In the Peruvian Pipeline scenario, “several thousand indigenous and non-indigenous people had assembled in the Amazonas town of Bagua, blocking the highway…” (Bebbington 76). By blocking the highway with their body, the company cannot transport the necessary resources to the pipeline location. Similarly, the Dakota Pipeline had “tribal members protesting the pipeline by setting up camp along the banks of Lake Oahe in North Dakota” (Lecture Nov 14 Slide 3). Just like the blocking of the highway, the tents are barriers that prevent the transportation of goods. Therefore, the similar action by the indigenous people is an effective strategy because companies will not risk losing their business rights by murdering people with their …show more content…
The protests occur because indigenous people does not want to surrender their lands to corporates. In addition, corporates rely on law enforcement to remove the protesters. This reveals that there is no communication from the corporation and indigenous people. Many indigenous communities believe that they have no legal power to voice their concerns to oil corporations: Bebbington’s article states, “‘why [is] the permission of indigenous peoples not being requested for hydrocarbons exploration” (18). As a result, the bias against oil pipelines can be reduced if corporations accept and take notes of the victims’ voices. Through this collaboration, the victims and companies will be able to discuss plans and agree on terms that are acceptable to both parties. With that, us, the future of this world, needs to start developing strategies that can bridge the differences between corporations’ rights and environmental