The Standing Rock Protests, A Macrocosmic And Microcosmic Approach

In recent history, social media dramatically altered the way people interacted and spread messages. The ability to communicate with anyone regardless of their location allowed activists to reach a wider audience through avenues apart from mainstream media. Standing Rock protestors utilized hashtags and posts to fight the proposed construction of an oil pipeline in Standing Rock, North Dakota. These indigenous peoples and conservationists carried an important message that had become increasingly significant over time: the destruction of nature due to human activities must stop. By using social media to raise awareness for their fight against an oil pipeline, Standing Rock protestors harnessed new technologies to combat threats to their environment. When viewed in a greater context, the Standing Rock Protests are consistent with the trends seen in the rise of environmentalism and social media.

In 2016, a natural gas company named Energy Transfer Partners began construction for a 1,172-mile underground oil pipeline that would transport oil from North Dakota to Illinois. The project, called the Dakota Access Pipeline, could have carried 478,000 gallons of oil a day to energy consumers throughout the region. However, Energy Transfer Partners ignored the glaring issues with their project due to their focus on profit.[1]

While the pipeline was a potentially lucrative project for its owners, it posed significant threats to the environment and intruded on the land of indigenous tribes. Activists organized nonviolent demonstrations on the grounds where the construction would take place and used social media to gain support for their mission with the hashtag #NoDAPL. The movement gained immense popularity online and influenced the federal government to give the protestors a temporary victory by reviewing its approvals for the pipeline construction.

Supporters of the Standing Rock Protests advocated for the protection of the land’s cultural heritage and natural resources, and they associated with the contemporary environmental movement. In the mid 20th century, local efforts to preserve wilderness, clean air, and pure water developed into a global fight against greed. Independent organizations such as the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace raised funds and awareness for wildlife conservation. President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the concern for pollution rose. His initiative raised the issue of environmental protection to political leaders around the world. In June 1972, representatives from 113 nations attended the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment to discuss possible initiatives. They founded the United Nations Environment Programme to organize a worldwide effort to encourage sustainable development, especially in developing countries.

Over the next few years, colossal ecological disasters stimulated the environmentalist movement. In Bhopal, India, a gas leak killed thousands of people, and in Chernobyl, a nuclear accident released dangerous radioactive particles throughout Western Europe. These events led to the creation of political parties devoted to environmental concerns.

The environmental movement expanded in scope and influence at the end of the 20th century. Multilateral environmental treaties and political summits advocated for limits on greenhouse emissions to fight a new enemy: global warming. In 1992, an international agreement titled the Kyoto Protocol committed the nations involved to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Since developed countries were historically responsible for the high level of greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol stressed that these developed nations must enact stricter limits on their emissions.

Even though climate change had become a global issue, its role in American politics did not reach its height until the 21st century. In 2006, former Vice President Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth discussed the urgent threat of global warming and propelled the issue to the limelight of American politics.[2] Despite this, the issue of climate change failed to transcend partisan barriers. Addressing the issue became a fundamental part of the American left’s ideology, while the American right refused to acknowledge its existence.

Conservative politicians and energy companies like Energy Transfer Partners wanted to continue to exploit natural resources for profit, even though most scientific experts vehemently disagreed, because they were unwilling to sacrifice economic growth for the safety of the environment.[3]

Although the Dakota Access pipeline mainly traveled through private land for legal reasons, it was scheduled to continue under the Missouri River near Bismarck, North Dakota, to reach its destination. Millions of people in the region depend on this part of the Missouri River for their water supply. Therefore, the pipeline would travel under Lake Oahe, a different section of the Missouri River that serves as the water supply for Sioux Indians of the Standing Rock reservation. The contamination of either of these bodies of water by an oil spill could lead to a public health crisis. The government found it unacceptable to pollute the water supply of Bismarck but approved the plan that could harm the water supply of Sioux Indians of the Standing Rock Reservation. Energy Transfer Partners disregarded the potentially catastrophic effects of its pipeline on the waters of North Dakota. But, advocates for water conservation concluded they could not allow Energy Transfer Partners to construct the pipeline along its planned route.[4]

In addition to the project’s aquatic drawbacks, the Dakota Access Pipeline was supposed to travel through the sacred burial lands of the indigenous Sioux Tribe. Months of construction next to the Standing Rock Reservation could lead to the destruction of cultural heritage. The Sioux Indians were unwilling to sacrifice the health of their land for the economic gain of Energy Transfer Partners. Initially, the route of the pipeline was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who concluded the pipeline would have no significant impact on the surrounding areas. This review neglected the cultural importance of the Standing Rock Reservation to the American Indians who inhabit the area. The Sioux Indians were not given representation during the planning stage of the pipeline, so the route was approved. But, once Sioux leaders realized the pipeline was planned to travel right next to their reservation, Sioux Indians felt the need to protest.[5]

Leading groups for water conservation and indigenous rights united for a common cause: the rerouting of the Dakota Access Pipeline. They elected to organize prayer circles and temporary camps along the planned route for the project. Leaders of this movement stressed to their disciples that the intentions of the Standing Rock Protests were nonviolent. The local police responded with a militarized force that violently abused and arrested hundreds of peaceful protestors with non-lethal weapons such as tasers, rubber bullets, and pepper spray.[6] Several demonstrators were charged with offenses that ranged from criminal trespass to rioting. North Dakota law enforcement began to block critical supplies such as food and means to build shelter from reaching the camps.[7]

The mistreatment of Standing Rock protestors was filmed and shared on social media along with the hashtag #NoDAPL. Soon, the movement gained an enormous internet following. More than 1 million Facebook users utilized a “check-in” feature to display their support.[8] The overwhelming response from strangers online propelled the Standing Rock Protests into mainstream media.[9] Celebrities such as Mark Ruffalo, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, and Alicia Keys expressed their solidarity with the movement on different platforms.[10]

With the power of the internet, Standing Rock protestors were able to transform their non-violent demonstrations into a national discussion of environmentalism, indigenous rights, and abuse of power by law enforcement. The advent of social media allowed Americans to interact with others, share files, and view content from their internet devices. News companies tried to adapt and create online platforms while neglecting physical publications like newspapers and magazines.

The ability of individuals to reach a wider audience radically changed how information was shared and consumed. Every person with a phone or computer could video, photograph, and share their stories or opinions. Videos and pictures of the police response to Standing Rock demonstrations shocked the public and generated support for the #NoDAPL cause.

Before the demonstrations, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg denied a request from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s request for an injunction to prevent Energy Transfer Partners from continuing construction. His decision was overruled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on December 4, 2016 after weeks of protests. The Army Corps agreed to “explore alternate routes” and formulate a statement about the environmental aspect of the Dakota Access Pipeline, much to the dismay of Energy Transfer Partners.[11] Without the support that social media generated for the Standing Rock protests, this achievement would have been unlikely. However, due to the individuals’ ability to share their stories through the internet, the Standing Rock Sioux Indians could preserve their way of life and their water supply for at least a few more years.[12]

Like the protestors at Standing Rock, the power of internet sharing was exercised by victims of police brutality, sexual harassment, and school shootings to raise awareness for a particular issue and organize a response. In 2013, the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the murder of Trayvon Martin sparked an outcry from the African American community, united under the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. After a white police officer brutally shot an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, the movement gained national attention for their peaceful demonstrations and marches. Over the ensuing years, videos and images of police brutality against blacks were published with #BlackLivesMatter. With the unifying hashtag, various efforts for African American rights joined together and fought different forms of discrimination through marches and die-ins. The response to #BlackLivesMatter also took an online form; the hashtags #PoliceLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter stressed that black Americans were not the only victims of violence.

In addition to racial tensions, the internet was the primary platform for sexual harassment victims in the #MeToo movement. The origin of this movement occurred in 2006 when a social activist named Tarana Burke utilized the phrase “me too” on a MySpace thread to describe her experience with sexual harassment as a woman of color. She had hoped to display how prevalent sexual harassment truly is, especially in the workplace.

Her hopes came to fruition in 2017, when public figures transformed the phrase “me too” into the trending hashtag #MeToo. Alyssa Milano posted the phrase to her large Twitter following: “If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me Too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[13] Within 10 days, the hashtag #MeToo was tweeted nearly 2 million times. In the ensuing months, dozens of women publicly accused producer Harvey Weinstein of sexually harassing them. In other industries, such as music, politics, and modeling, women had encountered men like Weinstein but felt there was no course of action to publicize their experiences. The #MeToo movement offered these women the chance to share their stories safely. These alleged perpetrators were often fired or quit their jobs as a result of the publicity surrounding them. Even though media coverage of the movement tended to focus on the experiences of wealthy, white women, #MeToo sparked a conversation about sexual harassment for people of all races and backgrounds.[14]

Victims of sexual harassment were able to discuss their experiences openly, thereby encouraging others to do so. Many sexual harassment victims had kept their experiences to themselves, but #MeToo presented them with an online platform of solidarity. The internet decreased tolerance for this behavior and strengthened support for victims by exposing rampant sexual harassment.[15]

The digital revolution democratized the power of the internet and provided every individual with the capability to effect change on a societal scale. A video of violence or a catchy hashtag was a sufficient spark to tackle social issues that have burdened the United States for decades. To support these movements, an internet user did not need to risk his or her safety or security and could instead show support from any location in the world.

The unprecedented capabilities of the internet as a means of change were undoubtedly successful for social justice causes but were not used for environmental safety until #NoDAPL. The Dakota Access Pipeline threatened water sources for thousands of people in North Dakota and the cultural heritage of the Sioux Indians. Without the internet, the fight against Energy Transfer Partners would have been over before it began. For decades, the immense reach of oil conglomerates seemed impossible to defeat. That was until the internet offered Standing Rock Protestors the opportunity to transform the construction of a few miles of the pipeline into a global effort to protect natural resources from human activities. Environmentalism made significant progress towards conserving wildlife, reducing greenhouse gases, and protecting natural resources. In the ongoing fight against climate, environmentalists have added a new tool to their repertoire to impact change: the internet.

[1] Levin, Sam. “Dakota Access Pipeline: the Who, the What and Why of the Standing Rock Protests.” The Guardian, November 3, 2016.

[2] Brinkley, Alan, John Michael Giggie, and Andrew Huebner. The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History Of The American People (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2016), 812–815.

[3] Eladio Bobadilla et al., “The Recent Past,” Michael Hammond, ed., in The American Yawp, eds. Joseph Locke and Ben Wright (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018).

[4] Meyer, Robinson. “The Victory at Standing Rock: What it Means, What the Law Says, What Comes Next.” The Atlantic, December 5, 2016.

[5] Fonda, Jane. “Standing Rock is Greed vs Humanity’s Future.” Time, December 1, 2016.

[6] Davey, Monica. Skalicky, Sue. “Tensions Between Police and Standing Rock Protestors Reaches Boiling Point.” New York Times, October 28, 2016.

[7] Voorhees, Josh. “North Dakota Police Want to Deny Standing Rock Protestors Food and Shelter.” Slate, November 29, 2016.

[8] Meyer, Robinson. Waddell, Kaveh “‘Check-In At Standing Rock’: Does it Help Protestors?” The Atlantic, October 31, 2016.

[9] Torchin, Leshu. “What Can the Mass ‘Check-In’ at Standing Rock Tell Us About Online Advocacy?” The Conversation, November 4, 2016.

[10] Cook, James. “Standing Rock Protests: Companies Attack Dakota Pipeline Ruling.” BBC, December 5, 2016.

[11] Matheuws, Susan. Hansen, Christian. “Standing Rock Epitomizes the Conflict Between Short Term and Long Term Priorities.” Slate, December 11, 2016.

[12] Whyte, Kyle. “Five Reasons Why the North Dakota Pipeline Fight Will Continue in 2017.” The Conversation, January 5, 2017.

[13] Gilbert, Sophie. “The Movement of #MeToo.” The Atlantic, October 16, 2017.

[14] Animashaun, Christina. “The #MeToo Movement and Its Evolution, Explained.” Vox, October 11, 2018

[15] Eladio Bobadilla et al., “The Recent Past,” Michael Hammond, ed., in The American Yawp, eds. Joseph Locke and Ben Wright (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018).