GDI 07-Give Back the Land

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 1First Priority

1NC


1NC

FIRST PRIORITY


1NC

1NC

The 1AC is a typical leftist response to international oppression that remains silent in the face of the on-going colonization of native North America. The plan serves as a mask for the state, making it appear benevolent, even as its existence is contingent upon a continuing legacy of colonization that guarantees continued international exploitation, turning thecase.Ward Churchill 1996 (Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder, BA and MA inCommunications from Sangamon State, From A Native Son pgs 520 – 530)

I’ll debunk some of this nonsense in a moment, but first I want to take up the posture of self-proclaimed leftist radicals in the same connection. And I’ll do so on the basis of principle, because justice is supposed to matter more to progressives than to

rightwing hacks. Let me say that the pervasive and near-total silence of the Left in this connection has been quite illuminating. Non-Indian activists, with only a handful of exceptions, persistently plead that they can’t really take a coherent position on the matter of Indian land rights because “unfortunately,” they’re “not really conversant with the issues” (as if these were tremendously complex). Meanwhile, they do virtually nothing, generation after generation, to inform themselves on the topic of who actually owns the ground they’re standing on. The record can be played only so many times before it wears out and becomes just another variation of “hear no evil, see no evil.” At this point, it doesn’t take Albert Einstein to figure out that the Left doesn’t know much about such things because it’s never wanted to know, or that this is so because it’s always had its own plans for utilizing land it has no more right to than does the status quo it claims to oppose. The usual technique for explaining this away has always been a sort of pro forma acknowledgement that Indian land rights are of course “really important stuff” (yawn), but that one” really doesn’t have a lot of time to get into it (I’ll buy your book, though, and keep it on my shelf, even if I never read it). Reason? Well, one is just “overwhelmingly preoccupied” with working on “other important issues” (meaning, what they consider to be more important issues). Typically enumerated are sexism, racism, homophobia, class inequities, militarism, the environment, or some combination of these. It’s a pretty good evasion, all in all. Certainly, there’s no denying any of these issues their due; they are all important, obviously so. But more important than the question of land rights? There are some serious problems of primacy and priority imbedded in the orthodox script. To frame things clearly in this regard, lets hypothesize for a moment that all of the various non-Indian movements concentrating on each of these issues were suddenly successful in accomplishing their objectives . Lets imagine that the United States as a whole were somehow transformed into an entity defined by the parity of its race, class, and gender relations, its embrace of unrestricted sexual preference, its rejection of militarism in all forms, and its abiding concern with environmental protection (I know, I know, this is a sheer impossibility, but that’s my

point). When all is said and done, the society resulting from this scenario is still, first and foremost, a colonialist society, an imperialist society in the most fundamental sense possible with all that this implies. This is true because the scenario does nothing at all to address the fact that whatever is happening happens on someone else’s land, not only without their consent, but through an adamant disregard for their rights to the land. Hence, all it means is that the immigrant or invading population has rearranged its affairs in such a way as to make itself more comfortable at the continuing expense of indigenous people. The colonial equation remains intact and may even be reinforced by a greater degree of participation, and vested interest in maintenance of the colonial order among the settler population at large. The dynamic here is not very different from that evident in the American Revolution of the late 18th century, is it? And we all know very well where that led, don’t we? Should we therefore begin to refer to socialist imperialism, feminist imperialism, gay and lesbian imperialism, environmental imperialism, African American, and la Raza imperialism? I would hope not. I would hope this is all just a

matter of confusion, of muddled priorities among people who really do mean well and who’d like to do better. If so, then all that is necessary to correct the situation is a basic rethinking of what must be done., and in what order. Here, I’d advance the straightforward premise that the land rights of “First Americans” should serve as a first priority foreveryone seriously committed to accomplishing positive change in North America. But before I suggest everyone jump off and adopt this priority, I suppose it’s only fair that I interrogate the converse of the proposition: if making things like class


1NCinequity andsexism the preeminent focus of progressive action in North America inevitably perpetuates the internal colonial structure of the United States,does the reverse hold true? I’ll state unequivocally that it does not. There is no indication whatsoever that a restoration of indigenous sovereignty in Indian Country would foster class stratification anywhere, least of all in Indian Country. In fact, all indications are that when left to their owndevices, indigenous peoples have consistently organized their societies in the most class-free manners. Look to the example of the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy). Look to the Muscogee (Creek) Confederacy. Look to the confederations of the Yaqui and the Lakota, and those pursued and nearly perfected by Pontiac and Tecumseh. They represent the very essence of enlightened egalitarianism anddemocracy. Every imagined example to the contrary brought forth by even the most arcane anthropologist can be readily offset by a couple of

dozen other illustrations along the lines of those I just mentioned.

Would sexism be perpetuated? Ask one of the Haudenosaunee clan mothers, who continue to assert political leadership in their societies through the present day. Ask Wilma Mankiller, current head of the Cherokee nation , a peoplethat traditionally led by what were called “Beloved Women.” Ask a Lakota woman—or man, for that matter—about who it wasthat owned all real property in traditional society, and what that meant in terms of parity in gender relations. Ask a traditionalNavajo grandmother about her social and political role among her people. Women in most traditional native societies not only enjoyed political, social, and economic parity with men, they often held a preponderance of power in one or more of these spheres. Homophobia? Homosexuals of both genders were (and in many settings still are) deeply revered as special or extraordinary, and therefore spiritually significant, within most indigenous North American cultures. The extent to which these realities do not now pertain in native societies is exactly the extent to which Indians have been subordinated to the mores of the invading, dominating culture. Insofar as restoration of Indian land rights is tied directly to the reconstitution of traditional indigenous social, political, and economic modes, you can see where this leads: the relations of sex and sexuality accord rather well with the aspirations of feminist and gay rights activism. How about a restoration of native land rights precipitating some sort of “environmental holocaust”? Let’s get at least a little bit real here. If you’re not addicted to the fabrications of Smithsonian anthropologists about how Indians lived, or George Weurthner’s Eurosupremacist Earth First! Fantasies about how we beat allthe wooly mammoths and mastodons and saber-toothed cats to death with sticks, then this question isn’t even on the board. I know it’s become fashionable among Washington Post editorialists to make snide references to native people “strewing refuse in their wake” as they “wandered nomadically about the “prehistoric” North American landscape. What is that supposed to imply? That we, who were mostly “sedentary agriculturalists” in any event. Were dropping plastic and aluminum cans as we went? Like I said, lets get real. Read the accounts of early European arrival, despite the fact that it had been occupied by 15 or 20 million people enjoying a remarkably high standard of living for nobody knows how long: 40,000 years? 50,000 years? Longer? Now contrast that reality to what’s been done to this continent over the past couple of hundred years by the culture Weurthner, the Smithsonian, and the Post represent, and you tell me about environmental devastation. That leaves militarism and racism. Taking the last first, there really is no indication of racism in traditional Indian societies. To the contrary, the record reveals that Indians habitually intermarried between groups, and frequently adopted both children and adults from other groups. This occurred in pre- contact times between Indians, and the practice was broadened to include those of both African and European origin—and ultimately Asian origin as well—once contact occurred. Those who were naturalized by marriage or adoption were considered members of the group, pure and simple. This was always the Indian view. The Europeans and subsequent Euroamerican settlers viewed things rather differently, however, and foisted off the notion that Indian identity should be determined primarily by“blood quantum,” an outright eugenics code similar to those developed in places like Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Now that’s a racist construction if there ever was one. Unfortunately, a lot of Indians have been conned into buying into this anti- Indian absurdity, and that’s something to be overcome. But there’s also solid indication that quite a number of native people continue to strongly resist such things as the quantum system. As to militarism, no one will deny that Indians fought wars among themselves both before and after the European invasion began. Probably half of all indigenous peoples in North America maintained permanent warrior societies. This could perhaps be reasonably construed as “militarism,” but not, I think, with the sense the term conveys within the European/Euro-American tradition. There were never, so far as anyone can demonstrate,, wars of annihilation fought in this hemisphere prior to the Columbian arrival, none. In fact, it seems that it was a more or less firm principle of indigenous warfare not to kill, the object being to demonstrate personal bravery, something that could be done only against a live opponent. There’s no honor to be had in killing another person, because a dead person can’t hurt you. There’s no risk. This is not to say that nobody ever died or was seriously injured in the fighting. They were, just as they are in full contact contemporary sports like football and boxing. Actually, these kinds of Euro-American games are what I would take to be the closest modern parallels to traditional inter-Indian warfare. For Indians, it was a way of burning excess testosterone out of young males, and not much more. So, militarism in the way the term is used today is as alien to native tradition as smallpox and atomic

bombs. Not only is it perfectly reasonable to assert that a restoration of Indian control over unceded lands within the United States would do nothing to perpetuate such problems as sexism and classism, but the reconstitution of indigenous societies this would entail stands to free the affected portions of North America from such maladies altogether. Moreover, it can be said that the process should have a tangible impact in terms of diminishing such oppressions elsewhere. The principles is this: sexism, racism, and all the rest arose here as a concomitant to the emergence and consolidation of the Eurocentric nation-state form of sociopolitical and economic organization. Everything the state does, everything it can do, is entirelycontingent on its maintaining its internal cohesion, a cohesion signified above all by its pretended territorial integrity, its ongoing domination of Indian Country. Given this, it seems obvious that the


1NCliteral dismemberment of the nation-state inherent to Indian land recovery correspondingly reduces the ability of the state to sustain the imposition of objectionable relations within itself. It follows that realization of indigenous land rights serves to undermine or destroy the ability of the status quo to continue imposing a racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, militaristic order on non-Indians.


1NC

The Alternative is to reject the Affirmative and pursue indigenous land return as a first priority. This act of impossible realism solves the case—Colonization is the root cause of oppression, exploitation and war. Only a return to an indigenous politics can remedy the ills of colonialism.

Ward Churchill 1996 (Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder, BA and MA inCommunications from Sangamon State, From A Native Son pgs 85-90)

The question which inevitably arises with regard to indigenous land claims, especially in the United States, is whether they are “realistic.” The answer, of course is, “No, they aren’t.” Further, no form of decolonization has ever been realistic when viewed within the construct of a colonialist paradigm. It wasn’t realistic at the time to expect George Washington’s rag-tag militia to defeat the British military during the American Revolution. Just ask the British. It wasn’t realistic, as the French could tell you, that the Vietnamese should be able to defeat U.S.-backed France in 1954, or that the Algerians would shortly be able to follow in their footsteps. Surely, it wasn’t reasonable to predict that Fidel Castro’s pitiful handful of guerillas would overcome Batista’s regime in Cuba, another U.S. client, after only a few years in the mountains. And the Sandinistas, to be sure, had no prayer of attaining victory over Somoza 20 years later.

Henry Kissinger, among others, knew that for a fact. The point is that in each case, in order to begin their struggles at all, anti-colonial fighters around the world have had to abandon orthodox realism in favor of what they knew to be right. To paraphrase Bendit,they accepted as their agenda, a redefinition of reality in terms deemed quite impossible within the conventional wisdom of their oppressors. And in each case, they succeeded in their immediate quest for liberation. The fact that all but one (Cuba) of the examples used subsequently turned out to hold colonizing pretensions of its own does not alter the truth of this—or alter the appropriateness of their efforts to decolonize themselves—in the least. It simply means that decolonization has yet to run its course, that much remains to be done. The battles waged by native nations in North America to free themselves, and the lands upon which they depend for ongoing existence as discernible peoples, from the

grip of U.S. (and Canadian) internal colonialism are plainly part of this process of liberation. Given that their very survival depends upon their perseverance in the face of all apparent odds , American Indians have no real alternative but to carry on. They must struggle, and where there is struggle here is always hope. Moreover, theunrealistic or “romantic” dimensions of our aspiration to quite literally dismantle the territorial corpus of the U.S. state begin to erode when one considers that federal domination of Native North America is utterly contingent upon maintenance of a perceived confluence of interests between prevailing governmental/corporate elites and common non-Indian citizens. Herein lies the prospect of long-term success. It is entirely possibly that the consensus of opinion concerning non-Indian “rights” to exploit the land and resources of indigenous nations can be eroded, and that large numbers of non-Indians will join in the struggle to decolonize Native North America. Fewnon-Indians wish to identify with or defend the naziesque characteristics of US history. To the contrary most seek to deny it in rather vociferous fashion. All things being equal, they are uncomfortable with many of the resulting attributes of federal postures and actively oppose one or more of these, so long as such politics do not intrude into a certain range of closely guarded self- interests. This is where the crunch comes in the realm of Indian rights issues. Most non-Indians (of all races and ethnicities, and both genders) have been indoctrinated to believe the officially contrived notion that, in the event “the Indians get their land back,” or even if the extent of present federal domination is relaxed, native people will do unto their occupiers exactly as hasbeen done to them; mass dispossession and eviction of non-Indians, especially Euro-Americans is expected to ensue.Hence even progressives who are most eloquently inclined to condemn US imperialism abroad and/or the functions of racism and sexism at home tend to deliv er a blank stare or profess open “disinterest” when indigenous land rights are mentioned. Instead of attempting to come to grips with this most fundamental of all issues the more sophisticated among them seek to divert discussions into “higher priority” or “more important” topics like “issues of class and gender equality” in which “justice” becomes synonymous with a redistribution of power and loot deriving from the occupation of Native North America even while occupation continues. Sometimes, Indians are even slated to receive “their fair share” in the division of spoils accruing from expropriation of their resources. Always, such things are couched in terms of some “greater good” than decolonizing the .6percent of the U.S. population which is indigenous. Some Marxist and environmentalist groups have taken the argument so far as to deny that Indians possess any rights distinguishable from those of their conquerors. AIM leader Russell Means snapped thepicture into sharp focus when he observed n 1987 that: so-called progressives in the United States claiming that Indians areobligated to give up their rights because a much larger group of non-Indians “need” their resources is exactly the same as Ronald


1NCReagan and Elliot Abrams asserting that the rights of 250 million North Americans outweigh the rights of a couple million Nicaraguans (continues).


1NC

Leaving aside the pronounced and pervasive hypocrisy permeating these positions, which add up to a phenomenon elsewhere described as “settler state colonialism,” the fact is that the specter driving even most radical non-Indians into lockstep with the federal government on questions of native land rights is largely illusory. The alternative reality posed by native liberation struggles is actually much different: While government propagandists are wont to trumpet—as they did during the Maine and Black Hills land disputes of the 1970s—that an Indian win would mean individual non-Indian property owners losing everything, the native position has always been the exact opposite. Overwhelmingly, the lands sought for actual recovery have been governmentally and corporately held. Eviction of small land owners has been pursued only in instances where they have banded together—as they have during certain of the Iroquois claims cases—to prevent Indians from recovering any land at all, and to otherwise deny native rights. Official sources contend this is inconsistent with the fact that all non-Indian title to any portion of North America could be called into question. Once “the dike is breached,” they argue, it’s just a matter of time before “everybody has to start swimming back to Europe, or Africa or wherever.” Although there is considerable technical accuracy to admissions that all non-Indian title to NorthAmerica is illegitimate, Indians have by and large indicated they would be content to honor the cession agreements entered into by their ancestors, even though the United States has long since defaulted. This would leave somewhere close to two-thirds of the continental UnitedStates in non-Indian hands, with the real rather than pretended consent of native people. The remaining one-third, the areas delineated in Map IIto which the United States never acquired title at all would be recovered by its rightful owners. The government holds that even at that there is no longer sufficient land available for unceded lands, or their equivalent, to be returned. In fact, the government itself still directly controls morethan one-third of the total U.S. land area, about 770 million acres. Each of the states also “owns” large tracts, totaling about 78 million acres. It is thus quite possible—and always has been—for all native claims to be met in full without the loss to non-Indians of a single acre of privately heldland. When it is considered that 250 million-odd acres of the “privately” held total are now in the hands of major corporate entities, the real dimension of the “threat” to small land holders (or more accurately, lack of it) stands revealed. Government spokespersons have pointed out that the disposition of public lands does not always conform to treaty areas. While this is true, it in no way precludes some process of negotiated landexchange wherein the boundaries of indigenous nations are redrawn by mutual consent to an exact, or at least a much closer conformity. All thatis needed is an honest, open, and binding forum—such as a new bilateral treaty process—with which to proceed. In fact, numerous native peoples

have, for a long time, repeatedly and in a variety of ways, expressed a desire to participate in just such a process. Nonetheless, it is argued,there will still be at least some non-Indians “trapped” within such restored areas. Actually, they would not be trapped at all. The federally imposed genetic criteria of “Indian –ness” discussed elsewhere in this book notwithstanding, indigenous nations have the same rights as any other to define citizenry by allegiance (naturalization) rather than by race. Non-Indians could apply for citizenship, or for some form of landed alien status which would allow them to retain their property until they die. In the event they could not reconcile themselves to living under any jurisdiction other than that of the United States, they would obviously have the right to leace, and they should have the rightto compensation from their own government (which got them into the mess in the first place). Finally, and one suspects this is the real crux of things from the government/corporate perspective, any such restoration of land and attendant sovereign prerogativesto native nations would result in a truly massive loss of “domestic” resources to the United States, thereby impairing thecountry’s economic and military capacities (see “Radioactive Colonialism” essay for details). For everyone who queued up to wave flags and tie on yellow ribbons during the United States’ recent imperial adventure in the Persian Gulf, this prospect may induce a certain psychic trauma. But, for progressives at least, it should be precisely the point. When you think about these issues

in this way, the great mass of non-Indians in North America really have much to gain and almost nothing to lose, from the success of native people in struggles to reclaim the land which is rightfully ours. The tangible diminishment of US material power which is integral to our victories in this sphere stands to pave the way for realization of most other agendas from anti-imperialism to environmentalism, from African American liberation to feminism, from gay rights to the ending of class privilege – pursued by progressive on this continent. Conversely, succeeding with any or even all of these other agendas would still represent an inherently oppressive situation in their realization is contingent upon an ongoing occupation of Native North America without the consent of Indian people. Any North American revolution which failed to freeindigenous territory from non-Indian domination would be simply a continuation of colonialism in another form. Regardless of the angle from which you view the matter, the liberation of Native North America,liberation of the land first and foremost, is the key to fundamental and positive social changes of many other sorts. One thing they say, leads to another. The question has always been, of course, which “thing” is to the first in the sequence. A preliminary formulation for those serious about achieving radical change in the United States might be “First Priority to First Americans” Put another way this would mean, “US out of Indian Country.” Inevitably, the logic leads to what we’ve all been so desperately seeking: The United States– at least what we’ve come to know it – out of North America altogether. From there it can be permanently banished from the planet. In its stead, surely we can join hands to create something new and infinitely better. That’s our vision of “impossible realism.” Isn’t it time we all worked on


1NCattaining it?


Link: Assistance

Public health assistance only addresses a symptom of a larger overall problem caused by colonialism. The Kritik solves the rot cause of the case harms

Thomas W. Pogge, Professor Moral & Political Philosophy, Columbia University, 2004[T h e Et h ics of Assista n ce: m o rality a n d t h e dista n t n ee d y , ed. Deen K. Chatterjee, p. 262]

These passages suggest that poverty is due to domestic factors, not to foreign influences. This empirical view about poverty leads rather directly to the important moral error to be exposed: to the false idea that the problem of world poverty concerns us citizens of the rich countries mainly as potential helpers. I will therefore examine in detail the empirical view of the domestic causation of severe poverty, showing why it is false and also why it is so widely held in the developed world. It is well to recall that existing peoples have arrived at their present levels of social, economic and cultural development through an historical process that was pervaded by enslavement, colonialism, even genocide. Though these monumental crimes are now in the past, they have left a legacy of great inequalities which would be unacceptable even if peoples were now masters of their own development. Even if the peoples of Africa had had, in recent decades, a real opportunity to achieve similar rates of economic growth as the developed countries, achieving such growth could not have helped them overcome their initial 30:1 disadvantage in per capita income. Even if, starting in 1960, African annual growth in per capita income had been a full percentage point above ours each and every year, the ratio would still be 20:1 today and would not be fully erased until early in the twenty-fourth century. It is unclear then whether we may simply take for granted the existing inequality as if it had come about through choices freely made within each people. By seeingthe problem of poverty merely in terms of assistance, we overlook that our enormous economic advantage is deeply tainted by how it accumulate d over the course of one historical process that has devastated the societies and cultures of four continents.


Link: Biotechnology


Link: BiotechnologyLink: Fo r eign Aid

Foreign aid mostly benefits the donor countries. Foreign aid attempts to bring ‘civilization’ to other nations and ends up acting as a form of colonization

CASA, May 2007 (Collectives of Support, Solidarity, and Action, “Development Pushers: Foreign Aid andMicrocredit as Modernization, Not Poverty Reduction,” http://www.chiapaspeacehouse.org/en/node/471)In historical origin, foreign aid is colonial. The practice of granting Foreign aid began long before the 20th Century with empires investing in their colonial outposts so as to develop, among other social elements, transportation and local economy. The type of investment changed with the particular interests of the empire but all were designed to bring “civilization” to the “primitive” colonies (Ortiz). These sentiments and practices have lived on in modernization ideology and contemporary Foreign aid. Although “empires” and “colonies” are no longer recognized as such, the practice of rich countries investing in poor, need-stricken countries reiterates the colonial power dynamic. The discourse of Foreign aid’s benevolence has also changed little: now disguised as bringing “modernization” to “traditional” societies, the sa me idea of “civilizing” the “primitive” societies, for their own good, lives on.

Neocolonialism takes shape as the developed nations are using their aid to manipulate the growth of others. This results in the fulfillment of a political agenda as opposed to purely aiding people.

CASA, May 2007 (Collectives of Support, Solidarity, and Action, “Development Pushers: Foreign Aid andMicrocredit as Modernization, Not Poverty Reduction,” http://www.chiapaspeacehouse.org/en/node/471

Foreign aid is rarely given freely. In its conception Foreign aid is inherently directive. It is loaded down with an ideology that dictates a Western approach to poverty eradication and understands development as a linear trajectory, with inferior and superior models of society at its extremes. Given the diversity and plurality of the world’s many societies, it is at best narrow to allow for only a two set expression of society; at worst it is deeply neocolonial and exploitive to grant aid money in a directive way that mandates a certain type of social change be achieved. The situation is particularly perverse when actual local needs are considered. Take for theexample the indigenous villages of Chiapas, Mexico. In these villages running water is a rarity, education beyond the primary years virtually unheard of and hunger a staple of life. To offer money to those who live the harshreality of poverty, and then to bind it to a predetermined development scheme, is to manipulate the choices of the world’s most disadvantaged in order to fulfill a personal political agenda; not to offer aid. Granting aid in order to serve the political and economic interests of the donor country is economically and morallyproblematic. In a colonial fashion, it allows the donour country to mold the recipient country so as to serve itsown interests. As in the case of eastern Europe and the Marshall plan or Iraq in the wake of the Iraq War, this may mean directing aid money so as to stomp out particular political movements (communism) or to institute other political models (federalist democracy.) This is a violation of the national right to political liberty and autodetermination. Furthermore, the type of political limits that are placed on countries, not to mention the economic ones, can have very real impacts on the effectiveness of aid money. The tying of aid money in Africa has reduced the value of the funding by 25-40 % because it has obligated the nations to buy products at inflated prices from the donour nations (Deen). This means that a large chunk of the aid money is directly returned to the countries that originally donated it and that fewer people in the recipient countries benefit. As is concisely expressed in the article Puppets on Purse Strings, as long as aid is tied “rich countries like the

http://www.chiapaspeacehouse.org/en/node/471

http://www.chiapaspeacehouse.org/en/node/471


Link: BiotechnologyU.S. continue to have a financial lever to dictate what good governance means and to pry open markets of developing countries for multinational corporations.”


Link: Biotechnology


Link: BiotechnologyLink: Disease Prevention

Disease prevention has become thoroughly geopoliticized—health standards used to solidify national boundaries

Alison Bashford, Medical History Professor University of Sydney, 2006[Medicine at the Bord e r: disease, g lo b alizati on , and sec u rity, 1 8 50 t o t h e prese n t , ed. Alison Bashford, p. 6-7]

The geopolitics of disease prevention has often operated through, and linked, nationalism and the policing of sovereign territory. From the early nineteenth century both maritime and land borders became closely regulated places for the inspection of the goods of commercial exchange, as well as vessels and animals. This is why, in many modernizing bureaucracies, quarantine officials were typically located within the broader government office and power of “customs.” But nineteenth-century quarantine law typically governed the movement and traffic of goods, animals and humans. With the emergence of European nation-states and their colonial extensions over the nineteenth century, and with increasingly bureaucratized administrative government, disease was checked by border inspections of people – their bodies, their identity and their documents. The documents of health, of being disease-free (or more likely coming from a disease-free town or region) existed as a system prior to the widespread use of identity documents (the passport or the visa, for example). Thus one of the factors which made jurisdictional (increasingly meaning national) borders meaningful was the checking of health documentation and of people’s bodies for signs of infectious disease, and indeed, for signs of disease prophylaxis– vaccination. These procedures made borders more than abstract lines on maps, but as a set of practices onthe ground.


Link: Biotechnology


Link: BiotechnologyLinks: Intellectual Property Rights

Enforcing IPR’s is a modern-day manifestation of colonialism ensuring that discrimination, exploitation and destruction of culture will all befall Indigenous Peoples who are forced into compliance.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Executive Director, Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre forPolicy Research and Education) 99[“TRIPS and its Potential Impacts on Indigenous Peoples,” http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/trips2.html]

The imposition of western legal regimes on indigenous peoples is one of the root causes of the many problems they are faced with in the past up to the present. These legal regimes either totally negate customary laws or accommodate only those aspects which reinforce them. The intellectual property rights (IPRs) regime, particularly the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements, is the latest example of this kind of imposition.The struggle to bring in IPRs into the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is a classic case of transnational corporations cooperating closely with the world’s most powerfulnation-states to ensure that their interests will be legally protected in international and national law. In the past, the colonial governments crafted national laws which facilitated their access and control over thenatural resources of their colonies. They also forged unequal bilateral treaties with their colonies or ex-colonieswhich allowed for free trade or which gave them parity rights to exploit natural resources or set up businesses. At present, aside from bilateral treaties there are already multilateral agreements like the GATT (now known as WTO Agreements) whose role is to ensure that national laws will be changed to conform to theinternational legal regimes.The harmonization of intellectual property rights laws to ensure that these are consistent with TRIPs could be disastrous for indigenous peoples. It is similar to how national laws and policies on land, forests, governance, etc. were imposed on indigenous peoples without any considerationwhatsoever on customary laws on these same areas. In this case, however, it is an international body, the WTO, which is acting like national governments. In this case diverse laws and policies regardingIPR protection have to be recast in the mold of TRIPS.The form which the national legislation on intellectual property rights protection should have is one bone of contention between the developed countries, developing countries, transnational corporations, andlocal communities. For indigenous peoples, however, the problem lies not just in the form of the law but theessence of the law itself. The TRIPS Agreement is an embodiment of western legal philosophy, norms, values, and mindset which are contrary to many indigenous peoples’ cosmologies and values.The key impact that TRIPS has on indigenous peoples is that it denigrates, undermines, and discriminates against indigenous ways of thinking and behaving. Intellectual property rights are monopoly rights given to individuals or legal persons (such as transnational corporations) who can prove that the inventions or innovations they made are novel, involved an innovative step and are capable of industrial application.Indigenous knowledge and cultural heritage are usually collectively evolved and owned. If indigenous peoples have to use western IPRs to protect their own knowledge and innovations, they will have to identifyindividual inventors. This will push scrupulous indigenous individuals to claim ownership over potentially profitable indigenous knowledge which will cause the further disintegration of communal values andpractices. It can also cause infighting between indigenous communities over who has ownership over a particularknowledge or innovation.

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/trips2.html


Link: Biotechnology

Indigenous peoples view biotechnology and genetic engineering as harmful to their land, environment, and ways of life.Kanahe, 05 (Le’a, Attorney-at-law for Indigenous and human rights, and environmental law, legal analyst for theIndigenous Peoples’ Council on Biocolonialism; Press release, January 24)

With 1418 field releases and 4566 field test sites, Hawaiì has had more plantings of experimental biotech crops than anywhere in the U.S. or the world. Furthermore, Hawaiì is second only to Nebraska with the most field trials of biopharmaceuticals - crops that produce dangerous drugs like vaccines, hormones, contraceptives, and other biologically active compounds.Regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the biotech industry is severely under-regulated and allowed to operate in a shroud of secrecy, while in the case of bioprospecting, the industry is not regulated at all. Rather than passing laws to protect the public’s safety and Native Hawaiian rights, the legislature passes laws to protect the biotech industry, such as one in 2001 that makes anyone found destroying GE crops liable for damage. Furthermore, the State facilitates GMO production through Agribusiness Corporation leases of State lands in Kekaha to GMO giants like Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred International. In addition to the environmental and human health risks and economic concerns raised by many anti- G.E. activists, genetic-based research and develop ment in Hawaiì has significant negative cultural, political, and legal impacts for Native Hawaiians, the Indigenous peoples of Hawaiì.

Native Hawaiians need to be very careful about our communities’ responses to the new genetic technologies and theplace, if any, that those technologies will be given in our islands. We need to have an understanding of how genetic engineering works, and what kind of changes it will create between ourselves and our environments. We need to think about how adopting genetically engineered farming will affect the survival of our traditional knowledge systems and the plant and animal life at their base. We need to be evaluating genetic technologies based on our own cultural beliefs and standards. These are the issues that this Indigenous speaking tour will raise.

Indigenous peoples’ right to their heritage is violated by the development of biotechnology. New scientific advances in this field attempt to colonize indigenous peoples’ territories once again.Tauli-Corpuz 06 (UNPFII Chair, presented at the Executive Board Meeting of the International Fund for Agricultural Development , TWN, Third World Network, Biotechnology and Indigenous Peoples, 6/1/06, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/tokar.htm)

The position of indigenous peoples vis a vis biotechnology is still evolving. The common thread in the various positions is the view that life-forms should not be patented. If the ownership of patents on life-forms is the main incentive for scientists and corporations to invest in biotechnology, it might be a good idea not to allow this. The benevolent motives avowed by scientists who want to contribute to sustainable development should not be tainted by the commercialization or commodification of life. It is also generally agreed that the harmonization of intellectual property rights regimes to fit the mold of western IPRs particularly TRIPS is morally and legally indefensible. This is being done to further legitimize the desire of industrialized countries and their transnational corporations to have monopoly control over biotechnology and information technologies. Those who have contributed their centuries-old knowledge to develop

and protect the rich biodiversity in their communities will now be accused of biopiracy because the right to this knowledge is going into the hands of the corporations through IPRs.

It should be recognized that indigenous peoples have a right to their intellectual and cultural heritage; this is clearly articulated in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other UN standards. This right is being blatantly violated by developments in biotechnology. Even the collection of genetic

materials from indigenous peoples bodies through the HGDP and other similar projects is a violation of the rights and integrity of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples also agree that the protection of biodiversity and cultural diversity cannot be effectively guaranteed if their rights to their ancestral territories are not recognized and respected. Therefore, protests against biotechnology cannot be separated from the call for the recognition and respect of the rights of indigenous peoples to their territories and resources and their right to their intellectual and cultural heritage. The UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the emerging standard which should guide states, corporations, and society in

general on how to deal with indigenous peoples. It was the result of over a decade of intensive dialogues between indigenous peoples, outside experts and government delegations. It is the articulation of the collective values and aspirations of indigenous peoples from the different parts of the world. Indigenous peoples are pushing for the immediate adoption of this before the

Decade of Indigenous Peoples ends in 2003. The march of science and technology will likely proceed in spite of protests from indigenous peoples and NGOs. In the face of the aggressive recolonization of indigenous peoples territories, bodies and minds which is facilitated by the new science and technologies it is imperative

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/tokar.htm



Link: Biotechnologyto support the struggles of indigenous peoples. Whatever gains indigenouspeoples will make will also be gains for the whole of humanity and nature.


Link: Biotechnology

Biotechnology promotes colonization of the environment and the elimination of indigenous knowledge.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, UNPFII Chair, 2006(presented at the Executive Board Meeting of the International Fund for Agricultural Development , TWN, ThirdWorld Network, Biotechnology and Indigenous Peoples, 6/1/06, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/tokar.htm)

Biotechnology carries with it a worldview or philosophy which is reductionist and determinist. A living

organism is reduced into its smallest component, the gene. The explanation of the way the organism behaves is sought in the genes. This worldview also regards nature as something which should be controlled, dominated, and engineered or re-engineered. This runs counter to indigenous beliefs, knowledge, and practice. The cosmological vision of most indigenous peoples regards nature as divine and a coherent whole, and human beings as a part of nature. Thus, it is

imperative that humans should create meaningful solidarity with nature. This is the “web of life” concept or what

is now referred to as the ecosystem approach which appreciates the relationship and bonds of all of creation with each other. Human beings have to work and live with nature and not seek to control and dominate it. Whether we recognize

it or not, we humans are totally dependent onwater, air, soil, and all life forms and the destruction or pollution of these will also mean our destruction. The

integrity or intrinsic worth of a human being, plant, or animal is measured in relation to how it affects and relates with the others. For indigenous peoples, biodiversityand indigenous knowledge or indigenous science cannot be separated from culture and territoriality. Thus, the genetic determinism of biotechnology conflicts with the holistic worldview of indigenous peoples. With the invention of technologies which control and re-engineer nature, human beings have succeeded in setting themselves apart from nature. This is what happened after the industrial revolution and now with the biotechnology and information revolution. Plants, animals, and humans, are reduced into their genetic components and their integral wholeness is not important anymore. These separate components can be manipulated and engineered at will and for commercial purposes. The engineering mindset is becoming the norm.

Efficiency, not only of machines and human beings but of all living things is the goal. Since it is life which is being engineered scientists can act as God. Because profits and economic growth are the most important parameters used to measure development and progress, the adverse environmental, economic, cultural and social impacts of biotechnology are viewed as insignificant .The way biotechnology further promotes and reinforces the mechanistic, materialistic, reductionist and dualist worldview is a major concern for indigenous peoples. There is an observable, growing intolerance toward other cultures and worldviews. Eugenics is promoted with the universalization of the western standards of beauty and efficiency. Being beautiful means being tall, white, blonde, blue- eyed, and slim. For indigenous peoples to accept the genetic determinist view, they have to radically alter their world views, their ways of knowing and thinking, and their ways of relating with nature and with each other. Maybe social and natural scientists will say that this is inevitable, because we have to move on with the progress achieved in science and technology. However, with the prevailing environmental, social, economic, and cultural crisis, the dominant worldview has lost the moral high ground. Indigenous peoples who have not totally surrendered the cosmological vision inherited from their ancestors, and have indeed developed it further, are in a better moral and ethical position. If indigenous peoples keep asserting their own philosophy and their right to believe and practice it, we might someday evolve a different philosophy or perspective which provides a balance between the two extremes.



Link: Biotechnology

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, UNPFII Chair, 2006(presented at the Executive Board Meeting of the International Fund for Agricultural Development , TWN, ThirdWorld Network, Biotechnology and Indigenous Peoples, 6/1/06, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/tokar.htm)

The ecological risks of biotechnology have been amply elaborated by NGOs and scientists. Genetically engineered organisms are living beings. and if these are released they can mutate, multiply, and migrate. Should they have adverse environmental impacts there is no way to recall them or contain them. Since indigenous peoples’ territories are the last remaining biodiversity-rich centres, the erosion of this biodiversity could be facilitated by the invasion of more evolutionary advantaged transgenic plants. Biotechnology claims that it will be able to clean up the environmental pollution brought about by industrial activities such as mining, oil exploration, etc. This falls into a typically end-of-the-pipeline kind of pollution management, and we have yet to see this working on a large-scale. From the experiences of indigenous peoples, mining and oil drilling operations are still the worst polluters and the most destructive to the land. The track records of mining and oil companies in rehabilitating what they have destroyed in indigenous peoples’ territories is very poor, to say the least. In fact, from what we can gather, the efforts of biotechnologists are more often directed towards developing transgenic micro-organisms which can eat into the mineral ores and isolate precious minerals such as gold. Then there will be a lesser need for workers and machines which process the ores. The ecological implications of releasing such engineered microbes into the environment, however, is not seriously considered or addressed. Studies on the environmental impacts of the release of transgenic organisms, whether to clean up oil pollution or to ameliorate the

pollution of rivers and soils by toxic chemicals used by the mines, are not adequate. The consequences are not publicly known, especially by those who are directly affected. The appropriation of indigenous knowledge on plants and plant uses, along with thedestruction of indigenous sustainable resource management and agro-forestry practices is also facilitated by biotechnology. Patent applications by scientists, corporations, and even governments for medicinal plants used by indigenous peoples since time immemorial are increasing each day. The neem plant and turmeric in India are very much used by the tribals. Ayahuasca and quinoa in Latin America, kava in the Pacific, the bitter gourd in the Philippines and Thailand are all widely used by indigenous peoples. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa), for instance, is a high protein cereal which has been a staple in the diet of millions of indigenous peoples in the Andean countries of Latin America. It has been cultivated and developed since pre-Incan times. Two researchers from the University of Colorado received US patent number 5,304,718 in l994 which gives them exclusive monopoly control over the male sterile plants of the traditional Bolivian Apelawa quinoa variety. This crop is exported to the US and European market and the value of Bolivia’s export market on this is US$1 million per year. The most logical development is that the patent will be taken over by corporations. The hybrid varieties will be used for wide-scale commercial production in the US

or Europe, and the Bolivian exports will be prevented from entering the US and European markets. The patent owners will assert their intellectual property rights.This will lead to the displacement of thousands of small farmers, most of which are indigenous. The other possibility is that lands will fall into the monopoly co ntrol of corporations who own the patents or their subsidiaries in Bolivia who will produce quinoa using the hybrid commercial varieties. The genetic erosion of the diverse quinoa varieties developed by indigenous

farmers over centuries will take place.[5] This process is the most probable course of events for many indigenous peoples in different parts of the world. This is made possible because of developments in biotechnology and the legal systems that grant intellectual property rights to those who are able to innovate in high technology laboratories. The Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organization has become the standard through which IPR laws are being harmonized the world over. The contributions of indigenous peoples in preserving, sustaining, and developing biodiversity, and resource management systems are not recognized and valued by this prevailing system.



Link: Biotechnology

Biotechnology is colonization in disguise—this biocolonialism legitimates the theft and control of indigenous knowledge and decreases biodiversity

Debra Harry, Executive Director of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, 2001(Biopiracy and Globalization: Indigenous Peoples Face a New Wave of Colonialism, April 2001 Volume 7 Issues 2& 3, http://www.ipcb.org/publications/other_art/globalization.html)Historically there has been prolific scientific interest in the lifestyles, knowledge, cultures, histories, and worldviews of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are probably the most studied people in the world. Today, the genomics revolution is fueling a new wave of scientific research in the form of bioprospecting, and it is impacting the lives of indigenous peoples around the

world. Like all other unwanted advances of colonization, the biotech industry has come knocking at our door. Indigenous peoples worldwide are now at the forefront of a new wave of scientific investigation: the quest for monopoly control of genetic resources that will be useful in new pharmaceuticals, nutriceuticals, and other

bio-engineered products. The genetic diversity that exists within the veins and territories of indigenous peoples is threatened by expropriation. These unique genetic resources, which have nurtured the lives of indigenous peoples for centuries, are sought by the biotechnology industry (both public and private). The industry seeks to identify genes associated with diseases, and for the creation of new bio-engineered plants and animals, pharmaceutical products, nutriceutical products, and other processes and products useful in genetic research. In the area of human genetic research, genetic diversity research seems to be a high priority of

many research agendas. Indigenous peoples currently arethe subjects of evolutionary genetic research, pharmaco-genetic research, and the search for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or disease genes,

to name a few. This work has seen extensive violations of human rights by researchers who fail to get fully informed consent from their research subjects, and who allow widespread secondary use, and/or commercialization, of human genetic samples without the consent of the donor. And the,

through the application of intellectual property rights law, namely patents, corporations can claim ownership over genes, products, and data derived from genetic resources, thereby enclosing genetic resources which were developed by nature or are the result of centuries of cultivation by indigenous farmers. The current framework allows corporations to assert monopoly claims over life-forms they had no hand in Áinventing".This results in benefits to their shareholders at the expense of the society, and the peoples, from whom the resources were stolen. Colonization is an age old process of theft and control facilitated by doctrines of conquest such as the Manifest Destiny and Terra Nullius, that claim the land as empty (except for

the millions of aboriginals living there), and non-productive (in its natural state). And as the self-proclaimed "discoverers" of crops, medicinal plants, genetic resources, and traditional

knowledge, these bioprospectors become the new "owners". Intellectual property rights are being used to turn nature and life processes into‘private propertyª. As private property, it is alienable; that is, it can be owned, bought and sold as a commodity. The result is a legitimized process for thievery, which we call "biocolonialism". The quest for this "genetic gold" seems to be a significant motivation of many research projects. Indigenous communities are disadvantaged in this paradigm by being dependent solely on the researcher for information

explaining the benefits and risks of the research. Often they are not informed that their DNA can be commercialized through patents and used in the development of new products. The profit motive in genetic research makes indigenous peoples highly vulnerable to exploitation. Racism and human rights violations, attitudes of racism, dehumanization, and oppression result in a research paradigm that objectifies the subjects, and negates their full humanness. Indigenous people are not seen to be fully equal participants and partners in research. These attitudes justify actions that contravene standard ethical practices. Indigenous peoples are finding themselves treated as objects of scientific curiosity, with very littleregard for their needs, or concern about how the research may negatively impact them. With their eye on the

prize, which is to collect blood samples, researchers often fail to get true informed consent, claiming the subjects cannot understand genetics, or the researchers collect biological samples under false circumstances. In some instances, coercion may be the best means for finding cooperative research subjects by offering medical attention, cash, or other token benefits. While the specific research purpose itself may seem benign, population-based genetic research invariably will be applied to the whole group. And, once biological samples have been secured, there is often widespread interest in those samples by other researchers. Scientists often share their collections with their

colleagues, as a matter of course, or for a price. There are virtually no legal protections to invoke when ethical violations occur. The Failure of ELSI to Reach Impacted Groups The US earmarked 5% of its annual Human Genome Project (HGP) funds to address associated ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of the work. ELSI programs have failed miserably to help indigenous peoples prepare to address the issues raised by genomic research. Indigenous peoples are largely unaware of the scale and potential impacts of genetic research to their communities. Despite a decade of ESLI funding, the burden has fallen upon the tribes themselves to get a basic genetics education, and understand its potential impacts on their lives. Inthe meantime, the government has busily funded projects studying indigenous groups, without any meaningful consultation with the group. Current bioethical protocols fail to address the unique conditions raised by population-based research, in particular with respect to unique processes for group decision-making and cultural worldviews. Genetic variation research is group research,but most ethical guidelines are not equipped to address group rights. In this context, one of the challenges of ethical research is to include respect for collective review and decision making, while also upholding the traditional model of individual rights. Genetic Research and Tribal Protection Strategies It has become evident that this new era of science and technology poses new

challenges to the collective protection and management of genetic resources of indigenous peoples. Western intellectual property rights bear little resemblance to indigenous systems that usually focus on the protection and management of resources for the benefit of the collective group. One author describes the conflict succinctly: "In particular, there is a very serious question whether

the category Áproperty,ª or the historically contingent and individualistic notion of Ápropertyª that has arisen in the West, is even appropriate when discussing things like agricultural practices,

cell lines, seed plasm, and oral narratives that belong to communities rather than individuals. If we are not capable of acknowledging the

http://www.ipcb.org/publications/other_art/globalization.html


Link: Biotechnologyexistence of different life- worlds and ways of envisioning human beings; relationship to the natural world in our intellectual property laws, then unfortunately, it may be late in the day for biodiversity and hopes for a genuinely multicultural world." Indigenous groups are asserting their own rights to take proactive measures to protect themselves and their territories by controlling research. The "Indigenous Research Protection Act" (IRPA), recently developed by the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB), helps tribal governments protect their people against unwanted research and when they believe the research may be beneficial the IRPA provides a framework to control the research agenda. This changes the paradigm from being treated as research subjects to being active partners with the power to make informed decisions and choices. It is believed that more tribal control of research is likely to result in more beneficial outcomes, and of the research actually meeting the needs of the people.


Link: Biotechnology

Biotechnology colonizes indigenous knowledge, turning it into a resource for Western use

Shah 02 (Judicial Board Member Associate SG Webmaster for the Judicial Branch, Geneticlly Engineered Food, Food Patents – Stealing Indigenous Knowledge?, September 26th 2002, http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GEFood/FoodPatents.asp)

Intellectual property rights are supposed to help protect investments into research and development and stimulate innovation by providing incentives to invent, progress, develop etc. The promise of just reward for one's efforts are important. Yet, there are criticisms that the way intellectual property rights related texts have developed, they put more emphasis on protecting ones creations and stifling other's ability to compete. In the area of biotechnology there are further debates and issues on the right to patent living organisms, especially resources and seeds that have been

developed or passed on as traditional and public knowledge. This Capitalizing on public knowledge often comes into conflict with indigenous knowledge and the rights of indigenous pe ople, sustainability of local ecosystems, and even the ability of nations to provide food security and protection of the global environment. As a result, this has also raised many philosophical questions. Large transnational corporations like Monsanto, DuPont and others

have been investing into biotechnology in such a way that patents have been taken out on indigenous plants which have been used for generations by the local people, without their knowledge or consent. The people then find that the only way to use their age-old knowledge is be to buy them back from the big corporations. In Brazil, which has some ofthe richest biodiversity in the world, large multinational corporations have already patented more than half the known plant species. (Brazil is estimated to have around 55,000 species of flora, amounting to some 22% of the world's total. India, for example, has about 46,000.) A patent gives a monopoly right to exploit an invention for 17-20 years. To be patentable an invention must be novel, inventive and have a commercial use. Controversially though, the US and European patent offices now grants patents on plant varieties, GM crops, genes and gene sequences from plants and crops. The current WTO patent agreement, TRIPs - Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights - has been very controversial in this respect for many developing countries who want to have it reviewed, but are being somewhat blocked

by the wealthier nations from doing so. As reported by Environment News Service, "Knowledge is proprietary. It belongs to corporations and is not accessible to farmers," [Dr. Altieri] said. Altieri feels that biotechnology has emerged through the quest for profit, not to solve the problems of small farmers. "Scientists are defending biotechnology ... but at the same time there's a lot of money from corporations going into universities, influencing the researchers in those universities in the wrong direction," Altieri said. The cost to developing countries in "pirating" their knowledge has been considerable: "Vandana Shiva believes that the West has a clever structure in place. Using convenient patent laws as a system, the Trade Related Intellectual Property [TRIP] instrument as a stick and the World Trade Organisation [WTO] as the enforcing authority, the First World is seeking to 'rob' the Thirld World. She says in a rigorous article: "When the US introduced IPRs in the Uruguay Round as a new issue, it accused the Third World of 'piracy'. The estimates provided for royalties lost in agricultural chemicals are US$202 million and US$2,545 million for pharmaceuticals. However, as the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), in Canada has shown, if the contribution of Third World peasants and tribals is taken into account, the roles are dramatically reversed: the US owes US$302 million in royalties for agriculture and $5,097 million for pharmaceuticals to Third World countries."" -- Abduction of Turmeric provokes India's wrath, Good News India, January 2002 Some examples In Texas, a company called RiceTec took out the patents on Basmati rice (which grows in the Indian and Pakistan regions) and have created a genetically modified Basmati rice, while selling it as normal Basmati -- and it was not against the law, either. In fact, four of the patents were withdrawn in June 2000, when the Indian government formally challenged the patent. However, it, and other incidents continue to raise controversy on patenting indigenous plants. Eventually though, 15 of the 20 patents were also thrown out by the US Patent and TrademarkOffice (USPTO) due to lack of uniqueness and novelty. However, towards the middle of August 2001, three patents were awarded to RiceTec -- to variants called Texmati, Jasmati and Kasmati, all cross breeds of Basmati and American long grain rice, while RiceTec was also given permission to claim that its brands are "superior to basmati" as reported bythe Guardian, who also point out the uproar that has caused in Indian political circles. The article also points out how RiceTec CEO doesn't understand why there is such a fuss over this, yet he perhaps doesn't see ActionAid's point (also mentioned in the news article) that "[t]here is growing concern that corporations are taking advantage of traditional Indian crops developed over thousands of years by farmers, without any recompense for the poor people who do all the work." (It is a further irony that the CEO is Indian in ancestry, himself.) There has also been an unsuccessful attempt by RiceTec with Thailand's Jasmine Rice as well in 1998. "London's Observer reported that there were more than 100 Indian plants awaiting grant at the US patent office. And patents have already have been granted to uses of Amla, Jar Amla, Anar, Salai, Dudhi, Gulmendhi, Bagbherenda, Karela, Rangoon-ki-bel, Erand, Vilayetishisham, Chamkura etc, all household Indian names. These need to be vacated. Bio-piracy doesn't affect just India. Much of Africa and Latin America are prowling grounds for First World's knowledge pirates." -- Abduction of Turmeric provokes India's wrath,Good News India, January 2002 A US Patent Authority ruling did manage to prevent another company from using turmeric to create bi-products because there intentions were not novel and

turmeric had been around for a long time. They also canceled a patent on the Ayahuasca plant, a sacred plant for many indigenous people in Latin America. "Patents and intellectual property rights are supposed to prevent piracy. Instead they are becoming the instruments of pirating the common traditional knowledge from the poor of the Third World and making it the exclusive "property" of western scientists and corporations. " -- Vandana Shiva, Poverty and Globalization,

Reith 2000 Lectures, BBC. In India, these and otherevents have led to much criticism on the ability to patent many indigenous plants so easily by big corporations. Another patent causing outrage has been a remedy for diabetes involving eggplant,bitter gourd and jamun, the fruit of the rose apple tree extract. It has been common knowledge in India for centuries, yet again there is an attempt to patent it. There were also fears in India that Europe would follow USA and Japan's examples of bio-piracy, by allowing patents of indigenous plants and life-forms, which have already led to genetically modified versions of these without

sufficient proof that they are safe to consume. Well, they do not need to worry any longer, because it has actually happened. A number of food ingredients and plants have been, or have seen attempts to be, patented by various biotech firms. As this article suggests, US patent laws may be part of the problem. As Inter Press Servicereports, "Over the last 10 years, for examle, [sic] the US-based

chemical giant DuPont has filed approximately 150 applications for patents on genetic resources with the European Patent Office." While many biotech companies claim that genetically engineered foods will help alleviate hunger and increase food security, their acts of patenting the knowledge and food that has been developed over centuries itself may be a threat to food security, due to more concentrated ownership and the political advantages that goes with that. The large biotech firms are mainly from western nations, especially America. (Such control over basic

resources can and has been used as a foreign policy leverage tool, as seen in the food dumping section on this web site.) An International Undertaking to tackle the issue? "Patent proponents keep banging on about the importance of IPR for access and innovation. But this is a smokescreen. If access was the issue, then the evidence stands against IPR: it restricts the flow of germplasm, reduces sharing between breeders, erodes genetic diversity, and, all in all, stifles research. What is actually at issue is the question of whose interests agriculture R&D should serve. IPRs are suited to the profit strategies of the global seed conglomerates that want to dominate agricultural production worldwide. The transnational seed companies are building vast industrial breeding networks in all major crops and, with their economies of scale and ownership over technology through IPR, they will shut local private and public breeders out of the commercial market. For them, IPR is simply a means for controlling the market and extracting more profit from it." -- Intellectual Property Rights: Ultimate control of agricultural R&D in Asia, by Devlin Kuyek, March 2001, GRAIN (Genetic Resource Action International).

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GEFood/FoodPatents.asp

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GEFood/FoodPatents.asp


Link: Human Rights

The concept of human rights excludes indigenous perspectives by universalizing Eurocentric norms. The native is considered savage and in need of western saviors.

Makau Mutua, Professor of Law and Director, Human Rights Center, SUNY-Buffalo School of Law, 2002[“Terrorism and Human Rights: Power, Culture, and Subordination,” Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, p. lexis]

The international law of human rights, arguably the most benign of all the areas of international law, seeks the universalization of European cultural, philosophical, and political norms and social structures. It is largely a culturally specific doctrine which is expressed in the idiom of the [*5] same culture. The human rights corpus is driven -- normatively and descriptively -- by what I have called the savage-victim-savior metaphor, in which human rights is a grand narrative of an epochal contest that pits savages against victims and saviors. 5 In this script of human rights, democracy and western liberalism are internationalized to redeem savage non- Western cultures from themselves, and to alleviate the suffering of victims, who are generally non-western and non-European. The images of the savage Taliban, the Afghan victims mired in pre-modernity, and the American saviors put the metaphor in sharp relief.

In the human rights idiom, North America and the European West -- acting generally under the guise of the United Nations and other multilateral agencies -- are the saviors of hapless victims whose salvation lies only in the transformation of their savage cultures through the imposition of human rights. The human rights corpus is presented as a settled normative edifice, as a glimpse of an eternal, inflexible truth. As a result, attempts to question or reformulate a truly universal regime of rights, one that reflects the complexity and the diversityof all cultures, have generally been viewed with indifference or hostility by the official guardians of human rights.

This refusal to create a culturally complex and diverse human rights corpus is all the more perplexing because the view that the human rights doctrine is an ideology with deep roots in liberalism and democratic forms of government is beyond question. In fact, an increasing number of scholars now realize that the cultural biases of the human rights corpus can only be properly situated within liberal theory and philosophy. Understood from this position, human rights are an ideology with a specific cultural and ethnographic fingerprint. The human rights corpus expresses a cultural bias, and its chastening of a state is therefore a cultural project . If culture is not defined as some discrete, exotic, and peculiar practice which is frozen in time but rather as the dynamic totality of ideas, forms, practices, and structures of any given society, then human rights is an expression of a particular European-American culture. The advocacy of human rights across cultural borders is then an attempt todisplace the local non-Western culture with the "universal" culture of human rights. Human rights therefore become the universal culture. It is in this sense that the "other" culture, that which is non-European, is the savage in the human rights corpus and its discourse.


Link: Human Rights

Human rights and international law are both otherizing discourses that construct the native as primitive and backward. These labels easily shift to discourses of terrorism that justify violence.


It bears saying that the history of international law -- including its post-1945 expression through the United Nations-- is largely about ordering the lives of non-European native peoples. The purpose of such ordering is to create a world in which American and European interests are not threatened or injured by political and cultural paradigms that may be inconsistent with those interests. That is why the "othering" process is absolutely essential if Western hegemony is to be maintained. Although that process is arduous and usually only produces an elite that has no depth in its own society, the West regards that as the first and necessary step towards the recovery or reclamation of primitive, backward, and pre-modern societies. As American officials have put it, the "Afghan swamp must first be drained." The West has no illusion that Afghani society will turn into a modern, Western political democracy overnight. But at the very least it can under the tutelage of the United Nations andother multi-lateral agencies and donors be defanged of virulent anti-Westernism, and placed on a recovery track -- a linear ladder-like progression towards modernity.

It is important to note that the native savage has always been racialized in human rights discourse and international law. He has been defined as dumb, meek, lazy, backward, primitive, and incompetent. This is the classic European view of the native. But in Western discourse, the native has also been depicted as dangerous, particularly when he has challenged European authority in the anti-colonial movement. The Mau Mau of Kenya, for example, who took up arms against British colonialists were regarded as particularly dangerous. This is where the native savage morphs into a terrorist, primarily because he pursues his political objectives by deploying armed force as an instrument of the struggle. Both the Mau Mau and the Algerian FLN were regarded as terrorists, as was Nelson Mandela's African National Congress. The post-September 11 crisis returns the world to the image of the native savage as a terrorist. In terms of norm-creation in human rights, this image makes it less likely that advocates of cultural pluralism will get a fair hearing. It creates an environment that is intolerant of debate, particularly if the thrust of the dissent is to question the sanctity of liberal values, which the terrorists are now accused of attacking.


Link: Law

The law is inherently Eurocentric and the appearance of legality is used to disguise the colonialist intentions of the plan.

Kenneth B. Nunn, prof. of law, University of Florida School of Law, in 1997[“Law as a Eurocentric Enterprise,” Law and Inequality, Spring, p. lexis]

Although the European was liberal with his law, he was parsimonious with his rights, and this is especially true in regard to the right of self-determination. 227 This potent combination is a constant feature of European contact with other cultures and thus merits further attention.

Europ e an co l oni z ers dominat e d the m ajority peoples of the world, took their l and, and de s troyed or corrupted the i r culture s . 228 Yet the s e c oloni z ers always proceed e d "l e gally" th r ough tr e aties or the dictat e s of international law. 229 Ani argues convincingly that the Europ e an pr e occupation with "legali z ing" their con q uests se r ved the d oub l e pur p ose of d isarming their victims and bolstering the Europ e an self-image . 230

A key part of the European belief system is faith in the linear notion of "progress," 231 the belief that later historical developments are superior to preceding ones and that the course of human history flows from worse to better. This, in combination with the European conviction that white culture was superior to the world's other cultures madeEuropean conquest a matter of pride and self-esteem. 232 Their conque s ts needed to be "legal" in ord e r to p r ovide the full psycho logical benefits.

In addition, the expo r t of E u rop e an l aw was d e emed as synony m ous with the export of E uropean "civilization" and thus synonymous with pro gres s :

The concept of "codified law" is a definite ingredient of that of civilization; for with civilization, according to European ideology, comes order and legality assures "lasting order" - not moral conduct but consistent and predictable conduct. So that the "c i vilized" way - the European way - is t o bri n g law s, ho w ever f orc i bly, a n d t he structures of Eur opean culture ("ci vilization") to those wh om one tre ats immorally an d f or whom on e h as no respect. 233

From a pragmatic perspective, then, the l aw cannot be vi ew ed as a positive force for c hange. The l a w must be viewed for what it is, a nece s sa r y compon e nt for the e xt e nsion of white power a r ound the g l ob e . Although the introduction of law into indigenous societies brought order, it did not - it could not - bring peace. Instead "law wasin the vanguard of what its own proponents saw as a "belligerent civilization,' bringing "grim presents' with its penal regulation and, in the process, inflicting an immense violence." 234

Consequ e nt l y, the best c h oi c e for p e ople of color who c h oo s e to r e sist white dominance is to r e ject the law, to become "out/laws," since "by r e fusi n g to r elate to We s t e rn o r der, the s e individ u als [*363] ... s ucceed in robbing [Eu r opean s ] of a potent tool for psychological and id e ological enslavemen t." 235


Link: International Law

By definition, international law is a universalizing discourse that assimilates and eliminates native worldviews. This approach guarantees U.S. domination of the globe.


The effects of the September 11 attacks on the United States on human rights and the international legal regimes are best understood as a historical continuum. The unilateral actions taken by the United States under the veil of an allied coalition expose international law as a system of "insider" groups and dominant global interests. The invocation of self-defense as a justification for U.S. military actions in Afghanistan -- and the inability of any state or international institution to question or challenge them -- underscore the biases of international law. Those biases, on which internat i onal law is founded, treat the universe as a th e ater for European and No r th A m erican military, political, economic, and c ultu r al interests. 2 This global white European suprema c y over non- Europ e an p e oples is premi s ed on the notion of Eu r ope as the c e nter of the univers e , Chri s tian i ty as the fountain of c i vili z a tion, the innateness of capitalist e c onomics, and po l itical imperia l ism as a necessit y. 3

In this scheme of international law, the West is the point of reference for the world, and every other country or region is incidental to the [*4] European West. In the current global terror-driven crisis, public discourse implies that the Judeo-Christian tradition is the moral and naturalist foundation of civilization and reason, without which full humanity is unattainable. In historical terms, Christianity was coupled with the colonial project, fusing the church, state, and empire. Capitalism was constructed as innate in humans, and therefore the basis for the regimes of the ownership, protection, and distribution of global resources. Political imp e rialism -- d e fined t oda y as g lobal American leadership -- is an indispe n sable pa r adigm i n the ordering of the relationship b e tween Europeans and n on- E ur o pean p e oples, w ith the m an i fest d u ty o f E urop e an p e op l es t o convey t he g i fts o f civ i l ization t o back w ard and uncivilized races.

Thus i n ter n at i onal law ord e rs the w orld i nto t he Eu r op ean a n d t he non- E ur o pe a n, and g i ves p rima c y t o the forme r . This i s done by c reating the not i on of the hiera r chy of cultur e s and p e ople s . The fundam e ntal principles of i nternat i onal law evidence this infle xible vi ew of the discipline . S o ve r ei gn t y a n d s ta te h ood a re defined in su c h a way as to exclude or subordinate non - European s oc ieties . 4 Membership in international society is a p r erogative of American and Europ e an powers, which alone d ecide who -- and on what terms -- belongs to this intern at i onal s ociety and can benefit fr om the pri vileges of international law. Nowhere has this been more evident than in Afghanistan where the United States has arrogated to itself the right to dismantle the state, and to recreate it. The current crisis leaves no doubt about the identity of the masters of the universe. The international l egal order er e cts, p rese r ves, and advances the European and American domination of the glob e .


Link: International Law

International Law naturalizes the collective identity of the state, legitimizing complete control of the nation by the state apparatus. The plan is not a radical gesture toward the Other, but a way that the state maintains internal domination through the perpetuation of the overall international system.

Trimb l e, Prof. of Law University of California, in 1 990 [Philip, “International Law, World Order, and Critical Legal Studies,” Stanford Law Review, Feb., p. lexis]

A quick look at the "rules" of international law shows why g o v e r n m e n ts l ov e i n ter n ational law. C on t rary to t h e realist/i d ealist v iew of law as a restra i n t on u n r u ly go v er n m e n ts, i n ter n at i o n al law co n fir m s m u ch m o re a u thority a n d p o wer t h an it de n ie s . For example, t h e b asic r u le of i n ter n ati on al law is that a state g e nerally has the ex clusive a u th o rity to re gu late c o nd u ct wit h in its territ o ry. I n ter n atio n al law t h us co n fers a u th o rity to co n tr o l e n try a n d e x it, t o esta b lish po lice co n tr o l, to d e termi n e eco n o mic str u ct u re, t o tax, to reg u late, and to re i n f o rce in m a n y ot h er ways t h e p o w e r a n d le g i t i m a cy of g ov e rn m e n t. Public international law also grants governments sovereignty over air spaceand control over the continental shelf and economic resources 200 miles into the sea.

Of course, each rule conferring authority on a government denies it to all others. The United States government may be restrained in attempts to enforce its law in Canada, and Japanese fisherman may be barred from fishing near California's coast. Nevertheless, governments have little interest in extending their authority to that extent, at least when compared with their interest in controlling matters at home. For the most part, governments do not want to invade other countries or apply their law or send their fishermen to other territories. To be sure, there are exceptions, and these exceptions can be of vital importance to the actors involved. In the aggregate, however, they are less important than the effect of the general rules.

E v en t h e r u les o f pu b lic i n ter n ati on al law t h at e x pressly restrain g o v e r n m e n t a u t h ority may at t h e sa m e t i m e g i v e a g o v e r n m e n t an e x c u se t o i m po se its a u th o ri t y t h r o ug h o u t its own s o ciety so t h at it can effecti v ely d isc h a r g e its ob li g atio n s un d er i n ter n ational law. I n ter n a t i on al hu m an r i gh ts la w , for example, p r o m otes n atio n al judicial re v ie w , general criminal law procedures, an d a h o st of ob j ecti v es t h at can b e st be m e t by assert i ons o f nati o nal g ov er n m ent p o wer, es p ecially a g ai n st v illa g e o r o t h er t ra d iti on al str u c t ure s . For example, a government's international responsibility for injuries to aliens gives that government a mandate to control local officials and practices.

Ev e n wh e n t h e r u les d o p rev e n t a g o v e rn m ent f rom do i ng s o m et h ing t h at i t oth e rwise w a nts to d o , such as denying overflight rights to a hostile state's aircraft (contrary to the Chicago Convention), it m a y decide to forgo the sh ort- term advantag e s d e riv e d f r om violati n g t h ose r u les bec a use it has a n o v e r ridi n g i n t e rest in m a int a ining the o v er a ll syst e m . The rules co m p rising the system as a whole enable each government to achieve welfare goals for important parts of its population, and hence s o li d ify its sta nd i n g and le g it i m ac y . Thus, the United States government may decide not to block transit of Cuban aircraft over United States territory because it derives support from the airline industry [*834] and the traveling public, both of which in turn benefit from transit over Cuba or from the system of which such transit rights are an integral part. T h e r u les of i n t er n atio n al law accordingly are v e ry congen i al to g o v e r n m e n ts. T h ey m o stly j u stify o r le g itimate the practical exercise of s t ate pow e r. n94


Impact: Colonialism T/ the Case

Public health problems and underdevelopment are both products of colonialism. We must address the underlying causes of our contemporary situation.

Charles Mangongera, research fellow with the Mass Public Opinion Institute, September 19, 2002 [“Should We Continue to Blame Colonialism?” Financial Gazette (Harare), http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/africa/2002/0919blame.htm]

These are some of the innu m erable p r obl e ms that Afri c a faces today and the question that should be asked is whether they are the legacy of c olon i alism a n d the perp e tual n e o- c olonial exp l oitat i on of Afri c a's r esource s .

Western imp e rialism should have i ts fair s hare of b l ame for th e se p r o b lems. It is undeni able th at thecontinent has never re c ove r ed f r om the looti n g and pl u nder that i t was s ubje c ted to during the c olon i al era. I t is unden i able that the We st ern world c on tinues to m a k e co n scious a n d deliberate ef fo r ts to exace r bate Afri c a's iso l a t i on in the g l o b al ec o n o m y . I t is true that instead of help i ng Afri c a re c over from the adverse impact of the i r colonial dominat i on, the Western powers have sought ways to alienate Africa in terms of development by prescribing flawed e xperimental economic policies that h ave be e n made a pre c ondition for aid.

The Bretonwoods institutions, the W orld Bank a n d the IMF, h ave fo r mulat e d these policies and they have failed to steer Afri c a to dev e lopment. African l e aders have be e n forc e d to adop t these p olicies in return for aid with ve r y l ittle u n derstanding of w h at the p olicies e n tai l . They have assumed that they could apply the science of muddling through in implementing these policies but it has turned out that the policies are cond e mning the gene r ality of African p e ople to ch r onic poverty.

The point is that the We s tern powers are not seriously co mmitted to h e lping Afri c a r ecover f r om t he a bje c t poverty that it is enme s hed i n following the decades of imperial dom i nat i on and unprecedented asset strippi n g that it was s ubjected to . This explains why today they are not willing to write off Africa's debt or to pay reparations for slavery.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/africa/2002/0919blame.htm



Impact: Extinction

The alternative sparks global decolonization movements that are critical to averting environmental collapse and extinction.

George E. Tinker, Iliff School of Technology, 1996[Defending Mother Earth: Native American Perspectives on Environmental Justice, ed. Jace Weaver, p. 171-72]

My suggestion that we take the recogn i tion of ind i genous sovereignty as a priority is an overreaching one that invo l ves m ore t h an simply j ustice for ind i ge n ous c omm unities ar o u n d the w orl d . I ndeed, such a political move will necessitatea rethinking of c onsumpt i on patt e rns in the No r th, and a shift in the econo m ics of the North will cause a concom i t ant shift also i n the Tw o- th i rds W orld of the Sout h . The relat i vely simple a c t of recognizing the sovereignty of the Sioux Nation and returning to it all state-held lands in the Black Hills (for example, National Forest and National Park lands) would generate imm e diate inter n ational intere s t i n the rights of the indig e nous, tribal p e oples in all state territories. In the United States alone it is estimated that Indian nations still have

legitimate (moral and legal) claim to some two-thirds of the U.S. land mass. Ultimately, such an a c t as return o f N a t i ve l a nds t o Native cont r ol would have a significant ri pp le effe c t on other st ates a r ound the w orld where indigenouspeoples still have aboriginal land claims and suffer the ongoing results of conquest and displacement in their own territories.

American Indian cu l tures and values have much to c o ntribute in the compr e hensive reimagining of the Western value sy s tem that has re s ulted in our c o ntemporary ecoju s ti c e crisi s . The main point that must be made is that there were and are cultures that take their natural environment seriously and attempt to live in balance with the created whole around them in ways that help them not overstep environmental limits. Unlike the West’s consistent experience of alienation from the natural world, these cultures of indigenous peoples consistently experienced themselves as part of the that created whole, in relationship with everything else in the world. They saw and continue to see themselves as having responsibilities, just as every other creature has a particular role to play in maintaining the balance of creation as an ongoing process. This is ultimately the spiritual rationale for annual ceremonies like the Sun Dance or Green Corn Dance. As another example, Lakota peoples planted cottonwoods and willows at their campsites as they broke camp to move on, thus beginning the process of reclaiming the land humans had necessarily trampled through habitation and encampment.

We now know that indigenous rainforest peoples in what is today called the state of Brazil had a unique relationship to the forest in which they lived, moving away from a cleared area after farming it to a point of reduced return and allowing the clearing to be reclaimed as jungle. The group would then clear a new area and begin a new cycle of production. The whole process was relatively sophisticated and functioned in harmony with the jungle itself. So extensive was their movement that some scholars are now suggesting that there is actually very little of what might rightly be called virgin forest in what had been considered the “untamed” wilds of the rainforest.

What I have described here is more than just a coincidence or, worse, some romanticized falsification of Native memory. Rather, I am insisting that there are peoples in the world who live with an acute and cultivated sense of their intimate participation in the natural world as part of an intricate whole. For indigenous peoples, this means that when they are presented with the concept of development, it is sense-less. Most significantly, one must realize that this awareness is the result of self-conscious effort on the part of the traditional American Indian national communities and is rooted in the first instance in the mythology and theology of the people. At its simplest, the worldview of American Indians can be expressed as Ward Churchill describes it:

Human beings are free (indeed, encouraged) to develop their innate capabilities, but only in ways that do not infringe upon other elements – called “relations,” in the fullest dialectical sense of the word – of nature. Any activity going beyond this is considered as “imbalanced,” a transgression, and is strictly prohibited. For example, engineering was and is permissible, but only insofar as it does not permanently alter the earth itself. Similarly, agriculture was widespread, but only within norms that did not supplant natural vegetation.

Like the varieties of species in the world, each culture has contributed to make for the sustainability of the whole. Given the rea l ity of ec o -d ev as t a t i on thr ea teni n g all of life t o da y, the s urvi v al of A m erican I ndian cultures and cultu r al valu e s may m a ke the differe n ce for the surv i v al and sustainabili t y for all the ea r th as we know it . What I have suggested implicitly is that the American Indian p e oples m a y have s o mething of values – s o m e thing correct i v e to Western valu e s and the m o dern world sy st em – to offer to the worl d . The loss of th e se gifts, the l o ss o f the p a rticul a rity o f these pe o ples, t o d a y threatens the s u r v iv a b ility of us a ll . What I am most passionately arguing is that we must c o mm i t to the st r u ggle f o r the j ust a nd m o r a l s u r v iv a l of I ndi an p e o p l es a s peoples of the earth, and that this st r u ggle is for the s a ke of the e a rth and for the sust a ining of a ll life. It is now impe r a t i ve t h at w e c h a nge the modern value of acquisitiveness and the p o litical s y st e ms and e c o n omics that c o n s um pt ion h a s ge n e r a t e d. The k e y to m a ki n g th i s m a ssi v e v a lue shift in t h e world system may lie in the international recognition of indig e nous political so ve r eign t y and se l f-d e terminat i o n . Retu r ning Native lands to the so vereign cont r o l of N a tive p e oples a r ound the world, b e g i nning in the United State s , is not simply just; the sur v iv a l o f a ll may depend on it.


Impact: War

The colonialism of early America is the root cause of wars today—they are extensions of genocidal carnage against native people

Paul Street, author, March 11, 2004.[“Those Who Deny the Crimes of the Past Reflections on American Racist Atrocity Denial, 1776-2004,”http://thereitis.org/displayarticle242.html]

It is e s pecially impo r tant to apprec i ate the signifi c ance of the vicio u s , often explicitly genocidal "homeland" as s a ults on native-Ameri c a ns, which s e t foundational racist and national-narcissi s t patterns for s ubsequ e nt U. S . glo b al bu tche r y , disproportionately directed at non-European people of color. The deletion of the real story of the so-called "battle of Washita" from the official Seventh Cavalry history given to the perpetrators of the No Gun Ri massacre is revealing. D e nial about Wa s hita and Sand Creek (and so on) en c o u r aged US s a vage r y at Wo u nded K n ee, the d e nial of which en co uraged US savage r y in the Philippines, the den i al of w hich encou r aged US savag e ry in Kor e a, the d e nial of whi c h encou r aged US savag e ry in Vietnam, the denial of which (and all before) has r e cently en c o u r ag e d US sa vagery in Afg h anistan and Iraq. I t's a vic i ous circle of recurrent v i olence , well known to mental health practitioners who deal with countless victims of domestic violence living in the dark shadows of the imperial homeland's crippling, stunted, and indeed itself occupied social and political order.

Power- m a d US forces deploying the latest genocidal war tool s , some suggestively named after native tribes that white North American "pioneers" tried to wipe off the face of the earth (ie, "Apache," "Blackhawk," and "Comanche" helicopters) a re w a lking in blo o dy fo o tsteps that t r ace ba c k ac r o ss centuries , oceans, forests and plains to the leveled villages, shattered corpses, and stolen resources of those who Roosevelt acknowledged as America's "original inhabitants." Racist i m perial ca r nage a n d its den i a l , like charity, b egin at h o me . Those wh o deny the cri m es of the pa s t are likely to repeat their offenses in the f u t u re as l o ng as th e y r e tain the means and m o tive t o do s o .

http://thereitis.org/displayarticle242.html


Impact: Environment

Indigenous knowledge is key to achieving an understanding of how to properly manage the environment

B. Rajasekaran, Center for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development, Iowa State, 1993 (“A framework for incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural research, extension, and NGOs for sustainable agricultural development.” Studies in Technology and Social Change No. 21. Technology and Social Change Program, Iowa State University, 1993, http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/004-201/004-201.html)

Indi g en o us kn o wled g e is l o c a l kn o w led g e that is unique to a g i ven c ulture or s o ciety (Warren, 1987). Indigenous knowledge is the systematic body of knowledge acquired by local people through the accumulation of experiences, informal experiments, and intimate understanding of the environment in a given culture (Rajasekaran,1993). According to Haverkort (1991), indigenous knowledge is the actual knowledge of a given population that reflects the experiences based on traditions and includes more recent experiences with modern technologies. Local people, including farmers, landless laborers, women, rural artisans, and cattle rearers, are the custodians of indigenous knowledge systems. Moreover, these p e ople a r e well inform e d about their own situation s , their resource s , what works and doesn ' t wo r k, and how o n e c hange i m pa c ts other pa r ts of their s y s tem (Butler and Waud, 1990).1.2 Value of indigenous knowledgeIndigenous knowledge is dynamic, changing through indigenous mechanisms of creativity and innovativeness as well as through contact with other local and international knowledge systems (Warren, 1991). These knowledge systems may appear simple to outsiders but they represent mechanisms to ensure minimal livelihoods for local people. Ind i g e nous k n o w le d g e s y s t ems o ft en are ela b o ra te, and t hey a re a d a p ted t o l o cal cu l tu r al and environmental cond i tions (Warren, 1987). Indig e nous k nowledge s y stems are tuned to the ne e ds of lo c a l people a n d t h e q u ality and quantity of available re s ou r ces (Pretty and Sandbrook, 1991). They pertain to various cultural norms, social roles, or physical conditions. Their efficiency lies in the capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. According to Norgaard (1984, p. 7): Traditional knowledge has been viewed as part of a romantic past, as the major obstacle to development, as a necessary starting point, and as a critical component of a cultural alternative to modernization. Only very rarely, however, is traditi o n a l kn o wled g e treated as knowledge per se inthe mainstream of the agricultural and development and environmental management literature, as knowledge thatco n tribut e s to our u n derstanding of a g ricultu r al p r od u ction a nd the m a int e nance and use of environmental syst e ms .1.3 Diversity of indigenous knowledgeIndi g e n o us kn o wle d g e s y s t ems a re : adaptive skills of local people usually derived from many years of experience, that have often been communicated through "oral traditions" and learned through family members over generations (Thrupp, 1989), tim e -te s ted agricultu r al and natu r a l re s ource m a nag e ment pra c tic e s, which pave the way for sustainable agriculture (Venkatratnam, 1990), strategies and techniques developed by local people to cope withthe changes in the socio-cultural and environmental conditions, practices that are accumulated by farmers due to constant experimentation and innovation, trial-and-error problem-solving approaches by groups of people with an objective to meet the challenges they face in their local environments (Roling and Engel, 1988), decision-makingskills of local people that draw upon the resources they have at hand.

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/004-201/004-201.html


Impact: Environment

Continued lack of understanding of indigenous people and their practices leads to further decimation of the environment

B. Rajasekaran, Center for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development, Iowa State, 1993 (“A framework for incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural research, extension, and NGOs for sustainable agricultural development.” Studies in Technology and Social Change No. 21. Technology and Social Change Program, Iowa State University, 1993, http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/004-201/004-201.html)

2.7 Consequences of disregarding indigenous knowledge systems Undermining fa r mers' confid e nce in their t r adit i o nal knowledge can lead them to become incr e a s ingly depend e nt on outside expe r tise (Richards, 1985; Warren, 1990). Small-scale farmers are often portrayed as backward, obstinately conservative, resistant to change, lacking innovative ability, and even lazy (IFAP, 1990, p. 24). The International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) enumerated

certain reasons for such a perception: L a ck o f u n ders t a n ding of t r ad i ti o nal agricu l tu r e w hich f urt h er leads t o a communication gap between promoters a n d p r actit i one r s g i ving rise t o m y th s ; The a ccomplishm en ts of farme r s often are not re c ogni z ed, because th e y are not r ecorded in w r iting or m a de known; and Poor invo l vement of farmers and their organ i za tions in integ r ating, consol i dating, and disseminating what is already known. One of the greate s t c o ns e quences of the unde r -utili z ati o n of indig e nous knowledge sy s tems, acco r ding to Atteh (1992, p. 20), is the: L o ss a n d n o n-utiliz a ti o n of indi g en o us knowled g e [which] r e sults in the inefficient allocat i on of re s ources and manpower to in a ppropriate p l anning s t r a t e gies which have done little to allev i ate r u ral p ove rt y. With li t tle c on ta c t w ith ru ra l people, pl an ning e x pe r ts a nd s t a te fun c tio n aries ha ve attempted to i mplement p r ograms which do not me e t the goals of ru ra l people, or affect the st r uctures and process e s that perp e tuate ru ral pove rt y. Human and natural re s ources in ru r a l ar e a s have r e main e d inefficient l y used or not us e d at all. There is little congruence between planning objectives and realities facing the rural people. Planners think they know wh at is g o od f o r these ̀ p o o r', ̀ ba ckw ard', `ig n o ra nt', and ` pri m itive' p e ople. 2.8 Need for a conceptual framework Despite continuous importance given to linkages between research-extension-farmer while developing, disseminating, and utilizing sustainable agricultural technologies, several socio-political and institutional factors act as constraints for such an effective linkage (Oritz et al.,1991). After a decade of rhetoric about feedback of farmers' problems to extension workers and scientists, a large gap remains between the ideal and reality (Haugerud and Collinson, 1991). Kaimowitz (1992: 105) provided illustrations to support the above statement: Resea r chers perceived ex t e nsion agents and in s ti t utions to be ineffective and uncl e ar about their mandate, making researchers r e luctant to wo r k with e x t e ns i o n. Wh e n re s e a rchers did w o rk with e x t e nsion age n ts, they ten d ed to look down on them and view them as little more than a v a il a ble meni a l l a b o r, a n attitude str o n g ly resented by the extens i o n w o rker s . Keeping these pot e ntial c o n s t r aints in c o n v e ntio n al tr a ns f er o f te c h n o l o g y , a frame w ork fo r incor p o r ati n g ind i ge n o us kno w le d ge s y s tems into agr i cultu r al research and ex tension has been d e velop e d with the fol l owing s a lient feature s : str e ngthening the capacities of r egio n al res e a r ch a nd e x tensi o n o r g a niz a tions; buildi n g upon l o c a l people's kn o wled g e that are acquired through various processes such as farmer-to-farmer communication, and farmer experimentation; identifying the need for extension scientist/ social scientist in an interdisciplinary regional research team; formation of a sustainable technologydevelopment consortium to bring farmers, researchers, NGOs, and extension workers together well ahead of the process of technology development; generating technological options rather than

fixed technical packages (Chambers et al., 1989); w o rking w ith the e x isti n g o r g a ni z a tion a n d managem en t of r e sear c h and p ublic sector extens i o n; bringing research-extension-farmer together at all stages is practically difficult considering the existing bureaucracies and spatial as well as academic distances among the personnel belonging to these organizations. Hence, utilizing the academic knowledge gained by some extension personnel (subject matter specialists) during the process of validating

farmer experiments; outlining areas that research and extension organizations need to concentrate on during the process of working with farmers. u nderst a nding that i t is impracti c a l to depe n d e n tir e ly on res e a rch stat i o ns for i n novations c o n sidering the i n ade q uate h u m a n resource capacity of the r e gional res e a rch syst e m. Chambers and Jiggins (1987, p.5) supported the need for such a framework: The transfer of technology (TOT) model fits badly with the needs and priorities of resource-poor farmers. Agricultural extension programs are still biased towards techniques and strategies which are capital-intensive. Resource-poor farmers (RPF) are scattered and are not able to make their needs and priorities readily known and felt. The TOT model cannot easily handle the complex interactions of RPF farming; links between crops, especially with intercropping and multiple tiers; agro-forestry and livestock-crop-tree complementaries; and the progressive adjustments required in the field in the face of seasonal and inter-annual fluctuations

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/004-201/004-201.html


Impact: State Key to Capitalism

Without the state to prop it up, the entire capitalist system would fall apart, from the top down.Preston 2003. (Keith, Essayist at American Revolutionary Vangaurd, "Philosophical Anarchism and the Death ofEmpire" www.attackthesystem.comlphilo.html)

Conventional theories of political economy typically portray "Big Business" and "Big Government" as natural antagonists of one another. The "left" champions the state as the protector of the little guy from the predatory corporation while the "right" champions the corporation as the hapless victim of predatory government bureaucrats.(41) However, the present co r porate system could not exi s t without the favo r s gr a nt e d t o c o r po r at i o ns by t he s t a t e in the f o rm of subs i dies, inf r a s tructure, cent r al banking, the s tate monopoly ov e r the p r odu c tion of curr e n c y, tariff s , m o n o p o ly pri v ilege, contr a c t s, b a il o u ts, g u a ra nt ee s, milit a ry inter v enti o n , p a tents, the suppressi o n o f l a b o r, re g ulat o ry f a v o rs, pr o tectionist tr a d e le g istlati o n , limited li a bility a n d c o r p o rate pers o nho o d l a ws a n d much els e . Similarly, the state's legistlative process and executive hierarchy is beholden to the corporate interests who fund the electoral system and provide the bureaucratic elite among the military, foreign policy and "international trade" establishments. Condoleeza Rice's migration from Chevron to the National Security Council is no mere coincidence. T he a ma l gam o f Big B usiness a n d Big G ov e rnmen t , c o n so lidated o n an i nter n at i o n a l s cale, represents a c ent r a li z ation of wealth and power of so g r eat a d e gree as to jeopa r dize the future of humanit y .What sort of economic order would accompany the political victory of anarchism? Econ o mic decent r ali z ation w o uld naturally follow political dec e ntrali z ation. As the massive, bureaucratic nation- states currently being incorporated into the New World Order collapsed and disapp e a r ed, the c o rpo r ate entities prop p ed up and protected by the s e states would al s o vanis h . Just as the dissolution of centralized political power would result in the sovereignty and self-determination of communities and associations, so would these entities be able to develop their own unique economic identities. Economic resources of all t y pes, fr o m land to industri a l f a cilities to infr a s tructure to h i g h techn o lo g y , would f a ll into the hands o f pa r ticular co mmunities a n d p o pu l ar organi z a tion s . Such entities would likely organize themselves into a myriad of economic institutions. It can be expected that workers would play a much greater leadership role in the formation of future economies as workers access to resources and bargaining power, both individuallyand collectively, would likely be greatly enhanced. The re s ult would likely be an e c onomic order where the worker-o r iented e nterp r ise re p laces the cap i talist corpo r at i o n as the dominant mode of economic organization.

http://www.attackthesystem.comlphilo.html/


Impact: State Key to Capitalism

State sovereignty is a fundamental pillar of the capitalist economy

Immanuel Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar in Sociology at Yale, 1997[States? Sovereignty? The Dilemmas of Capitalists in an Age of Transition, http://fbc.binghamton.edu/iwsovty.htm]

The sovereignty of the st ates - their inward and outward sovereignty within the framework of an interstate system -is a fund a ment a l pill a r of the c a p i t a list world-econ o my . If it f a lls, o r seri o usly declines, c a pit a lism is unte n able as a sy s tem . I agree that it is in decline today, for the first time in the history of the modern world- system. This is the primary sign of the acute crisis of capitalism as an historical system. The essential dilemma of capitalists, singly and as a class, is whether to take full short-run advantage of the weakening of the states, or to try short-run repair to restore the legitimacy of the state structures, or to spend their energy trying to construct an alternative system. Behind the rhetoric, intelligent defenders of the status quo are aware of this critical situation. While they are trying to get the rest of us to talk about the pseudo-issues of globalization, some of them at least are trying to figure out what a replacement system could be like, and how to move things in that direction. If we don't want to live in the future with the inegalitarian solution that they will promote, we should be asking the same question.

Neo-liberalism dependent upon the state for implementation of its policy goalsChris Harman, Marxist, 2001(ANTI-CAPITALISM: THEORY AND PRACTICE, http://www.marxists.de/anticap/theprax/part2.htm)

Although neo-liberalism as an id e o logy oppos e s s tate i nte r v ent i on, the p r acti c a l implementat i on of these policies always depe n ded on the state - or at least bargaining between the world's most powerful states. This is why its implement a t i o n thr o u g h i n ternat i o nal t r ade and busin e ss m e etings has b ee n far from s m ooth. The Financial Times can still worry that something as apparently trivial as the row between Europe and the US over banana imports "could be escalating transatlantic retaliation that would bring the already enfeebled WTO to its knees". There are similarly intractable disputes over what preparations the IMF should make for intervention in any further international financial crisis like that which hit Asia in 1997. The "the o rists" o f ne o -liber a lism do not themse l ves have any e a s y answers to these conflicts. F or although their creed pr e a ches non-inte r v e ntion by the s tate, it has been an id eo logy r e flecting the needs of the state-i n du s trial c o mpl e x e s of the US, the Europ e an powers and Ja p a n in t h eir co l lisions with ea ch oth e r and the world's sm aller state s .

http://www.marxists.de/anticap/theprax/part2.htm

http://fbc.binghamton.edu/iwsovty.htm


A2: Perm

Must insist on hierarchies—The Alternative must be a priority or it risks being neutralized as just any other political issue

Ward Churchill 2003 (Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder, BA and MA inCommunications from Sangamon State, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, Page 8)

Turning to America’s vaunted “opposition,” we find record of not a single significant demonstration protesting the wholesale destruction of Iraqi children. O n balance, U . S., “p r ogr e ssive s ” ha ve d e vot e d far m o re t i me and ener g y over t he p a st de c a d e t o c o m b ati n g the i m agi na ry h e al t h e f fe c ts of “e n v i r o n men t a l t o b a c c o s m ok e ” a n d demanding installation of s peed bumps in suburban neighborhood s —that is, to increasing their own c o mfo r t level—t h an to a n ything akin to a c o her en t res p o nse to the U.S. g e noc i de in Iraq. The underlying mentality is symbolized quite well in the fact that, since they were released in the mid-1990s, Jean Baudrillard’s allegedly “radical” screed. The Gulf War Did Not Take Place, has outsold Ramsey Clark’s The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq, prominently subtitled The Children are Dying, by a margin of almost three to one. The t h eoreti c al t r aj e cto r y entered into by much of the Americ a n left over the pa s t qua r ter-c e ntury e x hibits a mark e d t e nd e ncy to t r y and j u stify su ch evas i o n a n d sq u a lid self-indulgence t h r ou g h the ex p edient of reje c ting “hie r a rc h y, in all its for m s . ” Since “hierar c hy” may be tak e n to include “anything resembling an order of prioritie s ,” we are fac e d thereby with the absurd c o ntent i on that a l l issues are of equal i m po r tance (as in the mindless slogan, “There is no hierarchy to oppression”). From ther e , it bec o mes ax i o matic t h at t he “pr i vilegin g ” of a n y is s ue o v er a n oth e r-ge n o c ide, s a y, over fan n y-pinchi n g in the wor k place—be c o m es not on l y e v idence of “elit i sm,” but of “s e x ism , ” and o ften “ h o mo p hob i a” t o bo ot (as in the popular formulation holding that Third World anti- imperialism is inherently nationalistic, and nationalism is inherently damaging to the rights of women and gays). Having thus foreclosed upon all options for concrete engagement as mere “reproductions of the relations of oppression,” the left h a s l a r g ely neutr a lized itsel f , a matter reflected most conspicuously in the applause it bestowed upon Homi K. Bhabha’s preposterous 1994 contention that writing,which he likens to “warfare,” should be considered the only valid revolutionary act. One might easily conclude that had the “opposition” not conjured up such “postmodernist discourse” on its own initiative, it would have been necessary for the status quo to have invented it. As it is, postmodernist theorists and their post-colonialist counterparts are finding berths at elite universities at a truly astounding rate. To be fair, it must be admitted that there remain appreciable segments of the left which do not subscribe to the sophistries imbedded in postmodernism’s “failure of nerve.” Those who continue to assert the value of direct action, however, have for the most part so thoroughly constrained themselves to the realm of symbolic/ritual protest as to render themselves self-nullifying. One is again hard-pressed to decipher whether this has been by default or design. While such comportment is all but invariably couched in the lofty—orsanctiomonious—terms of “principled pacifism,” the practice of proponents often suggests something far less noble.


A2: Realism

Realism is informed by colonialist views of human nature that depict the savage native as proof of the need for the state. This serves to absolve the state of its role in genocide Anthony J. Hall, Department of Native American Studies University of Lethbridge, April 15, 1999

[“Ethnic Cleansing of Native North American People,”http://www.akha.org/content/international/ethniccleansingofnorthamericanindigenouspeople.html]

To now read all these years later Mr. McKayís dismissive comments about Bruce Clark as the infamous loser in Temagami and countless and other cases, raises the question of strange argumentative concoctions youídneed to win before a judge with the deep prejudices and sparce historical knowledge of a Mr. Justice Steele. While I thought he wasthe last word in judicial ethnocentrism, Mr. Justice Allan McEachernmanaged to outdo his Ontario counterpart in the ruling of the lowercourt on the Delgamuukw case. Mr. McEachern , who doubles as chair of the judgeís own self regulating body, pronounced t h at I n dians have almo s t no thi n g of w o r t h to retain for either the m selves or the w o rld from their o w n Ind i ge n o us cultures. To make this po i nt, the BC ju r ist actually quot e d Thomas Hobbes, who us e d imaginary No r th Ameri c a n I ndians in 1 6 5 1 , to a r gue t h at life with o u t a dictatori a l ruler is “ n a st y , brutish and s ho r t . ” Accordingly, to properly understand the genesis of Dr. Clarkís legalinterpretation, you need to know someting of the nature of his formative experiences with judges that, in my view, were unusually extreme in their ethnocentric hostility to Indian peoples and Indian cultures. Whatemerged for him from this experience, was a dawning recognition that t h e st a kes of the c o n t ent i ons o v e r A b ori g i n al a nd t r e a ty rig h ts are s o b i g, and the le g a c y o f le g a l imp r oprie t y s o old and so w ell p r ote c ted by layer upon l a yer of dubious and ove r t l y ra cist legal pre c edent, that it is a lmost un i ma g inable that a ny jud g e w o uld take the resp o nsibility o f ove r tu r ning this status q uo-- of ove r turn i ng this in s tit u tio n a li z ed c o mplicity in g en o cide th a t is so d eeply i n grain e d in the f r ame w ork o f No r th Ameri c a n e x perience that i t is m a de to seem nor m al and natu r a l and simply a f a ct o f life.

http://www.akha.org/content/international/ethniccleansingofnorthamericanindigenouspeople.html


A2: Extinction

By presenting nuclear extinction as the single most important impact, the AFF naturalizes and legitimizes the on-going colonization of the indigenous periphery.

Masahide Kato, Professor of Political Science, University of Hawaii, 1993[“Nuclear Globalism: Traversing Rockets, Satellites, and Nuclear War via the Strategic Gaze,” Alternatives, p.351]

By repres e nt i ng the possible e x tincti o n as the si n g le m o s t im p o r t a n t p roble m a tic of nuclear ca ta st rophe (posing it as either a threat or a symbolic void), nucl e ar cr i ticism disqua l ifies the entire history of nu c lear violence, the "real" of nucl e ar c a ta s trop h e as a continuous and rep e t i tive proce s s . The "real" of nuclear war is designated by nuclear critics as a "rehearsal" (Derrik De Kerkbove) or "preparation" (Firth) for what they reserve as the authentic catastrophe. The history of nuclear violence offers, at best, a reality effect to the imagery of "extinction." Schell summarized the discursive position of nuclear critics very succinctly, by stating that nuclear catastrophe should not be conceptualized "in the context of direct slaughter of hundreds of millions people by the local effects." Thus the eliminat i o n o f the histo r y o f n uc lear v i o l ence by nuclear critics st e ms from the p r ocess of discurs i ve "delo c ali z ati o n" of nucl e ar violence. The i r prima r y fo c us is n o t l o c a l ca t a s tr o phe, b ut del o c a lized, unl o cat a ble, "gl o b a l " c a t a str o phe .

The elevation of the discursive vantage point deployed in nuclear criticism through which extinction is conceptualized parallels that of the point of the strategic gaze: nuclear criticism raises the not i on of nuclear cata s trophe to the "ab s olut e " p o int f r om which the fict i o n of " e xt i nct i o n" is c o nf i g u red . Herein, the configuration of the globe and the conceptualization of "extinction" reveal their interconnection via the "absolutization" of the strategic gaze. In the same w a y as the fict i o n of the t o t a lity o f the e a r th is cons tr uc te d, the fiction of e x tin c tion is d e riv e d from the figure perce i ved th r o ugh the st ra tegic ga z e. In other words, the image o f the g lobe, in t he fi n a l ins t anc e , is no t hing m o re th a n a figure on w hich the not i on o f e x t i ncti o n is be i ng c o n str uc ted . Schell, for instance, repeatedly encountered difficulty in locating the subject involved in the conceptualization of extinction, which in turn testifies to its figural origin: "who will suffer this loss, which we somehow regard as supreme? We, the living, will not suffer it; we will be dead. Nor will the unborn shed any tears over their lost chance to exist; to do so they would have to exist already."


A2: Cap Good

Capitalism guarantees the extermination of the indigenous periphery. It is part of the logic of colonization

Masahide Kato, Professor of Political Science, University of Hawaii, 1993[“Nuclear Globalism: Traversing Rockets, Satellites, and Nuclear War via the Strategic Gaze,” Alternatives, p.347]

The v i go r ous in v a sion o f the logic o f c a pi t a list accu m ul a tion in t o the l a st ve s ti g e o f r el a tive l y au to no m o us space in the p eriphery und e r late capitali s m is p r opelled not on l y b y the desire for incor p o r ati n g every fabric of the society into the d i vision of l a bor but also by the d e sire for "pu re " de s tru c tion /exterminat i on of the peripher y . The penetration of capital into the social fabric and the destruction of nature and preexisting social organizations by capital are not separable. However, what we have witnessed in the phase of late capitalism is a rapid intensification of the destruction and extermination of the periphery. In this context, capital is no longer interested in incorporating some parts of the periphery into the international division of labor. The em e rgence of such "pur e " destru c tion /exterminat i on of the periphe r y can be e x plain e d, at lea s t partially, by another pr o blem a tic of late c a pit a lism formulated by Ernest Mandel: the m a ss pro d uct i on of the m e ans of destru c ti o n. P a rticu l a rly, the latest ph a s e of c a pit a lism distin g uishes i t self f r om the earlier phases in its p r oduction of the "ultim a te" me a ns of d es truction /exte r minat i on, ie., nuclear weapon s .


A2: Identity/Land K

Land Key to Culture

Land is the cornerstone for Indigenous culture: governance, ancestry and religion, society, all depend on it.Babcock, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 2005 (Hope M.; A Civic-Republican Vision of "Domestic Dependent Nations" in the Twenty-First Century: Tribal Sovereignty Re-envisioned, Reinvigorated, and Reempowered; 2005 Utah L. Rev. 443; Lexis; JLS)

But it is said, that they are averse to society and a social life. Can anything be more inapplicable than this to a people who always live in towns or clans? Or can they be said to have no "republique," who conduct all their affairs in national councils, who pride themselves in their national character, who consider an insult or injury done to an individual by a stranger as done to the whole, and who resent it accordingly. In short, this picture is not applicable to any nation of Indians I have ever known or heard of in North America. n418[*537] The republican principle of h avi n g a place w ithin w hich to p r a c tice the a r t of being a g o o d citi z en is (and always has b e en) c e nt r a l to tribal s o ciety . Indian tribes h ave al wa ys ha d a c o nce p t of territo r y and boundaries. Most tribes assigned hunting terr i tories to villages or lineages, which other trib e s and tribal m em bers knew of and respe c te d . n419 Tribes also recognized (and still recogni z e ) te r rito r y through mythi c al or sacred claims, and the bur i a l sites of lin ea ges and clans mark e d terr i tory for m o s t, i f not all tribe s . n420T o da y , a tribe's tradition a l h o me l a nd is the "c e nterpi e ce of c o nt e mpora r y Ind i an l ife . " n421 Trib a l lands and the i r resources a r e not on l y su st aining for the tribe, but are the tribe's cu l tu r al and spiritu a l base - where ancestors are buried, and spirits live - and the very topography can provide cleansing and rebirth. n422You c a n n ot u ndersta n d ho w the I ndian thinks of him s elf in relation to the world around him unless y o u u nder s t an d his c o nc e pt i on of w h a t is app r opr i at e ; pa r ticularly w hat is m o r a lly app r opr i ate within the context of that relationship. The nat i ve American ethic with r e spect to the physi c al w o rl d is a matter of reciprocal appropriation: appropriations in which man invests himself in the landscape, and at the same time incorpo r ates the landscape into his own most fun d am e ntal experience. n423


A2: Identity/Land K

Land Key to Culture

Land is an integral part of Indigenous culture; it shapes who they are and allows them to retain aspects of their ways of life that would otherwise be lost.Babcock, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 2005 (Hope M.; A Civic-Republican Vision of "Domestic Dependent Nations" in the Twenty-First Century: Tribal Sovereignty Re-envisioned, Reinvigorated, and Reempowered; 2005 Utah L. Rev. 443; Lexis; JLS)

To lose the hu nting ground was to a Cherokee like l o si n g the Latin mass to a conservativeRoman Catholic. A sacred, ancient, and app a rently time l ess t r adit i o n - som e thi n g that God or theGreat Spirit had w ritt e n i n to the fu n dam en tal s tru c ture o f t hings - was gone forever. n188Land is the sine qua non of tribal sovereignty. M a int a ining a sep a r a te l a nd b a se is cr i tic a l f o r tribes not only because of land's physical attributes and the legal consequences that flow from having a tribal homeland, but becau s e it allows Indians to " remain[] indelibly Ind i an, proudly defini n g t he m sel v es as a pe o ple a p a r t and resist i ng full i nc o r p o r a t i o n i nto the dominant s o ciety around th e m " ; n189 - a concept Wilkinson calls measured separatism. n190Historically, and still today, tribal members rely on the wildlife and plants found on or near their reservations for subsistence, medicine, and traditional ceremonies. Tribes also lease their landsto energy companies for development of subsurface resources n191 and disposal of waste material, n192 and operate a variety of commercial enterprises like hotels, ski resorts, andgambling casinos. n193 T hey depend u p on the p r odu c tivity of the s e lan d s to s u p p ort m ultigene r at i o n a l habitation as an im p o r tant, enduri n g, a n d unique f e atu r e of I n dian cu l tur e . n194Rese r v a ti o n s also g i ve trib e s a se p a r a te, p hysi c al place that they can [*487] close to non-Indians - enab l ing them to r e main free from the influen c e of white soc i ety and to retain the unique aspe c ts of their culture s . n195Tribes without land find it more difficult to gain federal recognition and government-to-government status with the federal government. n196 Nonrecognition means that tribes cannot assumeprimary regulatory authority under federal pollution control laws for activities that take place on their reservations. n197 Nonrecognized tribes cannot develop casinos as a source of tribalincome n198 and are ineligible for much-needed financial and technical assistance under a hostof federal programs. n199The reservation also performs an important legal function for tribes, as the Court considers the presence of tr i bal land to be a pre c ondit i on for the e x e r cise of tribal s overe i gnt y . n200 For example, on its reservation, with the exception of [*488] certain crimes, n201 a tribe exercisesfull jurisdiction over the activities of its members. n202 But, the sovereign authority of a tribe overits members lessens as the member moves away from the reservation boundaries, and, on the reservation, the sovereign immunity disappears entirely over non-Indians on non-Indian inholdings. The loss of authority is discussed in greater detail in the next section of this Article. n203[*489] W hat i s ha r der for n o n-Ind i ans to under s tand, and less o b vio u s to us g i ven our m o re mobile, ro otl e ss wa y of lif e , is t h at tribes h ave a mult i -g e ner a tio n al, cu ltural b o nd to their l a nd t ha t makes t h at land u nique a n d n o nfu n gible. n 2 04 T o a tribe, its reser v a ti o n is its "cu l tur a l centerpiec e ”


A2: Identity/Land K

Land Key to Culture

There’s no chance of offense here, land provides the internal link to all facets of Indigenous culture and ways of life.Bradford, Chiricahua Apache. LL.M., 2001, Harvard Law School; Ph.D., 1995, Northwestern University; J.D., 2000,

University of Miami. Assistant Professor of Law, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2003 (William; "With aVery Great Blame on Our Hearts": n1 Reparations, Reconciliation, and an American Indian Plea for Peace with Justice;27 Am. Indian L. Rev. 1; Lexis; JLS)

The relat i o n s hip betwe e n the la n d and I ndian p e ople i s f u n d ame n tal to their p h ys i cal and c ultu r al surv i val as di s tinct, a u t o no mous g r o u ps. Indian l a n d is con s tit u tive o f t he I n dian c ultu r al ident i t y n111 and desig n at i v e of the bo u n d a ries of the I ndian cu l tu r al un i vers e . n112 Indian land transmits knowledge about history, links people to their ancestors, and provides a code of appropriatemoral behavior. From the moment of first contact with European "discoverers," [*26] In di a ns proclaim e d a sacred responsibility to preserve and t r ansmit Indian land, and with i t, id e ntity, religion, and c ulture, to s uc c essive gene r a tion s . n113 The discharge of that responsibility was compromised by federal policies of land acquisition ranging from fraud and deceit to expropriation and outright theft.Throughout the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, prudence directed Euro-Americans to formally recognize militarily potent Indian tribes as independent societies and accord them diplomatic recognition as sovereigns. n114 Even subsequent to the defeats of France in the Seven Years' War in 1763 and Britain in the War of Independence in 1781, the Euro-American foothold in North America remained tenuous, and ongoing military insecurity stymied territorial ambitions while stifling any notions of conquest. Moreover, the United States' land hunger waslargely slaked by available space within the original thirteen colonies, and land acquisitions from Indian tribes were of necessity accomplished by treaties of cession n115 after peaceful negotiations. n116 [*27] Still, if during its first se v er a l dec a des of e x istence the fled g ling government was oblig e d to r ecogni z e the s overe i gnty of Indian nat i ons and to re s p e ct Indian land titles as a m a t ter of i n ter n a t i o nal a n d d o m estic law, n117 from the mo ment of its cr e at i o n the United S t a tes w a s c r a f ting legal sol u tio n s to the "p r o bl e ms c a used by the . . . fa c t t h at the Ind i ans were here when the white man arr i ved[.]"

Land is the center of Indigenous culturePommersheim, Professor of Law at South Dakota University, 1993 (Frank; Making All the Difference: The NativeAmerican Testimony and the Black Hills; 69 N. Dak. L. Rev. 337; Lexis; JLS)

Such a wide-ranging legal and historical controversy as the Black Hills issue inevitably requires that analytic attention be paid to context and situatedness. For the Sioux Nation, l a nd re s to r a t i on is a c o rner s tone cultural co mmitme n t. Economic considerations are important, but not as central.The Black Hills land is of pr i ma r y importance be c a use of its s a crednes s , its nexus to the cultural well being of L a kota pe o ple, and its r o le as a me d iator i n their relat i o nsh i p with a ll o ther li v ing thin g s . As noted by Gerald Clifford, Chairman of the Black Hills Steering Committee, "until we g e t back on tra c k in our relationship to the e a rth, we c a nn o t s t r a igh t en o ut any of o ur rel a t i o nships to ourse l ves, to other people." n68L a nd is inherent to Lakota people. It is their cultu r al cent e rpiece - the fulcrum of m a t e rial and spiritual well being. Without it, there is n e ither balance nor c e nte r . The Black Hills are a central part of this "sacred text" and constitute its prophetic core:As part of the "sacred text," the land - like sacred texts in other traditions - is not primarily a bookof answers, "but rather a principal symbol of, perhaps the principal symbol of, and thus a central occasion of recalling and heeding, the fundamental aspirations of the tradition." It summons the heart and the spirit to difficult labor. In this sense, the "sacred text" constantly disturbs - it servesa prophetic function in the life of the community. The land, therefore, constantly e v okes the f und a m ent a l L a kota a s pira ti o ns to li v e in h a rm o n y wi th Mo th er E a r th a nd to emb o dy the traditi o n a l v irtues o f wisdom, c o ur ag e , gener o sit y , and f o rtitude. The "sacred text" itself guarantees nothing, but it does hold the necessary potential to successfully mediate the past of the tradition with its present predicament.


A2: Churchill Indicts

Don’t believe any of this nonsense. All the evidence proves that the charges are simply politically motivated and are just empty assertions.MAYER 2006 (Tom, Professor of Sociology at Colorado University, "The Report on WardChurchill," June 1 9, http://www.swans.com/library/art 1 2/zig094.html)

By addressi n g on l y a tiny f r a g ment o f his w ritings, the r epo r t implies th a t Wa r d tries t o ove r a w e and hoodwink his readers with s purious d o c u mentat i o n . Anyone who r e ads an es sa y like "N i ts Make Lice: The Exterminat i on of No r th Ameri c a n In dians 1607- 1996" wi th its 6 1 2 f o o t n o tes w i ll get a ve r y different imp r essio n . Chur c hill , they will see, goes far beyond most writers of broad historical overviews in trying to support his claims. He often cites s e veral r e feren c es in t h e s a me footnot e . Wa rd is de e ply engag e d with the ma terials he refer e nces and frequ e ntly c o mments e x t e nsively upon th e m. He typically mou n ts a r u n ning cr i tique of a u t h ors like James Axtell, Steven Katz, and Deborah Lipstadt. Readers will see that Churchill is familiar with a formidable variety of materials and can engage in a broad range of intellectual discourses.Like most scholars, Chur c hill practices an implicitly Bayesian (a statistical term) form of analysis. That is, he e valuates the plausibility of asser t i o ns and the cred i bility of e v id e nce partly on the basis of his prior beliefs. That government officials connived in generating the 1837-40 smallpox epidemic seems far moreplausible to Ward than to the investigating committee precisely because he thinks this is what Americangovernments are inclined to do. He dis c ounts many of the so- c alled pri m ary s o urces c i ted in the report bec a use their a uth o r s despise Indians o r w ish to c o nce a l their o w n cu l p a bility in spreading the epidemic. And cont r a r y to what the r e po r t s ay s , ma ny first r a te s c hola r s foc u s on p r ovi n g the i r own hypot h eses rather than co nsidering all avail a ble evid e nce ev e n-handedly. Ein s t e in, for e xa m ple, spent the la s t three decades of his life try i ng to disp ro ve quantum me c hanics while l a rge l y disr e garding e v iden c e in its fa vo r . This is not r e sear c h miscondu ct . The ope r ational d e finition of a c ademic misconduct used bythe investigating committee is so b r oad t h at virtually anyone who writes a n y thing might be f o und guilt y . Not footnoting an empirical claim is misconduct. Citing a book without giving a page number is misconduct.Referencing a source that only partially supports an assertion is misconduct. Referencing contradictory sources without detailing their contradictions is misconduct. Citing a work considered by some to beunserious or inadequate is misconduct. Footnoting an erroneous claim without acknowledging the error ismisconduct. Interpreting a text differently than does its author is misconduct. Ghost writing an article is misconduct. Referencing a paper one has ghost written without acknowledging authorship is misconduct. No doubt t his list of t r an s g ress i ons c o uld be g reat l y e x p a n d ed . I strongly suspect that ma ny people who vo c i ferously supp o rt the rep o rt h a ve read neither it nor a n y bo o k o r essay W a rd Churchill has e v er written. Perhaps this shou l d be d eemed a form of a c ad e mic misconduct.

http://www.swans.com/library/art


A2: Churchill Indicts

The plagiarism claims against Churchill are not only false, but grossly unfair compared to other authors who did the exact same thing!MAYER 2006 (Tom, Professor of Sociology at Colorado University, "The Report on Ward Churchill," June 19, http://www.swans.com/library/art l2/zig094 .html)

I have finally finished a careful reading of the 124 page report about the alleged academicmisconduct of Ward Churchill. Often, but not always, I have been able to compare the

statements in the report with the relevant writings of Professor Churchill. Alt h o u gh the repo r t b y the committee on research mis c onduct cle a rly ent a iled pr o d i g i o us l a b o r, it is a flawed document requiringcareful analysis. The c e nt r a l flaw in the r e po r t is gro t e s que e x aggeration about the magnitude and g ra v ity o f the impr o prieties c o mmitted by W a rd Churchill. The s a nct i o n s rec o mmended by the invest i g ating c o mmittee are entirely o u t of whack with those i m po s ed upon su c h l u minaries as Stephen Amb r ose, Do r is Kea r ns G oodwin, and L a wrence Tri b e, all of whom c o mmitted plagiarisms far more egreg i o us than anything attributed to Professor Churchill.The text of the report suggests that the committee's judgments about the seriousness ofChurchill's misconduct were contaminated by political considerations. This becomes evident on page 97

where the committee acknowledges that "damage done to the reputation of ... the University of Colorado as an academic institution is a consideration in our assessment of the seriousness of Professor Churchill's conduct." Whatever damage the University may have sustained by employing Ward Churchill derives fromhis controversial political statements and certainly not from the obscure footnoting practices nor disputed authorship issues investigated by the committee. Indeed, the two plagiar i sm charg e s r e fer to publications that are now fou r teen y e ars old. Although these c ha r ges had been made y e ars e a rlier, they were not c o nsidered worthy o f in v esti g ation until W a rd Churchill bec a me a p o litic a l c a use celebr e . Using institutional reputation to measure misconduct severity amounts to importing politics through the back door. The rep o rt c l aims th a t Pr o f ess o r Churchill enga g ed in f a bric a t i o n a n d f a lsific a tio n . To make these claims it stretches the meaning of these words almost beyond recognition. Fabric a t i o n i mplies a n intent to deceive. T he r e is not a shr e d of e v idence that the w r itings of Ward Churchill c o ntain any asse r t i o n that he himself did not beli e v e . The language used in the report repeatedly drifts in an inflammatory direction: disagreement becomes misinterpretation, misinterpretation becomes misrepresentation, misinterpretation

becomes falsification. Ward may be wrong about who was considered an Indian under the GeneralAllotment Act of 1887 or about the origins of the 1837-1840 smallpox epidemic among the Indians of the northern plains, but the report does not establish that only a lunatic or a liar could reach his conclusions on the basis of available evidence.




AFF: Perm

Insisting that the government comply with the law is an effective way to recognize our complicity in the maintenance of a colonial order.

Natsu Saito, professor of law at Georgia State University, December 2004[“Like a Disembodied Shade: Colonization and Internment as the American Way of Life,” Bad Subjects 71,http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/71/saito.html]

The other opt i on l e ft us is to follow the advice of Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson who, in his capacity as the chief U.S. prosecutor for the Nuremberg Tribunal (1945), stated, "We are able to do away with domestic t y r a nny a n d vi o lence and ag g ression by t h ose in p o w er a gain s t the ri g hts of t heir o w n p e ople only w hen w e m a ke a ll men a nswerable to the l a w." In this spirit we c a n insist t h a t the go v ernm e nt which purports to represent us c o mp l y with the rule of l a w – as a r ticulated in b o th t he U . S. C o nsti t ut i o n a nd in inte r nat i o n a l law – in all of its a c tions and with respe c t to all territori e s and p e oples over whom it exercises juri s diction. To the e x tent we f a il to do so w e a re c o mplicit in, a n d ther e fore responsible fo r , the m a i nte n a nce of a c o l o n i a l o rder in which l a w ser v es only to pr o tect a nd pri v ile g e the c o lonizer s .

Even if we disagree on the roots of violence, we can still combine both struggles to spur activism against oppression

Judith Butler, UC Berkeley, in 2004(Prec a ri o u s Li f e: the P o w e rs o f Mo u r n i ng a n d Violenc e , page 48)

We could have seve r a l engaged intellectual debates going on at the same time and find ourse l ves join e d in the fight aga i nst violenc e , without having to agree on m a ny epistem o lo g ic a l issues . We could disagree on status and character of modernity and yet findourselves joined in asserting and defended the rights of indigenous women to health care, reproductive technology, decent wages, physical protection,cultural rights, freedom of assembly. If you saw me on such a protest line, would you wonder how a postmodernist was able to muster the necessary”agency” to get there today? I doubt it. You wouldassume that I had walked or taken the subway! But the same token, various routes lead us to politics,various stories bring us onto the street, various kinds of reasoning and belief. We do not ne ed to g round ourse l v es in a sin g le model of co m munication, a si n g le m o del o f r e as o n, a single no tion o f the s ubje c t before we are able to a c t. I n deed, an inte r nat i o n a l c oa lit i o n of feminist activi st s a n d thinkers “ acoalition that affirms the thinking of activists andthe activism of thinkers and refuses to put them into distinctive categories that deny the actual complexity of the lives in question” will ha v e to a ccept the array of s o m e times in c o m m ensurable epi s temo l ogi c a l and p o litical b eliefs a n d mo des a nd me an s o f ag e ncy that bring us i nto acti v is m .

http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/71/saito.html


AFF: Alt Æ Capitalism

Turn/ A world absent a strong central nation-state allows corporations to pillage the world without any restrictions, increasing colonization.

Richard Moore, Political Scientist, 1996[THE FATEFUL DANCE OF CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY, p. http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberjournal/frm00089.html].

Maastricht, Scottish independence, ethnic or regional autonomy, stronger international "peace" arrangements --these are all developments which might have much to be said for them taken in isolation, or if implemented within a democratic framework. But within the context o f the c o rp o r a te elite st o rming the B a stille o f dem o cr a cy, it is necessa r y to r e-examine all changes and "refor m s" f r om the per s pe c tive of wheth e r th e y s trengthen or weaken our f u ndam e ntal d e moc r atic in s titut i o ns . If we d o n't lo o k at the big picture, then we'll be like the frog who submits to being co o ked -- the v i ctim of a sne a ky s l o w -b o iling p o l ic y . The f a ct is th a t the m o dern n a t i o n state is the most e ffe c tive d e moc r atic in s ti t ut i o n m a n ki n d h a s be e n ab l e to c o me u p with since outgrowing the small-scale city-state. With all its defects and c o rruptions , this gift from the Enlightenment -- the n a t i o n al republic -- is the only effect i v e ch a n nel the people h av e to power- sh a r ing with the elites. I f the s t r o ng nat i on- state withers a w a y , we will n o t -- be assured -- e nter an era of freedom and p r o s p e rity, with the "shackles of wasteful gov e rnments off our back s ". No indeed. If you want to s e e the f u ture -- in w hich w eak n a t i ons m ust deal as-best-they-can with mega- c o rpora t i o ns -- then lo o k a t the Third W o rl d .

Even a weakened state would allow the unrestrained rise of capitalism.Stephen Hasler, economist, THE SUPER-RICH, 2000, p. 142.

Glo b al capitalism is a gods e nd to such a n ti-st a tist s . B y d isposi n g of the "interfering' and 'expropriating' nat i on-states the only r e alistic mechanism for state power is ma r g inali z ed . This in turn a ll o ws the libertarian attack on the state -- or the public sector -- fuller rein than ev er before in human histo ry . In anunusual alliance with libertarians, big co r porate capital s e es all the advantages of a w e aken e d s tate -- the un-hindered mobili z a t ion of c a pital (so those who invest can punish those states and societies that do not encourage sufficient returns), l o w o r zero infl a t i o n (in order to ensure low interest rates and thus boost the prices of shares and bonds), l o w t a xa t i o n (so that the returns from capital remain high), bo n ds (so that the returns from capital remain high), and "fl e xible labor m a r ket s " (in order to keep costs, particularly social costs, low and therefore raise profits and return on shares).

Its empirically proven; if you want to see what happens when there is no state to control capitalism, just look at the 3rd world.

Richard Moore, Political Scientist, 1996,[THE FATEFUL DANCE OF CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Fateful%20Dance%20of%20Democracy%20and%20Capitalism.html]

T he st r o ng na ti o n s t a te h a s b ec o me more of a hind r an c e than a ben e fit to the m o d e rn m e ga- corporation. I t is the dominant n a t i ons w hich advance the s tan d a rds in envi r o nm e ntal p r ote c tion, worker's rights, and other s uch " e m o tio n al" and "in e f f icient" m e as u res . Small, weak nations are more amenable to rape and pillage by corporate developers, and the Third World is the elite's prot o t y pe of h o w th e y 'd like the whole world to ope r at e .

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Fateful%20Dance%20of%20Democracy%20and%20Capitalism.html

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Fateful%20Dance%20of%20Democracy%20and%20Capitalism.html

http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberjournal/frm00089.html

http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberjournal/frm00089.html


AFF: Reverse Genocide

Historically, indigenous groups displayed genocidal tendencies against colonizers. The alternative results in a world of genocide against non-Indians.

Jones, Research Fellow in the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University, 2005(Adam, Genocide: A Personal History, Sept, http://www.genocidetext.net/personal_journey.htm)

For the ensuing five-and-a-half years, 2000 to 2005, I lived in Mexico City, by some estimates the largest metropolis on earth. There, a legacy of genocide can still be sensed in the ruined temples of theprehispanic civilization. Those temples presided over both the genocidal atrocities of the Aztec conquerors, and those inflicted upon them -- and other indigenous nations -- by the Spanish conquistadores. Shortlyafter my arrival I was able to spend two weeks in the sweltering Yucatán peninsula -- glorying in the region's magnificent archaeological sites and colonialarchitecture, but also tracing key sites involved inthe little-known Caste War of the mid-nineteenthcentury. Bet w een 18 4 7 and 1 8 4 9 , t a king a d v a nt a g e o f a civil war that divided the white elite, Mayan r e bels launch e d a m i llenarian upr i sing that bore strong similarities to the massive rebellion in Upper Peru(today's Bolivia) in the late eighteenth century. Likethat e a rlier r e vo l t, the Mayan campa i gn d i splayed genocidal tendencies f r om the outs e t. It a i med e x plicitly at k i lling a n y wh i t es, c o mb a t a n t o r non-combatant, who c a me within range of rifle or dagge r . B y this means, the h a t e d c o loni z er a n d his brood w o uld be b a nished foreve r .

http://www.genocidetext.net/personal_journey.htm


AFF: Identity/Land K

Tying identity to land reinforces the topography of power—it essentializes identity and attaches it to discrete territorial units, repeating the very logic of the nation-stateGupta and Ferguson, 1992. (Akhil, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University; James, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine; “Beyond ‘Culture’: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference”, Cultural Anthropology 7.1 page 6-7, JSTOR.)

Repres e n tations of s p ace i n the social sci e n c es are r em ark a b ly d e pend e n t on i m ages of break, rupture, a n d d isju n cti o n. The d isti n cti v e n ess of s o cieties, n ati o ns, an d cu lt u res is bas e d u po n a see m i n gly u n pr oble m atic division of s p a ce, on t h e fact that they oc c u py "naturally" discontinuous s p aces. The pr em ise of discon t inuity for m s t h e starti n g p o i n t fr o m w h ich to t h e o r i ze co n tact, c o nflict, and c on t ra d icti o n b e t ween c u lt u res and societies. For e x a m ple, the r e pres e n t a ti o n of t h e w o rld as a collection of " c o u ntries," as i n m o st wor l d m aps, sees it as a n i n her e ntly fr a g m ented spac e , divid e d by d i ff er ent co l o rs i n t o div e rse nati o n a l societies, ea c h "ro o te d " in its p r o p er p lace (cf. Malkki, this issue). It is so taken f o r g r a n ted t h at e a ch c ou n try e m bodies its o w n d isti n cti v e c u lture a n d society that the terms "society" and "culture" are routinely simply appended tothe names of nation-states, as when a tourist visits India to understand "Indian culture" and "Indian society," or Thailand to experience "Thai culture," or the United States to get a whiff of "American culture." Of course, the geographical territories that cultures and societies are believed to map onto do not have to be nations. We do, for example, have ideas about culture-areas that overlap several nation-states, or of multicultural nations. On a smaller scale, perhaps, are our disciplinary assumptions about the association ofculturally unitary groups (tribes or peoples) with "their" territories: thus, "the Nuer" live in "Nuerland" and so forth. T h e clearest ill u stration of t h is k ind of t h i nk i n g are the classic "et h n o gra ph ic m a p s" t h at purp o rted to d is p lay t h e s p atial d istri bu tion of p eo p les, t ri b es, and c u ltures. But i n all these cases, spa c e itself be c o m e s a ki n d of n e utral gr i d on w h ich cult u ral di f fer e n ce, hist o rical m e m o r y , a n d s o cietal o r g a nization a re i n s cr i be d . It is in t h is way t h at s p ace fu n cti o ns as a ce n tral o r g a n i z i ng pr i n ciple in the s o cial sciences at the sa m e ti m e t h at it d isap p ears from analytical purview. This as s u m ed iso m orphism of spac e , place, a n d culture r esu lts in so m e significant probl e m s. First, there is t h e issue o f t h o se w h o i n h a bit t h e bo rd e r, t h at "n a r r o w strip alo n g ste e p ed ges" (Anzaldua 1987:3) of n a tional bound a ries. The fiction of c u ltures as discret e , ob j ect-like pheno m ena o c cupying dis c rete spaces be c o m e s i m plausible f o r t h o se w h o i n h abit t h e b or d er l an d s. Related to b or d er i nh a b i tants are t h o se w h o li v e a life of b o r d er cr o ssin g s- m i g ra n t w o r k ers, no m a d s, a n d m e m b ers of t h e trans n atio n al b u s i n ess and p r o fessio n al elite. What is "the culture" of farm workers who spend half a year in Mexico and half a year in the United States? Finally, there a re those who cross b o rders m o re or less p e rmanently- immigrants, r e fugee s , exiles, an d e xp a t riates. In their case, the disjuncture of place and culture is especially clear: Khmer refugees in theUnited States take "Khmer culture" with them in the same complicated way that Indian immigrants inEngland transport "Indian culture" to their new homeland.A se co nd set o f p r oble m s raised by the implicit mapping of cultures onto places is to ac c ount for c u ltural d iffere n ces wit h in a l o cality. "M u ltic u lt u ralism" is bo t h a fee b le ackn o wle dg m e n t of t h e fact t h at c u ltures have lost t h eir m oorings in d e finite places and a n atte m p t to subsu m e this plurality of c u l tures within thefra m ew o rk o f a n atio n al i d entity. Similarly, t h e i d ea of "su b c u ltures" att e m p ts to p reser v e t h e i d ea of d isti n ct "c u lt u res" w h ile ack n o wled g i n g t h e relati o n o f d ifferent c u l t u res t o a d o m in a n t c u lture wit h in t h e sa m e geographical a n d territorial s p ace. Co nv e ntional ac c ounts of ethnicity, even wh e n us e d t o descr i be c u ltural diff e r e nces in s ettings wh e re p eople f r om dif f erent reg i o n s li v e s i de by sid e , rely on an un p ro ble m atic li n k betwe e n id e n tity and place. ' Although such concepts are suggestive because they endeavor to stretch the naturalized association of culture with place, they fail to in t errogate t h is a s su m p tion in a t ruly funda m ental manner. We need to ask how t o deal with cultural difference while abandoning received i d eas of (localized) c u lt u re.

Third, t h ere is the i m portant que s tion of pos t coloniality. To whi c h places do the h y br i d cu ltures of po stc o lo n iality b elon g '! D o es t h e c o l on ial enc o u n ter create a " n ew c u lt u re" in bo t h t h e col on ized and col o nizing c o u n tr y , or d o es it destabilize t h e noti o n t h at nations a n d cult u r e s are i s o m or ph ic ' ! As dis c us s ed b elow, p o stc o l on iality furt h e r pro b le m a t izes t h e relatio n s h ip b etween s p ace and c u lt u re. Last, a n d m o st i m portant, cha l lengi n g t h e r up tur e d la n d sc ap e o f i n d e pe n d e n t nati o ns a n d aut o no m ous c u lt u res raises t h e q u estion o f u nd e rstan d ing s o cial c h an g e a n d c u ltural tra n sf o r m ati o n as sit u ated wit h i n interconnected spaces. The p r esumpt i o n t h at s p aces are autonomous ha s enabled the power of


AFF: Identity/Land Kto po g r ap h y to conc e a l s ucc e ssfully the t o p og r a p hy o f pow er. The inherently fr a g m ented s p ace a s sumed in t h e d e fi n ition of a n t h ro po l og y as t h e stu d y of c u ltures (in the plural) may ha v e been one of the rea s ons beh i nd t h e l on g -st a nd i ng fai l ure to write a n t h ro po l og y' s hi s tory as t h e bi o g r ap h y o f i m periali s m . For if one beg i ns with t h e pre m ise that spaces h a ve always be e n hierarchically interconnected, instead of na t u rally disconnected, then cultural an d s o cial ch a nge be c o m es not a m a tter of cul t ural co ntact a n d a rticulation b u t on e of ret h in k i n g d i ffere n ce t h ro u g h co nn ecti on . To illustrate, let u s e x ami n e on e powerf u l m od el of c u lt u ral c h an g e t h at att e m p ts to relate d ialectically t h e l o cal to lar g er s p atial are n as: arti c ulation. Articulati o n m odel s , whether they come from Marxist structuralism or from "moral economy," posit a pri m eval state of au t o no m y (usually labeled "precapitalist"), w h ich is t h en v i o lated b y gl ob al ca p italis m . T h e res u lt is t h at bo t h l o cal a n d lar g er s p atial are n as are transf o r m e d , t h e l o cal m o re t h an t h e g lo b al to b e s u re, bu t n o t n e cessarily in a re d eter m i n ed directi on . T h is n o ti o n of artic u l ati o n all o ws on e to e xp l ore t h e richly un i ntend e d co ns e qu e nces o f , say, c o lo n ial ca p itali s m , w h ere l o ss o cc u rs alo ng s id e inve n ti o n. Yet, b y ta k ing a preexisti ng , l o calized "c o m m un ity" a s a g i v e n start i n g p o i n t, it fails to e x a m i n e s u fficie n tly t h e p r o cesses (such as the structures of feeling that pervade the imagining of community) that go into the co nstru c tion of space a s place or loca l ity in t h e first i n stance. In other words, in s te a d of assumi n g the au t o n o m y of the prim e val c o mmunity, we need to examine how it was for m ed as a c o m m unity out o f t h e inter c onne ct ed s p ace t h at al w ays alr e a d y existed. C o loniali s m , then, r e pres e n ts t h e displace m ent of one form of in t erconnection by ano t her. This is not to deny that colonialism, or an expanding capitalism, does indeed have profoundly dislocating effects on existing societies. B u t b y always f o r e g r o undi n g t h e s p atial d istrib u ti o n of h ierarc h ical p o wer relati o ns, we can better und e rstand the pro c ess whereby a space a c hiev e s a distinctive identity as a pla c e. Keeping in mind that notions of locality or community refer both to a demarcated physical space and to clusters of interaction, we can see that the identity of a place emerges by the intersection of its specific involvement in a system ofhierarchically organized spaces with its cultural construction as a community or locality.



The Negative’s criticism of colonialism depends on a spatialized understanding of difference that incarcerates the native in the past, reinforcing colonial mythsGupta and Ferguson, 1992. (Akhil, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University; James, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine; “Beyond ‘Culture’: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference”, Cultural Anthropology 7.1, p. 13-14, JSTOR.)

Changing our conceptions of the relation between space and cultural difference offers a new perspective on recent debates surrounding issues of anthropological representation and writing. The new attention to representational practices has already led to more sophisticated understandings of processes of objectification and the construction of other-ness in anthropological writing. However, with this said, it also seems to us that recent notio n s of "cu l tu r a l c ritique" (Marcus and Fischer 1986) dep e nd on a s patiali z ed u n dersta n ding of cultu r al d i fference that needs to be p r oblemati z ed. The fou n dation of cu l tu r al c ritique-a d i alogic rela t ion with an "othe r " culture that y i elds a critical viewpoint on "our own culture"-as s umes an alre a dy ex i sting world of many d i ffer e nt, di s tinct "cultur e s," a n d an u np r obl e matic distin c tion between "our own soci et y" and an "other" s o ciety. As Marcus and Fischer put it, t h e pur p o se of c ultu r al critiq u e is " t o g e nerate criti c a l qu e stions f r om one society to p r obe the othe r " (1986:117); t h e goal is "to apply both the substa n tive r e sults and the episte m o l o gical less o ns l e a r ned f rom e t h n og r a p hy ab road to a rene w al of the cr i tical funct i on of anthropo l o gy as it is p u rsu e d in e th n ographic p r oje c ts at home" (1986:112).Marcus and Fischer are sensitive to the fact that c u ltur a l d iffere n ce is p rese n t " h ere at home," t oo , and t h at "the o t her" ne e d not be ex otic o r f a r a way to be oth e r. But the fundamental conception of cultu r al cr i tique as a re l ation between "diffe r ent s o cietie s " ends up, per h aps a gai n st t h e a u t h ors' i n t e nti o n s, s p a ti a l izing cultu r al diffe r ence in famil i ar ways, as et hnog r aphy b e comes, as above, a link b e tween an unp r oble m a t i z ed "hom e " and "ab r oad . " The a n th r o p o l ogi c a l relation is not si m ply with people w ho are d i fferent, but with "a differe n t s o ciety," "a different cultur e ," and thus, in e v itably, a relation between "he r e" and "there." In all of thi s , the te r ms of the opposit i on (" h ere" an d " t her e ," " u s" a n d "the m ," "our o wn" a n d " o t h er " societies) are taken as receive d : the problem for anthropologists is to use our encounter with "them," "there," to construct a critique of "our own society," "here. "There are a number of problems with this way of conceptualizing the anthropological project. Perhaps the most obvious is the question of the identity of the "we" that keeps coming up in phrases such as "ourselves" and "our own society."Who is t his "w e"'! If the ans w er is, as w e f e ar, " t he W est," t hen w e must a s k pre c isely w ho is t o be included and excluded f r om this cl u b. Nor is the p r o b l e m so l v ed sim p ly b y s u bst i tuting for "our own society," "the ethnographer ' s own soci e ty." F o r e thnog r a pher s , as for other nat i ves, the po s tco l o n i al world is an interconne c ted s o cial s pac e ; for many anth r o pologist s -a n d perhaps especially for di s placed Third W o rld scho l a rs-the i dentity of " o n e's o w n s o cie t y" is a n open quest i o n . A second problem with the w a y cultural difference has b e en conceptuali z ed within the "cultural critique" project is t h at, on c e exclud e d from t h at p ri v ileged do m a in "our own s o ci e ty," "the oth e r" is subt l y nat i vi z ed-p l aced in a separate f r ame of analysis and "spatial l y in c a rcerate d " (Appadurai 1988) in that "other p l ace" that is p r oper to an "other culture." Cultu r al crit i que assum e s an or i g inal sep a r a t i o n, brid g ed at the initi a tion o f the a nthropo l o gical fieldwo r ke r . The problematic is one of "contact": communication not wit h in a s hared s o cial a nd e c o n omic world, but "across c ulture s " and "between societie s ."



Their romanticism of indigenous peoples immobilizes and incarcerates them in the past. This essentializing of culture mimes the language of colonialism, flipping the K.

Arjun Appadurai, February 1988 (Professor at the Department of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania, Cultural Anthropology, Volume 3, No.1, Place and Voice in Anthropological Theory,pp. 36-49, Putting Hierarchy in Its Place, JSTOR).So what does it mean to be a native of some place, if it means something more, or other, than being from that place? What it means is that n a tiv e s are no t only p ersons w ho a r e f r om ce r tain place s , and belong to those places, but th e y are also those who are somehow in c arcerat e d, or c o nfined, in those p l aces.' W hat w e ne e d t o examine is this attribution or a s sumpt i on of in c arce r at i o n, of impr i sonm e nt, or c o nfinement. Why are some people seen as confined to, and by, their places? Probably the simplest a s pect of the co mmon sense of anthropo l o gy to which this im ag e c o rresp o nds is the sense of physic a l immobility. Na tives are in o ne p l ace, a p l ace to w hich explore r s, administrato r s, missio n aries, and ev e nt u al l y an t hr o po l og ists, c o me . These outsider s , these obse r v ers, are regarded as quintessentially mo b ile; they are the mo ve r s, the seer s , the knowers . The nati v es are im m o bilized by the i r be l o nging to a p l ace. Of cours e , when obse rv ers arr i ve, natives are c a pable of moving to another place. But this is n o t re a lly m o t i o n ; it is usu a lly flight, escape, to a n oth e r equa l ly confining pl a ce. T he slightly m o re subtle a s sumption behind the attribution o f i mm o bility is n o t so much ph y sic a l a s ecologica l . Natives are those who are s o m e how c o nfined to places by their conne c t ion to what the place permits. Thus all the language of nic h es, of fo r aging, of ma t er i al skill, of slowly ev olved techno l og i es, is actually al s o a language of i ncarce r at i o n. In this instan c e confinement is not si m ply a fun c tion of the mysteriou s , ev en metaphysi c a l attachment of n a tive t o p h ysical places, but a f u ncti o n o f t heir a d a p t a t i ons to their environments. Of course, an t hr o po l o gists h a ve l o n g k no w n t ha t m o t i on is part of the nor m al round for ma n y g r oup s , ranging from Bushmen and Australian aborigines, to Central Asian nomads and Southeast Asian swidden agriculturalists. Yet most of these groups, be c a use their movements are confined within s mall ar e a s and app e ar to be dr i v en by fairly clea r -cut environmental c o nst r ai n ts, are gene r a lly tre a ted as n a t i ves tied not s o mu c h t o a p l ace as to a p a tte r n of p laces . This is still not qu i te mot i on of the free, arbit r a r y, adventu r ous sort assoc i ated with me t r o po l itan behavior. It is still incarcer a t i on, ev e n if o v er a la r g er spatial terrain. But the critical pa r t of the a ttribution of nativeness to g r oups in re m ote parts of the wor l d is a sense that their in ca rcerat i on has a m o r a l and i ntellectual d i mension. Th e y are c o nfined by what th ey kn o w, f eel, and believe. T hey are prisoners of t h eir "mode of thought." This is, of cou r se, an o l d and deep theme in the 38 his t o r y of a nth r o p o l o gic a l t h ou g h t , and its m o st p o w erful e xa m ple is t o be f o u n d i n E v an s -Prit c hard's picture of the A z ande, t r apped in their mo ral web, c o n f i ned b y a w a y of thi n king t h at a d mits o f n o fu zz y b o u n d a ries and is sp len d id i n its intern a l c o nsistenc y . Although Evans-Pritchard is generally careful not to exaggerate the differences between European and Azande mentality, his position suggests that the Azande are especially confined by their mode of thought: Above all, we have to be careful to avoid in the absence of native doctrine constructing a dogma which we would formulate were we to act as Azande do. There is no elaborate and consistent representation of witchcraft that will account in detail for its workings, nor of nature which expounds its conformity to sequences and functional interrelations. The Z a nde actuali z es the s e beliefs r a th e r than i ntellectuali z es the m , and their ten e ts are e x pre s sed in s o ci a lly c o ntr o lled beh a vior r a t h er t h an in d o c trines. Hence the d i fficulty of discussing t h e subject of witchcraft with A z ande, for their id e a s are imprison e d i n a c ti o n and c a n n ot be cited t o e x plain an d j u sti f y a c ti o n. [Evans-Pritchard193753243; emphasis mine] Of course, this idea of certain others, as confined by their way of thinking, in itself appears to have nothing to do with the image of the native, the person who belongs to a place. The link between the confinement of id e o logy and the idea of p l ace is that the way of thought that c o nfines natives is itse l f s o mehow bo u nde d , s o m ehow ti e d to t h e circum s tantiality of plac e . The links between intellectu a l a nd sp a t i a l confinement, as assumpt i ons that underp i n the id e a of the nat i ve, are two. T he fir s t is the notion that cultures are "whole s " : this issue is taken up in the section of this essay on Dumont. The second is the not i on, embedd e d in studies o f e c olo g y, te c h n o l og y , a n d m a ter i al cul t ure ov e r a c e n t ur y , th at the intellec t ual ope r at i o ns o f n a t i ves are s o mehow tied to their n i ches, to their s ituations. They are seen, in Levi-Strauss's evocative terms, as scientists of the concrete. When we ask where this concreteness typically inheres, it is to be found in specifics of flora, fauna, topology, settlement patterns, and the like; in a word, it is the concreteness of place. Thus, the confinement of native ways of thinking reflects in an important way their attachment to particular places. The science of the concrete can thus be written as the poetry of confinement.'



Their description of native culture as rooted in tradition and tied to the land romanticizes it and reinforces colonialist attitudes about the superiority and complexity of our culture. Arjun Appadurai, February 1988 (Professor at the Department of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania, Cultural Anthropology, Volume 3, No.1, Place and Voice in Anthropological Theory,pp. 36-49, Putting Hierarchy in Its Place, JSTOR)

Who is a "native" (henceforth without quotation marks) in the anthropological usage? The quick answer to this question is that the native is a per s on w h o is bo r n in (and thus belongs to) the place t h e a n th r o p o logist is obse r v i n g or w riting a b ou t . This sense of the word native is fairly narrowly, and neutrally, tied to its Latin etymology. But do we use the term native uniformly to refer to people who are born in certain places and, thus, belong to them? We do not. We h ave t e n d ed t o u se t he w o rd n a t i ve f o r pe r s o ns a n d g r o u ps wh o bel o n g to t h o s e pa r ts of the world t h at wer e , and are, dis t ant f r om the metropolitan Wes t . This restricti o n is, in p a rt, tied to the vagaries of our id e o logi e s of a u thenticity over the l a s t t w o centuri e s . P r oper nat i ves are s o m e how a s sumed to represent their selves and their his t o ry , w ith o ut dis to rtion or resi d ue. We ex e m p t ourselv e s f ro m this so r t of claim to authenticity be ca use we are too enamor e d of the c o mpl e xit i es of our history, the divers i ties of our societies, and the amb i guiti e s of our c o llective c o nscien c e . Wh e n we find authenticity close to ho m e, we are more likely to label it folk than nativ e , the former being a term that sugg e sts auth e nticity without being implicitly der o gat o r y . The anthropo l o gist thus r a re l y thinks of him s elf as a nat i ve of so m e p l ace, even when he knows that he is from so mewhere.


AFF: A2 Colonialism=Root Cause

Their genealogy of colonialism is conveniently selective—connecting all violence to colonialism denies native diversity and agency by exoticizing and totalizing indigenous history

Arjun Appadurai, February 1988 (Professor at the Department of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania, Cultural Anthropology, Volume 3, No.1, Place and Voice in Anthropological Theory,pp. 36-49, Putting Hierarchy in Its Place, JSTOR)

The recent wave of reflexivity among anthropologists, especially those practicing in the United States, has already created a backlash, founded on many reservations, including temperamental and stylistic ones. But one of the reasons for the backlash has been the suspicion that the self-scrutiny of ethnographers and fieldworkers might be a prologue to the extinction of the object of our studies. Faced with the disappearance of natives as they imagined them, some anthropologists run the risk of substituting reflexivity for fieldwork. I belong to that group of anthropologists who wish neither to erase the object in an orgy of self-scrutiny, nor to fetishize fieldwork (without carefully rethinking what fieldwork ought to mean and be in a changing world), in the way that Victorian educatorsfetishized cold baths and sport as character-building devices for the public-school elite. So why engage in any sort of genealogy? All gen e al o g ies a re selecti v e as a n y g o od his t ori a n o f id e a s w o uld re c o g ni z e. They are s elective, that is, not th r o ugh s l oppin e ss or pr e judi c e (though the s e could always creep in), but be c a use eve r y gen e alogy is a c hoice a m o n g a virt u a lly i n finite s e t o f gen e al o g ies t hat m a ke up t he p r oblem of influence a nd sou r ce in intellectu a l h i st o r y . Eve r y i dea r a mifies indefinite l y backward in ti m e, and at e a ch critical histor i cal juncture, key id e a s ra m ify i n definite l y i n to their ow n hori z o n ta l , c o nte m p o r a ry c o n te x ts. No n t riv i al idea s , especially, never h a ve a f inite set o f ge n eal o g ie s . T h us a n y pa r ticul a r gen e al og y m ust derive i ts au t hor i ty f ro m the m o ral it seeks to subserve. The genealogy I have constructed in the case of Dumont’s conception of hierarchy is one such genealogy, which subserves my interest in the spatial history of anthropological ideas. Thus my genealogy, like any other genealogy is an argument in the guide of a discovery. There is another way to characterize my position. T he sort o f gen e a l o g y I a m i n te r ested in h a s so methi n g in co mmon with F o u c ault’s s e n s e of the p r a c tice he c a lls “ar c ha e ol og y , ” a p r a c tice w hich, w hen s u ccessful, un co v ers n o t just a gen e tic c h ain, but an epi s t e mological field and its d i scursive for m at i o ns. The d i scursive for m at i o n with which I am c o nc e rne d , at its largest level, is the dis c ou r se of a n th r o p o logy over the la s t ce n tu r y , a n d within it the s ubdiscourses about caste and about India. This s o rt o f g e ne a lo g izing is intended to o c cupy the mid d le space betw e en t h e a t e m poral stance of c ertain kinds of cont e mpo r a r y crit i cism (espec i ally those affec t e d b y de c o n s t r uction) a n d t h e exclus i v ist and genetic assu m pt i ons of m o st sta n dard app r oa c hes to the hi s to r y of id e a s. In Dumont's (1970) conception of hierarchy as the key to caste society in India, we see the convergence of three distinct trajectories in Western thought. These sepa r a te t r aj e ctories, which come tog e ther in recent ant h ropological practice, are t h reefold. First there is the urge to ess e nt i a li z e, which cha r acteri z ed the Orientalist f o rebe a rs of an th r o p o log y . This essent i a lism, which has a c o m plicat e d gen e alogy going ba c k to P l ato, became for s o me Orientalists the preferr e d m o de for cha r acteri z ing the "othe r ." As Ronald Inden has recently argued (Inden 1986a), this led to a substantialized view of caste (reified as India's essential institution) and an idealized view of Hinduism, regarded as the religious foundation of caste. The se co nd t e nden c y i nvolves exoti c izing, b y making differ e nces between "self" and other the s o le criter i a for co m par i son. This tendency to e x otici z e has be e n d i scussed ex ten s ively in r e cent critiques of the his t o r y of a n th r o p o l o gy a nd of e t h n og r a p hic w riting (Boon 1982; Clifford and Marcus 1986; Fabian 1983)a nd h a s its ro o ts in the "Age of Disco v ery" as well a s in the 1 8 thc e n tu ry " A ge of Na ti o n a lism," especi a lly in German y . The third t r aje c tory involv e s totalizing, that is, m a ki n g sp e cific fe a tures of a soci e ty's t ho u g h t or pra c tice n o t only its essence but al s o i ts totalit y . Such tot a lizing pr o b ably h a s i ts r oots in the Ger m an ro m a nticism of the e a rly 19th cent u r y and comes to us i n all the v a riati o ns of the idea o f the Geist (spiri t ) of an a g e or a p e ople . Canonized in Hegel's holism, its mo s t i mpo r tant result was the su b seque n t Ma rx ian c o mmi tm ent to the idea o f t o t a li ty (Jay 1984), but it a lso underlies Dum o nt's c o nception of the "whole," discussed belo w . In this sense, the dialogue between the idealistic and the materialistic descendants of Hegel is hardly over. In anthropology and in history, particularly in France, it is to be seen in Mauss's idea of the gift as a total social phenomenon and in the Annales school's conception of histoire totale.


A2: Colonialism=Root Cause

No solvency for the Alt and Turn/ Blaming colonialism for all of Africa’s ills disguises and excuses status quo violence caused by authoritarian leaders. Their history cannot account for all instances of oppression. The plan is key to solve.

Charles Mangongera, research fellow with the Mass Public Opinion Institute, September 19, 2002 [“Should We Continue to Blame Colonialism?” Financial Gazette (Harare), http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/africa/2002/0919blame.htm]

But one c a n n ot affo r d to be blind to the d a m age t h at African leaders have inflicted on their own c o nti n ent . Yes c o lonialism retarded Africa's g r owth but this h a s been exacerbated by a cu l tu r e of irrespons i ble le a dership that belie v es in using p o litic a l p o wer to a m ass wealth and to build rich e mpires while the gene r a lity of the p e ople b e ar the br u nt of povert y .The civil wars and c o nflicts that e ngulf Africa today have primarily stemmed from the m a nipu l at i o n of people's fru s trat i o ns by some unsc r upu l ous West e rn p o wers. Th e se frust r at i o ns have e m a n at e d from persistent fai l ures by the p e ople to c h a n ge un p o p ular a n d cor r upt governments through legal means as leaders have manipulated constitutions to hold onto power even when they have lost the legitimacy to rule.Z imbabwe is a classical e x ample of an African country that has seen its potential for growth destroyed by the suppression of democratic governance for selfish reasons. There is no doubt that the c o untry had i ts mineral and agricu l tu r a l w ealth l o oted u nder a ce n tu r y of British i m perial d o mi na tio n . B u t t o co ntinue blami n g the British for the count r y's p r oblems today is hypocri s y of the wor s t kind .When Zimbabwe attained independence from the British in 1980, it had the potential for development, and indeed the first decade of Mugabe's rule was a period of economic growth. But Mugabe adopted IMF and World Bank structural adjustment policies that he had very little knowledgeabout and this resulted in a significant downturn in the economy that saw unemployment, inequality and poverty rising.Meanwhile the people had been paying a blind eye to Mugabe's intensification of his grip on power and when they eventually felt the pinch of the austerity measures, Mugabe became very unpopular. Several years of frustration with Mugabe's regime resulted in the birth of a very strongopposition which threatened to end ZANU PF hegemony and that is when the crisis began.Faced with growing opposition and the prospects of losing power, Mugabe has s u ppress e d de m o c r atic gover n anc e . He h a s c a us e d mayhem and has susp e nd e d the rule o f l a w to m a int a i n his g rip o n p o wer. He h a s silenced v o ices of dissent by g a g g ing the media a n d clamping down on the op p o sit i o n . He is chasing away white commercial farmers because of his mistaken impression that they are the opposition in Zimbabwe. It has not dawned to him that the opposition in Zimbabwe is a strong force that is bound by nothing but a desire to end his wayward policies.This has been the sc e nar i o i n many other Afri c a n c o untrie s . After years of destruction under imperial forces, Afri c a n c o u ntries have been ruled b y a b u nch of i dle and thie v ing leaders who c o n t inue to blame colon i alism and n e o- c o lonialism for their persist e nt failures. Their gove r nments are u s u a lly v e ry c o rru pt a n d th ey h a ve no r e spect for democ r atic ideals in their e ndeavour to r emain in powe r .Africa therefore faces a dilemma in that while the West seeks to maintain its economic superiority over the continent through unorthodox means, Africa itself has contributed t o the tr a g e d y th a t i t is t o day because its own so n s and daughters have failed to s te e r the c o ntinent to e c onomic development. T h ey have in s tead pu r sued personal enrichment t h ro u g h plund e ring their e c onomie s . They have engaged in several unnecessary wars into which they have been manipulated by powerful gun manufacturing conglomerates that are making billions of dollars of profit in the lucrative guns-for-minerals trade. Until Afri c a n leaders r e alise t h at th e y h av e t o build a s t ro n g c oalit i o n a m o n g them s elves and the people in resisting n e o- c o lon i al forces, the future of the c o ntine n t i s doom e d. I t i s time l e aders stopped harp i ng on n e o- colon i alism as the on l y c a u s e of Afr i ca's problems and l o oked at the m sel v es and the da m a ge they have done to the c o ntin e nt. T hey h ave been equally destru c tive .

Colonialism does not explain most status quo problems in AfricaRobert Calderisi, World Bank 1997-2002, 2006[THE TROUBLE WITH AFRICA: WHY FOREIGN AID ISN’T WORKING, 2006, p. 43.]

Slavery, c o l o n i a lism , the Cold War, internati o n a l instituti o ns , high debt, geography, the large numb e r of countries, and population pressures all h a ve h a d an e ffe c t on Afri c a . But none of the s e can e x p l ain w hy the continent has been going backward for the last 30 y e ar s . African e c onomies were ex panding after Indepe n denc e . They have been contracting until very recently and are growing again only very slowly.




AFF: State Key to Solve Genocide

The Alternative fails--Nation-states are critical to stopping genocideKenneth Campbell, asst. professor of political science and international relations, University of Delaware, 2001[Gen o ci d e and t h e G l ob al Villa g e , p. 15-16]

Regardless of where or on how small a scale it begins, the crime of g e nocide is the complete id e o logical repudiation of, and a direct murde r ous a s sault u p on, the prevailing l i beral international orde r . G enocide is fundam e ntally in c o mpatib l e with, and d e stru c tive of an op e n, tole r a nt, d emoc r atic, free m a rk e t international order. As genocide scholar Herbert Hirsch has explained: The unwillingness of the world community to take action to end genocide and political massacres is not only immoral but also impractical. [W]ithout some semblance of stability, commerce, travel, and the international and intranational interchange of goods and information are subjected to severe disruptions. Wh e re genocide is permitted to prolife r ate, the libe r al international order can n ot long s urviv e . No g r oup will be s a fe; e v ery g r o u p will w o n d er when they will be ne x t . Left unchecked, genocide thr e at e ns to dest r o y whatever s ecurity, de mo crac y , and p r osperi t y e x is t s in the pres e nt internat i o nal syst e m . As Roger Smith notes: Even the m o st powerful nat i ons --those armed with nuclear weapon s --may e nd up in strug g les th a t will le a d (accidentally, intentionally, insanely) to the ultimate genocide in which th e y dest r o y n o t o n ly ea c h other, but mankind itself, sewing the fate of the earth for e ver w ith a fi n a l g e noci d a l effor t . In this sense, g e nocide is a g ra v e t h r eat t o the ve r y f a bric of the inter n at i o n a l s y st e m and m u st be stoppe d , even at some risk to lives and treasure. The preservation and growth of the present liberal international order is a vital interest for all of its members—states as well as non-states—whether or not those members recognize and accept the reality of that objective interest. Nation states, as the principal members of the present international order, are the only authoritative holders of violent enforcement powers. Non-state actors, though increasing in power relative to states, still do not possess the military force, or the democratic authority to use military force, which is necessary to stop determined perpetrators of mass murder. Consequently, nat i o n -s t a t es h a ve a s p ec i al resp o nsibility to pre v ent, suppress, and punish a ll m a l i ci o us a ss a ults o n the fundament a l inte g r i ty of the prev a iling internati o n a l o rder.


AFF: Churchill Indicts

The report is in: Not only did Churchill refer to 9/11 victims as “Little Eichmanns,” but a study done by the committee of the Associated Press shows clear evidence of plagiarism. You should be suspicious of all of their evidence.The New Criterion, 2007 (http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/25/06/a-footnote-on-ward-churchill/ )

Who can f o rget W a rd “ little Eichm a nns” Churchill, the “ e thnic studies” pr o f e ss o r a t the Uni v ersity o f Co l o rado whose od i o us re m ark c o m paring the victims of 9/11 to Na z i bureaucrats s park e d a firestorm of eminently deserved criticism? The closer one looked into the case of Ward Churchill, the worse it got.This tenured radical had b e en battening on the public purse for decades—and for what? A congeries of radical political diatribes masquerading as scholarship in a bogus discipline. Much of wh a t Churchill published w a s simply fabri c at e d. Mu c h e l se tu r ned o u t to h a ve been p lagiari z ed. A universi t y committee w e nt to work to i nve s t i g ate it a ll and t o re co mmend disci p linary a c tio n . On M a y 1 6 , t he As s o ciated P r ess report e d on the c o mmittee’s findings. Yes, Churchill “ committed multiple a c ts o f plag i arism, fa bricat i o n, a nd f a lsificat i o n ” and his w o r k w a s “ below m inimum s t a nd a rds o f profession a l i nt e g rity.” Nevertheless, the c o mmittee re c ommended that he be s uspended for a y e a r , not fired. W h y? Because al t h ou gh his c a se “ s ho w s misb e h a v i o r , ” i t d o es not s h ow “the w o rst po s sible misbehavio r .” Yes, t h a t’s r i gh t : you can be mad, bad, and dangerous to know—you ca n lie, fabri c ate research, p l agiari z e, and tu r n your college class r o o m into a center for ant i - A m eric a n p r o p a g a n d a : all th a t ’ s j ust fi n e. S o l o ng a s y o u are n o t the w o rs t , y o ur t enure at the U ni v ersi t y of C o l o r a d o is in v i o l a ble . Or so the committee’s report suggests. But wait: what would count as “the worst”? According to the AP story, the report mentions fabricating data for grant money or endangering people’s lives by not following appropriate research protocols. But surely that betrays a stunning lack of imagination. What about arson, mass murder, or widespread mayhem? Most people would agree such activities are worse than fabricating data to get a grant, which by definition means that such fabrication is not the worst possible behavior. Sancta simplissima! Has it come to this at the University of Colorado?

http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/25/06/a-footnote-on-ward-churchill/

GDI 07-Give Back the Land

Documents

Transcript of GDI 07-Give Back the Land