It's no surprise that DAPL has been a huge source of controversy over the past few weeks. The same questions come up as they always do with protests: "Are they justified in protesting?" and "Are they protesting respectfully or violently?" The problem with those questions, particularly the second one, is they are often asked pointedly, with the expectation that this is another "PC protest" with a weak or nonexistent justification for protesting in the first place. However, that is an overly simplistic way of looking at our society as it is today, and discredits the fact that there are still major problems that need to be addressed, sometimes with protests.

This is the case with the Dakota Access Pipeline, especially considering the fact that it involves trespassing and destroying Native American land - land that is limited enough as it is and is largely considered sacred ground, which used to be a principle we respected a little bit more. Unfortunately in this case, as in many others, the company involved basically defends its actions with "That's just business" the same way some say "boys will be boys" to justify sexual harassment, and that isn't a comparison I draw lightly. The Standing Rock Tribe has been violated and cheated out of land that was granted to them in 1868 by the Treaty of Fort Laramie. 1868! They've owned that land for almost 150 years by rights given to them by the American government (a whole other argument I won't go into right now) and now DAPL has decided that that doesn’t apply anymore because we need oil. As far as I can find, there has been no later law saying that the land doesn't belong to them anymore, or that they agreed to have a pipeline run through their land.

With this in mind, I would say the tribe has plenty of right to be angry. The United States is trespassing, but because that land is contained within our borders and we are bigger and stronger, it won't make a difference whose land it was before. It's ours now that we want it. Not only is this thinking downright scary and oppressive, it's un-American. It is reminiscent of foreign governments we don't think we are similar to, but have a few more similarities to than would make most people comfortable. America is certainly a great place to live and has arguably better ideals than many, but there is a difference between what we preach and what we practice in times like this.

In politics generally, particularly regarding this case, I have heard a lot of people who find the protests unjustified saying "Do your research." Well, I did mine. I went straight to the source - the capital of North Dakota - and found news there that was unsurprising to me. The first thing I found was a lack of news complaining of violent protests, leading me to believe the protests have been, on a whole, peaceful. The most violent thing I found was the vandalizing of some construction equipment, where three private security guards were injured, and one was offered hospital treatment, which he refused. Thus I find the claims of violent protesting and vandalizing of the capital, Bismarck, from which I am getting my facts, extremely exaggerated. While I don't condone vandalizing in any form, vandalizing a bulldozer is much different from vandalizing a capital building, which were the claims I had originally heard.

I also heard claims that the entire tribe didn't even support the protesting of the pipeline. Funnily enough, I came across an article in the same Bismarck Tribune where the Tribal Chairman calls for a stop to the pipeline construction. Related to that, President Obama ordered the company to cease construction on the pipeline while they rerouted it, but the company ignored him and has continued to push forward, destroying sacred land.

In addition, the reason for the protesting is largely for a practical reason, not on principle (though that is involved too). The pipeline poses huge environmental risks for the tribe - specifically, an oil spill would be catastrophic to their water supply, as well as catastrophic to anyone who uses the Missouri River (which changes to the Mississippi River), which is a large part of the Midwest. They are trying to protect water the way it could not be protected in Flint, Michigan because water is an essential element of life. The people in Flint are still suffering from the results of poisoned water, which leads to a vast array of health problems and economic problems because the city has to bring in bottled water for consumption. Clean, drinkable water is, and always has been and always will be, the first priority in human settlements. To threaten this for an oil pipeline, which could and should be rerouted away from the water, is simply not worth it.

I could also just talk about how this case highlights an overwhelming number of cases where companies disregarded lives and environmental health for the sake of money, but that could take up novels, which is not what this platform is for. However, I do think it's important to draw attention to this case, its facts, and how this is not the first time, and will probably not be the last, in which environmental and health concerns are overlooked for the sake of "good business", Native Americans' rights are subject to the whims of the US Government, and protests for justified causes are simplified into "overactive, PC liberals take offense to something". We cannot discredit this protest, we cannot discredit this tribe, and we can no longer ignore the risks this pipeline poses to everyone in the Midwest who uses the Missouri River for any kind of water source.

Say no to DAPL and stand with the Standing Rock Tribe.