Dustin White
Editor

In the second installment in our attempt to help sort out various myths and misconceptions concerning the protest against the Dakota Access Pipe Line, we delve into some older stereotypes that continue to rise to the surface, as well as some new claims being made.

Bunch of lazy Indians
Quite quickly after the protest first began, social media became filled with comments about how those protesting were lazy, and/or had no jobs. The justification for such claims was that if they were able to spend days at the protest site, they certainly couldn’t be keeping regular jobs. An old stereotype, of Native Americans being lazy, crept up.

While, undoubtedly, there are those who are unemployed at the protest, joining a protest does not necessarily require such.



With such a protest being so diverse, with individuals from a multitude of backgrounds joining together, the economical situations of those involved will be equally as diverse. Speaking with those involved, that diversity becomes clear.

Included among those protesting have been individuals who are stay at home moms/dads, those retired, students, full-time professionals, etc. For many, seeing an important historical moment, they have made the decision to take time off from their jobs to help in the protest. Others spend as much time at the camps as they can, driving out after work or during the weekends.

Regardless of the current economic situation that protestors find themselves in though, it should not detract from the protest itself.

Cops or Indians
As the protest continues, a divide has been created for many between the cops and Native Americans/protestors. Either you’re with the cops, or you’re with the protestors.

An assumption has been made that the two groups are naturally opposed to each other; however, reality is much more complicated.

While it is likely that on both sides, prejudices exist, it does not mean that there isn’t an understanding between at least members of each group.

Among protestors, an effort has been made to show respect, if not kindness, to those officers who are on the scene. During the first day of protesting along Highway 1806, officers were offered water, as well as sandwiches, as they stood watch. In the following weeks, such acts have been repeated, and additional ones taken up.

In response, officers have returned that respect. During prayer ceremonies during the first few days, officers were seen removing their head coverings in order to pay their respect. During a protest in Bismarck, officers joined in the activities, allowing both groups to come together.

For many, and understanding has been formed. The police are just doing their jobs, which has placed a number of them between a rock and a hard place. On the other hand, those protesting have a right to do such, and that should be protected.

Slight confrontations have occurred; however, as a whole, a mutual understanding has been formed.

Construction was halted
Less than a week after individuals gathered on Highway 1806 to protest the construction of the Dakota Access Pipe Line, the media began announcing that the construction had been halted. A major victory had seemed to have been won, as construction crews left the site, and didn’t return.



While it would be a victory for those who were protesting, construction on a whole had not quit. Instead, construction crews continued working as quickly as they could, on the east bank of the Missouri River, in order to get as much work done as possible before an injunction on Aug. 24.

With the injunction held, a judge made the decision that more time was needed in order to issue a judgement on the case. Since then, construction has continued moving forward.

Even though construction did stop at one site on the west bank of the Missouri, construction as a whole has not ceased.

Natives are racist
As videos began surfacing, which included harsh language used by some members of the protest, individuals in the community began commenting about how racist Native Americans are, with one popular blogger helping stoke those flames.

Since the beginning of the protest, accusations of racism have run rampant. Undoubtedly, there is some truth in a number of those cases.

While it is often thought that we live in a post-racial time period, it isn’t as simple as that. Racism continues to exist, and the current protest has brought a good amount of that to light. A clear example of such is the repetition of old stereotypes, that Native Americans are lazy or drunks, being stated openly much more often.

That racism has also escalated, at times, to threats being directed at Native Americans. Threats that are being fueled by a fear that the protest is violent, and an uprising will occur.

At the same time, there have been racist remarks uttered by Native Americans as well. However, what needs to be remembered is that the actions of a few do not necessarily reflect on the whole.

Racism continues to exist in North Dakota, as well as the entire country. It is necessary to except such in order to help move forward.

Many of other pipe lines
Criss crossing the country, hundreds of pipelines currently exist. The state of North Dakota is no exception. Such a situation hasn’t gone unnoticed, and an argument has arisen that since there are many other pipe lines, this one shouldn’t be a problem either.

Such an argument is based on a logical fallacy. If taken in another route, the failure of such an argument is apparent. For instance, if one argues that since there are many murders in an area, one shouldn’t care about another one.

It is true that a number of those other pipe lines weren’t protested. However, various pipe lines have also been fought in different manners.

One can not justify an action simply because that action occurred previously.

They hate oil
With the protest of an oil pipe line, many have come to the conclusion that everyone involved in the protest must hate oil. Out of such a conclusion has arisen the argument that since they hate oil, they should give it all up.



As many of the protestors use oil on a daily basis, such as driving to the protest camps, or elsewhere, the argument continues that they must be hypocrites.

Yet, the argument rests on a logical fallacy, the either/or fallacy. While there are those who completely oppose oil, others at the protest do not share that exact sentiment. Instead, the focus of this protest has been the potential damage that would be caused if, or when a spill would occur.

The situation for many is more complicated though. While they oppose oil, they live in a world that currently relies heavily on such. Living in a largely rural community, there is a real need for transportation. While there are alternative options, for many, especially the poor, such options are not viable.

Even if they would be viable though, our current transportation system still relies heavily on oil, and thus, often the only option to completely rid oneself of being reliant on oil, at least in part, would be to disengage with the world.

However, history shows that often a system is changed from within that same system. When a system permeates through such a vast amount of a society, it becomes necessary to operate within that system.

Doing so doesn’t mean that the system is being accepted, but that until a new system is created, in order to enact change, a person has to live in our current world.

Water intake
In a recent post by a popular blogger, an argument has begun to form in regards to the water intake for the Standing Rock Reservation. By the end the year, the water intake near Fort Yates is scheduled to be shut down. An intake near Mobridge S.D., 70 miles south of where the DAPL will cross the Missouri, will be the primary intake.

The assumption is that since the water intake will be further south, the real issue for the protest must not have to do with a desire to protect the tribe’s water source.

Such an argument is largely a red herring though. While a water intake further south may reduce the impact of a disaster, it would not prevent such. The water intake is nevertheless on the Missouri River, and an oil spill would still threaten the water supply.

At stake isn’t just drinking water though. As often is stated, farmers and ranchers along the river, who rely on the Missouri River for either irrigation of their crops, or a water source for their animals, would also be impacted by a spill.

A primary water intake further south also doesn’t negate the possible impact to Fort Yates as a whole, which is nearly surrounded by the Missouri River. It also doesn’t negate the impact to the environment.

While a primary water intake further south may reduce the impact on Standing Rock’s water source, it doesn’t prevent a disaster, nor does it negate much of the damage that could occur.