The Perm still links to the kritik. An inclusion of plan necessitates the mythologized approach of “sovereignty” Native-state power relations that creates the impacts in the first place.
The permutation fails—it’s impossible to create change from within the tropes and culture of western politics.
Alfred 99 [Taiaike, A leading Kanien’kehaka scholar versed in both indigenous and western traditions, PhD at Cornell, direct of the Canadian Indigenous Governance Program, “Peace, Power, Righteousness: an indigenous Manifesto, p. 32-33]
So why do people do it? Jack Forbes has described a spectrum of identities, from a very firmly rooted Native nationalism to an opportunistic minority-race identification. Forbes's spectrum points to the lines of cleavage that the state manipulates in its efforts to legitimize its own institutions among Native people. In the war against indigenous nations, the state first alienates individuals from their communities and cultures and then capitalizes on their alienation by turning them into agents who will work to further the state's interests within those communities.
Adapting Forbes's analysis to the present situation, we can mark four major points along the spectrum of identity: (1) the Traditional Nationalist represents the values, principles, and approaches of an indigenous cultural perspective that accepts no compromise with the colonial structure; (2) the Secular Nationalist represents an incomplete or unfulfilled indigenous perspective, stripped of its spiritual element and oriented almost solely towards confronting colonial structures; (3) the Tribal Pragmatist represents an interest-based calculation, a perspective that merges indigenous and mainstream values towards the integration of Native communities within colonial structures; and (4) the Racial Minority ('of Indian descent') represents Western values-a perspective completely separate from indigenous cultures and supportive of the colonial structures that are the sole source of Native identification.
It goes almost without saying that state agencies recruit their Native people among the latter two groups. For people with a traditionalist perspective and a little cultural confidence, co-optation by the state is difficult. Undeniably, many Native people who work in state institutions, or in state-sponsored governments within communities, see themselves as working in the interests of their people. There is a strong, thoughfundamentally naive, belief among them that it is possible to 'promote change from within'. In retrospect, those who have tried that approach and failed see that belief as more of a justification than a reason. There are many political identities across Native America, and even within single communities the dynamics of personality and psychology produce varying responses to the colonial situation. The people who choose to work for or with the colonial institutions have constructed a political identity for themselves that justifies their participation. This is no excuse for being wrong-and they are--but it indicates the dire need for a stronger sense of traditional values among all Native people. In the absence of a political culture firmly rooted in tradition and a common set of principles based on traditional values, it is not surprising that individuals will tend to stray towards mainstream beliefs and attitudes.
The co-optive intent of the current system is clear to anyone who has worked within it, as is the moral necessity of rejecting thedivisive institutions and leaders who emerge from a bureaucratic culture. It is one thing to seek out the heart of whiteness in order to prepare yourself for future battles-'know thine enemy' is still good advice. But it is quite another thing to have your own heart chilled by the experience. Whether in ?- bureaucratic context or an indigenous one, individual conduct and values are crucial in determining who the real leaders are.
And, they don’t get a permutation. This is a question of competing methodologies. The permutation would be impossible because it means taking the sovereignty methodology of the 1ac and pairing it to the deconstruction of this methodology. This skews out of 1ac representations. Defending those methodologies is key to negative ground. The aff shouldn’t be allowed to skew out of competing methodologies by arbitrarily claiming they can work together. This ground is key to fairness and a voter.