Crossing Lines: A Critical look at the protests at Standing Rock versus the protests at Malheur

           

Picture by Daily News

             While numerous media agencies circulate reports of police violence at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and celebrity vows of support for protestors, attention is diverted from the grievances of the protestors and the government’s response to the protest.  If you look beyond the issue of the pipelines, the protests at Standing Rock have become a social movement countering the unfair treatment of indigenous people like Native Americans. An op-ed in the LA Times titled, “The protests at Standing Rock are necessary. What happened atMalheur was nonsense.”,  highlights the difference in government’s treatment of protesters in both instances based on white privilege. The grievances at the heart of protestors at Standing Rock Sioux Reservation land include potential water contamination by leaking oil pipes, degradation of sacred burial ground, and potential climate-change effects. All of their grievances seem personal and even those who don’t live on the reservation appear to take these grievances personal as well. The media’s circulation of the Standing Rock’s protests give them a power than the government can counter, despite its militia style attempts to shut them down.

            In the article, Social Psychology of Protest, the authors assert, “Discussion about politics within networks increase efficacy and transform individual grievances into shared grievances and group based anger, which translates into protest participation” (van Stekelenburg and Klandermans, 2010,p2). The connection amongst the protestors at Standing Rock exemplifies political solidarity, since the Native Americans whose land is being threatened have found a camaraderie in non-native American groups including celebrities and members of other ethnic, religious, and socialgroups. 

            When examining the treatment of protestors at Standing Rock versus the Oregon Militia at Malheur, we should consider the execution of distributive justice and procedural justice. Despite the fact that the Oregon Militia at Malheur, which was made up of predominately white men armed with guns were recently acquitted, the diverse group of protestors at Standing Rock have been shot withrubber bullets, arrested aggressively and may not receive the same judicial treatment due historical disadvantages of minorities and current political agenda of the government. Based on these different responses from the government directed at the two groups, one could conclude that the protestors at Standing Rock can assume that the distributive justice they receive won’t be the same as what the Oregon Militia received at Malheur. Given this prediction, it is interesting to think what motivates the protestors at Standing Rock to keep going. The protestors at Standing Rock can also take into account that the execution of procedural justice in both cases has already proved unequal since they received rubber bullets for a construction site, while the Militia went untouched while it occupied a federal building.

            Interestingly enough, despite the perceived power holders’ (the government and oil companies) indifference to the grievances of those who will be affected by the pipelines (the Native Americans), a majority of the public seems to sympathize with the Standing Rock protestors as opposed to the Malheur protestors. While the Standing Rock protestors receive vows of support globally, the Malheur protestors received condemnation from the public.

            Given the general public’s overall support of the protestors at Standing Rock and the strong opposition to the Dakota Pipeline, it seems unjust for the government not to take that into heavy consideration and only respond with animosity. Although the protestors at Standing Rock face racial inequality and only their grievances to counter the money at stake for the power holders (government and oil companies), they have the potential to spark social change. Whether they win or lose the fight to stop the pipelines from being built, the awareness they raise about the treatment of Native Americans should be seen as a victory.

Reference: van Stekelenburg, J. and Klandermans, B. (2010). The Social Psychology of Protest. Sociopedia.isa. Available at http://bit.ly/1sbTy3V [Accessed 6 October 2016].