Thursday, September 15, 2016

Standing Rock Sioux and Other Tribes' Protest of Dakota Access Pipeline Temporarily Halts Construction

The Wired Word for the Week of September 18, 2016
In the News
On September 9, a federal judge denied a request from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to order the company Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) to halt construction of the partially completed controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. The following day, the departments of the Army, Interior and Justice issued a joint statement indicating that the Army Corps of Engineers will not grant permission to drill under the Missouri River until the corps has reviewed the case.
Then on Tuesday, September 13, the North Dakota National Guard, in conjunction with highway patrol officers dressed in riot gear, confronted protesters, some of whom had chained themselves to construction equipment in an effort to stop workers from continuing to bulldoze land they hold sacred. About 20 people were arrested, including journalists and medics.
Over Labor Day weekend, six tribe members, including one child, were bitten by dogs handled by security guards working for the Dakota Access Pipeline company. At least 30 were pepper sprayed, according to tribe spokesman Steve Sitting Bear. Four security personnel and two dogs were also injured. Kandi Mossett, of the Indigenous Environmental Network, said the Native Americans are committed to "nonviolent direct action."
Members of 200 tribes from across the United States and Canada have flocked to the Dakota prairie land in increasing numbers since April to demonstrate solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux in what some call "the largest unification of Native American tribes in decades."
Jessie Weahkee of Albuquerque, who traveled 17 hours from Albuquerque with a truck full of supplies for the protesters living at the camp, told a reporter, "It's about our rights as native people to this land. It's about our rights to worship. It's about our rights to be able to call a place home, and it's our rights to water."
Calling themselves "protectors" rather than "protesters," the Standing Rock Sioux object to the 1,172 mile-long crude oil pipeline, claiming it crosses ancient burial grounds, significant tribal cultural sites, and waterways essential for their survival, including the Missouri River, the tribe's only source of water. Tribal leaders also argue that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to fulfill their legal obligation under the National Historic Preservation Act to consult with them on a "government-to-government" basis before issuing a permit for the $3.8 billion project.
According to a statement submitted to the court by tribal preservation officer Tim Mentz, the Standing Rock Sioux were only recently given permission to survey the private land in question. Less than 24 hours after the tribe provided the court with evidence of the presence of culturally significant artifacts on the land, the ETP began bulldozing a 150-feet-wide swath of topsoil two miles long in the disputed area.
Tribal Chairman David Archambault II lamented, "This demolition is devastating. These grounds are the resting places of our ancestors. The [artifacts] ... there cannot be replaced. In one day, our sacred land has been turned into hollow ground."
The 30-inch diameter pipeline, which is designed to carry about half a million barrels of crude oil per day from Western North Dakota's Bakken and Three Forks production areas through South Dakota and Iowa to the port city of Patoka, Illinois, is scheduled to be operational by the end of 2016. Almost all of the route is on private land. A federal permit is only required for the 3 percent of the pipeline that crosses waterways.
The ETP claims that shipping oil by pipeline is "more direct, cost-effective, safer and [more] environmentally responsible" than using trains or trucks. Supporters point to the creation of 8,000 to 12,000 local jobs during the construction phase, with increased tax revenue for state and local governments. The pipeline, which is 48 percent complete, is touted as an important part of a national security strategy to help reduce America's dependence on foreign imports of oil.
One of the activists told reporter Amy Goodman: "No one owns this land. This land belongs to the Earth. We are only caretakers. We're caretakers of the Earth. We win every day when we stand in unity. We stand, and we fight."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Applying the News Story
TWW team member Jim Berger, who served as a Presbyterian pastor in Petersburg, Alaska, from 1978-1993, working extensively for Native American rights, remarked: "This is a debate about Native American rights, mineral rights and spiritual traditions. Throw in water rights and the protection of water for the future generations and you have a free-for-all."
Alaskan tribes fought for decades for recognition of their land claims, Berger explained. The Alaska churches (Presbyterian and Episcopal) have been partners with the tribes in their fight for sovereignty over their lands.
This news story presents issues of fair and just distribution of resources, property rights and responsibilities, and conflicting priorities and values of different forces within a society. We will explore how Christians can navigate these often confusing and prickly matters.
The Big Questions
1. As a way of viewing this struggle from the Standing Rock Sioux perspective, consider how you would feel if the Army Corps of Engineers bulldozed graves in Arlington National Cemetery to enable more people throughout the country to have a less expensive supply of heating oil? Or if your family plot were disturbed to make way for a business, nonprofit or infrastructure such as a highway? Would it make a difference to you why the land was commandeered? Why or why not?
2. What (if any) should be the role of the church in matters of land use, property rights and Native American legal claims?
3. When is "eminent domain" justified, and when is it just a legal form of stealing? Who decides when "eminent domain" should apply, and what factors should be considered in such decisions?
4. When it comes to your property, what "rights" do you consider "inviolate" or "inalienable," and why do you put them in this category?
5. People on both sides of the pipeline debate may believe in protecting the environment, yet arrive at very different conclusions about proper use of resources. What scriptures and biblical principles guide you in the way you think about these issues?
Confronting the News With Scripture and HopeHere are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Genesis 13:11-12So Lot chose for himself all the plain of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed eastward; thus they separated from each other. Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled among the cities of the Plain and moved his tent as far as Sodom. (For context, read 13:5-12.)
After a sojourn in Egypt, Abram and his nephew Lot made their way back to Bethel, a border town north of Jerusalem. Because the land could not support both of their households, herds and flocks, the elder Abram graciously gave Lot first choice of territory. Lot chose fertile land on the east side of the Dead Sea, and Abram took what was left, settling in the vicinity of Hebron. It is a nice change of pace to see one side, especially the more powerful side, step back and give in, but that is what Abram did, to avoid strife.
Questions: How does this incident compare with what is happening in North Dakota right now? Is there anything we can learn from Abram's actions that might apply to that conflict? When have you yielded to someone in a weaker or subordinate position? What would motivate someone to give up an advantage voluntarily?
Genesis 26:19-22But when Isaac's servants dug in the valley and found there a well of spring water, the herders of Gerar quarreled with Isaac's herders, saying, "The water is ours." So he called the well Esek [which means "contention"], because they contended with him. Then they dug another well, and they quarreled over that one also; so he called it Sitnah [which means "enmity"]. He moved from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he called it Rehoboth[which means "broad places" or "room"], saying, "Now the LORD has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land." (For context, read 26:12-22.)
In this incident, Isaac moved to Philistia during a famine, where the Lord blessed him so much that the local people grew envious and resentful. Each time he dug a well, they laid claim to the water. So he kept moving, relinquishing any claim to the wells he had dug, until he found a place where no one bothered him anymore.
One of the local legends in Elkhart County, Indiana, concerns two farmers who, early in the 20th century, had a disputed boundary. At one point they ceased trying to resolve it and instead planted a long row of trees over the area of the disputed boundary and ceased trying to develop it.
There is a grave in the middle of a county road in Indiana where a descendant of Pocahontas was buried in a "family plot." When the county wanted to remove the cemetery for a new road, the descendant, armed with a shotgun, planted himself there. The upshot was that the road went around the grave, which was marked with an explanatory historical plaque. When the road was later improved again, the plot contained six other family members. The gravesite remains in its original location, with the road going on either side of the grave.
Questions: Do you see Isaac and his people as more analogous to the U.S. government, the builders of the pipeline or the Sioux in the lead story? Explain. When there is a property dispute, what guidelines should believers use to determine ownership? Should the history of treaty negations by the federal government against native peoples have any bearing in the current dispute? What should a Christian do when his or her property rights have been violated?
While Isaac withdrew from the conflict over water rights and moved on, the two Elkhart County farmers and the descendant of Pocahontas chose different ways to handle their disputes. What creative conflict resolution techniques have you found effective in transforming a dispute over property ownership?
Deuteronomy 19:14
You must not move your neighbor's boundary marker, set up by former generations, on the property that will be allotted to you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess. (No context needed.)
Deuteronomy 27:17
"Cursed be anyone who moves a neighbor's boundary marker." All the people shall say, "Amen!" (No context needed.)
These statutes are part of Mosaic law regarding how the people of Israel were to conduct themselves in relation to their neighbors. We have selected two from a variety of laws for their application to the matter of possession of property. The first indicates that boundaries established by former generations were binding on subsequent generations. They were not to be moved arbitrarily, whether boldly in broad daylight, or surreptitiously, an inch at a time, under cover of night. To do so would be to invite a curse from all the people.
Questions: In what way might a person who moves a neighbor's boundary marker be "cursed"? Other than wanting to avoid a curse, what might be some positive reasons to respect a neighbor's boundary markers? How might Robert Frost's poetic line, "Good fences make good neighbors," apply here?
Genesis 31:51-53
Then Laban said to Jacob, "See this heap and see the pillar, which I have set between you and me. This heap is a witness, and the pillar is a witness, that I will not pass beyond this heap to you, and you will not pass beyond this heap and this pillar to me, for harm. May the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor" -- the God of their father -- "judge between us." (For context, read 31:44-55.)
After Jacob left his father-in-law Laban's house in the dead of night to return home, Laban, hurt and angry, pursues him. The men exchange words, air their grievances, and come to an understanding, which they seal with a meal and the establishment of a heap of stones to mark their covenant not to pass the pillar of stones in order to harm each other.
The Mizpah "Benediction" spoken by Laban, "The LORD watch between you and me, when we are absent one from the other"(v. 49), really means that Laban didn't trust Jacob out of his sight, and when they were out of sight, he asked God to do the watching for him, to ensure that Jacob treated Laban's daughters that he had given him in marriage well.
Questions: What might be a modern equivalent of a heap of stones that Christians could use to mark an important commitment not to harm someone with whom one has had a disagreement? What is the significance of calling on the God of their fathers to judge between them? How might our relationships with people improve if we were more mindful that God willjudge between us?
For Further Discussion
1. Discuss this comment from TWW team member Jim Berger: "Mineral rights, drilling rights, and other rights may exist beneath property a person owns. The subterranean rights, of which an owner may not be aware, may have priority over the surface rights. Just because you hold the title to the ground under your feet does not necessarily mean you own the rights to the earth beneath the surface."
2. Respond to these two accounts:
TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey recalls how the local government took one of her father's rental properties, citing "eminent domain," so a university could develop the land for a long-forgotten purpose. The university razed the house and others on the block, and the land then sat dormant for years before any construction took place. While her father did receive some remuneration, he was forced to sell against his will at a time and price not of his choosing, and the community lost affordable housing units for years.
Another TWW contributor, David Lee, who is of Kiowa heritage, writes: "I know of one situation, when I-65 was created, where the highway bisected a farm, leaving a corner on one side and the rest on the other. Because of right of way, they could do nothing with that corner of ground, and then the city/county government swooped in to put a building on it, but never finished. The 'owner' still couldn't use it for the farmland it was. Pipelines are no different from highways, in that they have to have so much right of way over which the owner has no control."
If you have any experience with "eminent domain," share it with the group.
3. In some churches, it sometimes seems like a person or a family acts as if it "owns" a piece of common property in the church, such as the kitchen, the church lawn, a pew or church procedures. What is the difference between a healthy respect for property rights and a toxic insistence on control of property that one does not legitimately possess? When different peoples have different ideas about what constitutes property rights or whether something can be owned at all, how might you mediate such a dispute?
Responding to the News
This might be a good time to explore what positions your denomination has taken with regard to Native American concerns.
You might also want to initiate contact with Native American tribal councils in your area, to gain understanding and empathy for their people and culture, build better relationships, provide meaningful support for their community, and discover how to pray most effectively for them.
Prayer
Creator of the earth beneath our feet, hear our prayer for wisdom as we seek to be good stewards of the resources you have placed at our disposal. Spirit who breathes life into our bodies, inspire us to care for one another as Christ Jesus cared for us. Help us to listen carefully to others, so that we may hear not only their words, but feel their heartbeat. Amen.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)