Cultural violence

Cultural violence came in many different forms with regards to Standing Rock. There is, of course, the aspects of cultural violence that are present in the placement of the pipeline itself as discussed above. The theories of critical social psychology, which I discussed in the research approach section, are of particular validity regarding the following examples of violence, which were described for me during the interviewing process. Especially that of personal construct theory, which supports that the way an individual’s mind works, affects both the way in which they experience the world and how they behave.

Cultural violence existed on several levels at Standing Rock, including between the authorities and the protestors, as well as between the protestors themselves. Although the main purpose of this paper is to describe actions that speak of violence between the U.S.

government, the oil industry, and members of the Indigenous community in the United States, it is also important to record the ways in which cultural, structural, and direct violence played out on an interpersonal level as well. Evidence that points towards the presence of this

violence at the protests camps at Standing Rock is that a cultural orientation was held every morning at camp, with the purpose of creating awareness of cultural sensitivity for the protestors. A document on camp etiquette regarding cultural awareness was written by the Standing Rock Solidarity Trainers (n.d.), and posted online; parts of it read as follows,

WELCOME to Standing Rock. Thank you for coming to be part of this powerful moment in history. The fight to stop the pipeline is part of our global struggle for liberation, to protect our planet from extractive capitalism, and to heal the devastation of oppression on all our lives. We are winning, and we still have a long way to go. We need everybody. That includes you. This is an indigenous led struggle, on indigenous lands, rooted in centuries of resistance and the specific cultural strengths of the Native peoples gathered here. This means it will look and feel different from non-Native activism.

This is a tool to help you join camp as powerful allies, with deep respect for its sacredness and for indigenous sovereignty and leadership, so that your contribution is as effective as possible. Our job as allies is to SHOW UP, figure out how we can HELP, and GIVE more than we take. Here’s how:

We follow Indigenous Leadership AT ALL TIMES:

• We support this fight in whatever way its leaders decide is most useful. We come prepared to work and not expect anything in return. Every person who comes to camp must try to bring more resource than they use.

• Ceremony and prayer are the bedrock of Indigenous peoples’ connection to land and water and are central in protecting them. Actions are ceremony and along with

meetings, usually begin with prayer. Show respect. Take off your hat and be quiet during prayer. Stand if you are able. Notice how others honor prayer and follow their example.

• Observe and follow: Don’t push your own ideas about what kinds of action should be taken; what is most radical; what the time frame should be. Indigenous leaders have been resisting settler colonialism for a long time and have good, culturally grounded reasons for their decisions.

• Make sure any direct action you join has been approved by Indigenous leaders.

There may be attempts by agents or selfdeclared leaders to provoke confrontations.

(Standing Rock Solidarity Trainers, n.d., para. 1-3)

And goes on to include (Standing Rock Solidarity Trainers, n.d.), that “We understand this moment in the context of settler colonialism” (para. 7), “We DECENTER settler

worldviews/ practices and RECENTER Indigenous worldviews/practices and

leadership” (para. 8), and “We understand cultural appropriation and make every effort to not perpetuate it” (para. 9).

Mullen (2015), made this statement about cultural violence that explains the

importance of intending to create sensitivity around cultural differences, “cultural violence acts as an emotional framework that can be reconstructed and perverted to legitimize mass atrocities. Without violence-legitimizing feelings, however inconsistent or confused, societies remain cohesive, determined, and perceptive enough to delegitimize outrageous actions and agendas” (p. 465). Additionally, Interviewee 3 described to me events that he had witnessed personally or heard about while at camp. Interviewee 3 did not agree to be audio-recorded, so here I present a paraphrase of his words. Events he witnessed or heard about included,

cultural appropriation in the form of non-natives wearing headdresses. Also, poi spinning around the scared fire that was considered as inappropriate and disrespectful. He also went on to describe a confrontation he had witnessed while standing in line at the kitchen waiting to eat. He started by explaining that it was culturally customary for women and children to eat first among the Standing Rock Sioux and that that was how the kitchens were run at camp as well. However, on this day, a non-native man was impatient and did not want to wait his turn,

and started encouraging the men to start taking food and eating even though the women and children had not finished yet. This man apparently made a big commotion, but no one chose to follow his direction, and he only left after a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe approached him to tell him that he was out of line and that he needed to respect the way they did things there.

Another individual I interviewed had this to say about cultural violence at Standing Rock, “I was struggling with going to Standing Rock in the first place because of all the discussion about … cultural appropriation … and … how white people shouldn’t go … but I felt very strongly about being there” (Interviewee 6, personal communication, May 24, 2017).

She also provided these comments on cultural violence,

Cultural violence was definitely prevalent and it’s really hard to sort out no matter who you are … DAPL really capitalized on … cultural violence plus psychological violence is a really good way to divide people … So … you just have to … take everyone on a case by case basis ... it’s hard to trust people and it was … easy to trust people at the same time ... They really … messed around … with the trust factor and

… the psychological ... they could really capitalize on the way people divided themselves ... they found … where they came from, so we had … a lot of white people come in there … trying to run things … and then … a lot of indigenous push back because obviously … it’s not their … movement … didn’t start out as their movement … and then … you’d have people sitting there wasting a lot of time and energy … arguing about … what’s the best way to move forward … and you can kind of … see how … they could capitalize on … the already present … societal

conversations around culture and … cultural appropriation and … who is entitled or allowed to participate … when and where … and I still experienced that … after Standing Rock … it’s a really touchy, difficult subject for … everyone involved, I think. So, if you can get … everyone to waste their time arguing and … talking … they’re not going to be able to … organize themselves ... and that’s not … to say that that wasn’t countered by a lot of … good things and … spiritually grounded people … that’s just … what a lot of people spent their time worrying about. (Interviewee 6, personal communication, May 24, 2017)

Interviewee 4, who I was also not able to audio-record, shared with me why he thinks those working in big oil do what they do. He stated that he believes that those employed by

big oil companies are involved in this business because they grew up in violent atmospheres.

By this, he did not necessarily mean that there was physical violence, but that verbal and emotional violence caused a physical pain within them that caused them to do what they do.

He also suggested that their parents were most likely largely absent from their lives.

Although these claims are quite subjective and unsubstantiated, theories of critical social psychology acknowledge the relationship between subjectivity and social processes, as well as the impact that an individual’s way of thinking has on their behavior. Thus, the value in presenting this interviewee’s claims here lies in acknowledging the subjective understandings that individuals have regarding both the people involved and the events in the conflict at Standing Rock.

5.3.4 Discussion

The following is the discussion on the violence section of this thesis. Here, I will focus on discussion on the research question that I have provided again below. As stated above in the preceding discussion sections, the discussion for this section is based on the data collected within the limitations outlined in the methodology section.

• In what ways are structural, cultural, and direct violence manifest at the conflict at Standing Rock? This includes direct, structural, and cultural violence that can be witnessed on multiple levels, such as between the U.S.

government, law enforcement agencies, and the oil industry with members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other Indigenous and non-native

protestors, as well as between natives and non-natives involved in the activities pertaining to Standing Rock.

As presented in the literature, violence involves the unwelcome and harmful actions of one actor against another. Thus, the myriad of examples of actions carried out by the authorities against the protestors, protestors against the authorities, and between the

protestors themselves presented above speak to the presence of violence with regards to the events at Standing Rock. As also outlined from the literature, there is a relationship between the manifestations of direct, structural, and cultural violence, with each type having some basis in the others. The following discussion will present these occurrences of violence within a rights-based analytical framework with the understanding that these violations of rights result from an unequal balance of political power.

According to the literature, the right to a clean and adequate environment is a human right. As has also been discussed above, threats of harm are considered to be acts of violence as well. Thus, the building of a pipeline in a position that threatens the human right of

individuals and whole communities at Standing Rock to live in a healthy environment is a breach of this human right as well as an act of violence. As human rights are held

individually, but also collectively, the act of placing the pipeline so close to the Standing Rock Reservation and their water supply violates the collective right of this indigenous community. But it also goes further than this, as access to drinking water, and water for sanitation purposes, that is clean and safe is also considered a human right. If DAPL were to leak into the Missouri River and contaminate the source of clean and safe water for the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, those living on the reservation would be denied this human right as well.

There are also several articles in DRIP that have been violated at Standing Rock.

Article 8.2 stated that states must prevent the dispossession of resources from Indigenous peoples. Article 21 states that Indigenous peoples have the right to the improvement of their health and sanitation conditions. Article 26.1 covers Indigenous people’s rights to the land that they have traditionally used, and Article 29.1 covers their right to protect the

environment, and additionally says that it is the state’s obligation to assist with this

protection. Actions taken by the U.S. government under Trump as described above have been in direct opposition to these rights. In addition to this, the right to living and environmental conditions that are in a state of improving constantly is covered by articles 11.1 and 12.2(b), respectively, by ICESCR. Article 11.1 also maintains that it is the state’s duty to see that the improvement in living conditions happen. Based on the examples I have provided above, this is not happening under the Trump administration.

Article 5 of the UDHR (UN General Assembly, 1948) states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The acts of direct violence described above concerning the authorities’ actions against the protestors fit under this article of the UDHR, as well as a few acts that are claimed on the website

connected to DAPL. The act of placing protestors in dog kennels is especially relevant in this case. Articles 18, 19, and 20 of the UDHR cover the human rights of freedom to religion, freedom to express opinion, and the right to freely assemble in a peaceful manner. The act of arresting protestors for doing nothing other than praying, as presented by the women at the event in Oslo, as well as the account given by Interviewee 6 of having people from DAPL point guns at protestors who were trying to pray, violates the human rights covered under these three articles. Article 27.1 which covers the human right to participate in cultural activities was also broken in this instance. Article 15.1 of ICESCR covers the right to partake

in cultural life as well. Article 12.1 of ICESCR covers the right to the highest possible state of health, including both mental and physical. The examples of direct physical, as well as psychological, violence carried out at Standing Rock speak to the contrary of this article, with those whom this violence was perpetrated against acknowledging that it has had an adverse effect on both their physical and mental (both present and future) health.

The account given by Interviewee 5 about the protestor who was charged with a crime he did not commit, and the case of Red Fawn Fallis, demonstrate the unequal power that the court system has in this situation, and the detrimental effects it has for the individuals who are targeted by that system.