Students Stand with Standing Rock
Over the last few weeks, thousands of Native Americans and their allies from all over the country have traveled to the Standing Rock Oceti Sakowin reservation in central North Dakota to stand against the completion of the $3.8 billion dollar Dakota Access pipeline. What started as a legal battle has turned into a grassroots movement that has remained peaceful, despite the violence unleashed upon the protesters in recent days by private security forces as well as the local sheriffs department. Their tactics have been brutal, on the weekend leading up to Thanksgiving, law enforcement doused unarmed protectors for over ten hours with water, in below freezing weather, as well as indiscriminately shooting them with pepper spray, tear gas and rubber bullets. Previously, private security forces unleashed dogs on these people, hundreds have been arrested.
We are organizing a direct action for students who are making their way up to standing rock following finals this December, with the objective being to stand in solidarity alongside the Oceti Sakowin people. This is a campaign for indigenous rights, human rights and environmental protection. We are standing against the Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners and the banks which are funding the construction of the black snake.
The money raised will be used to aid in transportation costs as well as bringing food, firewood and tools necessary to winterize the camps for the long haul. Any additional funds will be used to buy teepees and yurts. Many are unable to make the trip up, but are looking for a means to help. This is it. This is also an open call to any students interested in joining, given that they understand that this is trip whose main objective is to be of use once we arrive to the camp. This is not about "being a part of the movement", it is about ensuring that as many able bodied individuals are able to help as possible- the trip is not to feteshize the native culture or to protest, it is to stand as allies with our native brothers through hands on involvement, i.e, building teepese, chopping firewood, helping out in kitchens and transporting necessary supplies to and from the camp, while working to protect the delicate water systems in the midwest. The safety of those currently living at the Oceti Sakowin camp rests upon having the manpower and the funds to keep this running as smoothly as possible, and it is our belief that the success of this movement will set the precedent for future environmental mitigation efforts.
The time for a serious conversation about anthropogenic climate change was twenty years ago and as we begin to enter the epoch of the unknown, conversation is still stifled at the expense of our future. The propaganda regarding the ins and outs of this pipeline, as well as the media blackout and bank controlled narrative, has made it clear that the only way forward is through the power of the people, coming together from the grassroots. Oil transported through the DAPL will be exported and the profits will go into the hands of the few while the health and safety of the many is put at risk, yet again. The people have nothing to gain from the completion of this pipeline.
There have been over 8,000 leaks in the past 15 years, causing irreparable damage to both the environment and countless water systems in the United States. The Missouri River provides 1/3 of the water for all Agriculture in the US, as well as drinking water for millions in the Midwest. The time to stand together as one people, one nation, and demand that change happens, begins with the people. Change will only come from the bottom up and, considering the current political climate, the importance of this fight cannot be overstated.
Also of interest, as the discussion seems to go back and forth between who actually owns this land; I've capitalized relevant text:
Article XII from the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie:
> NO TREATY FOR THE CESSION OF ANY PORTION OR PART OF THE RESERVATION HEREIN DESCRIBED WHICH MAY BE HELD IN COMMON SHALL BE OF ANY VALIDITY OR FORCE as against the said Indians, UNLESS EXECUTED AND SIGNED BY AT LEAST THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL THE ADULT MALE INDIANS, occupying or interested in the same; and no cession by the tribe shall be understood or construed in such manner as to deprive, without his consent, any individual member of the tribe of his rights to any tract land selected by him, as provided in article 6 of this treaty.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/nt001.asp
The ruling from United States v. Sioux Nation (1980) found the following:
> Subsequently, in 1876, an "agreement" presented to the Sioux by a special Commission but SIGNED BY ONLY 10% OF THE ADULT MALE SIOUX POPULATION, provided that the Sioux would relinquish their rights to the Black Hills and to hunt in the unceded territories, in exchange for subsistence rations for as long as they would be needed.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/371/
This was a violation of the treaty itself, but even the compensation the Sioux were due for the taking of their lands was ruled to not have been a fair compensation, meaning they violated the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court case footnotes includes a mention from the Indian Claims Commission:
> (Footnote 33) First, it noted that "[a]lthough couched in general terms, this amendment is directed to one basic objective - expediting the Indian Claims Commission's disposition of the famous Black Hills case." S. Rep. No. 93-863, p. 2 (1974) (incorporating memorandum prepared by the Sioux Tribes). SECOND, THE COMMITTEE OBSERVED: "THE FACTS ARE, AS THE COMMISSION FOUND, THAT THE UNITED STATES DISARMED THE SIOUX AND DENIED THEM THEIR TRADITIONAL HUNTING AREAS IN AN EFFORT TO FORCE THE SALE OF THE BLACK HILLS. HAVING VIOLATED THE 1868 TREATY and having reduced the Indians to starvation, the United States should not now be in the position of saying that the rations it furnished constituted payment for the land which it took.
In fact, the whole premise was a deceptive plot in order to get the Sioux to sell in the first place. The court notes that illegal actions were committed even before the Agreement of 1877, the deal that the 1980 Supreme Court case deals with. Note the following:
> IN THE WINTER OF 1875-1876, many of the SIOUX WERE HUNTING IN THE UNCEDED TERRITORY north of the North Platte River, reserved to them for that purpose in the Fort Laramie Treaty. On December 6, 1875, for reasons that are not entirely clear, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs sent instructions to the Indian agents on the reservation to notify those hunters that if they did not return to the reservation agencies by January 31, 1876, they would be treated as "hostiles." Given the severity of the winter, compliance with these instructions was impossible. ON FEBRUARY 1, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR NONETHELESS RELINQUISHED JURISDICTION OVER ALL HOSTILE SIOUX, INCLUDING THOSE INDIANS EXERCISING THEIR TREATY-PROTECTED HUNTING RIGHTS, TO THE WAR DEPARTMENT.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/448/371.html
The Sioux have maintained the land was illegally taken. As a party to the treaty, there is no legal justification for why they wouldn’t have a say in the treaty:
> One key problem: The tribes say the payment is invalid because the land was never for sale and accepting the funds would be tantamount to a sales transaction. Ross Swimmer, former special trustee for American Indians, said the trust fund remains untouched for one reason: “They didn’t want the money. They wanted the Black Hills.”
>“The Sioux tribes have always maintained that that confiscation was illegal and the tribes must have some of their ancestral lands returned to them, and they’ve maintained that position since 1877,” said Mario Gonzalez, general counsel for the Oglala Sioux Tribe, who has devoted much of his career to the issue.
http://www.pbs.org/.../north_america-july-dec11.../
The opinion of the United States Court of Claims also reaffirms this:
> More than 100 years later, in 1979, the United States Court of Claims, discussing the federal government’s misdeeds against the Sioux, including its tactic of starving them, before it appropriated the land, wrote that “a more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealing will never, in all probability, be found in our history.”
http://www.nytimes.com/.../sioux-race-to-find-millions-to...
The Sioux sued to recover the land after the 1980 SCOTUS decision which effectively ruled the taking as illegal, and they decided what compensation they wanted to pay. The Sioux, as a nation, has a right to disagree with the compensation they offered and refuse it, which is what they have done. The compensation has accrued interest over the years and is now worth $1.3 Billion dollars. No matter what your opinion on the topic, or mine, there is no legal obligation to accept this money and the Supreme Court has ruled that this is, in fact, their land, and that it was stolen.
