This file contains a variety of different arguments related to racism; some are fully developed, others are the start of something good; some are anti-whiteness Ks, others are responses to those Ks. Notes on each argument are below.
Our goals for this file as a group for this were to:
A – Investigate and cut the best of the new literature emerging from folks who were outraged by the George Zimmerman verdict, which occurred the day before we began our research.
B – Research new literature that previous debaters hadn’t researched, particularly from books and other hard to find peer-reviewed literature that we’re lucky enough to access at UM.
The arguments included are:
Whiteness K: Very similar to the common K of whiteness, but with a different set of authors and literature. There’s a few relevant narratives included, and a focus on pedagogy. It’d combo well with the:
Pedagogy K: A look at the educational aspects of whiteness. This may have particular utility as a framework/prior question type argument against race affirmatives.
Sexual Politics: The purpose of this section is for people who are looking to reject the patriarchal norms of society. The Millet ev is all talking about how we have blinders an making it so the lens we view through seems right when in actuality it perpetuates the violence of the skwo. There's a link to almost every aff relating it back to patriarchy. You should use cross ex to set up a further link the ev is really good on the subject. The impact section of the file is realistic and should be able to be explained with logic. Read through the entire file before you decide to run this. There are two alts in this file, feel free to alter/ create a new one for the sake of coherence. --SC
Latino Identity: Just a couple cards about Latino identity’s relationship to the racial binary. The second card may have some utility for answering affirmatives that attempt to conflate Latin American struggles for freedom with racism or slavery.
“AT: Grade it like a paper:” A short criticism of the framework argument that the judge should “Grade the 1AC like a paper.” Might or might not be useful ever.
Quar: One card about intersectionality and Quar. #unitethecrowns
Sheshadri-Crooks K: Kalpana Sheshadri-Crooks wrote a super sweet book called Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian Analysis of Race. This K consists of various cards from that book. The thesis, put simply, is that Whiteness has become a master signifier, the result of which is that individuals come to desire a place within that framework. These networks of repressed desire make impossible resistance to the ordering force of race. A key distinction is between race, which S-C identifies as an ontology, and racism, which she calls epistemological. It links particularly well to affirmative’s that claim to perform a genealogy or use a genealogical approach. The kritik can function as an independent K of race affirmatives, or as one link in a larger Lacanian criticism.
Loren and Metelmann: Calum talked about this argument in his Debating Race lecture. Wilderson believes racism to be situated in the Lacanian order of the Real, while race is in the Symbolic. Loren and Metelmann’s short article criticizes this same notion in the work of Mitchell, arguing that instead Race is the Real, and Racism the Symbolic. Race, thus, is lacking—racism is not an inevitability but a flawed attempt at representing/signifying race in the order of the symbolic. Only this change in conceptualization makes possible resistance to biologism/racism. This argument is surprisingly well evidenced, but might require a large amount of time to explain in the block…I’d recommend planning accordingly.
Hammersley: This argument is frequently deployed as a framework argument, but the same article can be used to criticize the model of evidence comparison that many race affirmative’s deploy. Put simply, the argument is that evidence should be judged based on its empirical/scientific validity, not on its functional merit, or utility for solving racism. Failure to take this into account might turn the aff or be a reason why the judge should reject the team on presumption.
Quiet K: This argument consists of three somewhat distinct authors who all think that resistance/speaking out is a bad model for dealing with racism and oppression.
Quashie—he’s specific to racism. The argument centers around aesthetics, claiming that resistance reduces our ability to understand the interiority of blackness to the point at which the aff will end up being reductionist and racist as supposed to productive in reducing racism. Some teams have deployed this argument in coordination with Badiou. The cards are relatively tricky in terms of a possible floating PIK…
Brown—Wendy Brown writes some very high quality cards about how “breaking silence” can become a fetish, and thus be not liberating but oppressive overall. This would likely mix well with Quashie, with Brown being a part of the 2NC.
Hundleby—this author claims that standpoint epistemology and speaking as/for the oppressed has the unintentional result if giving away valuable secrets that are key to achieving freedom. For example, speaking in a public space about Blackness might be tantamount to telling one’s oppressors about the Underground Railroad. This argument may have some degree of tension with Quashie’s position about resistance…
Nuclear Racism: These cards talk about how racism is perpetuated through nuclear risk logic. Nuclear plants are more prevalent in minority communities.
Yancy: This critique is a performative one of sorts. It might hybrid well with the Whiteness K. The second card isn’t quite done, so you should finish underlining it if you intend to read this argument.
Ontological Whiteness: This card is both an answer to the above Yancy argument and an independent K of the logic of white judges voting to affirm black experience.
Alayna, Brittany, Brook, Lev, Greg, Sierra, Rubaie