Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Mní On Trial
Listening to Indigenous Voices on Standing Rock
For one to understand the accurate truth of Indigenous Peoples’ oral history and their present-day struggles, we must listen first. This is part of the oral history of the Oceti Šakówiŋ, shared with me by community leader Phil Two Eagle, Sicangu Treaty Council Executive Director:
“The name Oceti Šakówiŋ, meaning The Seven Council Fires, is known today as the collective name of our Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota Oyate (people)—seven distinct yet related nations bound together through ancient kinship, shared language roots, and ceremonial responsibilities. According to our elders, the name Oceti Šakówiŋ carries meaning far beyond political or tribal organization. It is rooted in the stars, the cosmos, and the sacred cycles of life. One way we received this name is from the universe itself. Our ancestors understood that the universe spirals with seven great arms, ever-turning, much like the sacred fire that brings our people together. We also inherited the name from the heavens—from the Wičháȟpi Šákowin, the Seven Stars of the Big Dipper constellation. These seven stars are a sacred teaching for our people, reminding us to live in balance, to walk the path of the Woopȟe (natural law), and to recognize that our ancestors are watching from above.
The Oceti Šakówiŋ also reflects the Seven Directions: East, South, West, North, Above, Below, and Within—the sacred center, where our spirit resides and where we light the fire. Each direction holds teachings and responsibilities, and together they make the circle of life complete. There are the Seven Sacred Stages of Life: Conception, Birth, Childhood, Adolescence, Adulthood, Elderhood, and Death (and Rebirth)—each a fire that burns in our journey, each a step in our becoming. These seven stages align with the sacred hoop of life and are honored in our ceremonies, especially those given to us by the White Buffalo Calf Woman. To be Oceti Šakówiŋ is not only to belong to the Seven Council Fires on Earth—it is to remember that we are patterned after the universe itself. Our name is a living prayer, a reflection of the stars, the spirals of creation, the sacred stages of life, and the sacred fire at the heart of every Tiwahe (family unit), every Tiospaye (extended family), and every Oyate (people).”

Mní Wíčoni means “WATER IS LIFE” in the Lakota and Dakota languages. On February 24, 2025, Standing Rock’s most essential resource of survival was on trial. Alone and at risk. Again. Since 2014, the Tribe’s water and human rights have been threatened by American corporate giant Energy Transfer (ET), and their golden child, the DAPL pipeline (The Dakota Access Pipeline).
The pipeline’s goal: Profiting $1.37+ billion per year off the lives of The Oceti Šakówiŋ and thousands of Indigenous communities, farmers, and towns in four different states (modern-day North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois), and going after one world-famous Environmental NGO: Greenpeace.
Before we can even dive into the ET vs. Greenpeace trial, we must keep up with the long-standing legal battle between The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Oceti Šakówiŋ) and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This 2016 lawsuit was over the illegalities of ET’s permitless pipeline’s location and construction, residing on Sovereign inherited ancestral Tribal land, Unceded Territory and Treaty land. After years of questionable court delays and dismissals, in 2024, Standing Rock decided to file a new lawsuit against the Army Corps—for allowing the continuation of the DAPL Pipeline’s illegal transport of crude.
“The Corps of Engineers has not earned the trust of our Tribe,” Standing Rock Chairwoman Janet Alkire said in a statement announcing the appeal for their new lawsuit against the Army Corps. “We cannot rely on the Corps to properly evaluate DAPL, so we are continuing our legal efforts to protect our water and our people from this dangerous pipeline.”
The “black snake” (aka today’s crude oil) is an ancient prophecy of the Oceti Šakówiŋ. The snake carries 574,000 barrels of liquid gold per day, under and across 200 waterways. DAPL had been “re-routed from a crossing above Bismarck, ND (84% white) across the Missouri River at the mouth of the Cannonball River on the Lake Oahe reservoir, less than one-half mile upstream from The Standing Rock reservation,” explained the Tribe. In today’s world, that would be considered a severe act of Environmental Racism.
Tim Mentz, former Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, produced the most thorough literature I have read regarding the environmental and cultural resource reviews of that specific territory. Read Mentz’s letter to Washington DC’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. It is a crucial document that has been purposely and strategically discredited by Energy Transfer, its executives and attorneys.
As Standing Rock explains, “The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie guaranteed Unceded Treaty lands to the Oceti Šakówiŋ Oyate (The Seven Council Fires, colonially known as The Great Sioux Nation) at the crossing of the Heart River in present-day central North Dakota.”
If we were to step outside the corrupt racist structure of our Judicial system, anyone with logic would ask how the US government could allow a corporation to bypass an industrial-scale easement, profit billions, and go after an NGO for more than half a billion dollars. To add to the chaos, many also don’t know that there was a third lawsuit playing in the background, dancing with the other two. In the 2019 lawsuit, North Dakota State won $28 million, which to many, proved that the state believed USACE was responsible for the financial losses and for the costs of law enforcement to quell the Standing Rock protests. ET’s theory was that Greenpeace was responsible for all the financial losses and delays impacting DAPL’s construction, when in actuality there were two other lawsuits challenging the pipeline’s claims. This fight for Indigenous human rights had involved three active lawsuits with many complex layers, designed this way to confuse us all.
Coincidentally, about a week after Greenpeace lost, Standing Rock’s case was put on the back burner again by Federal Judge Boasberg. He dismissed their lawsuit and announced they would have to wait for USACE’s complete environmental study, which after five years, is still ongoing. On June 7, Standing Rock filed a notice of appeal signaling their intent to ask the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to review Judge Boasberg’s decision to dismiss their lawsuit. An investigative journalist should investigate why USACE’s environmental study is taking so long. Something is fishy.
Whilst Standing Rock’s lawsuit was playing in the background like a colonial ghost story, this past February-March 2025, I had the chance to witness the monstrous case: Energy Transfer (ET) vs. Greenpeace fund, Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Inc. Most people still don’t know the legal breakdown of ET’s SLAPP suits against Greenpeace. You can catch up here.
I have yet to see this important statement issued by The Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairwoman, Janet Alkire, in any mainstream media outlet. They had a lot to share about the case, yet no one seems to have read it. To stay afloat, one must learn what the Indigenous communities, especially the elders, are saying. This is what helped steer me in the right direction in the midst of the information war that Energy Transfer and our legal system were creating and injecting into all three lawsuits pertaining to the pipeline.
With so much at stake, I wanted to witness everything firsthand, so I tagged alongside my close friend and renowned environmental justice attorney and corporate prisoner Steven Donziger who was meeting up with other legendary attorneys, Mandela’s Martin Garbus, The Farmers’ lawyer Sarah Vogel, Water Protector Legal’s Natali Segovia, and Environmental lawyer Scott Badenoch, to name a few. Judge Gion had declined all Press requests, which led the trial monitoring group to form a website to provide expert independent legal analysis to the public. There are many alarming findings that the Trial Monitors listed on their website, under “Trial Monitoring Statements.” The one that really bothers me is:
Prejudicial Mailers and Advertising: Energy Transfer or its affiliates appear to have distributed materials—including mailers and advertisements—in the jury catchment area and in other local 2 areas of the state portraying Greenpeace and the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in a negative light. These materials appear designed to sway public opinion and influence prospective jurors against Greenpeace. We are also concerned that Judge Gion has thus far denied a motion by Greenpeace to take discovery on who exactly paid for the mailers and ads, essentially denying the rights of the organization to motion the court for a remedy based on all relevant information.
Back in the courtroom, I observed the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher’s Trey Cox (Fossil Fuel’s favorite law firm), aggressively take over the linguistics of this case, arrogantly discrediting the Tribe’s Indigenous rights and existence.
On March 19, 2025, the oil town’s 9-member jury found Greenpeace guilty of nearly double the amount of the claims, $666 million to be exact. Interesting number. Despite my state of shock, my courtroom flashbacks reminded me of the jury’s PTSD stories. A local cafe owner had shared that the jurors had lived through 100k+ “strangers” coming and going through their towns, turning their daily lives upside down. The jurors’ verdict was an emotional symptom of colonial generational trauma bonding. The bias was oozing. I saw it in their eyes and facial expressions. I had never seen a jury collectively take such an extreme emotional vendetta on an NGO. When Greenpeace was charged with the maximum allowed punitive damages, it was clear to everyone that this legal fight had just morphed into a massive financial legal battle.
This shook the entire Environmental Justice community to its core and was another racist slap to The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the entire Indigenous community of Turtle Island (aka The USA). As for Greenpeace, they have made it very clear to me and the public that, “If we have to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, we will!”
As Paul Paz y Miño, Associate Director at Amazon Watch, said so passionately whilst being interviewed by Steven Donziger next to the Missouri River, “It is the mighty corporations flexing their muscles to abuse the legal system… Greenpeace is not the only one on trial. Everyone is on trial. Standing Rock, all the organizations that stood with them. Greenpeace is just the sacrificial lamb because Energy Transfer wants its pound of flesh, and it thinks it can bankrupt Greenpeace and terrify the other organizations alongside it.”
Many unanswered questions were flying outside the courtroom and are still blank today.
How can 9 people define so much for Indigenous land and water rights?
Will the outcome of this case influence The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s chances to win their own legal battles?
Can peaceful protests be banned or severely challenged in this country?
Will transparent journalism be at risk of existing?
Will our freedom of speech vanish indefinitely?
Will one of the oldest and most notable American Environmental organizations in the world cease to exist?
Everything about this trial had been designed to fail. The cherry on top of it all, was when I found out how political it really was, as ET’s Kelcy Warren, was also one of Donald Trump’s top supporters, donating approximately $16 million+ to his presidential campaigns, fundraisers, and Trump groups, between 2016-2024. At one point, Trump even had direct financial ties to ET, by owning shares in the pipeline’s stocks.
This trial was a circus. A very expensive one. ET plucked Greenpeace out of the anti-DAPL movement’s hat, strategically ignoring that there were 100k+ Tribes, Nations, Indigenous groups, and allies from all over the world (veterans, activists, attorneys, scientists, religious groups, NGOs, famous musicians, celebrities, and even a president) coming together. This became one of the most united international solidarity movements in the world, led by a National Indigenous uprising.
In 2016, The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues visited Standing Rock and issued a statement and report. This past April, the Trial Monitors sent a letter requesting for an independent United Nations human rights expert to “investigate ‘flagrant and repeated’ due process violations in the proceeding that resulted in an unprecedented $600 million verdict against the environmental organization.”
Steven Donziger weighed in: “We believe it is critical that people all over the world pay close attention to what is probably the most important legal case in the world related to the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to squelch free speech as a way to try to stifle the climate movement. The showdown between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer will go a long way toward determining whether our courts have the fortitude to push back against industry’s abuse of power and its targeting of Indigenous Peoples and the environment. As trial monitors, our purpose is to document the due process violations at trial and bring them into the public domain.”
This case led me to meet incredible souls and community leaders who were gracious enough to share their wisdom. “There is a complete disconnect between the colonial world and our Lakota way of Life. There is no accurate way to translate our way of life into ‘written documents or laws.’ The colonial way, it doesn’t belong to us. Our stories are passed down from our ancestors through oral history and teachings. We live by our Lakota way of life. Our connection is deep rooted in the land and mother earth. It is simple but hard to put into words. The colonial world likes to place us in boxes and for our people it is a worldview,” explained Jen Martel, a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, community organizer at Standing Rock, Sitting Bull College Visitor Center Coordinator, and Filmmaker of “Oyate.”
Father Floberg from St. James Episcopal church and longtime community member at Standing Rock, happened to sit next to me in court for most of the time I was there. One of the first things he shared with me was the ongoing frustrations he had with the courtroom, as everyone kept ignoring: “That unceded territory is HISTORIC TRIBAL TERRITORY. It was unlawfully ‘taken’ when the United States Congress broke the 1868 Treaty as it took the Black Hills and this territory. That act by Congress was unlawful, without remedy being provided for the unceded territory and an unacceptable remedy for the Black Hills theft itself. The distinction is critical. Reservation Land is not the same as Historic Tribal Territory.”
Today, Indigenous Nations and their descendants express that their very existence, including their oral history and Tribal law, is in jeopardy. They are struggling to survive and to be properly taught by the US educational system, let alone to be recognized and adopted in the US Federal Judicial system, or any US court for that matter.
The elders have a lot to express, and they want to be heard. It is up to each and every one of us to open our ears and offer our hands in support. The fight continues.
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Mní On Trial: Listening to Indigenous Voices on Standing Rock",
"author" : "Giada Lubomirski",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/mni-on-trial-lakota-dakota-nakota-greenpeace-and-energy-transfer",
"date" : "2025-07-20 17:35:46 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/mni-on-trial-thumb.jpg",
"excerpt" : "For one to understand the accurate truth of Indigenous Peoples’ oral history and their present-day struggles, we must listen first. This is part of the oral history of the Oceti Šakówiŋ, shared with me by community leader Phil Two Eagle, Sicangu Treaty Council Executive Director:",
"content" : "For one to understand the accurate truth of Indigenous Peoples’ oral history and their present-day struggles, we must listen first. This is part of the oral history of the Oceti Šakówiŋ, shared with me by community leader Phil Two Eagle, Sicangu Treaty Council Executive Director:“The name Oceti Šakówiŋ, meaning The Seven Council Fires, is known today as the collective name of our Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota Oyate (people)—seven distinct yet related nations bound together through ancient kinship, shared language roots, and ceremonial responsibilities. According to our elders, the name Oceti Šakówiŋ carries meaning far beyond political or tribal organization. It is rooted in the stars, the cosmos, and the sacred cycles of life. One way we received this name is from the universe itself. Our ancestors understood that the universe spirals with seven great arms, ever-turning, much like the sacred fire that brings our people together. We also inherited the name from the heavens—from the Wičháȟpi Šákowin, the Seven Stars of the Big Dipper constellation. These seven stars are a sacred teaching for our people, reminding us to live in balance, to walk the path of the Woopȟe (natural law), and to recognize that our ancestors are watching from above.The Oceti Šakówiŋ also reflects the Seven Directions: East, South, West, North, Above, Below, and Within—the sacred center, where our spirit resides and where we light the fire. Each direction holds teachings and responsibilities, and together they make the circle of life complete. There are the Seven Sacred Stages of Life: Conception, Birth, Childhood, Adolescence, Adulthood, Elderhood, and Death (and Rebirth)—each a fire that burns in our journey, each a step in our becoming. These seven stages align with the sacred hoop of life and are honored in our ceremonies, especially those given to us by the White Buffalo Calf Woman. To be Oceti Šakówiŋ is not only to belong to the Seven Council Fires on Earth—it is to remember that we are patterned after the universe itself. Our name is a living prayer, a reflection of the stars, the spirals of creation, the sacred stages of life, and the sacred fire at the heart of every Tiwahe (family unit), every Tiospaye (extended family), and every Oyate (people).”Mní Wíčoni means “WATER IS LIFE” in the Lakota and Dakota languages. On February 24, 2025, Standing Rock’s most essential resource of survival was on trial. Alone and at risk. Again. Since 2014, the Tribe’s water and human rights have been threatened by American corporate giant Energy Transfer (ET), and their golden child, the DAPL pipeline (The Dakota Access Pipeline).The pipeline’s goal: Profiting $1.37+ billion per year off the lives of The Oceti Šakówiŋ and thousands of Indigenous communities, farmers, and towns in four different states (modern-day North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois), and going after one world-famous Environmental NGO: Greenpeace.Before we can even dive into the ET vs. Greenpeace trial, we must keep up with the long-standing legal battle between The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Oceti Šakówiŋ) and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This 2016 lawsuit was over the illegalities of ET’s permitless pipeline’s location and construction, residing on Sovereign inherited ancestral Tribal land, Unceded Territory and Treaty land. After years of questionable court delays and dismissals, in 2024, Standing Rock decided to file a new lawsuit against the Army Corps—for allowing the continuation of the DAPL Pipeline’s illegal transport of crude.“The Corps of Engineers has not earned the trust of our Tribe,” Standing Rock Chairwoman Janet Alkire said in a statement announcing the appeal for their new lawsuit against the Army Corps. “We cannot rely on the Corps to properly evaluate DAPL, so we are continuing our legal efforts to protect our water and our people from this dangerous pipeline.”The “black snake” (aka today’s crude oil) is an ancient prophecy of the Oceti Šakówiŋ. The snake carries 574,000 barrels of liquid gold per day, under and across 200 waterways. DAPL had been “re-routed from a crossing above Bismarck, ND (84% white) across the Missouri River at the mouth of the Cannonball River on the Lake Oahe reservoir, less than one-half mile upstream from The Standing Rock reservation,” explained the Tribe. In today’s world, that would be considered a severe act of Environmental Racism.Tim Mentz, former Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, produced the most thorough literature I have read regarding the environmental and cultural resource reviews of that specific territory. Read Mentz’s letter to Washington DC’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. It is a crucial document that has been purposely and strategically discredited by Energy Transfer, its executives and attorneys.As Standing Rock explains, “The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie guaranteed Unceded Treaty lands to the Oceti Šakówiŋ Oyate (The Seven Council Fires, colonially known as The Great Sioux Nation) at the crossing of the Heart River in present-day central North Dakota.”If we were to step outside the corrupt racist structure of our Judicial system, anyone with logic would ask how the US government could allow a corporation to bypass an industrial-scale easement, profit billions, and go after an NGO for more than half a billion dollars. To add to the chaos, many also don’t know that there was a third lawsuit playing in the background, dancing with the other two. In the 2019 lawsuit, North Dakota State won $28 million, which to many, proved that the state believed USACE was responsible for the financial losses and for the costs of law enforcement to quell the Standing Rock protests. ET’s theory was that Greenpeace was responsible for all the financial losses and delays impacting DAPL’s construction, when in actuality there were two other lawsuits challenging the pipeline’s claims. This fight for Indigenous human rights had involved three active lawsuits with many complex layers, designed this way to confuse us all.Coincidentally, about a week after Greenpeace lost, Standing Rock’s case was put on the back burner again by Federal Judge Boasberg. He dismissed their lawsuit and announced they would have to wait for USACE’s complete environmental study, which after five years, is still ongoing. On June 7, Standing Rock filed a notice of appeal signaling their intent to ask the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to review Judge Boasberg’s decision to dismiss their lawsuit. An investigative journalist should investigate why USACE’s environmental study is taking so long. Something is fishy.Whilst Standing Rock’s lawsuit was playing in the background like a colonial ghost story, this past February-March 2025, I had the chance to witness the monstrous case: Energy Transfer (ET) vs. Greenpeace fund, Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Inc. Most people still don’t know the legal breakdown of ET’s SLAPP suits against Greenpeace. You can catch up here.I have yet to see this important statement issued by The Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairwoman, Janet Alkire, in any mainstream media outlet. They had a lot to share about the case, yet no one seems to have read it. To stay afloat, one must learn what the Indigenous communities, especially the elders, are saying. This is what helped steer me in the right direction in the midst of the information war that Energy Transfer and our legal system were creating and injecting into all three lawsuits pertaining to the pipeline.With so much at stake, I wanted to witness everything firsthand, so I tagged alongside my close friend and renowned environmental justice attorney and corporate prisoner Steven Donziger who was meeting up with other legendary attorneys, Mandela’s Martin Garbus, The Farmers’ lawyer Sarah Vogel, Water Protector Legal’s Natali Segovia, and Environmental lawyer Scott Badenoch, to name a few. Judge Gion had declined all Press requests, which led the trial monitoring group to form a website to provide expert independent legal analysis to the public. There are many alarming findings that the Trial Monitors listed on their website, under “Trial Monitoring Statements.” The one that really bothers me is:Prejudicial Mailers and Advertising: Energy Transfer or its affiliates appear to have distributed materials—including mailers and advertisements—in the jury catchment area and in other local 2 areas of the state portraying Greenpeace and the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in a negative light. These materials appear designed to sway public opinion and influence prospective jurors against Greenpeace. We are also concerned that Judge Gion has thus far denied a motion by Greenpeace to take discovery on who exactly paid for the mailers and ads, essentially denying the rights of the organization to motion the court for a remedy based on all relevant information.Back in the courtroom, I observed the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher’s Trey Cox (Fossil Fuel’s favorite law firm), aggressively take over the linguistics of this case, arrogantly discrediting the Tribe’s Indigenous rights and existence.On March 19, 2025, the oil town’s 9-member jury found Greenpeace guilty of nearly double the amount of the claims, $666 million to be exact. Interesting number. Despite my state of shock, my courtroom flashbacks reminded me of the jury’s PTSD stories. A local cafe owner had shared that the jurors had lived through 100k+ “strangers” coming and going through their towns, turning their daily lives upside down. The jurors’ verdict was an emotional symptom of colonial generational trauma bonding. The bias was oozing. I saw it in their eyes and facial expressions. I had never seen a jury collectively take such an extreme emotional vendetta on an NGO. When Greenpeace was charged with the maximum allowed punitive damages, it was clear to everyone that this legal fight had just morphed into a massive financial legal battle.This shook the entire Environmental Justice community to its core and was another racist slap to The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the entire Indigenous community of Turtle Island (aka The USA). As for Greenpeace, they have made it very clear to me and the public that, “If we have to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, we will!”As Paul Paz y Miño, Associate Director at Amazon Watch, said so passionately whilst being interviewed by Steven Donziger next to the Missouri River, “It is the mighty corporations flexing their muscles to abuse the legal system… Greenpeace is not the only one on trial. Everyone is on trial. Standing Rock, all the organizations that stood with them. Greenpeace is just the sacrificial lamb because Energy Transfer wants its pound of flesh, and it thinks it can bankrupt Greenpeace and terrify the other organizations alongside it.”Many unanswered questions were flying outside the courtroom and are still blank today.How can 9 people define so much for Indigenous land and water rights?Will the outcome of this case influence The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s chances to win their own legal battles?Can peaceful protests be banned or severely challenged in this country?Will transparent journalism be at risk of existing?Will our freedom of speech vanish indefinitely?Will one of the oldest and most notable American Environmental organizations in the world cease to exist?Everything about this trial had been designed to fail. The cherry on top of it all, was when I found out how political it really was, as ET’s Kelcy Warren, was also one of Donald Trump’s top supporters, donating approximately $16 million+ to his presidential campaigns, fundraisers, and Trump groups, between 2016-2024. At one point, Trump even had direct financial ties to ET, by owning shares in the pipeline’s stocks.This trial was a circus. A very expensive one. ET plucked Greenpeace out of the anti-DAPL movement’s hat, strategically ignoring that there were 100k+ Tribes, Nations, Indigenous groups, and allies from all over the world (veterans, activists, attorneys, scientists, religious groups, NGOs, famous musicians, celebrities, and even a president) coming together. This became one of the most united international solidarity movements in the world, led by a National Indigenous uprising.In 2016, The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues visited Standing Rock and issued a statement and report. This past April, the Trial Monitors sent a letter requesting for an independent United Nations human rights expert to “investigate ‘flagrant and repeated’ due process violations in the proceeding that resulted in an unprecedented $600 million verdict against the environmental organization.”Steven Donziger weighed in: “We believe it is critical that people all over the world pay close attention to what is probably the most important legal case in the world related to the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to squelch free speech as a way to try to stifle the climate movement. The showdown between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer will go a long way toward determining whether our courts have the fortitude to push back against industry’s abuse of power and its targeting of Indigenous Peoples and the environment. As trial monitors, our purpose is to document the due process violations at trial and bring them into the public domain.”This case led me to meet incredible souls and community leaders who were gracious enough to share their wisdom. “There is a complete disconnect between the colonial world and our Lakota way of Life. There is no accurate way to translate our way of life into ‘written documents or laws.’ The colonial way, it doesn’t belong to us. Our stories are passed down from our ancestors through oral history and teachings. We live by our Lakota way of life. Our connection is deep rooted in the land and mother earth. It is simple but hard to put into words. The colonial world likes to place us in boxes and for our people it is a worldview,” explained Jen Martel, a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, community organizer at Standing Rock, Sitting Bull College Visitor Center Coordinator, and Filmmaker of “Oyate.”Father Floberg from St. James Episcopal church and longtime community member at Standing Rock, happened to sit next to me in court for most of the time I was there. One of the first things he shared with me was the ongoing frustrations he had with the courtroom, as everyone kept ignoring: “That unceded territory is HISTORIC TRIBAL TERRITORY. It was unlawfully ‘taken’ when the United States Congress broke the 1868 Treaty as it took the Black Hills and this territory. That act by Congress was unlawful, without remedy being provided for the unceded territory and an unacceptable remedy for the Black Hills theft itself. The distinction is critical. Reservation Land is not the same as Historic Tribal Territory.” Today, Indigenous Nations and their descendants express that their very existence, including their oral history and Tribal law, is in jeopardy. They are struggling to survive and to be properly taught by the US educational system, let alone to be recognized and adopted in the US Federal Judicial system, or any US court for that matter.The elders have a lot to express, and they want to be heard. It is up to each and every one of us to open our ears and offer our hands in support. The fight continues."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Nature As the Battlefield: Ecocide in Lebanon and Corporate Empire",
"author" : "Sarah Sinno",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/ecocide-lebanon-chemical-warfare",
"date" : "2026-02-25 15:16:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/PHOTO-2026-02-25-13-34-24%202.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Photo Credit: Sarah SinnoOn February 2, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)issued a statement announcing that Israeli occupation forces had instructed their personnel to remain under cover near the border between south Lebanon and occupied Palestine. They were ordered to keep their distance because the IOF had planned aerial activity involving the release of a “non-toxic substance.” Samples collected and analyzed by Lebanon’s Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, in coordination with the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL, confirmed that the substance sprayed by Israel was the herbicide, glyphosate. Laboratory results showed that, in some locations, concentration levels were 20 to 30 times higher than normal. Not to mention, this is not the first instance of herbicide spraying over southern Lebanon, nor is the practice confined to Lebanon. Similar tactics have been documented in Gaza, the West Bank, and Quneitra in Syria.While the IOF didn’t provide further explanation as to its purpose, these operations are part of a broader Israeli strategy to establish so-called “buffer zones” by dismantling the ecological foundations upon which communities depend. The deployment of chemical agents kills vegetation, producing de facto “security” no-go areas that empty entire regions of their Indigenous inhabitants. Cultivated fields are deliberately destroyed, soil fertility declines, and water systems become polluted. Farmers lose their livelihoods, and communities are forcibly uprooted. Demographic realities are reshaped, and space is incrementally cleared for future settlers. Simply put, these tactics function as a mechanism of displacement, dispossession, and elimination—and are importantly part of a long history of this kind of colonial territorial engineering.Glyphosate and Ecological HarmFor decades, glyphosate has been marketed as a formulation designed to kill weeds only and increase crop yields. But the consequences of its use on humans and the environment cannot be ignored: In 2015, Glyphosate was classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” and it has been associated with a range of additional health risks, including endocrine disruption, potential harm to reproductive health, as well as liver and kidney damage. In November of last year, the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology formally withdrew a study published in 2000 that had asserted the chemical’s safety.Beyond its human health implications, glyphosate is ecologically harmful. Studies have shown that it degrades soil microorganisms; others have linked it to increased plant vulnerability to disease. It can also leach into water systems, contaminating surface and groundwater sources. Exposure may be lethal to certain species like bees. Even when it does not cause immediate mortality, glyphosate eliminates vegetation that provides habitat and shelter for bees, birds, and other animals, disrupting food webs and ecological balance. What’s more, research indicates that glyphosate can alter animal behavior, affecting foraging and feeding patterns, anti-predator responses, reproduction, learning and memory, and social interactions.Despite a growing body of scientific literature highlighting its risks to both human health and the environment, and bearing in mind that corporate giants manufacturing such products have been known to fund and even ghostwrite research to promote the opposite, glyphosate remains the most widely used herbicide globally.The Monsanto ModelTo understand how it became so deeply entrenched, normalized within agriculture systems in some contexts, and used as a weapon of war in others, it is necessary to look more closely at the corporation responsible for its global expansion: Monsanto.Founded in 1901, Monsanto’s corporate history reflects a longstanding pattern of chemical production linked to environmental devastation. Over the past century, the corporation has manufactured products later proven harmful and has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits, resulting in billions of dollars in settlements.Among the products it manufactured were polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), synthetic industrial chemicals that were eventually banned worldwide due to their toxicity. Through their production and disposal, including the discharge of millions of pounds of PCBs into waterways and landfills, Monsanto contributed to some of the most enduring chemical contamination crises in modern history, the consequences of which continue to reverberate today.One of the most notorious cases unfolded in Anniston, Ala., where Monsanto’s chemical factory polluted the entire town from 1935 through the 1970s, causing widespread harm to the community. Despite being fully aware of the toxic effects of PCBs, the company concealed evidence, according to internal documents, a conduct that reflects a longstanding pattern of disregard for both environmental care and human health. Whether in the case of PCBs or glyphosate, the underlying logic remains consistent: ecological systems and communities are harmed in order to prioritize profit and, at times, territorial expansion.Monsanto also became the world’s largest seed company. Through the enforcement of restrictive patents on genetically modified seeds, the corporation consolidated unprecedented control over global food systems. By prohibiting seed saving, a practice upheld by farmers and Indigenous communities for millennia, it undermined seed sovereignty and compelled farmers to purchase new seeds each season rather than replanting from their own harvests. What had long functioned as part of the commons since the origins of human civilization, the foundational basis of food and life itself, was privatized. Monsanto transferred control over seeds from cultivators to corporations, further creating systems of structural dependency.What was once embedded in reciprocal relationships between land, seed, and cultivator is now controlled by the same chemical-producing corporations implicated in the degradation of land—as is the case of what is unfolding in southern Lebanon. Power is thus consolidated within an industrial architecture that, at times, prohibits the exchange and regeneration of seeds and, at other times, renders the land uninhabitable. In both cases, it undermines the ability to grow food and remain rooted in the land, thereby threatening the conditions necessary for survival.Chemical WarfareAlongside its record of manufacturing carcinogenic products, dumping hazardous chemicals into the environment, and contributing to the destruction of agricultural systems, Monsanto has also been linked to chemical warfare. During the Vietnam War (1962–1971), it was among the U.S. military contractors that manufactured Agent Orange, a defoliant used to strip forests and destroy crops that provided cover and food to Vietnamese communities.The chemical contained dioxin, one of the most toxic compounds known, contributing to the defoliation of millions of acres of forest and farmland. It has been associated with hundreds of thousands of deaths and long-term illnesses, including cancers and birth defects.Although acts of ecocide long predated this period, well before the term itself was coined, it was in the aftermath of Agent Orange that the word “ecocide” was first used to describe the deliberate destruction of ecosystems and began to enter political and legal discourse.The Vietnam War exposed a structural link between chemical production, corporate power, and a military doctrine in which ecosystems and farmlands are targeted precisely because they sustain human life. Nature, because it nourished, protected, and anchored Indigenous communities, was treated as an obstacle to military and imperial control. As a result, it became a battlefield in its own right.Capital and RuinThis historical precedent continues to reverberate today in Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria. Decades apart, these are not isolated acts of ecological destruction but part of a continuous trajectory carried out by the same imperial, corporate, and financial machinery.In 2018, Monsanto was acquired by Bayer. Bayer’s largest institutional shareholders include BlackRock and Vanguard, the world’s two largest asset management firms.Both firms have been identified in reports, including those by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, as major investors in corporations linked to Israel’s occupation apparatus, military industry, and surveillance infrastructure. These include Palantir Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar Inc., Microsoft, Amazon, and Elbit Systems.Mapping these financial linkages reveals how ecocide is structurally embedded within broader systems of violence that are deeply entrenched and mutually reinforcing. Ecocide and genocide are financed through overlapping capital networks that connect chemical production, militarization, and territorial control.The spraying of glyphosate over agricultural land in southern Lebanon must therefore be situated within this historical continuum. The same corporate-financial structure that profits from destructive chemicals and agricultural control is interwoven with the industries that maintain a settler-colonial stronghold."
}
,
{
"title" : "Nothing Is ”Apolitical”: Why I Refused to Exhibit at the Venice Biennale",
"author" : "Céline Semaan",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/nothing-is-apolitical",
"date" : "2026-02-24 15:51:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Apolitical_Venice_Biennale-19ed6f.jpg",
"excerpt" : "After October 2023, the art world felt comfortable discriminating against Arab artists and dehumanizing us when Israel began carpet bombing Gaza leading to a genocide . For a few years since that moment, many Arab artists saw their work rejected, refused, or cancelled from shows, publications, and galleries. But in 2025, the propaganda against Arabs began to be debunked and the world recognized that Israel was in fact a colonial military occupation decimating Indigenous people, and curiously, we started receiving invitations to participate in the art world again.",
"content" : "After October 2023, the art world felt comfortable discriminating against Arab artists and dehumanizing us when Israel began carpet bombing Gaza leading to a genocide . For a few years since that moment, many Arab artists saw their work rejected, refused, or cancelled from shows, publications, and galleries. But in 2025, the propaganda against Arabs began to be debunked and the world recognized that Israel was in fact a colonial military occupation decimating Indigenous people, and curiously, we started receiving invitations to participate in the art world again.In the middle of last year, I was invited to exhibit my work at the Venice Biennale as part of their Personal Structures art exhibition. But unfortunately, I found myself needing to decline the invitation due to their separation between artistic practice and political reality: An expectation, stated and implied, that the work remain “apolitical.”For many artists, this is understood as an important recognition in one’s art career, a symbolic entrance into contemporary art history. Venice confers legitimacy, visibility, and, for many of us, validation from a historically extractive, colonial arts system. It also functions, like all major biennials, as an instrument of cultural diplomacy, soft power, and geopolitical storytelling. So a representation at the Venice Biennale as a Lebanese artist means a lot on a political scale.The word “apolitical” was used as part of a response that the Venice Biennale curator sent to justify their position regarding centering Israeli artists. It was an attempt to make explicit that engaging with the ongoing violence shaping the present moment, including the mass killing and destruction in Gaza, is a personal choice. That art exists without consequence, an elevated ideal that has the privilege of existing outside reality.I couldn’t tolerate pretending art was separated from politics, when Israel continues to bomb Lebanon daily, erase and sell Gaza, and murders Palestinians almost on a daily basis. Not when, just this February, Israel proposed to install a death penalty for the abducted Palestinians in Israeli jails with complete immunity. We are living through a time in which bombardment, starvation, displacement, and civilian death are documented in real time. Images circulate instantly; testimony is archived before bodies are buried. The evidence is not obscured by distance or ambiguity, but rather, is immediate, relentless, and impossible to ignore. Yet cultural institutions claim ignorance or worse, voluntary exclusion. In such a context, neutrality is not a passive stance but an alignment with injustice.Moral clarity is non-negotiable for me. It is my anchor in a time where global forces are unveiling their corruption for the world to see. In shock and despair, overwhelmed by the intensity of the crimes, many remain silent. Motionless. Like deers in the headlights. Hence, the safe label of remaining apolitical.But the myth of the apolitical artist has always depended on their proximity to power. It is a luxury position historically afforded to those whose bodies are not directly threatened by the carceral order. For many artists—particularly those shaped by colonization, occupation, exile, or racial violence—the political is not a thematic choice. It is the ground of existence itself.Arab women artists have shown me the path to moral clarity, integrity, and honor. The Palestinian American painter Samia Halaby has long argued that all art is political in its relation to society, whether acknowledged or not. For instance, Mona Hatoum’s sculptural language, often read through the lens of minimalism, is inseparable from histories of displacement and surveillance. The body remains present even when absent, reminding viewers that aesthetics do not transcend geopolitics.The Egyptian feminist writer Nawal El Saadawi warned with unmistakable clarity: “Neutrality in situations of injustice is siding with the oppressor.” Her words emerged from lived confrontation with imprisonment, censorship, and patriarchal state violence. Neutrality was never theoretical to her, it was lethal.Black feminist artists and thinkers have articulated the same truth. Audre Lorde’s assertion—“Your silence will not protect you”—dismantles the illusion that withholding speech preserves safety. Silence is participation in the maintenance of power. Lorraine O’Grady’s performances exposed how cultural institutions erase entire populations while claiming universality, revealing that visibility itself can be a political rupture. These perspectives converge on a single recognition: Art does not exist outside power structures. It either interrogates them or reinforces them.We remember artists who refused neutrality because their work altered the moral imagination of their time. Artists like Ai Weiwei, whose work centers politics and identity, go as far as putting their own bodies in danger. We remember the cultural boycott of apartheid South Africa, when artists refused lucrative opportunities rather than legitimize a racist regime. We remember Nina Simone transforming grief and rage into sonic resistance. We remember the Black Arts Movement insisting that aesthetics could not be detached from liberation.We also remember the artists who accommodated power. History is rarely generous toward them. The contemporary art world often performs political engagement while it structurally protects capital, donors, and institutional relationships behind closed doors. Calls for “complexity” or “nuance” frequently operate as ways to avoid taking positions that might threaten funding streams or geopolitical alliances. Requests for artists to remain apolitical are risk-management strategies that prioritize donors’ comfort.The insistence that artists claim they “do not know enough” to speak while mass civilian death unfolds is abdication. It mirrors political rhetoric that justifies violence through ideology, nationalism, or divine authority. Both rely on belief systems that absolve responsibility. The role of the artist is not to decorate power. It is to feel reality—to alchemize collective experiences into forms that expand perception rather than sterilize it.Art is essential precisely because we are living through rupture. But essential art is not decorative. It is not institutional ornamentation detached from consequence. It does not require erasing humanity in exchange for belonging to elite cultural circuits. Refusing the Biennale was not a heroic gesture. In fact, I had no desire to write this piece to begin with. It was just a form of moral clarity. Moral clarity some can live without, but unlike them, I refuse to become numb. I want to exist with a deep connection to my own humanity, and to feel it all.Including this moment that forces us to reckon with our own privileges and position. No exhibition, no platform, no symbolic prestige outweighs the responsibility of responding honestly to the conditions shaping our world. Participation under forced neutrality in accepting the presence of genocidal entities such as Israel would have required fragmentation — an agreement to pretend that art exists outside the systems producing suffering, including settler colonial violence and military occupation.It does not. And I cannot fake it."
}
,
{
"title" : "ICE Attacks Are a Food Sovereignty Issue",
"author" : "Jill Damatac",
"category" : "essay",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/ice-interference-is-a-food-sovereignty-issue",
"date" : "2026-02-24 11:26:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/ice_food_soveriegnty.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Food inequality, like the carceral state, is not a bug, but a feature.",
"content" : "Food inequality, like the carceral state, is not a bug, but a feature.California National Guard troops face off with protestors during a federal immigration raid on Glass House Farms in Camarillo, Calif. on July 10, 2025. Photo Credit: Blake Fagan via AFPIn June 2025, ICE agents walked into Glenn Valley Foods, a meat plant in Omaha, Neb. and detained roughly half the workforce. Production sagged to a fraction of normal: Producers were already strained by drought, thinned herds, and high cattle prices. On paper and in headlines, the Trump administration claimed an enforcement success; on the plant floor, workers stayed home, choosing to lose wages rather than risk returning. Beef processors warned that if raids became routine, they would buy fewer animals, and bottlenecks would pinch slaughterhouses and feedlots. The systemic shock emerged in the price of ground beef, which edged, at one point, towards seven dollars a pound. Still, raids were sold to voters as proof of control, even as they paid more for food and meals.ICE actions against food workers, already exhausted and criminally underpaid, have a demonstrable effect on sky-high food prices and our tax dollars: Raids further strain an already fragile, extractive food production and service system by not only further funding violent carceral systems, but also our fiscal ability to put food on the table. And while it’s clear that much needs to be changed when it comes to how we treat food workers–from livable wages and health insurance to legal protections and affordable housing –one thing has not been properly acknowledged. ICE interference shapes how we eat and our ability to have food sovereignty.By definition, food sovereignty is, first and foremost, a claim to power. It is the right of communities, including immigrant food workers, to decide how food is grown, who profits from it, and what it costs. True self-determination means the land and our labor serve everyone, rather than corporations or government agencies. It means the price of food stays low and steady enough that working-class households eat well, that profits are shared so that small farmers, migrant workers, and food workers can live with dignity and comfort. But this is far from the reality we face today: with grocery and restaurant bills rising and food workers one threat away from deportation, what we are left with is a food system benefiting corporate interests, flanked by a carceral force wearing a false claim to justice as a mask.Immigrant food workers carry the nation’s appetite on their shoulders: According to a 2020 study by the American Immigrant Council, over 20% of food industry workers are immigrants. Within agriculture, 40-50% of workers are undocumented on any given year, while in the restaurant industry, undocumented immigrants are 10-15% of the workforce. Their work is in our carts, fridges, and pantries, on our restaurant tables, takeout counters, and drive-throughs. Workers are keenly aware that ICE knows exactly where to detainthem to hit their arrest quota: in fruit orchards and vegetable farms, meat processing plants, egg barns, dairy plants, grocery stores, restaurant kitchens, and even the parking lots where they gather at dawn, hoping to find work for the day. With agents detaining and deporting workers regardless of immigration status or criminal record, workers are scared into staying home, giving up precious income just to live another day. Meanwhile, fields go unpicked, stores scramble to cover shifts, and kitchens stall. Crews thin out rather than risk being taken, or, as in the case of Jaime Alanís García, are killed while fleeing an ICE farm raid.These calculations between fear and courage in the face of aggression are not abstract to me; they’re personal. My father was an undocumented immigrant who worked nights stocking a cereal aisle. He was given thirty-two hours a week, just shy of full-time, so the grocery store could avoid providing health insurance. When a new manager began to ask employees for identification, my dad and other undocumented co-workers quit, leaving the store scrambling to find people willing to work for minimum wage, nearly full-time, with no healthcare. These violent acts move through the food chain under the guise of “rising prices,” a surcharge in our grocery carts and restaurant bills.The U.S. government has played with the lives of immigrant food workers many times before. Under President Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression, “Mexican repatriation” campaigns deported hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, many of them farmworkers recruited in boom years, as officials caved to white workers, who were both unwilling to cede the work to immigrants or to take on the low-paying farm jobs themselves. Filipino farmworkers, known as the Manongs, were treated similarly: in the 1920s and 30s, Filipino workers slept in crowded bunkhouses, were paid low wages, worked through illnesses such as tuberculosis, and were given no path to citizenship, even though the Philippines was then a U.S. territory. In January 1930, white mobs in Watsonville, Calif. hunted Filipino men, beat them, threw them off bridges, and shot and lynched them. Soon after, California banned marriage between Filipinos and white people, and Congress slashed Filipino immigration to a token quota. The food industry has long built itself on brown people’s labor while the law denied them basic human rights. At the root of it all is a sinister plantation logic: a nation’s wealth and abundance built on enslaved Black people’s labor and deprivation. It’s just new bodies in the fields, now.Today’s arrests and deportations are a continuation of this very logic: exploited migrant workers are still denied basic rights and protections while the food industry that employs them grows, year on year. Many lack legal status; many more live in mixed-status families. Using the excuse of “border security,” ICE and DHS agents press on that vulnerability by design. As a result, fear of ICE enforcement becomes a cost itself, narrowing what people can afford and where they can eat. These enforcements, carried out without input the food industry or local communities, and often against their will, directly impact our food sovereignty—how people determine the way food is grown, distributed, made, and served, as well as how workers within the food industry are paid and treated.Take summer 2025 as an example: ICE raids swept through produce fields around Oxnard in California’s Ventura County, arriving in unmarked vehicles (and sometimes helicopters) at the height of harvest. The raids spread, so crews went into hiding: one Ventura County grower estimated that roughly 70% of workers vanished from the rows almost overnight, leaving farms heavy with rotting produce and no one to pick it. Economists modeling removals of migrant farmworkers from California estimate that growers could lose up to 40% of their workforce, wiping out billions of dollars in crop value and raising produce prices by as much as 10%.These losses are passed on to communities and households, obfuscating why and how the increases happened in the first place. The American consumer is consequently exploited, too, absorbing the real labor cost of detentions and deportations. In Los Angeles, immigration sweeps in June 2025 hit downtown produce markets and surrounding eateries; vendors called business “worse than COVID” as customers vanished and supplies wasted away in storage. In January 2026, along Lake Street in south Minneapolis, immigrant-run spots like Lito’s Burritos and stalls at Midtown Global Market, a popular food hall in downtown Minneapolis, saw revenue plunge due to ICE enforcement, forcing them to cut hours, or close altogether. In nearby St. Paul, Minn., El Burrito Mercado shut down after its owner watched agents circle the building “like a hunting ground.” Meanwhile, four ICE agents ate at El Tapatio, a restaurant in Willmar, Mn. Hours later, they returned after closing time to arrest the owners and a dishwasher. Hmong restaurants and Mexican groceries across the Twin Cities have gone dark for days or weeks at a time, suffocating the local economy, leaving consumers with shrinking access to food, and small business owners with no revenue while their employees go unpaid.If food sovereignty means real control over how food is grown, distributed, and accessed, it must begin with the safety of the workers holding the system up. Workers’ wellbeing is not ornamental: it is the precondition for steady harvests, stable prices, and an affordable Main Street. Federal and state legislation must build strict firewalls between labor and immigration enforcement so that workers can file complaints, call inspectors, or take a sick day without fear. Laws can enforce and extend safety protections, wage standards, and the right to unionize. This can only happen with comprehensive immigration reform: A durable legal status and a path to citizenship for food and farmworkers would help immigrant families break the old pattern of being extracted for labor while being denied the basic right to stability.There are also infrastructures that must be abolished to truly achieve food sovereignty: specifically, the burgeoning immigration detention industrial complex. The Big Beautiful Bill allocated $75 billion dollars, spread over four years, to ICE, funding the expansion of private prison facilities. Alongside the nation’s existing prison industrial complex, the immigration detention industrial complex has become a key economic driver, albeit one that benefits only a few, such as shareholders in CoreCivic and Geo Group, two of the nation’s biggest private prison companies.Food inequality and lack of food sovereignty, like the carceral state, are not bugs, but features: soaring food, housing, and healthcare costs, voter discontent, and public unrest form a feedback loop, reinforcing the manufactured narrative scapegoating immigrant and migrant workers. If enough Americans believe that immigrants are to blame for the high prices in grocery stores and restaurants, no one will pause long enough to scrutinize the corporations (and owners) who stand to profit.Should legislators have the courage to change the infrastructure that allows these inequities to occur, the hands that harvest, pack, cook, serve, and wash would be fairly recognized as part of the nation they feed. Because fear and imprisonment should never be priced into the dinner table. Everyone can—and should be able to—eat."
}
]
}