By Jenna Ahart
Alongside the prosperity of expansionism and industrialization in the United States came the tragedy of land dispossession for its native people in the 1800s. Deadset on a path of modernization and rapid development, the U.S. plowed over Native American communities and civilizations, laying the groundwork for a cycle of marginalization and lost culture. While acknowledgment of the harrowing repercussions of land dispossession has improved in recent years—such as Columbus Day’s change to Indigenous Peoples’ Day and increased efforts in land acknowledgment—the more nuanced, lasting effects on Indigenous Peoples remain largely neglected, specifically in discussions of environmental impacts.
While acknowledgment of the harrowing repercussions of land dispossession has improved in recent years—such as Columbus Day’s change to Indigenous Peoples’ Day and increased efforts in land acknowledgment—the more nuanced, lasting effects on Indigenous Peoples remain largely neglected, specifically in discussions of environmental impacts.
Despite treaties set in place to protect Native lands, Native Americans still find their communities plagued by the effects of continued industrialization. Since its construction in 2017, the Dakota Access Pipeline has safely transported crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois and benefited many Americans in the process. In the first three years alone of its operation, the pipeline has raised $113 million in property taxes, created up to 12,000 new jobs, and lowered the trade deficit. Regardless of these more ostensible improvements, though, the Dakota Pipeline poses a serious threat to Native American communities.
Tribes affected by the construction—the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in particular—went to court over the issue, citing risks such as the potential pollution of their water supply. And though builders said they had taken precautions to avoid such a crisis, there have been over 3,000 oil and gas leaks from pipelines since 2010; even the smallest spill would be detrimental to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. The denial of land sovereignty incited large protests and demonstrations by Native Americans. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe alone organized runs, horseback rides, and marches, passing a formal resolution that: “The Dakota Access Pipeline poses a serious risk to the very survival of our Tribe and... would destroy valuable cultural resources.” U.S. District Judge James Boasberg eventually did order a shutdown of the project, saying that because of “the fact that Dakota Access did assume much of its economic risk knowingly, and the potential harm each day the pipeline operates, the Court is forced to conclude that the flow of oil must cease.” But his ruling was inevitably overturned.
There are treaties set in place to protect Native American land, as the Treaty of Fort Laramie from 1868, which guarantees the “undisturbed use and occupation” of reservation land. Although the effects of industrialization certainly wreak the most havoc on Native American land, many projects avoid relocation by saying that their facilities do not technically occupy reservation land. The Dakota Access Pipeline, for instance, comes within half a mile of reservation land borders but lies upon 97% private land, largely negating federal approval for its construction.
Though this continued neglect of the environmental safety of Native American land is unnerving in itself, what’s more concerning are the lingering effects of land dispossession. In a recent study by researchers at Yale University, Colorado State University, and the University of Michigan, it was found that Native Americans also experience increased climate change as a result of their forced migration. The group first compiled data for different tribes based on their current and original locations and populations, finding that the average relocation distance was 239 km and original lands occupied have been reduced by 99%. These figures alone provide a new perspective on the severity of land dispossession. But for the researchers, they were a means of discovering more pertinent information.
The team also recorded the environmental conditions of both the historical and present-day lands. Through the statistical analysis, they found that current Native American lands experience 200 mL less annual precipitation, 40% more days with excess heat, and roughly 80% less subsurface oil and gas when compared to their historical counterparts. And the researchers doubt these results are coincidental.
...that current Native American lands experience 200 mL less annual precipitation, 40% more days with excess heat, and roughly 80% less subsurface oil and gas when compared to their historical counterparts. And the researchers doubt these results are coincidental.
When Native Americans were relocated, it was for America’s industrial conquest. Consequently, Indigenous Peoples now live amid facilities for the ever-growing gas and oil industries. In fact, in a recent study, the Clean Air Task Force found that Native Americans in North Dakota were twice as likely as anyone else in the state to live within half a mile of oil and gas facilities. As a result, these communities experience pollution and climate change at a much higher rate. The same study even recorded that tribal lands experience 18.4 billion cubic feet of methane pollution each year.
Climate effects are detrimental to Native American traditions, too. Tribes experiencing reduced stream flows find less of their traditional “first foods” like salmon and shellfish. Or in the case of the Tavulu Tribe, according to Brian Cladoosby, chairman of the Swinomish tribal community, “I have seen an elder standing on their cemetery… and it was covered with water—they can’t bury their people there anymore.”
In turn, Indigenous People are often at the frontlines of environmental reform to protect their culture: the Navajo nation has switched from relying on coal to investing in solar power, the Jamestown S’Klallam tribe removes invasive bushes from river banks, and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians have created a climate change project and summit. But there’s only so much they can do on their own. As Cladoobsy put it, “We live in a pollution-based economy; it is based on making money and polluting the landscape. Trying to change that mindset is like trying to turn a tanker. It doesn’t happen overnight.”
As Cladoobsy put it, “We live in a pollution-based economy; it is based on making money and polluting the landscape. Trying to change that mindset is like trying to turn a tanker. It doesn’t happen overnight.”
Of course, the larger American people can help through conservation and increased sustainability. But consumer efforts alone don’t even begin to rival the potential for larger policy and corporational reform. Projects threatening Native lands must acknowledge the deeper repercussions of their practices. And relocation may be a seemingly clear solution, but even if industrialization doesn’t directly affect Native American resources, its larger environmental impacts and contributions to climate change still pose a threat. Rather, through the development of more environmentally-sound forms of energy, infrastructure could more easily coexist with Native American land without posing the same detrimental repercussions. After all, it’s not enough to protect only Native American land—but its air, water, and, most crucially, people, too.
Jenna Ahart is a freshman GW Scope staff writer and George Washington Undergraduate Review natural sciences editor. She is double majoring in physics and journalism and is interested in studying the intersection of sciences and humanities.
Comments