Winona LaDuke, a Native American activist, stated, “In the end, there is no absence of irony: the integrity of what is sacred to Native Americans will be determined by the [U.S] government that has been responsible for doing everything in its power to destroy Native American cultures” (cite). This paper argues that the Dakota Access Pipeline is represented in the media as government intrusion and exploitation of Native Americans through environmental racism. The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is 1,172 miles long and made to carry oil from North Dakota to southern Illinois; however, this project is controversial, sparking protests, due to it crossing the drinking water source of the Standing Rock Sioux, a Native American tribe. The first news
…show more content…
In the format of a report, it presents the information that the DAPL was redirected towards the tribal ground after other North Dakota citizens fought against its initial route in the interest of protecting their own area and water. Furthermore, it sheds light on the inequality of the situation, making the government and Native Americans’ volatile relations evident. A journalist named Erika Larsen compiled a collection of images and quotes in a National Geographic article named, “Meet the Native Americans on the Front Lines of a Historic Protest.” In the style of a discussion, the author explains the events leading up to the protests. Additionally, Larsen documents the garnered nationwide support for the rejection of the DAPL as the main focus of the …show more content…
The article declares that the initial route was dangerously close neighboring homes and in an effort to protect nearby wells that supply drinking water, the government changed the pipeline’s path. Furthermore, the article states that the new route was, for the most part, chosen for it’s already existing infrastructure. While the story highlights actual problems presented in the first routing draft and logical reasoning for the second, the real issue mentioned is the lack of consultation and consideration for the native community on the part of the government. The Sioux tribe did not receive the same caution and review for the effects of this pipeline as another group did. In “Standing Rock and the Erosion of Tribal Rights”, Penn-Roco writes, “Tribes are sovereign nations. Consultation between one sovereign nation and another, regarding how the actions of one will affect the other, should culminate in informed consent”
In the format of a report, it presents the information that the DAPL was redirected towards the tribal ground after other North Dakota citizens fought against its initial route in the interest of protecting their own area and water. Furthermore, it sheds light on the inequality of the situation, making the government and Native Americans’ volatile relations evident. A journalist named Erika Larsen compiled a collection of images and quotes in a National Geographic article named, “Meet the Native Americans on the Front Lines of a Historic Protest.” In the style of a discussion, the author explains the events leading up to the protests. Additionally, Larsen documents the garnered nationwide support for the rejection of the DAPL as the main focus of the …show more content…
The article declares that the initial route was dangerously close neighboring homes and in an effort to protect nearby wells that supply drinking water, the government changed the pipeline’s path. Furthermore, the article states that the new route was, for the most part, chosen for it’s already existing infrastructure. While the story highlights actual problems presented in the first routing draft and logical reasoning for the second, the real issue mentioned is the lack of consultation and consideration for the native community on the part of the government. The Sioux tribe did not receive the same caution and review for the effects of this pipeline as another group did. In “Standing Rock and the Erosion of Tribal Rights”, Penn-Roco writes, “Tribes are sovereign nations. Consultation between one sovereign nation and another, regarding how the actions of one will affect the other, should culminate in informed consent”