blackfeet, Lakota and other Native American people, water does more than sustain life – it’s the place of the divine.Rosalyn R. LaPier, Research Associate of Women's Studies, Environmental Studies and Native American Religion, Harvard Divinity School, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/734242017-03-01T02:21:58Z2017-03-01T02:21:58ZDonald Trump and Andrew Jackson: More in common than just populism<p>At President Donald Trump’s request, a portrait of former President Andrew Jackson <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316115-trump-hangs-portrait-of-andrew-jackson-in-oval-office">now hangs</a> in the Oval Office. Commentators have cast Trump’s populist appeal and inaugural address as “Jacksonian,” while others have tried to emphasize their major <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/andrew-jackson-donald-trump-populist-president-history-214705">differences</a>. <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/andrew-jackson-donald-trump-populist-president-history-214705">One writer</a> lauded Jackson as “the president who, more than any other, secured the future of democracy in America.”</p>
<p>However, these comparisons overlook experiences of marginalized people while defining history in terms of the ideologies of progress and American exceptionalism.</p>
<p>Jackson’s intolerant attitudes and harsh treatment of African-American and Native American peoples have not gone without mention. They are indeed inescapable. As a scholar who has written about <a href="http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/Books/bid2436.htm">Native American history</a> and <a href="http://unmpress.com/books.php?ID=20000000005880&Page=book">literature</a>, I am aware of just how often the perspectives of native people are neglected in conventional historical discourse.</p>
<p>The criticisms Trump has directed against <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/donald-trumps-long-history-of-clashes-with-native-americans/2016/07/25/80ea91ca-3d77-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html?utm_term=.04e8f8a4c021">Indian casinos in the 1990s</a>, along with his insult of calling Senator Elizabeth Warren <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/whats-behind-trumps-pocahontas-attack-warren">“Pocahontas,”</a> casts his veneration of Jackson in a particularly disturbing light.</p>
<h2>Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears</h2>
<p>Jackson was a staunch supporter of slavery and policies that forcibly removed Indians from their lands. The passage of the 1830 <a href="http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3545">Indian Removal Act</a> was aimed at isolating native peoples to prevent conflict over territory and allow increased settlement. </p>
<p>The solution, originally conceived by Thomas Jefferson, was to empower the government to evict native peoples living east of the Mississippi River from their lands. Those subjected to removal would be moved <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3437t.html">“beyond the white settlements”</a> to distant reservations in the West, known at the time as “Indian territory.” It was a form of segregation.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158820/original/image-20170228-29942-1og6md.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158820/original/image-20170228-29942-1og6md.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158820/original/image-20170228-29942-1og6md.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158820/original/image-20170228-29942-1og6md.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158820/original/image-20170228-29942-1og6md.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158820/original/image-20170228-29942-1og6md.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=658&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158820/original/image-20170228-29942-1og6md.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=658&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158820/original/image-20170228-29942-1og6md.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=658&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">R. Ridgway, engraving, c.1859, Muscogee Creek Chief William Weatherford surrenders to Andrew Jackson after the 1814 Battle of Horseshoe Bend. As a result, Jackson forced the Creek to cede over 20 million acres of land in Alabama and Georgia, including almost two million acres claimed by Cherokee Nation, allies who had fought in support of Jackson’s forces.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Library of Congress</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1832, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia laws aimed at depriving the Cherokee people of their rights and property in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/31/515/case.html">Worchester v. Georgia</a>. The court affirmed a degree of native political sovereignty and annulled state jurisdiction over native lands. It was the final case of the so-called Marshall trilogy, named for Chief Justice John Marshall – the author of the majority decisions – and established major precedents of federal Indian law.</p>
<p>The immediate effect of the decision was to grant protections to the Cherokee Nation, and by extension to other tribes. It could have prevented forced removals, but Jackson was reportedly indignant at the result. According to the famed journalist Horace Greeley, Jackson was said to have <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html">responded</a>, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”</p>
<p>Whether Jackson spoke those words has been contested by historians ever since. But his strong support for removal policy and subsequent refusal to enforce the court’s decision made his position clear. The response was a stern rebuke of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, the doctrine of the separation of powers, the rule of law and ultimately the Constitution.</p>
<p>The result was the <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/trail-of-tears">Trail of Tears</a>, in which Cherokee and other native peoples of the Southeast were forced at gunpoint to march 1,200 miles to “Indian territory.” Thousands of Cherokee died during the passage, while many who survived the trek lost their homes and most of their property. Ironically, much of the land on which the Cherokee and other removed tribes were settled was opened to homesteading and became the state of Oklahoma some 60 years later.</p>
<p>Yet, the violent manner by which removal was carried out had been ruled illegal and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Worchester case.</p>
<h2>New assault on native rights?</h2>
<p>The new administration is showing similar malice toward the legal status and rights of native peoples secured in American law. For example, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/02/dakota-access-pipeline-standing-rock-trump">Trump recently lifted</a> President Obama’s injunction halting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Last week’s eviction of pipeline opponents from Sacred Stone Camp, led by the Standing Rock Sioux Nation, under threats of arrest has led to renewed uncertainty about native rights.</p>
<p>Statements by Trump’s advisers and government officials calling for the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tribes-insight-idUSKBN13U1B1">privatization of native lands</a> guaranteed by treaties to seize valuable natural resources have only heightened these concerns.</p>
<p>This rhetoric echos policies that oppressed native people in the past. These include <a href="https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=50">allotment</a>, extending from 1887 to the 1930s, which eliminated communal ownership and led to the taking of millions of acres of native land. This was followed by termination and relocation of the 1950s, aimed at eliminating the legal status of native people while sending individuals from reservations to urban areas, further depriving native peoples of their lands, liberty and culture.</p>
<p>Native treaties are unequivocally assured in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi">Article 6, the Supremacy Clause, of the U.S. Constitution</a>. It states: “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”</p>
<p>Tribal leaders negotiated treaties in good faith to reserve what amounts to a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/17/interactive_map_loss_of_indian_land.html">fraction of their original lands</a>, with all attendant rights. Privatizing tribal lands would be a violation of these treaties. </p>
<p>The casual rejection of these covenants heighten the insecurity among native people evoked by Trump. His esteem for Jackson and their shared attitudes toward their legal rights and status should give us pause. That journalists and historians continue to offer positive views of Jackson’s presidency in light of this legacy underscores how the suffering of native people continues to be ignored.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73424/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Billy J. Stratton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Comparisons often ignore the troubling history of how Jackson treated Native Americans. An expert on Native American history draws parallels to the new administration.Billy J. Stratton, Professor of contemporary American literature and culture; Native American studies, University of DenverLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/731692017-02-16T20:32:25Z2017-02-16T20:32:25ZWhat makes a mountain, hill or prairie a ‘sacred’ place for Native Americans?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157179/original/image-20170216-9506-yb99hc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A woman holds Pope Francis' head during his meeting with representatives of indigenous peoples at the Vatican on Feb. 15, 2017.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">L'Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For several months Native American protesters and others have been opposing the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The plans for construction pass through sacred land for the Native American tribe, Standing Rock Sioux.</p>
<p>But, within days of taking office, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum supporting the construction of the pipeline. Recently a U.S. federal judge denied a request by tribes to halt construction on the final link of the project.</p>
<p>On Wednesday, however, the protesters appeared to have received support from none other than Pope Francis, a long-time defender of indigenous people’s rights. The pope <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north-dakota-pipeline-pope-idUSKBN15U1VA">said</a> indigenous cultures have a right to defend “their ancestral relationship to the Earth.” <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north-dakota-pipeline-pope-idUSKBN15U1VA">He added</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Do not allow those that destroy the Earth, which destroy the environment and the ecological balance, and which end up destroying the wisdom of peoples.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>As a Native American scholar of environmental history and religious studies, I am often asked what Native American leaders mean when they say that certain landscapes are “sacred places” or “sacred sites.” </p>
<p>What makes a mountain, hill or prairie a “sacred” place?</p>
<h2>Meaning of sacred spaces</h2>
<p>I learned from my grandparents about the sacred areas within <a href="http://blackfeetnation.com/">Blackfeet tribal territory</a> in Montana and Alberta, which is not far from Lakota tribal territory in the Dakotas. </p>
<p>My grandparents said that sacred areas are places set aside from human presence. They identified two overarching types of sacred place: those set aside for the divine, such as a dwelling place, and those set aside for human remembrance, such as a burial or battle site.</p>
<p>In my <a href="http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Invisible-Reality,677467.aspx">forthcoming book “Invisible Reality,”</a> I contemplate those stories that my grandparents shared about Blackfeet religious concepts and the interconnectedness of the supernatural and natural realms. </p>
<p>My grandparents’ stories revealed that the Blackfeet believe in a universe where supernatural beings exist within the same time and space as humans and our natural world. The deities could simultaneously exist in both as visible and invisible reality. That is, they could live unseen, but known, within a physical place visible to humans.</p>
<p>One such place for the Blackfeet is Nínaiistáko, or Chief Mountain, in Glacier National Park. This mountain is the home of Ksiistsikomm, or Thunder, a primordial deity. My grandparents spoke of how this mountain is a liminal space, a place between two realms. </p>
<p>Blackfeet tribal citizens can go near this sacred place to perceive the divine, but they cannot go onto the mountain because it is the home of a deity. Elders of the Blackfeet tribe believe that human activity, or changing the physical landscape in these places, disrupts the lives of deities. They view this as sacrilegious and a desecration. </p>
<h2>A living text</h2>
<p>Sacred places, however, are not always set aside from humanity’s use. Some sacred places are meant for constant human interaction.</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.nmai.si.edu/main/2013/08/in-memoriam-keith-h-basso-19402013.html">Anthropologist Keith Basso</a> argued in his seminal work <a href="http://www.unmpress.com/books.php?ID=770">“Wisdom Sits in Places”</a> that one purpose of sacred places was to perfect the human mind. The Western Apache elders with whom Basso worked told him that when someone repeated the names and stories of their sacred places, they were understood as “repeating the speech of our ancestors.”</p>
<p>For these Apache elders, places were not just names and stories – their landscape itself was a living sacred text. As these elders traveled from place to place speaking the names and stories of their sacred text, they told Basso that their minds became more “resilient,” more “smooth” and able to withstand adversity. </p>
<h2>The sacredness of the pipeline site</h2>
<p>At different national and international venues, Lakota leader Dave Archambault Jr. has stated that the Lakota view the area near the potential construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline as both a “sacred place” and a “burial site,” or as both a place set aside from human presence and a place of human reverence.</p>
<p>Lakota scholar Vine Deloria Jr. <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_World_We_Used_to_Live_in.html?id=S6F7MKRoFS4C">described the “sacred stones”</a> in North Dakota in his book “The World We Used to Live In” as having the ability of “forewarning of events to come.”</p>
<p>Deloria described how Lakota religious leaders went to these stones in the early morning to read their messages. Deloria shared the experiences of an Episcopal minister from 1919.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“A rock of this kind was formerly on Medicine Hill near Cannon Ball Sub-station…. Old Indians came to me… and said that the lightning would strike someone in camp that day, for a picture (wowapi) on this holy rock indicated such an event…. And the lightning did strike a tent in camp and nearly killed a woman…. I have known several similar things, equally foretelling events to come, I can not account for it.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_World_We_Used_to_Live_in.html?id=S6F7MKRoFS4C">Deloria explained</a> that it was “birds, directed by the spirit of the place, [that] do the actual sketching of the pictures.” The Lakota named this area Ínyanwakagapi for the large stones that served as oracles for their people. The Americans renamed it Cannonball.</p>
<h2>Not just Dakota</h2>
<p>Historians, anthropologists and religious thinkers <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Where_the_Lightning_Strikes.html?id=UpIMJdc29qoC">continue to learn and write</a> about Native American religious ideas of place. In so doing, they seek to analyze complex religious concepts of transformation and transcendence that these places evoke.</p>
<p>However, despite their contributions to the academic interpretation of religion, these understandings do not often translate into protection of Native American places for their religious significance. As <a href="https://www.aclu.org/bio/stephen-pevar">legal scholar Stephen Pevar</a> <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-rights-of-indians-and-tribes-9780199795352?cc=us&lang=en&">tells us,</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“there is no federal statue that expressly protects Indian sacred sites…. in fact, the federal government knowingly desecrates sites.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the past year we have seen protests over the potential <a href="https://www.hawaii.edu/offices/bor/regular/testimony/201504161130/4-14-2015_Toledo_TMT.pdf">desecration of sacred places</a> at Mauna Kea in Hawaii (over the construction of another telescope on a sacred volcano), <a href="http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/03/30/oak-flat-deal-violates-apache-rights-mining-best-practices">Oak Flats in Arizona</a> (over a potential copper mine on sacred land) and now at <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37834334">Standing Rock in North Dakota</a>. </p>
<h2>Lack of understanding of sacredness</h2>
<p><a href="http://hds.harvard.edu/people/william-graham">William Graham, a former dean</a> of the Harvard Divinity School, <a href="http://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/articles/summerautumn2012/why-study-religion-twenty-first-century">wrote that</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Religion… will long continue to be a critical factor in individual, social, and political life around the world, and we need to understand it.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The intimate connection between landscape and religion is at the center of Native American societies. It is the reason that thousands of Native Americans from across the United States and indigenous peoples from around the world have traveled to the windswept prairies of North Dakota.</p>
<p>But, despite our 200-plus years of contact, the United States has yet to begin to understand the uniqueness of Native American religions and ties to the land. And until this happens, there will continue to be conflicts over religious ideas of land and landscape, and what makes a place sacred.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article first published on Nov. 2, 2016.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73169/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosalyn R. LaPier does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Pope Francis appears to have defended Native American protests on the North Dakota pipeline issue. Indigenous cultures have a right to defend ‘their ancestral relationship to the Earth,’ he said.Rosalyn R. LaPier, Visiting Assistant Professor of Women's Studies, Environmental Studies and Native American Religion, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/728392017-02-15T02:03:12Z2017-02-15T02:03:12ZHow will native tribes fight the Dakota Access Pipeline in court?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156847/original/image-20170214-19605-1axc8mp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">After the Army Corps of Engineers approved an easement for the North Dakota Pipeline, two tribes requested – unsuccessfully – to halt construction while their lawsuit over the project is resolved.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Susan Walsh</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Feb. 8 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reversed course and issued an <a href="http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/1077134/corps-grants-easement-to-dakota-access-llc/">easement</a> allowing the installation of the Dakota Access Pipeline under Lake Oahe in North Dakota. That decision followed a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/24/presidential-memorandum-regarding-construction-dakota-access-pipeline">presidential memorandum</a> indicating that construction and operation of the pipeline would be in the “national interest,” and set the stage for a final showdown over the pipeline’s fate.</p>
<p>In response, two Indian tribes, the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux, filed new motions to halt the pipeline’s construction and operation. After an initial hearing on those motions, the federal judge on the case <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/13/federal-judge-rejects-request-to-block-dakota-access-pipeline/">allowed</a> construction to proceed but will be considering the tribes’ claims before oil will pass through the pipeline under Lake Oahe. That means, unlike the voices of thousands who joined the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in protest against the pipeline, the next chapter of this fight will be argued by a few lawyers in the pin drop silence of a federal courtroom. </p>
<p>Although the details of those arguments will be complex, as a legal scholar focused on Native American law I see the case addressing an essential question at the heart of our legal system: namely, how does federal law and judicial process protect the fundamental values and structure of the Constitution?</p>
<p>The central issues in the case are now whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ approval of the pipeline and easement illegally interferes with the tribes’ religious beliefs and whether the corps adequately considered the tribes’ water and other treaty rights before issuing that approval.</p>
<h2>Religious Freedom Restoration Act</h2>
<p>According to the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe, oil running through the pipeline would represent the fulfillment of a generations-old prophesy, passed down through the oral traditions of tribal members, that warned of a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/opinion/sunday/how-to-stop-a-black-snake.html">Black Snake</a> coming to defile the sacred waters necessary to maintain the tribes’ ceremonies. Beyond the environmental concerns often at the center of the pipeline protests, the tribe’s motion for an injunction squarely defines final authorization of the pipeline by the corps as an existential threat: destruction of the tribes’ religion and way of life.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156848/original/image-20170214-19589-dlqk30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156848/original/image-20170214-19589-dlqk30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156848/original/image-20170214-19589-dlqk30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156848/original/image-20170214-19589-dlqk30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156848/original/image-20170214-19589-dlqk30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156848/original/image-20170214-19589-dlqk30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156848/original/image-20170214-19589-dlqk30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156848/original/image-20170214-19589-dlqk30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One of the key legal questions in the North Dakota Access Pipeline case whether federal interests can supersede religious freedoms of native groups.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/vpickering/31980278153/in/photolist-QHZhw6-RY9MuZ-QwpjXU-RC6a3x-RNThGc-QwpjVE-RoxkjA-RJBqEE-RLUWTt-RocwU9-RJBnNY-RuN8tw-QHZfCr-RZiHJt-QgR9Yy-Q9ptjz-RUnERh-Q9ptKe-RcstVR-RjEEnY-RxPbkn-QYVcps-RuN9j9-QgR9Cd-QgR9Pq-RZiHXK-RuN8ZG-RUgZFU-M163Kf-RJi37u-QgAdrA-RJi2K7-RoxjVE-QHZeGZ-QHZgA8-RoenEJ-Nd9kMH-RoemQC-QYEwL3-AMe3u9-RR2Yg5-RUgZLy-QFkegN-RR2YCh-NreMJc-RXQpsi-P7SVr8-QFke9U-Rocx5j-Q6CbBE">vpickering/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees the exercise of religion free from governmental interference. But the Supreme Court, in <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/485/439.html">Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protection Association</a>, in 1988 upheld the Forest Service’s approval of a road across an area on federal land sacred to local tribes even while recognizing the road could have devastating effects on their religion. </p>
<p>Then in 1993, Congress enacted the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B">Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)</a>, which requires that the government demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means to achieve that interest if its actions will substantially burden religious practice. </p>
<p>In other words, even if approving the Dakota Access Pipeline served a compelling governmental interest, RFRA may require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to show that the pipeline easement under Lake Oahe would have the least impact on tribal religion. That approach would be consistent with the Supreme Court’s broad application of RFRA in a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf">2014 case</a> not involving tribal interests or federal lands and may pose a significant challenge to the corps, which <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/previously-proposed-route-dakota-access-pipeline-rejected/story?id=43274356">considered but rejected</a> a different route that did not pose the same threat to the tribes. </p>
<p>Both the corps and company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline <a href="https://daplpipelinefacts.com/safety/">argue</a> that the risk of spill from the pipeline is minimal and that the tribes failed to raise these religious concerns in a timely manner. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contends that, consistent with the Lyng case, governmental action on federal land should not be restricted because of religious concerns raised by local tribes. </p>
<p>Thus, resolution of the case will turn upon whether the court recognizes the legitimacy of the tribal religious concerns and broadly applies RFRA or, instead, chooses to prioritize federal authority over federal land to the detriment of those concerns. The parties will argue whether the religious freedom issues support an injunction on Feb. 27.</p>
<h2>Arbitrary or capricious decisions?</h2>
<p>In addition to their religious concerns, the Sioux tribes challenge the corps’ decisions based on the rights they reserved in treaties made with the federal government in <a href="http://ndstudies.gov/gr8/content/unit-iii-waves-development-1861-1920/lesson-4-alliances-and-conflicts/topic-2-sitting-bulls-people/section-3-treaties-fort-laramie-1851-1868">1851 and 1868</a>. </p>
<p>The Constitution <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi">recognizes</a> treaties as the “supreme law of the land” and, according to a 2016 analysis done by the solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior, both the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux <a href="https://solicitor.doi.gov/opinions/M-37038.pdf">retain</a> treaty-reserved water, hunting and fishing rights in Lake Oahe. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156849/original/image-20170214-19595-avkofw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156849/original/image-20170214-19595-avkofw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156849/original/image-20170214-19595-avkofw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156849/original/image-20170214-19595-avkofw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156849/original/image-20170214-19595-avkofw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156849/original/image-20170214-19595-avkofw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156849/original/image-20170214-19595-avkofw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156849/original/image-20170214-19595-avkofw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The pipeline company has argued that the risks to the water supply are minimal and that the tribes didn’t raise religious concerns earlier in the approval process.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/diversey/32009578684/in/photolist-QLzsxE-RRSTeD-RaZpCm-QiBASc-pktBZK-RMgXJK-PKBfWf-QD1oXF-RY9MuZ-RoxkjA-RPnyC5-RX1GAn-RJBqEE-QD1t5t-Rm4Hf7-RK31Lg-RSWwkz-RJBnNY-Rm4Hef-RHDMrk-RSWuPP-RG2LtB-RYSpJw-c6WkaU-RjYRDC-QEBznx-RY9DTY-QHJCRe-RHDMoK-RjQdCS-QEBzqZ-NreMJc-QEBzoV-RUzJZH-Ri5Cjo-J9ooe5-RoxjVE-Rb6CKb-PrRbr9-NrgFck-RTzXwJ-PwaBXD-M2KHMh-RG2L4i-RSWtNa-RG2KS6-RG2KMM-PDtJ5p-LJg7iu-QD1poa">diversey/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Before <a href="https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/dapl_exhibit-2.pdf">reversing</a> course in February, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers refused to issue the easement last year in order to further <a href="https://www.army.mil/article/179095/army_will_not_grant_easement_for_dakota_access_pipeline_crossing">understand</a> and <a href="https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/dapl-eis-2017-00937.pdf">analyze</a> those treaty rights. </p>
<p>Importantly, federal <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706">law</a> generally allows courts to set aside arbitrary or capricious agency decisions. In a Feb. 14 <a href="http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/Memo-ISO-SRSTs-Mtn-for-PSJ.pdf">filing</a>, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe asks the court to review the corps’ about-face under that standard and argues that the federal trust responsibility, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/30/1/case.html">recognized</a> by the Supreme Court since the early 1800s, demands more than just a cursory review of tribal treaty rights.</p>
<p>The parties will be briefing the treaty rights issues into March, but the judge is keeping a close eye on Dakota Access’ progress in the meantime.</p>
<p>The ultimate fate of the pipeline will turn on how the courts recognize the rights asserted by the Sioux tribes, rights rooted in the Constitution’s values and structure – precisely the type of rights our rule of law and federal courts are meant to protect.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72839/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monte Mills does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>More than an easement: A scholar of Native American law lays out the legal arguments in the Dakota Access Pipeline and why they matter to all of us.Monte Mills, Assistant Professor of Law & Co-Director, Margery Hunter Brown Indian Law Clinic, University of MontanaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/698812016-12-06T02:25:38Z2016-12-06T02:25:38ZVictory at Standing Rock reflects a failure of US energy and climate policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148750/original/image-20161205-8009-1u7rixc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gatherers in Cannon Ball, North Dakota celebrate news that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers won't grant an easement for the Dakota Access oil pipeline. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/David Goldman</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The protesters have won. On Sunday, Dec. 4, swayed by possible violence over the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in North Dakota, the Obama administration declared <a href="https://www.army.mil/article/179095/army_will_not_grant_easement_for_dakota_access_pipeline_crossing">a new route</a> must be chosen. The decision came one day before the official deadline for the protesters to evacuate federal land and just as thousands of <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/04/veterans-arrive-at-standing-rock-willing-to-take-a-bullet-to-protect-water-protectors.html">veterans</a> were arriving to act as “shields” for the protesters should any need arise. </p>
<p>In the end, no need did arise, as authorities promised. The pipeline, said to cross sacred sites and to threaten water used by the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, will have to cross the Missouri River somewhere else – unless the incoming administration of Donald Trump <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-national-tribal-leader-praises-pipeline-decision-43981180">seeks to reverse the decision</a>.</p>
<p>The victory must be sweet, for some. But the issues revealed by this local-conflict-turned-national-movement are anything but resolved. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so it makes sense to ask hard questions about a troubled U.S. energy situation, which this conflict has illuminated.</p>
<h2>History and symbolism</h2>
<p>What is the big picture? A <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline/">Native American group</a> and environmentalists, plus other supporters (celebrities, musicians, etc.), are on one side. And on the other is an oil pipeline company, Energy Transfer Partners (ETP of Dallas, Texas), which is supported in part by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and local police. </p>
<p>The protesters, some of whom called themselves water protectors, claimed the pipeline disrupted sacred sites and burial grounds and that its planned route under the Missouri River threatened the water supply of the Standing Sioux. ETP and the Army Corps of Engineers insisted the water would be <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2016/09/13/kelcy-warrens-energy-transfer-partners-responds-protest-dakota-access-pipeline">safe</a>, as all regulations were obeyed, and the company is 100 percent liable for any damage.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148751/original/image-20161205-8030-1gmf9lj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148751/original/image-20161205-8030-1gmf9lj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148751/original/image-20161205-8030-1gmf9lj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148751/original/image-20161205-8030-1gmf9lj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148751/original/image-20161205-8030-1gmf9lj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148751/original/image-20161205-8030-1gmf9lj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148751/original/image-20161205-8030-1gmf9lj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148751/original/image-20161205-8030-1gmf9lj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Delaying or scrapping an oil pipeline project of any kind means more oil will be transported by rail, which also has risks of spills.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/royluck/12859842853/in/photolist-c6WknQ-kAo4fv-dLg2aE-dUKFmB-oaMiTc-c6Wm3q-vFEDXv-vYy8EZ-osepMy-vXwRrf-vYy8S2-v2hLeV-vXwPXo-vFxGFS-vXwQZJ-vFEDrk-vXwQyo-v2hLtc-vYy97a-v29jQf-vFxvad-vFxGxf-vXwR5J-vYy8t6-pRUB1u-v2hKgc-vFEDCn-vVQURb-vYy7Bg-vFxGRG-vXwRmA-vYy87z-vFxtMo-v29kNh-v29kao-vYy8oB-v2hL8c-vVQUd7-v2hLSi-vFxGD7-vVQUJC-vFxHbu-vFED84-vFxGro-vFEEMB-vFxJ5U-vYacK2">royluck/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A second question concerns context. Fundamentally, this comes back not to water, but oil. Petroleum powers <a href="http://www.iea.org/topics/transport/">over 90 percent</a> of transportation on Earth, and this won’t change for decades: Think of <a href="http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093560_1-2-billion-vehicles-on-worlds-roads-now-2-billion-by-2035-report">a billion cars</a> (millions more each year), plus millions of planes, trains, trucks, boats and military vehicles – all powered by oil. This makes oil economically critical and a matter of national security.</p>
<p>The U.S., meanwhile, has hugely <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20892">improved</a> its energy and national security due to the fracking “revolution.” Money leaving the country to support petrostate dictators is <a href="http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_imports">dramatically down since 2010</a> because of a domestic drilling boom. It is possible, if prices rise, that domestic oil companies will export to U.S. allies, reducing their dependence on such places. </p>
<p>North Dakota is a center of the new production. Because drilling grew very rapidly when prices were high (2011-2014), far more oil was extracted than existing pipelines could handle. This meant a surge in oil trains moving crude to East Coast, Midwest and West Coast refineries at much higher cost and risk to people, waterways and the environment. <a href="https://northdakotapipelines.com/rail-transportation/">Rail shipments</a> now total about 300,000 barrels per day (bbls/d). Planned for 470,000 bbls/d, the DAPL is therefore a much-needed way to get oil off trains and to market. Viewed in this way, the victory at Standing Rock is rough justice for those who want to stop seeing oil trains roll through their towns and cities. </p>
<p>A second element of context is the volatile mixture of history and symbolism. This involves a dark history of domestic colonialism, the innumerable crimes perpetrated by the government against Native Americans, touched on here by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-archaeological-review-behind-the-dakota-access-pipeline-went-wrong-67815">pipeline crossing burial and artifact sites</a>. </p>
<p>The matter is not academic history but a powerful part of present-day memory and identity. It should not be surprising that skepticism results when federal authorities offer assurances the pipeline will be safe. In truth, the DAPL is <a href="http://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/resources/faq.html">advanced</a>, with the latest sensors to detect even slight flow irregularities and valve systems to automatically shut down the line if problems occur. As an interstate pipeline, the DAPL is mandated to have a high level of engineering, inspection and monitoring. Yet, in the realm of broken history, little of this translates to confidence. </p>
<h2>Water and climate</h2>
<p>The question still must be asked: How real is the threat to water? Not very. The U.S. has roughly <a href="http://phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.6f23687cf7b00b0f22e4c6962d9c8789/?vgnextoid=a62924cc45ea4110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCRD&vgnextchannel=daa52186536b8210VgnVCM1000001ecb7898RCRD&vgnextfmt=print">160,000 miles</a> of pipelines moving crude and refined oil. Over half the American population lives downstream from one or more lines. Many cross the Missouri River downriver from North Dakota. The DAPL itself will cross several rivers, including the Mississippi, before ending at a transport hub in southern Illinois. The chances of one tiny segment of a 1,200-mile pipeline rupturing, especially in a nonindustrial area, are very small. </p>
<p>Pipeline <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/pipelines-explained-how-safe-are-americas-2.5-million-miles-of-pipelines">safety problems are real</a>, true enough. But the risk is concentrated in certain kinds of pipelines, notably those that are old (over 35 years), local and poorly maintained. None of this applies to the DAPL. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148752/original/image-20161205-25742-1pzgbcm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148752/original/image-20161205-25742-1pzgbcm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148752/original/image-20161205-25742-1pzgbcm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148752/original/image-20161205-25742-1pzgbcm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148752/original/image-20161205-25742-1pzgbcm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148752/original/image-20161205-25742-1pzgbcm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148752/original/image-20161205-25742-1pzgbcm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148752/original/image-20161205-25742-1pzgbcm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A protest in San Francisco: The months-long protests at Standing Rock have galvanized people from around the world because of the powerful symbol of the pipeline project.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/43005015@N06/25379625129/in/photolist-EEHdkB-NN5GSu-NN5Go3-PfJERt-EEHbLK-EEHbqV-NN5AB3-NN5zb7-NN5xYs-NN5wJd-EEDsL8-EEDsEX-EEDsye-EEBF9D-AMWR9Q-EEBEX6-AMWQXh-EEBENi-AMWQKJ-AMWQz3-AMWQpU-PfDxu4-EEBE8F-PfDxe4-EEBDTT-PfDwQ8-NMZikE-EEBD9g-NMZic3-EEBCQF-NMZhMA-EEBCCg-NMZhCY-EEBCsX-NMZhp1-EEBCdt-AMe3u9-NM7LsY-PbDip5-P25FTi-P25EE6-P25DmV-P25C4z-NGcZ7A-NGcXyW-P9Twer-P6Fe4s-P9Tt48-P6F9zh-P6F7uW">Peg Hunter/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>How do the environmentalists fit in (I promise not to discuss celebrities)? A skeptic might say they came to exploit a ripe situation and to further America’s hate affair with the oil industry. True in part, this overlooks the larger reality and its symbolic charge. Stopping the pipeline in one spot, after all, won’t stop oil altogether. </p>
<p>Climate change, however, is a threat most of all to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-native-american-pipeline-resistance-in-north-dakota-is-about-climate-justice-64714">indigenous peoples around the world</a>. These are people commonly without power who rely on immediately available resources for survival. In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, with its prospect of a great reversal in U.S. climate policy, environmentalists feel common cause with such groups and an intensified need to oppose fossil fuel projects, even the wrong ones. </p>
<h2>Example from Russia?</h2>
<p>Finally, what has been ETP’s stance? The company largely avoided the media spotlight. Oil companies know from long experience it is a waste of time to expect a fair trial in the court of public opinion. </p>
<p>ETP saw the DAPL as a major investment that would serve shareholders, North Dakota and the nation all at once – a winning combination. It played by the written rules, invested much time and money, designed a state-of-the-art pipeline, and worked with the Army Corps of Engineers in meetings with tribal leaders. Doubtless it feels betrayed by Sunday’s decision; it has supply deadlines to meet. </p>
<p>Yet it has <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/5/13840934/dakota-access-pipeline-energy-transfer-partners-army-corps-trump">rejected</a> the new decision, claiming the government is “currying favor with a narrow and extreme political constituency.” It will most likely wait for better weather under the Trump administration. This seems foolish and guaranteed to create more trouble if followed through. Even Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin, to avoid a public movement, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/apr/27/russia.oil">rerouted a major pipeline</a> in 2006 away from Lake Baikal. </p>
<h2>Adding it up</h2>
<p>The Standing Rock protest, then, is a keyhole into a landscape of unsettled relations regarding energy in America. These relations are tinged with distrust and hostility on all sides. </p>
<p>They include a public fearful about facing the realities of our current energy system, including the risk of oil spills, even as it consumes the largest volumes of oil per capita in the world. They involve activists who, out of frustration, blindly oppose any large-scale fossil fuel or nuclear project, practicing national nimbyism. They are rounded out by a deeply jaded energy industry, mistrustful of the media, the public and the Democratic Party. </p>
<p>Lastly, there is Washington, which has never put together a real domestic energy policy. With regard to fossil, nuclear or renewable sources, policy tends to swing from pro to semi-pro to con to semi-con with every change of administration. To deal with the real problems of energy, climate change above all, this situation needs to change – something all parties should recognize.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69881/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott L. Montgomery does not work or consult for any company or organization mentioned in this article. </span></em></p>The protesters have scored a big victory in the Dakota Access Pipeline conflict, but it’s served only to illuminate the sharp divisions over energy policy in the US.Scott L. Montgomery, Lecturer, Jackson School of International Studies, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.