Tuck and Yang 12

Download 171.49 Kb.
Date conversion13.05.2016
Size171.49 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5

Aff Solvency Takeouts

There is no way to solve for oppression within the system, only a prior decolonization allows for the ridding of oppression.

Sartre 57

(Jean Paul Satre, 1957, He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature but refused it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution, The introduction of The Colonizer and the Colonized, pp. 19-21, http://atlasarts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Albert-Memmi-The-Colonizer-and-the-Colonized.pdf) CH

*we don’t endorse gendered language.

This is doubtless the reason Memmi might be reproached for his seeming idealism; in fact, he tells all. But one can haggle with him about his method. Perhaps it would have been better to show the colonizer and his victim both throttled by the colonial apparatus, that cumbersome machine, constructed at the dose of the Second Empire and under the Third Republic, that now, after giving the colonizers every satisfaction, turns against them and threatens to crush them. In fact, racism is built into the system: the colony sells produce. and raw materials cheaply, and purchases manufactured goods at very high prices from the mother country. This singular trade is profitable to both parties only if the native works for little or nothing. The colonial agricultural subproletariat cannot even count on an alliance with the least-favored Europeans, for everyone lives off them, even the "small colonizers," whom the big proprietors exploit, but who are privileged compared to the Algerians, the average income of the Algerian Frenchman being ten times that of the Algerian· Moslem. Here the tension is born. To keep salaries and the cost of living at a minimum, there must be great competition among native workers, so the birth rate must rise; but since the country's resources are earmarked for colonialist appropriation, the Moslem standard of living, on constant wages, continues to fall. The population thus lives in a chronic state of. malnutrition. Conquest occurred through violence, and over-exploitation and oppression necessitate con· tinued violence, so the army is present. There would be no contradiction in that, if terror reigned everywhere in the world, but the colonizer enjoys, in the mother country, democratic rights that the colonialist system refuses to the colonized native. In fact, the colonialist system favors population growth to reduce the cost of labor, and it forbids assimilation of · the natives, whose numerical superiority, if they had voting rights, would shatter the system. Colonialist denies human rights to human beings whom it has subdued by violence, and keeps them by force in a state of misery and ignorance that Marx would rightly call a subhuman condition. Racism is ingrained in actions, institutions, and in the nature.of the colonialist methods of production and exchange. Political and social regulations reinforce one another. Since the native is subhuman, the Declaration of Human Rights does not apply to him; inversely, since he has no rights, he is abandoned without protection to inhuman forces-brought in with the colonialist praxis, engendered every moment by the colonialist apparatus, and sustained by relations of production that define two sorts of individuals--one for whom privilege and humanity are one, who becomes a human being through exercising his rights; and the other, for whom a denial of rights sanctions misery, chronic hunger, ignorance, or, in general, "subhumanity." I have always thought that ideas take form from things and that the ideas are already within man when he awakens them and expresses them to elucidate his situation. The colonizer's "conservatism" and "racism," his ambiguous relations with the mother country-such things are given first, before he revives them into Nero complexes.



The United States is a colonial state, and the civil rights the 1AC advocates fails because it operates in this colonial space and is only a further progress trap resulting in the continued colonial oppression of the Tohono.

Tuck and Yang 12 (Eve Tuck, State University of New York at New Paltz, K. Wayne Yang University of California, San Diego, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, Decolonization is not a metaphor, pp 6-7, accessed 7/24/15) CH

The settler, if known by his actions and how he justifies them, sees himself as holding dominion over the earth and its flora and fauna, as the anthropocentric normal, and as more developed, more human, more deserving than other groups or species. The settler is making a new "home" and that home is rooted in a homesteading worldview where the wild land and wild people were made for his benefit. He can only make his identity as a settler by making the land produce, and produce excessively, because "civilization" is defined as production in excess of the "natural" world (i.e. in excess of the sustainable production already present in the Indigenous world). In order for excess production, he needs excess labor, which he cannot provide himself. The chattel slave serves as that excess labor, labor that can never be paid because payment would have to be in the form of property (land). The settler's wealth is land, or a fungible version of it, and so payment for labor is impossible.6 The settler positions himself as both superior and normal; the settler is natural, whereas the Indigenous inhabitant and the chattel slave are unnatural, even supernatural. Settlers are not immigrants. Immigrants are beholden to the Indigenous laws and epistemologies of the lands they migrate to. Settlers become the law, supplanting Indigenous laws and epistemologies. Therefore, settler nations are not immigrant nations (See also A.J. Barker, 2009). Not unique, the United States, as a settler colonial nation-state, also operates as an empire - utilizing external forms and internal forms of colonization simultaneous to the settler colonial project. This means, and this is perplexing to some, that dispossessed people are brought onto seized Indigenous land through other colonial projects. Other colonial projects include enslavement, as discussed, but also military recruitment, low-wage and high-wage labor recruitment (such as agricultural workers and overseas-trained engineers), and displacement/migration (such as the coerced immigration from nations torn by U.S. wars or devastated by U.S. economic policy). In this set of settler colonial relations, colonial subjects who are displaced by external colonialism, as well as racialized and minoritized by internal colonialism, still occupy and settle stolen Indigenous land. Settlers are diverse, not just of white European descent, and include people of color, even from other colonial contexts. This tightly wound set of conditions and racialized, globalized relations exponentially complicates what is meant by decolonization, and by solidarity, against settler colonial forces. Decolonization in exploitative colonial situations could involve the seizing of imperial wealth by the postcolonial subject. In settler colonial situations, seizing imperial wealth is inextricably tied to settlement and re-invasion. Likewise, the promise of integration and civil rights is predicated on securing a share of a settler-appropriated wealth (as well as expropriated ‘third-world’ wealth). Decolonization in a settler context is fraught because empire, settlement, and internal colony have no spatial separation. Each of these features of settler colonialism in the US context - empire, settlement, and internal colony - make it a site of contradictory decolonial desires7 . Decolonization as metaphor allows people to equivocate these contradictory decolonial desires because it turns decolonization into an empty signifier to be filled by any track towards liberation. In reality, the tracks walk all over land/people in settler contexts. Though the details are not fixed or agreed upon, in our view, decolonization in the settler colonial context must involve the repatriation of land simultaneous to the recognition of how land and relations to land have always already been differently understood and enacted; that is, all of the land, and not just symbolically. This is precisely why decolonization is necessarily unsettling, especially across lines of solidarity. “Decolonization never takes place unnoticed” (Fanon, 1963, p. 36). Settler colonialism and its decolonization implicates and unsettles everyone.

The 1AC’s framing of the Tohono as a people in crisis conceals the erasure of the Indigenous and forces them to the margins of public discourse.

Tuck and Yang 12 (Eve Tuck, State University of New York at New Paltz, K. Wayne Yang University of California, San Diego, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, Decolonization is not a metaphor, pp 22-23, accessed 7/24/15) CH

This settler move to innocence is concerned with the ways in which Indigenous peoples are counted, codified, represented, and included/disincluded by educational researchers and other social science researchers. Indigenous peoples are rendered visible in mainstream educational research in two main ways: as “at risk” peoples and as asterisk peoples. This comprises a settler move to innocence because it erases and then conceals the erasure of Indigenous peoples within the settler colonial nation-state and moves Indigenous nations as “populations” to the margins of public discourse. As “at risk” peoples, Indigenous students and families are described as on the verge of extinction, culturally and economically bereft, engaged or soon-to-be engaged in self-destructive behaviors which can interrupt their school careers and seamless absorption into the economy. Even though it is widely known and verified that Native youth gain access to personal and academic success when they also have access to/instruction in their home languages, most Native American and Alaskan Native youth are taught in English-only schools by temporary teachers who know little about their students’ communities (Lomawaima and McCarty, 2006; Lee, 2011). Even though Indigenous knowledge systems predate, expand, update, and complicate the curricula found in most public schools, schools attended by poor Indigenous students are among those most regimented in attempts to comply with federal mandates. Though these mandates intrude on the sovereignty of Indigenous peoples, the “services” promised at the inception of these mandates do little to make the schools attended by Indigenous youth better at providing them a compelling, relevant, inspiring and meaningful education. At the same time, Indigenous communities become the asterisk peoples, meaning they are represented by an asterisk in large and crucial data sets, many of which are conducted to inform public policy that impact our/their lives (Villegas, 2012). Education and health statistics are unavailable from Indigenous communities for a variety of reasons and, when they are made available, the size of the n, or the sample size, can appear to be negligible when compared to the sample size of other/race-based categories. Though Indigenous scholars such as Malia Villegas recognize that Indigenous peoples are distinct from each other but also from other racialized groups surveyed in these studies, they argue that difficulty of collecting basic education and health information about this small and heterogeneous category must be overcome in order to counter the disappearance of Indigenous particularities in public policy. In U.S. educational research in particular, Indigenous peoples are included only as asterisks, as footnotes into dominant paradigms of educational inequality in the U.S. This can be observed in the progressive literature on school discipline, on ‘underrepresented minorities’ in higher education, and in the literature of reparation, i.e., redressing ‘past’ wrongs against nonwhite Others. Under such paradigms, which do important work on alleviating the symptoms of colonialism (poverty, dispossession, criminality, premature death, cultural genocide), Indigeneity is simply an “and” or an illustration of oppression. ‘Urban education’, for example, is a code word for the schooling of black, brown, and ghettoized youth who form the numerical majority in divested public schools. Urban American Indians and Native Alaskans become an asterisk group, invisibilized, even though about two-thirds of Indigenous peoples in the U.S. live in urban areas, according to the 2010 census. Yet, urban Indians receive fewer federal funds for education, health, and employment than their counterparts on reservations (Berry, 2012). Similarly, Native Pasifika people become an asterisk in the Asian Pacific Islander category and their politics/epistemologies/experiences are often subsumed under a pan-ethnic Asian-American master narrative. From a settler viewpoint that concerns itself with numerical inequality, e.g. the achievement gap, underrepresentation, and the 99%’s short share of the wealth of the metropole, the asterisk is an outlier, an outnumber. It is a token gesture, an inclusion and an enclosure of Native people into the politics of equity. These acts of inclusion assimilate Indigenous sovereignty, ways of knowing, and ways of being by remaking a collective-comprised tribal identity into an individualized ethnic identity. From a decolonizing perspective, the asterisk is a body count that does not account for Indigenous politics, educational concerns, and epistemologies. Urban land (indeed all land) is Native land. The vast majority of Native youth in North America live in urban settings. Any decolonizing urban education endeavor must address the foundations of urban land pedagogy and Indigenous politics vis-a-vis the settler colonial state.

Although the affirmative is attacking the state, they still believe that it can be fixed, a fatal misconception legitimizing the genocide and colonization of the indigenous.

Smith 2005

(Andrea Smith, Native American Feminism, Sovereignty, and Social Change , Andrea Smith is associate professor in the Department of Media and Cultural Studies at the University of California, Riverside, Spring 2005, Feminist Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 128-129, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20459010?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) CH

Native feminist theory and activism make a critical contribution to feminist politics as a whole by questioning the legitimacy of the United States specifically and the nation-state as the appropriate form of governance generally. Progressive activists and scholars, although prepared to make critiques of the U.S. government, are often not prepared to question its legitimacy. A case in point is the strategy of many racial justice organizations in the United States to rally against hate crimes resulting from the attacks of 9/11 under the banner, "We're American too." However, what the analysis of Native women activists suggests is that this implicit allegiance to "America" legitimizes the genocide and colonization of Native peoples, as there could be no "America" without this genocide. Thus by making anticolonial struggle central to feminist politics, Native women make central to their organizing the question of what is the appropriate form of governance for the world in general. Does self-determination for indigenous peoples equal aspirations for a nation-state, or are there other forms of governance we can create that are not based on domination and control? Questioning the United States, in particular, and questioning the nation state as the appropriate form of governance for the world, in general, allow us to free our political imagination to begin thinking of how we can begin to build a world we would actually want to live in. Such a political project is particularly important for colonized peoples seeking national liberation because it allows us to differentiate "nation" from "nation state." Helpful in this project of imagination is the work of Native women activists who have begun articulating notions of nation and sovereignty that are separate from nation-states. Whereas nation-states are governed through domination and coercion, indigenous sovereignty and nation hood is predicated on interrelatedness and responsibility. As Crystal Ecohawk states: Sovereignty is an active, living process within this knot of human, material and spiritual relationships bound together by mutual responsibilities and obligations. From that knot of relationships is born our histories, our identity, the traditional ways in which we govern ourselves, our beliefs, our relationship to the land, and how we feed, clothe, house and take care of our families, communities and Nations."


The attempt to solve for racism before solving for colonization is rooted in a misunderstanding of the situation. Racism is a tool for the colonizer, not the other way around. Without destroying the framework of colonialism, all oppression will continue.

Memmi 57

Albert Memmi, 1957, Albert Memmi is a French writer and essayist of Tunisian-Jewish origin, The Colonizer and The Colonized, pp. 117-119, http://atlasarts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Albert-Memmi-The-Colonizer-and-the-Colonized.pdf, accessed 7/27/15) CH

The fact is that all oppression is directed at a human group as a whole and, a priori, all individual members of that group are anonymously victimized by it. One often hears that workers-that is all workers, since they are workers-are afflicted by this and that defect and -this and that fault. The racist accusation directed at the colonized cannot be anything but collective, and every one of the colonized must be held guilty without exception. It is admitted, however, that there is a possible escape from the oppression of a worker. Theoretically at least, a worker can leave his class and change his status, but within the framework of colonization, nothing can ever save the colonized. He can never move into the privileged clan; even if he should earn more money than they, if he should win all the titles, if he should enormously increase his power. We have compared oppression and the colonial struggle to oppression and the class struggle. The colonizer-colonized, people-to-people relationship within nations can, in fact, remind one of the bourgeoisie proletariat relationship within a nation. But the almost absolutely airtight colonial groupings must also be mentioned. All the efforts of the colonialist are directed toward maintaining this social immobility, and racism is the surest weapon for this aim. In effect, change. becomes impossible, and any revolt would be absurd. Racism appears then, not as an incidental detail, but as a part of colonialism. It is the highest expression of the colonial. system and one of the most significant features of the colonialist. Not only does .it establish a fundamental discrimination between colonizer and colonized, a sine qua non of colonial life, but it also lays the foundation for the immutability of this life. The racist tone of each move of both the colonialist and the colonizer is the source of the extraordinary spread of racism in the colonies. And not only the man on the street: A Rabat psychiatrist dared ·tell me, after twenty years' practice, that North The colonizer who accepts African neuroses were due to the North African spirit. That spirit or that ethnic grouping or that psychism stems from the institutions of another century, from the absence of technical development, from the necessary political bondage-in short, from the whole drama. It demonstrates clearly that the colonial situation is irremediable and will remain in a state of inertia.

The Aff’s view of ethnicity is an extension of a colonialist mindset, one which is used to control those who have been colonized.

Sium, Desai and Ritskes 12

(Aman Sium, Chandni Desai, Rick Ritskes, all three are professors at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Towards the ‘tangible unknown’: Decolonization and the Indigenous future, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, pp. 6-7, accessed 7-26-15) CH

As mentioned earlier, often the decolonizing project has had to, out of necessity, focus on reclaiming or restating the humanity of colonized peoples. Colonization has been determined to stand as the final arbiter of who is human. Integral to this process is the delegitimization of Indigenous humanity and life. In the process of reasserting Indigenous humanity, too often the rubric has remained a Western styled humanism that proclaims, ‘We are all Indigenous’, conflating Indigeneity with humanity. This approach is similarly deployed at times by the nonAfrican world, which articulates an ‘Africa as the cradle of humanity’ stance to conclude that ‘we are all African’. We firmly reject this stance. Colonialism and its concomitant project of white supremacy have always seen and understood Indigeneity as different and threatening, working overtime to marginalize and erase Indigenous existence. A claim to a shared humanity is not decolonizing and works to reinscribe a racist framework of ‘color-blindness’. Such a claim necessarily falls back on religious (and subsequently secular) language of solidarity that believes the Sunday school notions of ‘we are equal under God’ (Gaztambide-Fernández, this issue), and erases and minimizes the power differentials that colonialism created and continues to maintain. As Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012) argues, “The focus on asserting humanity has to be seen within the anti-colonial analysis of imperialism and what are seen as imperialism’s dehumanizing imperatives” (p. 27). We also push back against the project of deciding who is Indigenous through colonial strategies of measurement and containment, of finding particular genetic, historic and communal markers by which to legitimize who can and cannot be Indigenous. This is particularly done through a policing of boundaries, especially under a binary system of Indigenous/nonIndigenous, which has a long history of colonial power taking up these tools of differentiation to divide and conquer, disenfranchise, and steal land from Indigenous peoples. What these delineations of Indigeneity look like differ depending on context and place but the intent and logic behind them is similar. In Africa, where Indigeneity and Indigenous governance existed before colonial rule, its formalization took place through legally inscribed identities of “native” and “non-native”. Indigeneity came to be defined along the lines of race and ethnicity. “The distinction between race and ethnicities was not the same as the distinction between colonizers and colonized” (p. 656), the hierarchy of races included both colonizers (from the master race) and the colonized (from subject races). Mamdani (2001) suggests that it is worth grasping difference between subject races and subject ethnicities. While both were colonized, the subject ethnicities were considered Indigenous and the subject races were considered non Indigenous, immigrants (ex: the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi). In the case of Rwanda, despite the social revolution that lead to independence, the imposed racial and ethnic categories of colonial rule stayed intact and intensified the economic and political tensions, which eventually slid towards the 1990 genocide. Mamdani (2001) argues that though “we turned the colonial world upside down, we didn't change it“ (p. 9). This understanding of ethnicity is not without its problems though. The use of ethnicity continues to sever, interrupt and re-name Indigenous identities. In Rwanda and Burundi, for example, the categories of Hutu and Tutsi did not exist prior to the eighteenth century, when colonial anthropologists divided local peoples by physical traits and lines of work. Some even going as far as measuring noses and cranium sizes to ‘discover’ biological differences that denoted a lesser humanity (Mamdani, 2002, p. 44). Little has changed since then. “Ethnicity” is often a residual of colonialism; it remains a measuring stick that exists as part of the state’s vocabulary to measure, contain and control colonized peoples, and it remains a dehistoricized stand-in for Indigeneity. Alfred (2009a) draws similarities between the concepts of Third World “ethnicity” and “Aboriginalism”, saying that both are part of “assimilation’s end-game, the terminological and psychic displacement of authentic Indigenous identities, beliefs and behaviors...Aboriginalism obscures everything that is historically true and meaningful about Onkwehonwe” (p. 126-127). In interrogating colonial markers of identity we must ask: How does Indigeneity get ‘captured’ and domesticated by colonial states, both here and abroad? How do state frameworks for recognition render some constitutionally Indigenous - and because of this, visible - while others are not? In Canada, as in other Western settler-colonial contexts, discourses of multiculturalism have tried to place Indigenous peoples within a community of ethnic groups. As Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández (this issue) rightly critiques multiculturalism, its project of ethnicity and culture is one of containment and empty signifiers, stripping culture of any power in order to fit it within a colonial paradigm. Even further, Indigenous peoples, who have occupied their lands since time immemorial become expelled by and then invited back into the settler nation-state as “Aboriginal”. This process unties the knots of history, loosens Indigenous claims to land, and reduces them to members of a multicultural minority, always located around the nation but never within it. Through settler constitutions such as Canada’s Indian Act, Indigeneity has been denied to many through gendered, racist policies that worked to make extinct Indigenous peoples, removing communities so that the land does indeed look ‘uninhabited’ and pristinely empty for settler occupation (Tuck & Yang, this issue; Smith, 2010; Razack, 2002).

Race theorists do not take into account the plight of the indigenous, ignoring that without involving the native voice there is no progress.

Smith 10

Andrea Smith, Andrea Smith is associate professor in the Department of Media and Cultural Studies at the University of California, Riverside, "Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy," Global Dialogue Volume 12 ● Number 2 ● Summer/Autumn 2010�Race And Racisms, http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=488, accessed 7/26/15) CH

This tendency for theorists of race to presume the givenness of the settler state is not unique to Bell or Omi and Winant, and in fact appears to be the norm. For instance, Joe Feagin has written several works on race that focus on the primacy of anti-black racism because he argues that “no other racially oppressed group … has been so central to the internal economic, political, and cultural structure and evolution of the North American society”.16 He does note that the United States is formed from stolen land and argues that the “the brutal and bloody actions and consequences of European conquests do often fit the United Nations definition of genocide”.17 So, if the United States is fundamentally constituted through the genocide of Native peoples, why are Native peoples not central to the development of American society? Again, the answer is that the Native genocide is relegated to the past so that the givenness of settler colonialism today can be presumed.18 Jared Sexton, in his otherwise brilliant analysis in Amalgamation Schemes, also presumes the continuance of settler colonialism.19 He describes Native peoples as a “racial group” to be collapsed into all non-black peoples of colour. Sexton goes so far as to argue for a black/non-black paradigm that is parallel to a “black/immigrant” paradigm, rhetorically collapsing indigenous peoples into the category of immigrants, in effect erasing their relationship to this land and hence reifying the settler colonial project. Similarly, Angela Harris argues for a “black exceptionalism” that defines race relations in which Native peoples play a “subsidiary” role. To make this claim, she lumps Native peoples into the category of racial minority and even “immigrant” by contending that “contempt for blacks is part of the ritual through which immigrant groups become ‘American’ ”.20 Of course, what is not raised in this analysis is that “America” itself can exist only through the disappearance of indigenous peoples. Feagin, Sexton and Harris fail to consider that markers of “racial progress” for Native peoples are also markers of genocide. For instance, Sexton contends that the high rate of interracial marriages for Native peoples indicates racial progress rather than being part of the legacy of US policies of cultural genocide, including boarding schools, relocation, removal and termination. Interestingly, a central intervention made by Sexton is that the politics of multiculturalism depends on anti-black racism. That is, multiculturalism exists to distance itself from blackness (since difference from whiteness, defined as racial purity, is already a given). However, with an expanded notion of the logics of settler colonialism, his analysis could resonate with indigenous critiques of mestizaje, whereby the primitive indigenous subject always disappears into the more complex, evolved mestizo subject. These signs of “racial progress” could then be rearticulated as markers of indigenous disappearance and what Denise Ferreira da Silva terms as racial engulfment into the white self-determining subject.21 Thus, besides presuming the genocide of Native peoples and the givenness of settler society, these analyses also misread the logics of anti-indigenous racism (as well as other forms of racism).

Be skeptical of any movements that do not start with ridding the state of colonial opression

Razack 14 (Sherene Razack, Professor of Sociology and Equity Studies at the University of Toronto, 10-7-2014, "Sherene Razack on Our Settler Legacy," Possible Canadas, http://possiblecanadas.ca/en/sherene-razack-canadas-settler-legacy-2/) CH

The growing, institutionalized dehumanization towards specific groups. It’s as though society is evolving based on the principle that human life doesn’t matter. Every morning, I read about 10 things that make me think we’re growing increasingly distant from each other. It begins with race and becomes a structure that invades everything. White people routinely dehumanize Indigenous people. I’m talking of a spectrum of violent acts, like police officers who drive a man out of the city and leave him to freeze to death. The principle that this person’s life is not worth as much as yours is both an everyday act and a state practice. Look at the “tough on crime” initiatives that conservatives love. What kind of cruelty and disregard for human life do these kinds of policies come out of? I always think about how dominant subjects make themselves dominant. You’re not born that way. I tell my class, “No one is born White.” You have to learn it and you have to keep performing it every day. People don’t easily believe in their own superiority or that others are lower forms of humanity. They have to convince themselves, and they’re terribly haunted by it. The Settlers had to learn that Indigenous people were inferior, were savages. But it was a very hard lesson to learn, because for one thing, they’re not. Indigenous people had a lot of knowledge about this place and clearly had a developed society. Because we have to be taught not to recognize the humanity of others, maybe we can interrupt this process. We have to learn that the colonial project that is Canada is not viable, because it is not structured on the principle of a common humanity. We could look at all the instances where spectacular meanness and repression have not produced anything good, moments when Canada was tempted to be extremely vicious to Indigenous peoples. If that principle structures your country, which is what structures this country, then it’s almost like you can’t go anywhere good from there. We can’t move into recognizing the humanity of refugees or other people if our day-to-day life is intensely structured by the inhumanity with which we have treated Aboriginal people. Almost everything we do came out of that colonial moment when we tried to figure out how to steal the land. We have to confront this colonial paradigm before we can open the way to Others.


Gendered oppression is the tool of the colonizer, without first decolonizing we cannot solve for the rape and assault of native women.

Claire 2009

(September 2009, Anarchist Organizer, Mirroring Colonial Power Structures in Radical Organizing: Rape Culture as Colonization and Community Accountability, Unsettling Ourselves: Reflections and Resources for Deconstructing Colonial Mentality, pp. 94-95, https://unsettlingminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/unsettling-minnesota-sourcebook1point0.pdf, accessed 7/27/15) CH

The way that patriarchy is enforced and maintained is through systematic gender oppression in the mode of sexual abuse both physical and mental. Rape culture means the normalization and naturalization of systematic sexual violence and sexual abuse against women in society. Patriarchal rape culture means that women’s bodies and sexuality socially belong as objects and property to male desire. In rape culture, it is socially perceived that women’s bodies and sexuality are something men have a right and claim to, this opens the space for systematic sexual violence physically, emotionally and psychologically. In patriarchal US society, men are empowered to make the decisions and laws that effect and control women’s bodies and lives while women’s voices are devalued and silenced. When women occupy positions of power within US colonial society, the power structures and dynamics they are enacting are still within the constructs of patriarchal values, thus they are continuing to engage in gender oppression. Rape culture means that women experience mental and physical forms of sexual violence on a consistent, everyday basis and internalize these assaults, resulting in selfhatred and low self-esteem, insecurities, lack of confidence, and thus further silencing. Rape culture means that women are frequently pressured, coerced and forced into sexual acts as women’s sexuality is seen as property and conquest. Rape culture means that victims and survivors of sexual violence are often considered responsible and at fault for their own assaults and rapes. Rape culture is how it becomes socially accepted that women are ultimately to blame for their own rapes and assaults because of their own behavior (they dressed a certain way, they’re promiscuous, they were drunk, they didn’t fight back, they didn’t say no). Rape culture pressures the silence of female victims and survivors because we are taught that women’s bodies are meant to be violated and therefore at fault. Rape culture also means that perpetrators of sexual violence are rarely held responsible for their actions as the most common forms of sexual violence are normalized, such as date rape and domestic violence. Sexual violence cannot be understood only as a tool of patriarchy but also as a tool of white supremacy and colonization. In mainstream US society, the rapes of some women matter while the rapes of others do not. White supremacy and rape culture means that some perpetrators will be prosecuted and others will not. It means that whom is raped by whom matters in deciding whether or not the act holds significance. Sexual violence is a tool of colonial white supremacy in that it renders certain women as violable and certain men as those capable of violating. Colonial society and rape culture make it so that women believe themselves to be in need of protection from sexual violence and that protection is found through the institutions and authorities that make up white supremacist, patriarchal, colonial power structures. Examples of this are the mass lynchings of black men by white men for in some way interacting with white women. Since the endurance of US colonial society is dependent upon the repression, criminalization and eradication of indigenous cultures, sexual violence is an important tool in maintaining the ‘permanent present absence’ of native peoples and thus the continued legitimacy US settlers and colonial society claim to indigenous land. Again referencing Smith, as US colonial society renders indigenous bodies and land as settler property and as rightfully violable, indigenous peoples become constructed as naturally violable within US colonial society (Conquest, 12). Due to this, indigenous women are much more likely to be targeted for sexual violence than white women. The rapes and assaults of indigenous women are mostly ignored or condoned by law enforcement and authorities. The perpetrators of these sexual assaults and rapes most likely face no consequences. Indigenous women are subject to other systematic forms of sexual violence such as enforced, mass sterilization by the state. Smith calls this systematic sexual violence against indigenous peoples a project of colonial sexual violence which results in what she refers to as an “internalized genocidal project through selfdestruction” (Conquest, 12). The colonial tools of sexual violence and rape culture are used against indigenous communities to inflict massive psychological damage and self-hatred, repressing indigenous sovereignty and identity.

Sexual Violence is impossible to solve within the current system, through the affs reforms the colonial power structures are only replicated.

Claire 2009

(September 2009, Anarchist Organizer, Mirroring Colonial Power Structures in Radical Organizing: Rape Culture as Colonization and Community Accountability, Unsettling Ourselves: Reflections and Resources for Deconstructing Colonial Mentality, pp. 96-97, ttps://unsettlingminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/unsettling-minnesota-sourcebook1point0.pdf, accessed 7/27/15) CH

In this essay I have been referring to sexual violence and rape culture as patriarchal tools of gender oppression and speaking as though sexual violence is only perpetrated by men against women. While statistically, almost all perpetrators of sexual violence are men and most women have experienced some form of sexual violence, women certainly can be and are perpetrators of sexual violence and large numbers of men are survivors of sexual violence. Nor do I seek to imply that sexual violence is a hetero-normative act occurring between only men and women (I do however want to stress, that due to patriarchal gender oppression and rape culture, the ways that sexual violence affect men and women are very different). If women are perpetrators of sexual violence, or if men rape other men, does that mean sexual violence is not a systematic tool of patriarchal gender oppression? Sexual violence is an enactment and reinforcement of colonial power, regardless of what form it takes. Colonialism values conquest, domination, power, greed and taking by whatever force necessary. Colonialist society is built on institutionalized hierarchies. Rape culture and sexual violence (as I hope I’ve explained well by now) are strong tools used in the maintenance of hierarchical oppression and privilege. By living within colonialist society, our minds become colonized in the sense that we are raised to think and understand in terms of colonial power structures and hierarchy. We are shaped by the privilege, or lack of privilege, we receive in colonial society and learn to behave in accordance with these privileges or oppressions. We learn to expect, demand and control, or we learn to be controlled. We learn that we matter or that we do not matter. Colonization means that these understandings become so fundamental in the development of our minds that they become natural to us. We learn to think in terms of hierarchy, power, domination and control. We learn to value power as control, dominance and violence. We learn to desire power as something belonging to the individual and to assert power over others in order to obtain more power. Throughout the anti-rape organizing and educating I have been involved in, I have heard arguments that sexual violence cannot be gendered and is not an issue relating to gender. Sexual violence, as I hope I’ve explained well, is actually heavily gendered and one cannot separate sexual violence from gender, just as one cannot separate sexual violence from any colonial oppression. I want to focus on our abilities to perpetuate cycles of violence and how we have been colonized to understand and mimic colonial structures of violence. Sexual violence, no matter what form it takes, is a tool of colonial, patriarchal gender oppression and is a manifestation of those structures of power seeking to validate themselves. This is why we can’t hope for change within the US system because US society has been built from and out of violent colonialist power structures; its survival is dependent on the reinforcement and maintenance of these colonial power structures. US society and government have to be completely dismantled in order to abolish colonial rule. No matter who is the perpetrator of sexual violence, it is a violent act that seeks to claim dominance, to conquer, to control and to assert power. Power through conquest, claim and dominance are what embody, drive, and maintain colonization and colonial rule. Even if the roles of oppressor and oppressed are reversed we are still enacting colonial systems of power and thus reinforcing and validating them.

The affirmative operates in the mindset that what’s best for them is best for everyone else, but it ignores the root cause of the oppression of indigenous women, the colonization of their bodies. Only decolonization can solve for gendered opression

Jacobs 13 (Beverley Jacobs,Beverley Jacobs is a citizen of the Kanienkehake Nation, Bear Clan of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from the Six Nations Grand River Territory. She graduated with a law degree at the University of Windsor in 1994 and a master’s degree in law in 2000. She is currently a PhD Candidate at the University of Calgary. She also owns her own law firm, which is situated at Six Nations Grand River Territory and practices part-time while working on her Interdisciplinary Degree focusing on human rights, Indigenous research methodologies, and Aboriginal health, FEBRUARY 13, 2013"Decolonizing the Violence Against Indigenous Women," Decolonization, https://decolonization.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/decolonizing-the-violence-against-indigenous-women/) CH

Colonization is violence. Colonization has had an impact on both Indigenous women and men’s roles in all relationships but Indigenous women have taken the brunt of the impacts of colonization. Direct attacks against Indigenous women are attempts to erase them from existence so that there will be no future generations. These are attacks against the future of our Indigenous nations. Indigenous women are now dealing with the high statistics of violence against them and the highest numbers of missing and murdered Indigenous women, not only in Canada but also globally. Violence and abuse have occurred in all societies and in all races of peoples, but the violence against Indigenous women comes from colonization; our Indigenous women have become the direct targets of colonial violence. This has saturated into our communities and Indigenous women are now dealing with the violence against them by Indigenous men and by non-Indigenous men. They are no longer safe in their own communities. I have learned about not being safe in my own home and community. I have learned what an abusive relationship is. In an abusive relationship, the abuser feels the need to have power and control. When an abuser feels that his power and control are taken away, he has to strike out at his most vulnerable victim to regain that power and control. The victim loses her voice and feels that she does not have any control of the situation at the time of the abuse. I remember being silent and knowing that I could not say a word to anyone about the abuse that was happening. I remember that silence well. When an abusive relationship ends, the victim makes a decision to take her power back. I remember saying that I will no longer be beaten or abused – not mentally, emotionally, spiritually, physically or sexually. I remember saying that no one will ever hurt me again. I acknowledged that I will no longer be a victim. I had found my voice and regained respect for myself. As a survivor of violence, I have learned not to blame anyone else but to take responsibility for myself. I can celebrate my life and learn from the lessons that I have learned. The abuser has an opportunity to learn that he does not need to have that kind of power and control but can be an equal and respectful partner. The relationship has to be a partnership. The abusive relationships that happen to our women are also born out in the larger context of Canada’s colonial relationship to Indigenous peoples. Canada’s colonial government has been an abuser since its existence. First, it violated peace and friendship treaties, which were based on nation-to-nation relationships, by unilaterally establishing its government through legislation in which it had control over Indians and lands reserved for Indians (ie. British North America Act, 1867). This legislation then gave the government authority to establish the most racist piece of legislation called the Indian Act. These unilateral acts were the beginning of the abusive relationship. As a result of generations of abuse and control, Indigenous peoples have become victims in a long-standing abusive relationship and have been silenced through the lack of control over lands and resources, the genocidal policies of the residential school system, and the disrespect and violence against Indigenous women. The violence against women and the violence occurring against Mother Earth are also directly connected. Haudenosaunee planting ceremonies acknowledge that the women are the seed – the connection between the Creator and Mother Earth. The loss of connection of Indigenous women to their lands and territories means that the lifeblood and carrier of future generations are also cut off. Since the existence of the patriarchal Indian Act, there have been missing Indigenous women who were forcefully displaced from their traditional territories for “marrying out”. This was the beginning of missing Indigenous women. The genocidal policies of the Indian Act also had an impact on Indigenous governance systems where the women’s decision-making qualities were silenced and no longer part of the balance of these systems. And we already know what the residential schools did to our families, including the roles of mothers and fathers and the losses of family bonding, and the loss of the most basic tenets of a relationship: love and emotional well-being. In order to become survivors of this abusive relationship, all victims, including Indigenous men and women, must take their power back. Many have already. This is what decolonization means at a very practical level – taking our power back. The language and actions about violence against Indigenous women has to shift to actually begin the decolonization process. What do I mean by shifting our language? It means that we have to stop behaving and to stop talking like a victim. We have to stop blaming the abuser and take responsibility for our own actions. We have to teach our next generations about healthy relationships, healthy sexual relationships and how to treat each other with respect. We need to practice our teachings by making a conscious choice about the decisions that we make today and how each of those decisions have an impact seven generations from now. I know my ancestors did that for me seven generations ago. The decisions include how we teach our sons to respect themselves and to be good men, to honour the women in their lives, to honour their children, to be good fathers and good grandfathers; the decisions to teach our daughters to respect themselves and their bodies, to respect all of the relationships in their lives, to know that they are the life givers and nurturers to the next generations. Decolonization means bringing the safety back and means living in a society where we feel safe and where we respect each other as people. It means that our men are taking back their rightful responsibilities to be the Warriors of our nations; to protect the women and the children, and the lands they are all connected to, to protect the lands for our future generations. It means that our women are taking back their rightful responsibilities to be respected decision-makers, to carry and nurture life and to bring those future generations into this physical world. It is the responsibility of all generations (mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers) to ensure that we maintain those connections to our lands and territories, with our strong languages and ceremonies intact. Decolonization means true partnerships, whether those partnerships are with Canada, with our non-Indigenous allies, or between Indigenous men and women. Decolonization means that we celebrate our resiliency in the face of an abusive relationship and choose different relationships that honor ourselves, our communities, our women, and our lands.


The colonialist intention to spread Christianity and Democracy is the hidden backdrop for all modern counter terror operations.

Edmunds,11 (Jane, July 23 2011, Professor, Development Studies, University of Cambridge, Contemporary Islam (2012) 6:67–84, The ‘new’ barbarians: governmentality, securitization and Islam in Western Europe, pp. 72-73, accessed 7/16/15) CH

The use, by Muslim terrorist groups, of a militaristic form of resistance is met with a new negation of human rights and the duty to protect is transformed into the loss of rights on the part of some. The series of anti-terror laws and state of emergency imposed in the USA and the UK after the attack on the Twin Towers and the London bombings, respectively, involved the derogation of basic human rights: the right not to be detained without a fair trial through the indefinite imprisonment of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (Gearty 2009). Obama’s promise to shut down Guantanamo has been reversed, leaving detainees to be subject to military trials behind closed doors. Recent anti-terror laws in the UK have facilitated the conviction of Muslims for ‘celebrating’ terrorism, yet where convictions have collapsed, media coverage is limited. The UK’s commitment to the absolute prohibition on torture has been compromised by its apparent cooperation with U.S. extraordinary rendition flights.3 The curtailment of the right to freedom of speech among British Muslims has been highlighted in the case of the Luton Muslims who protested against the homecoming parade of British soldiers from Afghanistan. While Islam is popularly understood as irrational and aggressive, religiosity played an important rhetorical role in justifying the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush’s war speeches contained many references to God as did some of Tony Blair’s, giving the impression that ‘our’ (Christian) values are superior to ‘their’ (Islamic) ones. The mission to save Iraq (and humanitarian interventions in, for example, Kosovo) was elided with human rights and the argument that ‘we’ engaged in these painful but necessary interventions in order to share our superior values—the rule of law, democracy and human rights, that is, human rights supposedly coming out of Christianity—was propagated. The allegation against Saddam (and other Third World leaders with nuclear programmes) is that they acquire a western technology (the bomb) without having the western values and democratic structures that allow them to use it responsibly. When a witness to 9/11 was quoted as asking ‘Why do they hate us?’, Bush portrayed this attack as one by people who resented America’s ‘threat of a good example’. While Les Invasions Barbares and The Hurt Locker focus on the threat from abroad and the need for western powers to invade Muslim countries to contain the threat, attention has now turned, with the presence of sizeable second- and third-generation Muslims in Europe and the US, to the ‘homegrown’ threat. Part of the way the governing classes are seeking to discipline these new rebels is through a renewed focus on their mysterious and exotic practices which, again, turns on the idea of the body. Suicide bombers have used the object of the European gaze as a formidable instrument for conducting a war on the west. The tactic deployed is portrayed as a form of barbarism, irrational and rooted in outmoded and archaic religious fetishes—virgins waiting for the martyrs in Paradise for example (Dawkins 2006).

The War on Terror relies on colonial Orientalist stereotypes that Islam is violent and irrational and inferior to Christianity

Edmunds,11 (Jane, July 23 2011, Professor, Development Studies, University of Cambridge, Contemporary Islam (2012) 6:67–84, The ‘new’ barbarians: governmentality, securitization and Islam in Western Europe, pp. 73-74, accessed 7/16/15) CH

This cultural racism also surfaces in the way particular identities—Muslim, Arab or North African—are defaced in French political discourse based on an ostensibly commendable concept of egalitarianism which demands the abandonment of thick attachments. Ideas about cultural inferiority associated with colonialism continue to shape political debates about the veil or the hijab (headscarf) where the veiled Muslim evokes this double identity of both cultural inferiority and threat (Scott 2007: 17). Muslims are regarded as a threat because they refuse, by wearing the hijab or growing a beard, to conform with the secular and civilizing culture of France, and opt instead (apparently) to maintain a commitment to ‘archaic’ signs of faith (Guardiola-Rivera 2009: 24–6). In the post-9/11 era, new surveillance strategies based on a repertoire of ‘terrorist look-alikes’ developed, resulting in cases of Sikh turbans and Muslim veils being torn off, cases which exposed fundamental ignorance rooted in Orientalist fantasies about ‘Eastern’ masculinity and femininity (Puar 2007: 175–181). Islam alone is judged, in the media, to be fundamentalist, and other religions, which also contain fundamentalist strands, are absent from discussions of religious radicalization. And Islam alone is portrayed as a uniquely patriarchal and misogynistic religion, ignoring the misogynist elements of other religions (Cesari 2008). The hijab or the veil, and more still, the burqa are, to popular western secularism, unintelligible objects or ‘archaic fetishes’ (GuardiolaRivera 2009: 2). It seems self evident that women who wear such clothing in a secular environment are doing so without freedom of choice, reflecting the patriarchal oppression specific to Islam. Muslim women are portrayed as subdued by the dominant, aggressive male ‘Arab’ and denied autonomy, and the docile subject of old colonial discourses is resurrected. Such views are prevalent in western media and among political leaders, with the French government claiming that the ban on the burqa reflects the country’s respect for the principle of equality for women. What has long characterized French debates is now, post 9/11, finding a place in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Britain and the Netherlands. Now the social cost of being a European Muslim has increased with governments seeing them as Muslims first and citizens second, with an implied difference between trustful Muslims (assimilated ones) and distrustful Muslims (those who wear headscarves or beards). Thus, they have become the current ‘other’ in public discourses; what makes them this is that they are demographically productive, apparently insensitive to European, secular values and our knowledge of them is based on information that is focused on mosques (Amiraux 2006), now considered not to be places of worship but a potential source of political radicalization and extremism. A growing consensus in the media and among politicians is developing around the view that European Muslims, with their distinctive signs and objects linked with the ‘backward’ practices of the former colonies, are a new source of threat to national identity and security. Fear of this threat pervades arguments about hidden dangers, particularly around garments such as the hijab, which are portrayed as literally defying governmental rights to surveillance as the face is hidden (even when it is not), thus preventing, at least in the imagination, the western gaze from penetrating. In 2006 a storm brewed in the UK when Jack Straw sparked a debate on wearing the niqab (which covers the face) which he saw (later supported by Tony Blair) as an impediment to normal social interaction and as symbolizing segregation rather than integration, re-signifying religious symbols into concealment and a threat to security. The ‘clash’ is neatly crystallized at border crossing points, when the western need for security through surveillance collides with the hijab-wearer’s insistence on staying covered. The western press is keen to report stories of male Muslim criminals/terrorists who use the hijab as a disguise, resonating with historical forms of resistance in past anti-colonial struggles


Without the current colonial structures capitalism cannot exist, only decolonization can ensure the eradication of cap.

Claire 2009

(September 2009, Anarchist Organizer, Mirroring Colonial Power Structures in Radical Organizing: Rape Culture as Colonization and Community Accountability, Unsettling Ourselves: Reflections and Resources for Deconstructing Colonial Mentality, pp. 94-95, https://unsettlingminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/unsettling-minnesota-sourcebook1point0.pdf, accessed 7/27/15) CH

Capitalist and colonialist powers are dependent upon oppressive systems of hierarchical value. They work to ensure the power and privilege of some at the expense of the rest. Capitalism could not exist without colonialist systems and structures that rank and oppress human life in terms of value, rendering most as crucially exploitable and expendable in order to privilege the desires and power of few over the needs of many. As Andrea Smith discusses in Conquest, our societal and governmental infrastructures were built on the principle that indigenous peoples and their lands are violable (12). White settlers asserted that indigenous peoples were savage, primitive, less than human, and thus claimed for themselves a righteous legitimacy to the conquest and colonization of indigenous peoples and lands. These principles and beliefs remain firmly rooted in the makeup of our colonialist society and government of today. The US as an imperial and colonial power: is dependent on the continued understanding that the land we occupy today (speaking as a settler) remains rightfully and justifiably ours. The genocide and ongoing displacement and oppression of indigenous peoples are understood as legitimate and necessary in order to maintain our settler claim to this land. Smith writes that the continued claim of the United States to land and power necessitates that indigenous people must always be in a state of disappearance, or a “permanent ‘present absence’ in the US colonial imagination” in order for US colonial ownership to feign legitimacy (Conquest, 9). In order to maintain this constant eradication of indigenous peoples, indigenous identity was, and continues to be, criminalized. This has historically been practiced through methods such as the genocide and forced removal of indigenous peoples from their homelands, placing bounties to encourage and condone mass murder of indigenous peoples, forced assimilation and ethnic cleansing through boarding schools, and the forced sterilization of indigenous women. Currently, the continued displacement and forced removal of indigenous peoples from their homelands, the continued occupation of these homelands, the criminalization of indigenous cultural practices, targeted harassment and violence by law enforcement, mass imprisonment of native peoples, and systematic sexual assault of indigenous women are just some of the many ways that native identity continues to be criminalized and eradicated today. White supremacy, as another infrastructural anchor of colonialist and capitalist power, allows for hierarchical rankings of human value so that certain lives become socially significant and meaningful, while others are considered expendable and exploitable. US society ultimately serves to ensure the safety and protection of white settlers. US society could not have been built without white supremacy in that it allowed for the justification of the genocide of indigenous peoples as well as the continued denial of genocide having ever occurred, and that it voraciously relied on the kidnapping and enslavement of people of color for the purpose of building the US colonial empire. Colonial and capitalist powers remain dependent on white supremacist hierarchies of human value in order to ensure an exploitable labor force. Furthermore, white supremacy creates the understanding that non-white people and land are ultimately white settler property, or, that US society functions and exists for the benefit of white settlers (not ignoring the role of hetero-normative, patriarchal and class privilege as determining factors of beneficence). This includes the continued exploitation of people of color through the prison-industrial-complex, the militarization of borders and criminalization of certain ethnic groups. Colonialist and capitalist powers work together to create the over-representation of people of color in prisons as colonialist power renders people of color as expendable property, thus creating a cheap and exploitable labor force for the benefit of capitalism through the prison system. The prison-industrial-complex also works to thwart the strength of organizing in communities of color as this ultimately threatens colonialist infrastructure. Sexual violence and rape culture are indispensable to the strength and function of US colonialist and capitalist power in that they work to ensure all structural systems of oppression. Rape culture means that US society is a culture in which sexual violence is encouraged, condoned and perpetuated as a tool of gender oppression. Hetero-normativity means US society forces compliance within binary concepts of gender (either male or female) and seeks to normalize patriarchal gender oppression. US colonialist rationality naturalizes binary concepts of gender and patriarchal gender oppression. Smith shows us how colonizers used the oppression of women and patriarchy as a tool in subjugating indigenous nations, “Native peoples needed to learn the value of hierarchy, the role of physical abuse in maintaining that hierarchy, and the importance of women remaining submissive to men…Thus in order to colonize a people whose society was not hierarchical, colonizers must first naturalize hierarchy through instituting patriarchy” (Conquest, 23). Through imposing the values of hetero-normativity and hierarchical gender oppression, patriarchy is presented as natural and was a successful tool in colonizing and instituting other hierarchical oppressions.
1   2   3   4   5

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page