Tohono Affirmative – ddi 2015 sws



Download 0.73 Mb.
Page17/23
Date conversion15.05.2018
Size0.73 Mb.
1   ...   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   ...   23

Ks

Coloniality

1. Perm do both – the aff is negative state action, so the two are not mutually exclusive

Also, pitting liberatory movements against each other is horrible, we should acknowledge that both movements are reasons why colonial nature is bad, and it isn't a matter of choosing which rejection of colonialism comes first, it's about rejecting colonialism all together.

2. Perm do the aff and the alt in all other instances –

double-bind: EITHER doing the alternative will be strong enough to overcome the residual links to one instance of the plan, OR it will be too weak to overcome the status quo.

3. No link – they have to prove that other indigenous movements will be pacified specifically in the instance of the Tohono expelling CBP from their territory

4. The alt only reinforces existing structures of domination.


Katz 2k (Adam, University of Hartford, Postmodernism and the politics of “culture”, 2000, pgs. 146-47)

However, the transition from one mode of transformation to another—what should be the fundamental task of cultural studies—is left unconceptualized and is implicitly understood as a kind of additive or cumulative spread of local democratic sites until society as a whole is transformed. What this overlooks, of course, is the way in which, as long as global economic and political structures remain unchanged and unchallenged, local emancipations can only be redistributions—redistributions that actually support existing social relations by merely shifting the greater burdens onto others who are less capable of achieving their own local emancipation.



GBTL

1. Perm do both – pitting liberatory movements against each other is horrible, we should acknowledge that both movements are reasons why colonial nature is bad, and it isn't a matter of choosing which rejection of colonialism comes first, it's about rejecting colonialism all together.

2. The alt only reinforces existing structures of domination.


Katz 2k (Adam, University of Hartford, Postmodernism and the politics of “culture”, 2000, pgs. 146-47)

However, the transition from one mode of transformation to another—what should be the fundamental task of cultural studies—is left unconceptualized and is implicitly understood as a kind of additive or cumulative spread of local democratic sites until society as a whole is transformed. What this overlooks, of course, is the way in which, as long as global economic and political structures remain unchanged and unchallenged, local emancipations can only be redistributions—redistributions that actually support existing social relations by merely shifting the greater burdens onto others who are less capable of achieving their own local emancipation.


3. it’s a link of omission or, worst case scenario, status quo links harder. Means you still vote affirmative.

4. Turn – your movement is counterproductive. Right wing backlash will erase any progress in indigenous movements.


Bradford, 5 (William is a Chiricahua Apache and Associate professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law. “Beyond Reparations”, Ohio State Law Journal, 2005, HeinOnline)TB
*JAR = Justice as Restoration = GBTL*

Still, while JAR is the most normatively attractive of the three theoretical clusters, JAR theory is not the final stop on the theoretical journey to justice for Indians. JAR theory is susceptible to criticism on several grounds. As compelling as the argument that non-Indian land owners are obligated to vacate their entitlements in favor of the descendants of their Indian predecessors-in-title may be, principles of equity, as JAS theory is quick to assert, should proscribe the wholescale evacuation of millions of acres of land and the forced relocation of innocent and newly-homeless non-Indians to places uncertain. Even if equity alone is not sufficient to counsel prudence, the prospect that non-Indians threatened in the security of their property interests might organize to induce political action resulting in further abridgement of Indian resources and rights must be accounted for in any theory of Indian justice. If the only remedy for a past injustice is a present injustice, a perpetual cycle of bloody conflict over land is inevitable 341 However, the most radical of JAR theorists are practically oblivious to the broad externalities the restorative clement of their philosophy might spawn: despite warnings that it is now much too late to give back Manhattan, some insist that nothing short of the dissolution of the U.S. will suffice if we are to take seriously. . . morality and justice. If politics is the art of the possible, a theory that insists on the dismemberment of the modem-day U.S. or other forms of radical social surgery is too fantastic to be given serious consideration as a political proposal.


5. Perm – Do the plan and give back all the land that Indigenous people never signed away in treaties.

Basing indigenous land rights on treaty claims k2 unite international native struggle and all legal struggles everyhere– their author.


Churchill 93 (Ward, Struggle of the Land, 1993, pgs. 5-4)TB

Today a lot of people question the necessity and utility of centralized nation-state governances and economics. They find the status quo to be increasingly absurd and are seeking alternatives to the values and patterns of consumption presently dominating not only North America, but the rest of the planet as well. The living reality of Native North America, and the bioregionally determined redefinition of polity it represents, offers the model for an alternative arrangement. And, if Leopold Kohr and the Basques say such a naturally grounded structure could work in Europe, why not here? It is obviously important that everyone learn as much as possible about American Indian realities, rather than the self-serving junk they usually teach in school. The second important aspect of the map is the legal basis for protecting the environment and its inhabitants it points up. The native struggle in North America today can only be properly understood as a pursuit of the recovery of land rights which are guaranteed through treaties. What Indians ask-what we really expectfrom those who claim to be our friends and allies is respect and support for these treaty rights. What does this mean? Well, it starts with advocating that Indians regain use of and jurisdiction over what the treaties define as being our lands. It means direct support to Indian efforts to recover these lands, but not governmental attempts to “compensate” us with money for lands we never agreed to sell. This, in turn, means that those indigenous governments which traditionally held regulatory and enforcement power within Indian Country-not the more modern and otherwise non-traditional tribal councils imposed upon Indians by the federal government under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934-should have the right to resume their activities now. By extension, this would mean that much land which is currently taxed, regulated, strip mined, militarized, drowned by hydroelectric generation or overirrigation, and nuked by the U.S. and Canadian governments would no longer be under their control or jurisdiction any longer. Surely, this is a prospect which all progressive and socially conscious people can embrace. What is perhaps most important about Indian treaty rights is the power of the documents at issue to clarify matters which would otherwise be consigned by nation-state apologists to the realm of "opinion" and "interpretation." The treaties lay things out clearly, and they are instruments of international law. In this sense, the violation of the treaty rights of any given people represents a plain transgression against the rights of all people, everywhere. This can be a potent weapon in the organization of struggles for justice and sanity in every corner of the globe. And it should be appreciated as such by those who champion causes ranging from protection of the environment to universal human rights.

Post-2ac

Giving back the land all at once only incites a riot among the far right to even further curb indigenous rights. Gradual movements like the affirmative are the only ways to ever achieve solvency.


Churchill 93 (Ward, Struggle of the Land, 1993, pgs. 414-15)TB

In part, uncomfortable as it may be to admit, this is because even the most progressive elements of the North American immigrant population share a perceived commonality of interest with the more reactionary segments . This takes the form of a mutual insistence upon an imagined "right" to possess native property, me rely because they are here, and because they desire it. The Great Fear is, within any settler -state, that if indigenous land rights are ever openly acknowledged, and native people therefore begin to recover some significant portion of their land, the immigrants will correspondingly be dispossessed of that which they have come to consider 376 "theirs" (most notably, individual homes, small farms, ranches and the like) . Tellingly , every major Indian land recovery initiative in the United States during the second half of the twentieth century -the Western Shos hone, those in Maine, the Black Hills , the Oneida claims in New York St ate are prime examples -has been met by a propaganda bar rage from right-wing organizations ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to the John Birch Society to the Republican Party warning individual non-Indian property holders of exactly this "peril."3 6


1   ...   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   ...   23


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

    Main page