Abstract

The United States has obtained its fair share of black eyes throughout the course of history, one huge aspect of that would be the treatment of Native Americans during the colonization and development of North America. Well, in recent years there has been yet another substantial conflict regarding the indigenous people that inhabited the land, one that became a topic of discussion across the entire country. This essay will explore the portrayal (or lack thereof) of Native Americans in the U.S. media – specifically as it relates to the Dakota Access Pipeline during the peak of its controversy from 2016 to 2017. The issue had a unique presence in the media – being somewhat underreported initially, then suddenly going viral on Facebook and other social media platforms. The variation of media attention that was given to the Dakota Access Pipeline, and its effects on the Standing Rock Reservation, allow for a thought-provoking project, questioning whether physical or virtual support was more impactful. The Dakota Access Pipeline held a mixed weight in the media, eventually gaining tremendous support from all over the world, proving the power of social media to unite the people – even without support from the government or press.

The theoretical framework used in this case study is built upon a few essential foundations, covering all relevant aspects of this controversy to address the research question: regarding whether physical or virtual support was more impactful. First, the essay presents an indifferent approach to the Dakota Access Pipeline, featuring an overview of the background and physical protests that occurred alongside the project’s construction. After establishing a contextual basis for the reader, the study will highlight the uproar in social media activity surrounding the controversy, focusing on specific examples and platforms. The social media trends coincided pretty consistently with the ongoing legal battle, so the subsequent section addresses the controversy as it took place in the courtroom. This section highlights the role of religion in relation to the Native Americans and their legal strategy during the controversial debate. The methods of approach for this essay will be that of a standard case study, as this project seeks to analyze a specific event – using research to establish validity with a thorough background and practicality as it explores the issue through a contemporary lens.

Background

Due to considerable growth in domestic oil production, the United States has experienced numerous expansions to the oil pipeline network around the country. One of the most notable examples of this is the Dakota Access Pipeline, which was recently constructed in 2016 to carry crude oil from northwest North Dakota to southern Illinois. This was a major project that stretches 1,172 miles throughout the Midwest, capable of carrying 570,000 barrels per day (Parfomak, 2017, p. 1). According to the official fact sheet published by the Dakota Access LLC, the $3.78 billion project, was funded by 5 big name oil companies, alongside paying $189 million of this amount to landowners affected by its construction (Dakota Access, 2016). The proposed plan spanned four states, including South Dakota and Iowa, and the leading partner claimed it would create thousands of temporary jobs and a few dozen permanent jobs. The purpose of this pipeline was to have a safer way to get crude oil a large distance, via an underground system rather than by train, and it is also more proficient from a business distribution side as well.

Controversy

The Dakota Access Pipeline has been opposed by a handful of groups, including Native Americans, who have an explicit issue with the course of the pipeline, and environmental groups, who have concerns regarding the fossil fuel infrastructure as well as the crossing of waterways (Parfomak, 2017, p. 3). The direct route of the pipeline travels within 500 feet of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, which sparked issues regarding the invasion of sacred land belonging to the Native Americans. The Native Americans also have concerns about the pipeline’s crossing of the Missouri River, which provides water for the reservation. In the journal published by CRS Insight, it analyzes the timeline of legal events that unfolded regarding these various groups and their actions against the planned construction. The author, Paul Parfomak, takes an unbiased approach as he briefly describes the events that took place in court. Parfomak provides a clear description of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and their role in this debate, as the organization is responsible for approving permits regarding interstate pipelines; since they often feature water crossings, disturbance of wetlands, and other impacts to the environment across the country. The CRS Insight article also addresses follow up to the event in 2017 when President Trump issued an executive memorandum directing the Corps to reconsider their previous decision, which originally did not authorize the pipeline’s construction.

Physical Protest

When plans for the Dakota Access Pipeline were announced in the spring of 2016, thousands of people from all walks of life gathered at camps along the area between the reservation and the pipeline’s planned route, thus initiating the #NoDAPL movement. In the journal article, written by Kyle Whyte, he focuses on the dispute that this incident has caused, specifically the #NoDAPL movement. This movement views the Dakota Access Pipeline as being a threat towards the water quality and cultural heritage of the Dakota and Lakota peoples within the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Whyte, 2017, p. 155). Another aspect that fuels controversy regarding the pipeline’s construction, lies in the fact that the oil route crosses through land and waterways which were never legitimately conceded to the United States, and still hold cultural value to the tribe’s members (Whyte, 2017, p. 155). The development of this pipeline quickly sparked conflict because some early aspects of construction destroyed culturally significant areas, such as ancient burial grounds. The journal article includes a handful of quality quotes from Native Americans or other people who contributed to this movement:

“protectors know the land is sacred, a living breathing entity, for whom we must care, as she cares for us. And so, it is possible to love land and water so fiercely you will live in a tent in a North Dakota winter to protect them” (Whyte, 2017, p. 156).

The turmoil did not cease when a massive number of protestors arrived at camps, as they endured a relentless array of violence from law enforcement, who would use just about any tactic necessary to discourage people from protesting.

In a National Geographic article that analyzed the profiles and backgrounds of protestors at the camp, one stood out as particularly unique: Lewis Grassrope. A 39-year-old retired policeman who dropped out of the race for a chair position in his local community to support the Standing Rock Sioux tribe (Elbein, 2017). Grassrope makes his goal for the protest clear,

“we need to stop the pipeline completely, and we need to rebuild our nation and re-establish our ancestral ways” (Elbein, 2017).

While the protest attracted people from all over the world, including tribal members across North America, the aftermath was far from heartwarming. At one of the largest campsites, as self-proclaimed “Water Protectors” were evacuated back to their homes, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe faced an enormous amount of leftover waste.

“The North Dakota Department of Emergency Services said that a Florida-based contractor hired at a cost of $1 million to clear trash, waste and other debris from the Oceti Sakowin camp has hauled 24,000 tons of garbage since protesters were evacuated from the area” (Richardson, 2017).

The outsourced contractor utilized heavy machinery to remove 48,000,000 pounds of trash that consisted of everything from litter to abandoned vehicles.

Social Media

The Dakota Access Pipeline protest made monumental headway as far as physical protests go, but it also became a symbol for unity across the internet. As the protestors flocked to North Dakota in an effort to pause construction of the pipeline, they began to share first-hand information about the protests on social media, then users from around the world would use various social platforms to demonstrate their support for this issue (Smith, 2018, p. 226). The various social platforms that people use on a daily basis all play different roles in our cyber community, yet one specific site has become the go-to place for online debates – Twitter.

The platform has emerged as the leader for quick discussions that revolve around trending issues in real-time; in recent years the site has seen an increase in environmental-related debates taking place. In the journal written by Jessica Smith, she articulately follows the development of this movement on social platforms, with a specific focus on Twitter. She notes that on December 4th, 2016, #NoDAPL,

“the preferred hashtag of the anti-pipeline activists, skyrocketed in response to news that the US Army Corps of Engineers had denied the easement for completion of the pipeline” (Smith, 2018, p. 226).

By the end of the Dakota Access Pipeline controversy, the total number of tweets using #NoDAPL had risen into the millions. Smith analyzes Twitter’s growing importance as it relates to protests, since people can relay small bits of information instantly to a massive audience. The main feature that allowed for Twitter to become the hub for live discussions has been the Hashtag, which #NoDAPL became the forum for communicating about the Dakota Access Pipeline project. Ironically, even the groups in favor of the pipeline would use #NoDAPL, rather than the neutral #DAPL, as a way to broadcast their viewpoints to the largest audience involved in this debate (Smith, 2018, p. 226). The true importance of this online dialogue lies in its overwhelming impact on both the news coverage and physical protest taking place in North Dakota. The massive discussion taking place on Twitter drew mainstream attention towards the Dakota Access Pipeline, Smith references a CNN story that covered protesters from around the world creating #NoDAPL signs for various events – such as the 2017 football game on New Year’s day between the Minnesota Vikings and the Chicago Bears (Smith, 2018, p. 227). While the Dakota Access Pipeline became a topic of conversation across the nation, Twitter continued to play a key role, as the number of tweets related to the event would surge alongside any major political decision or breaking news.

The journal utilizes visual graphs to analyze the framing behind the most influential tweets during the construction of the DAPL, the most notable revolve around our recent presidents. The first major surge being in December 2016, when the easement of the pipeline was stopped during the Obama administration, #NoDAPL regarded this as a

“triumph of social progress” (Smith, 2018, p. 227).

A month later during his first few days in office, Donald Trump passed an executive order to continue construction of the pipeline, which #NoDAPL framed as “a lack of public accountability” (Smith, 2018, p. 227). The results of this thorough analysis of #NoDAPL revealed the most influential tweets to be centered around two keyframes: conflict/strategy, and morality/ethics. The conflict and strategy frame appeared as the most common amongst opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline, and hit its peak after Trump announced his executive order. An example of this comes from antifracking activist Mark Ruffalo on the day of Trump’s announcement:

“DAPL and #Keystone would be disastrous for the people and the environment. Let’s keep fighting brothers & sisters. #NoDAPL.”

The morality and ethics frame addressed the issue on the basis of right or wrong, an example of this came from user @MisterPreda on December 5th, after the Army Corps denied the easement:

“The Dakota pipeline will no longer destroy precious land & water. Sending [heart symbol] to the beautiful Native Americans who stood & fought. #NoDAPL” (Smith, 2018, p. 234).

A large portion of the framing analysis lies in the wording, with certain key words sorting the tweets into various categories. The framing of this controversy on social media allows for a deeper understanding as to what the people are saying about this topic, not just how many tweets are being made.

Twitter did not account for the only social media trend regarding the DAPL, as the movement also spread to Facebook, however, it took a more unique approach than other protests. In the fall of 2016, over a million people “checked-in” to the Standing Rock Indian Reservation Facebook page, to show support for the tribe that has been the epicenter of a global conversation (Kennedy, 2016). This surge in Facebook activity came as the result of an online rumor, which claimed that the local Sheriff’s Department had been using the Facebook check-ins to track protestors at the camp. The activists then made an effort to have as many people to check-in as possible, to confuse the police.

“Water Protectors are calling on EVERYONE to check-in at Standing Rock, ND to overwhelm and confuse them,” the widely shared post said, according to The Guardian (Levin, 2016).

Over the course of a weekend, the number of check-ins on the Facebook page went from 140,000 to more than 870,000, eventually climbing as high as 1.5 million people (Kennedy, 2016). While the local police made a public statement that denied tracking protestors via Facebook, the overwhelming support from people around the world had already been made apparent. This support came just a few days after news outlets reported police arresting and pepper-spraying protestors who ventured onto land owned by the pipeline company (Kennedy, 2016). The online presence of support encouraged those at the camps to keep fighting, while it also generated a significant amount of contributions from people across the globe.

The era of mass communication has caused social media platforms to play a much more important role in regard to the public perception of companies; It can also affect the ability of companies to conduct their business, especially in the mining and energy industries (Smith, 2018, p. 227). In the modern-day world of technology, the face and brand of a company take place on the internet, specifically social media. Now more than ever before companies are actively staying in tune with and molding their global perception amongst the online media.

Legal

As the complex legal battle unfolded over the months leading up to the national protests, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and their team of lawyers took a handful of approaches to halt the Dakota Access Pipeline’s construction. The Native Americans had a decent arsenal of federal statutes to employ on their behalf:

“Over the summer [of 2016], it argued the pipeline violated its rights to a historic review under the National Historic Preservation Act… Throughout the fall, it sought an environmental-review statement required under the National Environmental Policy Act” (Meyer, 2017).

President Obama granted this review at the end of his second term, but Trump vacated it during the first few days in office. The United States had gone back on their word, violating century-old treaties; the local Sioux tribes had one last shot at putting an end to this mega infrastructure project – the first amendment. The tribe employed a new legal strategy, arguing that their religion depends on the purity and sanctity of the water in Lake Oahe (Meyer, 2017). According to a brief filed by the Cheyenne River Sioux,

“The Lakota people believe that the pipeline correlates with a terrible Black Snake prophesied to come into the Lakota homeland and cause destruction” (Meyer, 2017).

This Black Snake underneath the waters will result in unbalanced and imperfect waters that prevent the tribe from performing religious ceremonies.

The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act became a crucial point of reference for this argument, as it provides protections for religions against federal laws that inhibit their ability to practice properly. The RFRA has been an anchor for many legal cases in recent history, such as those concerning health care and marriage equality – most notably Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (Meyer, 2017). However, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was originally put in place due to a controversial Supreme Court ruling regarding Native Americans in the early 1990s. In short, two Native American workers were fired after failing a drug test for peyote – a drug that has been used in traditional religious ceremonies for centuries. This ruling directly affected the Christianity-infused Native American Church and its ability to worship appropriately, which seemed to indirectly counter the first amendment (Meyer, 2017). Yet despite the RFRA being put in place because of concerns over Native American’s rights and sacred land, experts claim that this last push to stop the pipeline will not work. Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, traces the issue back to the original treaty in 1851 which granted the Sioux tribe the land in question. But, that land was stolen from them and now they have no chance of making a modern-day property claim.

“If the pipeline burdens the way they use their own property for religious purposes, they might have an RFRA claim, but then they would also have a property-rights claim” (Meyer, 2017).

As the Sioux tribe went through the same judge and court system that has denied their previous requests, the group faced an all too familiar reality. The fate of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation has often found itself at the hand of the United States administration, a powerful group that has rarely shown compassion to the historical justice that is long overdue for the Native Americans.

Research Question

The analysis of the Dakota Access Pipeline protest from two distinctive approaches: the physical presence of activists on camp-sites, as well as the online support that increased donations and overall awareness, allows for a thorough examination of the global response. One term that often arises concerning the role of social media in controversial debates is “Slacktivism,” which refers to activism that requires very little commitment or action – such as signing an online petition for example. While slacktivism is often used in a negative sense, this essay argues that it does not have to be a bad thing. Within our well-connected culture, social involvement can take place over the internet via a smartphone, thus enabling a new breed of activism. As the protests went viral, social media posts generated substantial donations while physical protestors suffered through a North Dakota winter and left a trail of litter. In this specific case, whether it was check-ins on Facebook or trending hashtags on Twitter, these activists may have

“inadvertently brought the President, mainstream media, and a large portion of the general public directly into the conversation”

about preserving native lands and protecting our waterways (Lekach, 2016). The more integrated technology becomes in our society that relies so heavily on communication, the media plays an increasingly more important role in debates regarding national issues; While the grey area between a slacktivist and a traditional activist thins into a social construct of the past.

References

Dakota Access, LLC. (2016). DAPL Factsheet.

Elbein, S. (2017, January 26). These Are the Defiant “Water Protectors” of Standing Rock. Retrieved December 04, 2018, from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/tribes-standing-rock-dakota-access- pipeline-advancement/

Kennedy, M. (2016, November 01). More Than 1 Million ‘Check In’ On Facebook To Support The Standing Rock Sioux. Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/01/500268879/more-than-a- million-check-in-on-facebook-to-support-the-standing-rock-sioux

Lekach, S. (2016, November 03). Your slacktivism isn’t as useless as everyone thinks. Retrieved December 04, 2018, from https://mashable.com/2016/11/03/slacktivism-dapl-protest- online/#NgalGK2HakqK

Levin, S., & Woolf, N. (2016, November 01). A million people ‘check-in’ at Standing Rock on Facebook to support Dakota pipeline protesters. Retrieved December 04, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/31/north-dakota-access-pipeline- protest-mass-facebook-check-in

Meyer, R. (2017, February 10). The Last-Ditch Attempt to Stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Retrieved December 04, 2018, from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/the-dakota-access-pipelines- final-stand/516225/

Parfomak, P. (2017). Dakota Access Pipeline: Siting Controversy. CRS Insight.

Richardson, V. (2017, March 01). Crews haul off 48 million pounds of garbage, debris from

Dakota Access protest camp. Retrieved December 04, 2018, from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/1/dakota-access-protest-camp- crews-haul-48-million-p/

Smith, J. M., & Ierland, T. V. (2018). Framing Controversy on Social Media: #NoDAPL and the Debate About the Dakota Access Pipeline on Twitter. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 61(3), 226-241. doi:10.1109/tpc.2018.2833753

Whyte, K. (2017). The Dakota Access Pipeline, Environmental Injustice, and Colonialism. Red Ink.