Indigenous Sovereignty in 2020

A federal court ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)—a federal agency that oversees dams, canals, and flood protection in the U.S.—had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by approving federal permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) on March 25. Legal battles over infrastructure are relatively commonplace; the full study on the impact of the pipeline that the judge then ordered—in order to specifically examine how it would affect the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe—was not.

The Obama Administration had initially denied federal permits in 2016 after protests from both the Sioux tribe and environmental activists. The tribe and activists had together argued that the construction of the pipeline could potentially result in an oil spill, which would pollute the Sioux tribe’s supply of drinking water. Alongside the refusal to approve federal permits, President Barack Obama had also ordered a full environmental impact statement about the effects on native rights. The statement was to explore alternative pipeline routes that would avoid polluting the Sioux’s water. However, during his first week of office in January 2017, President Donald Trump reversed the decision, and the DAPL was finished by June 2017.

The tribe took the issue to court, which ruled that the USACE’s environmental analysis excluded the impact of the DAPL on native communities, and ordered them to conduct the analysis again. However, the court ruling did not shut down the pipeline. The Army Corps, after redoing the initial analysis that had failed to address any tribal concerns about the pipeline, concluded that this initial analysis had been sufficient, prompting the tribe to return to court and demand that the pipeline be shut down and the analysis be redone yet again. This time, the Sioux won the case, delaying any possible expansion of the pipeline for the time being.

Dubbed a major victory for the Sioux, this federal court ruling was not only a victory for indigenous peoples but also for environmental activists. The decision proved that indigenous rights can be fought for and can stand against major oil corporations and the federal government in court battles, while also highlighting the continued exclusion of tribal concerns from federal environmental analyses. Specifically, the judge stated that the Trump Administration had violated federal law in lieu of pushing economic concerns over environmental concerns.

The USACE is not the only actor to blame here, however. The constant prioritization of economic concerns over native communities’ wellbeing can be seen in Trump’s push to continue storing nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountains, home to the Western Shoshone nation, or in the expansion of the fracking industry into the territories of Australian indigenous peoples. This is not a problem limited to the U.S.—it’s become global, as governments continue colonial practices to maximize profit and absolve themselves of any blame.

This is also not a problem limited to the bounds of the 21st century. The silencing of native sovereignty in the present is merely an extension of centuries of settler colonialism and extractive colonization, so it should be no surprise that such apathetic attitudes toward indigeneity’s relationship with the environment continue to exist.

At the same time, these issues also highlight how environmental damages cause social disruptions. As a result, the 21st century has seen increasing numbers of protests against colonialism, as seen in the 2016 Standing Rock protests; however, the preservation of white civilization always seems to outweigh matters regarding natives.

Native tribes should have a voice in the conversation, too. It is important to recognize that even in the 21st century—however progressive and liberal it may be—the exclusionary nature of U.S. governance and the mentality that justified Native American genocide during Andrew Jackson’s presidency still exists today.

While it may be a daunting task for high schoolers to consider how settler colonialism affects our daily lives, challenging mainstream historical lenses is a necessary shift in perspective that must be embraced to further emphasize resistance. Only by centering conversations about the federal government and the oil industry around the effects on native communities will we stop the exclusion of indigenous people. Otherwise, we will merely continue to repeat the mistakes from our past.