Tuck and Yang 12



Download 171.49 Kb.
Page5/5
Date conversion13.05.2016
Size171.49 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5

AT: Perms

PDB

We have 5 answers

  1. Extend the d’errico evidence. The central project in this debate has to be to decolonize and to foreground indigenous epistemologies and perspectives. The perm just makes the alt another cog in the machinery of mainstream white society. The end logic of the perm is not to get the best of both worlds but to put decolonization in the backseat to the aff and say “yeah, we’ll get to that later.”

  2. Extend the alt and ANY RISK OF A LINK means you vote neg. The perm is just a pathetic attempt by mainstream white society at reformism and ultimately assimilation of indigenous peoples. The perm just ends up compartmentalizing indigeneity within existing leftist narratives, but really leaving the status quo’s liberal pluralism in place. There’s no solvency because the walia ev indicates that indigenous struggles “demand solidarity.”

  3. Extend the Tuck and Yang ev. Refuse any combination of the settler mentality and decolonization. Failure to do so only ends up rescuing the settler state and condemning indigenous peoples to eternal damnation in the settler state.

  4. The perm doesn’t solve the aff OR the neg that the failure to SOLELY decolonize results in rightist cooption.

  5. Put the burden on them to articulate what the perm is. If they can’t say specifically how the perm would work in relation to total and unyielding decolonization, vote neg. We impact turned the method of the 1ac so I’m not really sure how the perm works.



All other instances

We have 7 answers

  1. It’s intrinsic: they’re adding the idea of “other instances” that doesn’t exist in either the plan or the alt

1. INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS BEG THE QUESTION OF COMPETITION.


Competition questions whether the plan and the counterplan as they are presented in the first affirmative and negative constructives compete with one another. Intrinsicness permutations ask whether there is a third policy that can, in conjunction with the first policy, solve the problems addressed by the counterplan. This does not test the competitiveness of the first two policies.

2. INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS ARE MOVING TARGETS.


The affirmative is simply adding a nontopical amendment to the plan. They gain an advantage in the form of the negative counterplan’s net benefit. This destroys the first negative constructive’s time allocation, creating an irreparable time skew.

3. INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS DISPROVE THE VALUE OF THE PLAN.


Intrinsicness permutations prove that the plan, in the original form presented in the first affirmative constructive, is not sufficient. A judge cannot vote for the third policy option in the intrinsicness permutation, the judge must vote for or against the plan, which permutation admits is inadequate to solve the problems articulated by the plan and the counterplan.

4. INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS ARE NOT CONNECTED TO THE REAL WORLD.


Intrinsicness permutations destroy debate’s connection with the real world. When Congress is debating a particular piece of legislation, and a counterproposal is introduced, Congress would not add to the original piece of legislation to address the problems introduced by the counterproposal.

That’s a voter for the reasons above. Perms take 3 seconds to make and 3 minutes to answer.

  1. Extend the d’errico evidence. The central project in this debate has to be to decolonize and to foreground indigenous epistemologies and perspectives. The perm just makes the alt another cog in the machinery of mainstream white society. You can’t fiat that we’ll actually do the alt in all other instances. This destroys all alt solvency so there’s no net benefit to the perm.

  2. Extend the alt. ANY RISK OF A LINK means you vote neg. The perm is just a pathetic attempt by mainstream white society at reformism and ultimately assimilation of indigenous peoples. The perm just ends up compartmentalizing indigeneity within existing leftist narratives, but really leaving the status quo’s liberal pluralism in place. There’s no solvency because the walia ev indicates that indigenous struggles “demand solidarity.”

  3. Failure to refuse the myth of progress that the aff offers only ends up rescuing the settler state and condemning indigenous peoples to eternal damnation.

  4. We hit perm all other instances every round. If you vote on this perm, you’re not really voting to do the alt in all other instances, because you don’t have control over what the judge in the next round will do. The end logic of this perm is that we keep telling ourselves that we’ll do the alt in all other instances but that this instance is SO IMPORTANT that we can’t ignore it. We keep delaying the alt and no decolonization ever gets done.

  5. The presentation of indigeneity is a continuation of indigenous literary narratives. You have an ethical responsibility to expose neocolonialism in every instance – it’s the most effective way to resist it.

  6. Put the burden on them to articulate what the perm is. If they can’t say specifically how the perm would work in relation to total and unyielding decolonization, vote neg. We impact turned the method of the 1ac so I’m not really sure how the perm works.

2NC AT

AT cede the political

  1. the only way to solve for colonization is to disregard the state, the affirmitives allegiance to the state dooms the indigenous to continued colonization


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.


  1. Extend Tuck and Yang 12 from the 1NC, the state is hella racist only way to resolve is to reject it.

AT Smiths a Liar who isn’t native

Her scholarship is valuable to endorse for the decolonial movement even in light of ethnic fraud – this is written by a Cherokee author


Russell 8 (Steve, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma member and Texas trial court judge, Russell: When does ethnic fraud matter? 4/4/2008, Indian Country Today Media Network, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2008/04/04/russell-when-does-ethnic-fraud-matter-79578)


Now, if Smith or Churchill or any other professor was hired because of a claimed privilege of birth, shame on the university. But sometimes you want an Indian for other reasons, not the least of which is to mentor Indian students. Or, when a person claims esoteric knowledge of tribal matters (a rare claim), he opens himself to a charge of fraud if he has not lived in an Indian community. This has less to do with tribal enrollment than with life experience. They don't check your card at the stomp grounds in either the Cherokee or the Creek nations - those two being my limited experience. So I do not play the identity police with academic judgments. Academia claims not to practice Indian preference. When I say academia stacks the deck against Indian work, I am talking about the work rather than the Indians, who are just caught up in a prejudice rooted in history. That prejudice has a heavier impact on people who are Indians by birth because we are more hesitant to step back from the issues than those who are Indians by fantasy or affirmative action fakers. When there is reason to hire an Indian, the process is not rocket science. If the individual is tribally enrolled, the burden of proof should be on anybody who claims that individual is not Indian. If a person who is not tribally enrolled claims to be Indian, the burden should be on the claimant. The test of being Indian is not who you claim, but rather who claims you. If the University of Michigan wants a researcher and teacher, it would appear by objective criteria they have one. If they want a Cherokee, not. Smith's record does not appear to require augmentation by hereditary advantage. Ethnic fraud is harmful to tribes and sometimes to individual real Indians if they are passed over for a fake in a job that really does call for a tribal person. Ethnic fraud is not harmful to universities unless they allow it to be. The University of Michigan should articulate its values and rule according to those values. That's the university. That is not me. I'm not sure I would want to associate with an ethnic fraud, as some I have met are truly disturbed individuals. How can somebody choose to insult his or her real relatives so gravely? Often, these people are outed by offended relatives. If they do take something meant for real Indians, they are no better than any other thieves. That's my moral judgment. That's not a judgment that is open to a public university unless ethnicity was a bona fide qualification for the job. If the purpose of Indian studies is to create jobs for incompetent Indians, let alone incompetent fakes, Indian studies has no business existing. It breaks my heart to hear Indian scholars claim their scholarship would not stand up to the level of scrutiny that Churchill's antics drew. Pray tell, why not? Are we scholars or, as the Rush Limbaughs of the world would say, ''race pimps?'' Indian studies, conducted as rigorously as any other program at a research university, have a great deal of value. For Indians, solutions to their many social problems. For non-Indians, a window on the origins of their privilege. For both, an opportunity to study some very exciting writers and visual artists whose work demands different critical skills. Inconvenient truths from Indian history are true without regard to the identity of the person who documents them. This is important work that deserves more respect than it gets. The work, by its nature, has no ethnicity, any more than, say, Jewish studies requires Jewish scholars. Anybody can learn Hebrew. Offensive as Indians may find ethnic fraud, combating it vigorously is at war with the idea of Indian studies as a legitimate academic discipline. We, like the University of Michigan, need to clarify our values.
1   2   3   4   5


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

    Main page