The Passion Behind Standing Rock Protest
Police arrested more than 140 Native American and environmental protesters
challenging an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North
Dakota, a project touching the raw nerves of water and global warming, reports
Dennis J Bernstein.
By Dennis J Bernstein
The months-long struggle to stop the Dakota Pipeline near the territory of the
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota has raised passions among Native
American activists and environmentalists who have clashed with police trying to
sweep the protesters aside.
To explain the intensity of the resistance, I interviewed Bill Means, co-founder
of the American Indian Movement (AIM) and chairman of the International Indian
Treaty Council, which has supported the North Dakota pipeline protests.
In late August, the Treaty Council joined forces with the local tribes of The
Standing Rock Sioux and appealed to the United Nations to intercede and take
formal action in support of the their fight against the construction of the
Dakota pipeline over sacred Indian lands.
“We specifically request that the United States Government impose an immediate
moratorium on all pipeline construction until the Treaty Rights and Human Rights
of the Standing Rock Tribe can be ensured and their free, prior and informed
consent is obtained,” stated Standing Rock Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault, and
the Treaty Council, in their joint appeal to U.N. human rights officials. They
requested actions by four U.N. human rights Special Rapporteurs citing “ongoing
threats and violations to the human rights of the Tribe, its members and its
future generations.”
The interview preceded this week’s latest round of arrests.
Dennis Bernstein: Bill Means, your work with the American Indian Movement as a
co-founder and your knowledge of the treaties, and how many times are broken,
and how they’re broken by the United States government, has always been
enlightening and important. I know you are monitoring Standing Rock, and have
taken an active stand, as a current board member of the International Indian
Treaty Council.
Why don’t you just say first what it signifies at this point, in the struggle.
And then some of the things that come to mind in terms of what you’ve been
observing about it.
Bill Means: Well, first of all the overall struggle against global warming is
really the backdrop to Standing Rock. And that’s the reason why I think so many
people around the world, and the tribes all over America, are beginning to find
affinity and support and solidarity with the people at Standing Rock, because it
represents this world-wide struggle for sacred Mother Earth. So having that
backdrop we’ve got various types of good news, and some sad news.
Of course, the very good and healthy news is we had the first baby born on the
base of the Missouri River, at the Sacred Stone Camp at Standing Rock, which was
beautiful. Born with the midwives there, and all the attention and support of
the community. The women came forward and brought this new life here into this
world at Standing Rock. So we hope that this young child will have a Mother
Earth that she can be proud of, that she can grow up in that’s clean, and has
clean water, and so that represents the future.
Also developing was the fact that our good friend and colleague, Miss Amy
Goodman, had her case thrown out … by a federal judge in Bismarck, North Dakota.
Where he said that she’s a journalist, doing her job, and she shouldn’t have
been charged with these type [of] charges in the first place, and completely
threw the charges out. So that’s a good development, as well as several other
people she was arrested with. So I think that’s a beginning to turn the table on
the illegal use and manipulation of the law to prevent legal, shall we say,
dissent, to prevent people that are protesting legally and peacefully from their
acts of courage. So that was good news, on that front.
And then, of course, we have the ongoing problem that people have recorded …,
massive trucks, semis carrying pipe. And so they are anxiously and quickly
trying to get as much pipe laid towards the Missouri River as humanly possible,
before there’s any type of interruptions of specific places they can’t go, which
we know right now is being held up from crossing under the Missouri River. And
we’re hoping that this extends itself out to other areas.
And so right now the company, the DAPL, Dakota Access Pipeline people are, where
they can, they’re still building as fast as they can without any regard to the
restraining orders or any regard to the federal authorities that asked them to
quit and to cease and desist from building until the tribe, and other proper
authorities have been, shall we say, counseled with, have been involved in some
type of negotiation on [these] whole various issues of treaty rights, water
rights, environmental issues. And so there’s plenty of law that needs to be
settled but yet the Dakota Access pipeline continues to be built.
So we have in the face of these positive developments, we have yet to see the
company cease and desist in the other areas.
DB: Bill, let me ask you to … step into that role for a moment and talk about
the stand that the council has taken and the significance in history in terms of
this stand, and this place, that we’re talking about in North Dakota.
BM: Well, first of all to give you a larger picture, the Missouri River, as you
know, covers about four states, and bisects the state of South Dakota from north
to south, I should say north-west to south-west. Also, including North Dakota,
and Montana, and Iowa, and a little bit of Nebraska. So, having said that, you
get that picture in your mind, they built at least four dams on the Missouri
River that are directly built on Indian treaty land.
See, in our treaty of 1868 and 1851, those two treaties significantly for time
immemorial set the borders of the Great Sioux Nation on the east bank of the
Missouri River. And the 1851 treaty was even past east of the Missouri River. So
you see those treaties being violated from the beginning of building all these
dams. Because the dams are built on federal reservations and flood, primarily,
federal Indian land.
So there’s many communities, including Standing Rock, which was flooded by the
Oahe Dam, built in Pierre, South Dakota, in that region, which flooded not only
Standing Rock but Cheyenne River Reservation. And then you have Yankton
Reservation flooded twice, once by the Gavins Point Dam, and another time by the
Fort Randall Dam. […] There’s a famous act known as the Pick-Sloan Act of
federal government that was passed back in the ’40’s that allows these dams to
be built.
And so we have a situation where [there is] the continued violation of treaty
rights and water rights. The water, by treaty, belongs to Indian people. Now,
Indian people have the philosophy that the water belongs to everyone. But we
have to maintain these treaty rights and these water rights. And there’s a
famous case in the water rights that says, “All the water necessary for the
survival of Indian people should be granted in any kind of negotiation, should
be under the jurisdiction of the Indian tribes.” And that was a famous case up
on the Milk River in Montana. And so it’s called the Winters Doctrine of Federal
Indian Water Law. So that’s kind of a doctrine that’s been there for many, many
years.
Now, in spite of that, the government began to develop these dams on the
Missouri River, and […] the Missouri River was never litigated, that is, the
water was never divided up like it is, say, on the Colorado River over further
west. And so, since their water rights have never been litigated, the water has
not been quantified like who owns what drop of water, who owns this bank, who
owns that bank, has not been decided.
And so, in our mind, in the federal law’s mind, we still have authority over the
Missouri River, not only by treaty but by federal Indian water rights. So that’s
the idea and the legal fight for Indian people. And that’s how Standing Rock got
involved because of all these dams being built on the Missouri.
And there’s also the issue not only of the environmental issues, in which the
federal government is required by law to do what they call environmental impacts
statements, environmental impact study, which is supposed to give warning. [But]
they’re supposed to give the impact of these massive development projects on the
people. Not only Indian people, but non-Indian people.
So a lot of these rules and regulations are either being trampled on by the
corporate entities or ignored by the federal government, or given some kind of a
lip service to state government, or what they call the Public Utilities
Commission. So this is kind of the backdrop, where we have state and federal
authorities negligent throughout this process, historically, and even today, in
protecting the rights of not only American Indians, but American citizens. So
this is why we fight.
DB: We saw their struggle at Wounded Knee, many of their struggles, but a big
one at Wounded Knee. Bill also is on the Board of the International Treaty
Council, and they’re working with the local tribes in this struggle. And, Bill,
can I ask you to just talk a little bit about the stand that the Treaty Council
has taken and how you’ve been working with the local tribes legally, if you
will?
BM: Ah, yeah, we’ve been working in two areas. [First] helping them to organize
through the National Lawyers Guild– legal defense for those water protectors
that are being charged with various crimes as they do their legal, and peaceful,
protests to the pipeline. So that’s one area that’s very important. And we want
to give kudos and strength to the National Lawyers Guild for lending that
support, and other lawyers both that work for the tribe and others.
Another area that’s significant is that the International Indian Treaty Council
along with the Standing Rock Sioux tribe filed [a] human rights complaint with
the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, as part of the United Nations
under the Human Rights Laws and Protocol that the United States has agreed to as
being part of the United Nations.
Here we’ve presented the evidence of which I’ve talked about–federal/state
regulations, treaty rights, water rights that are facts in law–and presented
those human rights as human rights violations in the struggle of Indian people
to maintain clean water, and access to clean water, and drinking water. So we
presented to specific, what they call, repertoires. These are people that study
the issues, internationally in the Human Rights Commission. And those special
repertoires, or the issues they’re studying, of course, is the special
repertoire on water, the special repertoire on indigenous peoples, the special
repertoire of sacred places.
As you know, in Syria and in other wars around the world, these armies, these
militants, these people have destroyed many, many graves, artifacts, in an
attempt to promote their way of life. And so this has become an international
issue. […] The DAPL pipeline in particular has destroyed graves already. And so
all these issues, whether it’s water, whether it’s the rights of Indigenous
people, are now being studied by the United Nations. And the United States has
to answer these questions as party to these human rights treaties that they
signed.
So, we have pressure being exerted internationally by the United Nation’s human
rights system. While all these other issues are going on both locally, in the
courts from the water resisters, as well as the water protectors, as well as the
tribe itself in federal court. So we have a court case going against various
federal agencies, and now some negotiations are taking place with the Department
of the Army which handles Corps of Engineers, which governs the river ways and
waterways of America. Also, we have involved the Department of Interior and the
Department of Justice. So we can tell from those various words that they have
significant interests in these issues.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is totally within the Department of Interior. And,
of course, the Department of Justice is supposed to be protecting us, the Indian
people, the American people from these corporate carpetbaggers, and these
corporate interests that continue to ignore the laws of the United States and
treaty laws.
So, here we have three agencies now involved in trying to carry out negotiations
and what they call “consultations” with the tribes and the local communities of
non-Indians who are also protesting.
DB: There’s a couple things in terms of the terminology I want you to expand on,
but first of all, in terms of the graves… you say that sacred grave sites,
burial sites have already been destroyed. Who would have been in those graves?
BM: Well, these ancient sites, some of our ancestors were buried along the
river, as you know, we have a saying in our language which goes “water is life.”
So in respect for the life, many times historically our people were buried
overlooking the river, overlooking the water. And that attachment goes back
centuries, in our culture the role of water [is] as the first medicine to our
people. And the role that water plays in humanity, and its need for purity. Its
need to allow our people to grow, to live.
And so, this is one of the areas that historically our people were buried and
then, as this pipeline goes, there’s even a federal act for that called American
Indian Graves and Historical Preservation Act. And in that federal law, federal
entities and companies are supposed to consult and they’re supposed to work with
Indian tribes when they come across these ancient burial grounds.
And so, these go back for many centuries, some of these burial grounds, as well
as fairly modern day areas. So rather than consult, they generally just go
through and destroy them. Or when they do consult, their way of consulting is
they call the local state university, have the anthros come out, dig up the
bones that are left and haul them off to the university, in total disrespect for
our culture, for humanity, for our way of life.
And so, this is a problem that has [been] seen time and again with these
pipelines, these development projects, in and around the Missouri River,
especially because water being life, there’s a lot of, shall we say, generations
that have grown up around that river, and continue to live in those areas. So
that’s why it’s important. It would be akin, I guess, like if we went in and
started digging up maybe some famous cemetery. You know, what if we went to say
the National Military Cemetery, in Washington, D.C. and started digging them up.
DB: …over there at Arlington, where they have the ceremonies every year.
BM: Yeah, if we went there and started digging them up, or maybe to the
Cathedral of Saint John, in New York. And where they have their burial ground,
outside there in New York, we go there and start digging up and say we want to
look for the size of the heads, or we want to study the white man, in these
Indian universities and Indian colleges. People would be outraged. But, yet,
when it’s Indian people calling for justice for destroying our culture, and our
historical artifacts, and our graves, somehow we get ignored. Somehow we get a
dual standard of justice when it comes to Indian people.
And so, we have to make this resistance in order to send a message to America
that, “We’re still here as Indigenous people.” Not only here in America but
wherever the minerals, wherever the clean water still exists, that’s where
Indigenous people are today, all over the world.
DB: And, to put this in the political context, obviously there’s a presidential
election going on. Have any of these candidates expressed any sympathy for the
Indigenous community for this case against destroying sacred burial grounds and
digging up graves, so that universities can study the bones? Has anybody stepped
forward? Have you been impressed by any of the politicians?
BM: Ah, no not at all. As a matter of fact, Donald Trump said there’s a war on
coal, and that he’s going to stop that war. Now, coal is probably the most
devastating form of energy production that we have in America, or in the world.
So that gives you an idea about his concern about Mother Earth. Hillary, on the
other hand, has only paid lip service to Indian issues. We haven’t heard her
come out on the DAPL pipeline, or any other pipeline. She did say that she
changed her position on the XL pipeline, which President Obama stopped, along
with some white ranchers in Nebraska, and Indian people that worked
together–what they called the CIA, Cowboy and Indian Alliance, which is getting
stronger by the day, where white people and Indian people have come together–to
protect their land.
And so, the candidates, they haven’t even voiced a public statement, for sure.
And it only comes out when asked maybe in a local rally or something, then they
give basically lip service, and talk about window dressing on the issue.
DB: Before we let you go, and this is something I’ve really been wanting to
speak with you about. I think one of the most powerful parts of this movement is
that the Indigenous community is really taking the lead. They’ve really come
together and opened the door in a way that white people and all people can sort
of come in and be a part of it. But the fact is, that… and the power is, we now
refer to the protestors as water protectors, or water resistors, this is through
the Indigenous communities vision of life which is really a vision in the
context of global warming, it’s the only vision that can save us.
BM: Exactly right. I think that what Indigenous people have to offer the world
is the fact that we have to build our policies and our governments around the
future of Mother Earth. And so whether you’re left or right, we all have to live
on the Earth. Whether you’re left or right, you have to drink water, water that
is pure.
And, so these basic issues of human life are what Indigenous people have been
calling for respect, all these years. It’s only when we protest that it brings
this issue into the forefront of the rest of the world, where they decide hey,
maybe this global warming does have an impact on Indigenous people, because it’s
impacting us. Whether that’s in Europe, whether that’s in the United States,
Latin America. The pollution has gotten so bad that it’s beginning to affect our
daily lives. And so, until you respect Earth itself, and the power of Mother
Earth, then you will never respect the future of our future generations, and
those who come after us.
The Indian philosophy of life is that we have to look seven generations ahead
when we make these decisions about development, about exploitation of natural
resources, about all these extractive industries. What harm does that do to our
Mother, the Earth? And what is the impact on the future generations? So that’s
the philosophy that’s beginning to come out in terms of political variations in
government policy around the world, is that we really have to, no matter what
form of government you have, you have to be able if you look at Mother Earth as
the leading policy, as the primary very function of government – just protect
the Earth, not corporations. And so, until we can do that then I think we’re in
a losing battle.
And we hope that these types of struggles, which we have no intention of
changing because it’s going on all where Indigenous people are around the world,
which is now 400 million Indigenous people who still speak their language, still
have their traditional government, still have their culture and language. These
are the people who are protecting the Earth. And we hope to enlarge that Earth
protective family, to include each and every American, each and every citizen
living on Mother Earth.
DB: Bill, it’s almost a tradition with us in terms of remembering Leonard
Peltier. Now, last we spoke you gave President Obama an F for keeping his
promises in terms of really making a difference in the Indigenous communities of
North America. Do you think, and what would you say, do you think he could raise
his grade from and F to a D or a C, if he decided to take a courageous action
and finally, finally free Leonard Peltier?
BM: Yes, I think he really could because Leonard Peltier represents the
treatment the United States government has given to Indian people throughout the
history of this great country. And so until we can deal with the basic issues of
human rights and justice, then I think Indian people will always be on the
bottom rung of the ladder of social justice. And so I think it’s up to President
Obama, before he leaves to try to take this one act of clemency, in which
everyone will be able to sit down at the table and say, “Leonard Peltier is
finally free. He’s going home. He’s going to see his children, for the first
time in 41 years.” And we hope and we pray that that happens before the
president goes out of office.
Dennis J Bernstein is a host of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and
the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the
audio archives at www.flashpoints.net.