For my final civic issue blog, I want to change directions a bit and focus on the way that memorials and landmarks can affect the community. I believe that the National Park System allows for us to have a glimpse into the past. I think of the parks, landmarks, and memorials as living time capsules, ones full of life, history, and natural resources. Our history is engraved in these monuments and parks through trails, ruins, and gravestones. And yet although it is important to herald these parks as a monumental breakthrough in American history, it is also important to understand what they mean to those who came before the Europeans found a land inhabited and called it the wild. The Black Hill Mountain range in South Dakota covers numerous landmarks. It includes Windy Cave National Park, state forests, and the thing that we will be talking about today and perhaps the most famous, Mount Rushmore. Mount Rushmore has become a symbol of America, a shining beacon of civilization carved into the mountains. A sign of liberty and democracy and its unweathering strength. But these things are generalizations of a much deeper topic, and as polarization between political parties continues to happen, we see this monument become a contention point.  

As all of America is stolen land, Mount Rushmore for many sits like a reminder to a wound that won’t heal. The Black Hills mountains are sacred lands to what is known as the Sioux Nation. The Sioux Nation is a group of different Native American tribes united by three languages. There are The Lakota, The Dakota, and The Nakota. Their land once stretched across the American Plains and mountains. When white settlers began to move west, they were pushed towards the Black Hill mountains, already sacred land in their eyes. After many battles, a treaty was signed between the Sioux Nation and the United States government in 1868. In this treaty the Black Hills Mountain Range was given to them as part of their territory, although this would not last. As hints of gold began to be found through the region the treaty was broken and so began the gold rush of the 1870s. This was another broken treaty, one that piled on top of the others, and as white men viewed these tribes as wild people who needed saving, the Sioux Nation fought to keep alive the culture and way of life that had belonged to them for thousands of years.  

President Ulysses S. Grant is famously quoted stating that he favored a non-violent way to assimilate the Native Americans into Western culture. “Under the benign influences of education and civilization. It is either this or war of extermination.” As many in the nation refused, the government would try harder to push these tribes away. Many famous battles would occur including the Battle of Little Bighorn in which General Custer would be killed, but in the end, it would not be the Sioux Nation that would emerge victorious. Carving of Mount Rushmore began in 1927, the granite mountain would later depict the faces of four American Presidents that to many represent American Values. The faces of George Washington, Abraham Lincolcn, Thomas Jefferson, and Theadore Rosevelt now sit on a monument that is sometimes referred to as a, “Shrine of Democracy.” 

This shrine to many including those who live in the Sioux Nation view it as a desecration of sacred land that was given and then stolen. And while I truly love the National Park System, I do not see this monument as anything other than a monument to the way America was truly built: on the backs of other people forced away from their homes and cultures into the western world that has built a powerful but unimaginable society today. This is important for many reasons because it has become a contentious issue between the political parties of the Democrats and the Republicans. Last July 4th, the first during the COVID-19 Pandemic, Donald Trump held an in-person rally there. Fireworks and no masks called for outrage from many. The dangers of the virus spreading, the dangers of forest fires, and the disrespect felt by Native Americans culminated in protests and outcry.  

The Governor of South Dakota, Republican Kristi Noem, sent a request to the National Park Service to once again have fireworks at the monument on the 4th of July. This request was shot down by the NPS, but many Republicans shot back in anger. Many called the decision biased and political rather than one made by reason and evidence, but looking past the headlines at why this monument means so much to so many people is important. As many continue to glorify America’s history, its values, and its status in this world, the history behind the massacres that built this country are important to remember. Preserving this land is not just important for Americans, but it is important for the Sioux Nation and its important for the Planet. While I do not have any solutions to this problem, I fear that these symbols of liberty to those who worship a false notion in this country will be a breaking point for many. As we look towards a future of healing and hopefully change for the better, we must bring the past to those who refuse to look into it themselves.  

For many we are a great nation, but for many we are not. We are a nation of war, violence, and supremacy. We are a nation of oppression and corruption. The statement, “We the People,” has not always been the same for everyone, and people have had to fight to be a part of that. Recognizing the cultures that were nearly destroyed can be a key to the future of sustainability as well. And as Mount Rushmore continues to show presidents who represent freedom to many, it will continue to represent a culture that does no respect another. Mount Rushmore is a mountain of liberty and it is a monument to pain, a scar on the face of a nation struggling today.  

Citations: 

History.com Editors. “Mount Rushmore.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 16 Dec. 2009, www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/mount-rushmore-1.  

“Native Americans and Mount Rushmore.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/rushmore-sioux/.  

Papenfuss, Mary. “National Park Service Shoots Down South Dakota Request For Mount Rushmore Fireworks.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 13 Mar. 2021, www.huffpost.com/entry/park-service-rejects-south-dakota-july-4th-fireworks-mount-rushmore_n_604c42c8c5b60e0725f74885.  

says:, Steve Schingler, et al. Legends of America, www.legendsofamerica.com/na-sioux/. 

In a last-ditch effort to expand drilling opportunities in the country, former President Donald Trump sped up the process of leasing and selling land in the protected Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Refuge. This land is being sold with the purpose of gas and natural resource exploration. This hotly–contested topic has been on Donald Trump’s docket since 2017 in which he pushed forward with a bill to allow the sale of the land that has been protected for decades. The importance of the Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Refuge is insurmountable, especially in the face of the looming effects of climate change on the planet. To understand the importance of the land that is being so fiercely fought over I want to first discuss why it is so important. In 1960, Public Land Order 2214 created the refuge, which has been continuously added to, especially in a large expansion order in 1980. The refuge itself protects around 19.64 million acres of land, widely considered to be the largest stretch of wilderness left in the United States. According to the National Resources Defense Council or NRDC, this is an essential piece of land protecting the habitats of endangered polar bears, white fox, caribou, and the migration patterns of birds from every state in the country and six continents in the world.  

The Wilderness Society also points out that it is sacred ground to indigenous tribes such as the Gwich’in and Iñupiat people. The land stretches over arctic tundra and boreal forests, with all three species of North American bear found within the refuge’s borders. In the face of such an impending problem in climate change, the importance of a place like this should not be understated. In fact, over 270 species of animals call this place home, and oil and industrial production in this area could severely disrupt the entire ecosystem. The industrial process would attract development, roads, airplanes, noise pollution, and the destruction of one of the last habitats that Polar Bears depend on. It may seem obvious why this would be such a bad idea, but members of the Republican Party have been supporters of this move. It is estimated that the refuge contains over a billion barrels of oil that could be extracted for use.  

According to The New York Times a seismic survey of the refuge was not done in the time constrained through the air or by airplane. The point of the surveys was to determine whether any of the lots available have any natural resources. The fact is that there has not been a seismic survey of the entire refuge since the 1980s, making it hard for companies to bid on plots of land if they do not know there will be a profit. The failure to meet the deadline on the survey has halted any more sales at the moment, although there were a few sales in Trump’s last days in office. It is unstable then for any new buyers who are wary of the land that is for sale as there is no real way to tell what lies beneath. This then begs the question of if there will be any interest for these lots. In a New York Times article, former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is quoted saying this: “I think a lot of people will bid for leases without seismic data.” This claim seems to be a way to prop up Donald Trump’s policies, although it is important to know that some relevant Republican Alaskans have gotten behind this project. Senator Dan Sullivan is quoted saying that, “Thousands of Alaskans are employed in our oil industry, and their livelihoods depend on the good-paying jobs created by our state’s reserves.” He would then finish the remark by stating, “Today, we are one step closer to securing a bright future for these Alaskans and their families.” It can be seen here that the Republicans in favor of this move are trying to make it about job production rather than the environmental impacts.  

On Trump’s last day in office, his administration released leases to some of the land in the once protected refuge. While this is disappointing, it is important to note that there is hope. On President Joseph R. Biden’s first day in office, he signed an order halting all of the lease sales so that they can be reviewed further. President Biden has also been known to call for the permanent protection of the refuge by officially designating it wilderness. In an article by The Philadelphia Inquirer, we see Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick from Bucks Country move forward with cosponsoring a bill that would protect the refuge forever. He is quoted saying, “Our Arctic Refuge is a national treasure, and it is imperative for us to protect it…I am glad to once again co-lead The Arctic Refuge Protection Act this Congress because taking care of our environment should not be a political issue.” Hopes of a bipartisan bill passing through Congress has raised hopes for the future.  

This debate will not go away for a long time, as we discuss how to move forward into a more sustainable society, both economically and environmentally. The Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Refuge is one of the last large swaths of land untouched by human activity. It is important for us to protect it from industrialization and use it as a beacon of hope moving forward. Joe Biden and his administration have promised drastic environmental protections and laws to move us in the right direction. While the executive orders that he has passed have been a step in the right direction, it is important to remember that the only permanent way to move forward is through Congress. I see a hopeful and bright future for the Refuge, but Joe Biden cannot do it alone. Congress and activist groups must step forward in pressuring the representatives and senators into making a change. The effects of climate change are now inevitable in a world too long taken advantage of, but the effects can be lessened, and humans can work with the planet towards a better future. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is one large piece in a puzzle that is just being put together now, and much too slowly.  

“Facts and Features – Arctic – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, www.fws.gov/refuge/arctic/facts_and_features.html.  

Fountain, Henry. “Seismic Survey of Alaskan Arctic Refuge Won’t Move Forward.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Feb. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/climate/arctic-refuge-seismic-survey.html.  

“Oil Drilling: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” The Wilderness Society, www.wilderness.org/wild-places/alaska/oil-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge.  

Plumer, Brad, and Henry Fountain. “Trump Administration Finalizes Plan to Open Arctic Refuge to Drilling.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Aug. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/climate/alaska-oil-drilling-anwr.html.  

“Protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” NRDC, 20 Jan. 2021, www.nrdc.org/protect-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge.  

Tamari, Frank Kummer and Jonathan. “Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Bucks County Sponsors Bill to Protect Arctic National Refuge, Which Trump Sought to Open for Drilling.” Https://Www.inquirer.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5 Feb. 2021, www.inquirer.com/science/climate/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-drilling-brian-fitzpatrick-congress-20210204.html. 

For my civic issue blog, I would like to cover the environment and sustainability on a political level, on the international and national scale. As more and more people recognize the importance of the climate crisis, we see a push for countries to move towards a more sustainable future. In this blog I would like to cover the changes that are happening and the important work that is being done. Recently we have seen a new administration come into power in the United States and changes to the countries climate policies. It is important to understand some background information before we understand why these changes were made and how it became a political weapon. The United States itself has been at the forefront of the Interational scene since the end of World War II. Helping to found organizations such as the United Nations, The United States has many times taken the lead on some international issues. Although the climate issue has now been taken over by other countries such as China and Denmark.  

The United Nations wanted to address the issue of each country working towards goals separately by holding a conference to create what is now known as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In 2015, the United Nations passed 17 development goals with a hope to make strides towards the set deadline of 2030. I want to go over a few of the goals that I think are important to talk about on the political level. The first goal I want to cover is the goal of Sustainable Cities and Communities. As developing nations move towards an urban future, it is important to lay the groundwork for a more sustainable way of life. The way cities are set up now are not sustainable in the Western World unless large scale changes shift it towards a better way of life. Energy and water consumption, as well as sewage and waste disposal are examples of important systems that can be more sustainable for the future. That is why this goal is so important. There is no doubt that cities will be a part of human society in the future, and because of this we must look towards sustainable ways to create and maintain cities.  

Another and arguably more politically–charged Sustainable Development Goal is Ensuring More Affordable and Sustainable Energy Systems. This has become a very heated topic especially in The United States due to the implications of both long-term destruction of the environment and job loss. Companies making billions of dollars in The United States through fracking and importation and exportation of fossil fuels will not likely give up an industry that continues to rake in billions of dollars a year. These large corporations not only affect politics through their donations to better their interests, but employ many American workers. If the world and the country are to move towards a more sustainable energy system, we must create and offer a new system that is cheaper, better for the environment, and offers just as many if not more long-term jobs for Americans.  

The last Sustainable Development Goal I would like to talk about is Partnerships for the Goals. For any of these goals to have any real impact there must be international cooperation. The United Nations does not have the authority to force any country to follow any laws or protocols within their borders so the change we need must come from the countries themselves working together. There is no better example of this than what has been named, The Paris Climate Change Agreement. In 2015, countries from around the world met in Paris. After a large summit, 196 countries including The United States, under President Obama, signed and agreed to this resolution. The resolution is the somewhat–aggressive but necessary goal of keeping the planet to at most 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than its pre-industrial levels. It is important to note however that each country is allowed to set its own emission standards for greenhouse gases under the accord.  

The United States, however, would soon change administrations. Donald Trump’s administration took control of the White House in 2017. Throughout his campaign he had claimed that he would leave the Paris Climate Change Agreement, and on November 4th of 2020 the United States officially left the accord. Donald Trump, an adamant climate change denier, was dead set on leaving the accord although it was frowned upon by many corporations and government agencies. Looking back towards the last Sustainable Development Goal, Partnerships for the Goals, the destructive nature of this decision becomes clear. The United States has contributed the most greenhouse gases cumulatively since the Industrial Revolution, so its role in reversing and stopping the effects of these behaviors are important. And yet many Republicans applauded this move. President Trump did not only leave the accord, he also repealed many of the greenhouse gas emissions regulations that had been put in place by the Obama Administration. This went directly against the pledge the United States had made during the accords. The country pledged to cut national emissions by 25% of their 2005 levels by the year 2025. It is also important to point out that leaving the accord also means that the United States would no longer contribute the 3 billion dollars pledged to the global fund meant to help developing countries create a more sustainable infrastructure. Two thirds of the money pledged was withdrawn from the funds. 

The new administration under President Biden has effectively rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement as of January 20th , 2021. It is important to understand the political side of the agreement and the conversation of climate change before I dive deeper into specific topics. The United States has a lot of ground to make up in the fight against climate change, and rejoining the accord was just the beginning. The United States has the powers and resources necessary to be the leader on this issue, and due to the damage it has done, it needs to be. The Biden administration continues to make changes towards a more sustainable future, but for any large-scale change to happen in this country he must steer the conversation away from politics and towards science.  

Bibliography: 

“THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development.” United Nations, United Nations, sdgs.un.org/goals.  

Hersher, Rebecca. “U.S. Officially Leaving Paris Climate Agreement.” NPR, NPR, 3 Nov. 2020, www.npr.org/2020/11/03/930312701/u-s-officially-leaving-paris-climate-agreement. 

“Paris Climate Agreement.” The White House, The United States Government, 21 Jan. 2021, www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/paris-climate-agreement/. 

Unfccc.int, unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement.