Decoloniality/settlerism

1NC
The United States is a colonial state, and the current political
system excludes natives. In the current system, civil rights are
not afforded to the indigenous, silencing their voice once
again. an effort that uses the state is doomed to fail.
Tuck and Yang 12 (Eve Tuck, State University of New York at New Paltz, K.
Wayne Yang University of California, San Diego, Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, Decolonization is not a metaphor, pp 6-7,
accessed 7/24/15) CH
The settler, if known by his actions and how he justifies them, sees himself as
holding dominion over the earth and its flora and fauna , as the anthropocentric
normal, and as more developed, more human, more deserving than other groups or
species. The settler is making a new "home" and that home is rooted in a
homesteading worldview where the wild land and wild people were made for his
benefit. He can only make his identity as a settler by making the land produce, and
produce excessively, because "civilization" is defined as production in excess of the
"natural" world (i.e. in excess of the sustainable production already present in the
Indigenous world). In order for excess production, he needs excess labor, which he
cannot provide himself. The chattel slave serves as that excess labor, labor that can
never be paid because payment would have to be in the form of property (land).
The settler's wealth is land, or a fungible version of it, and so payment for labor is
impossible.6 The settler positions himself as both superior and normal; the settler is
natural, whereas the Indigenous inhabitant and the chattel slave are unnatural,
even supernatural. Settlers are not immigrants. Immigrants are beholden to the
Indigenous laws and epistemologies of the lands they migrate to. Settlers become
the law, supplanting Indigenous laws and epistemologies. Therefore, settler nations
are not immigrant nations (See also A.J. Barker, 2009). Not unique, the United
States, as a settler colonial nation-state, also operates as an empire - utilizing
external forms and internal forms of colonization simultaneous to the settler colonial
project. This means, and this is perplexing to some, that dispossessed people are
brought onto seized Indigenous land through other colonial projects. Other colonial
projects include enslavement, as discussed, but also military recruitment, low-wage
and high-wage labor recruitment (such as agricultural workers and overseas-trained
engineers), and displacement/migration (such as the coerced immigration from
nations torn by U.S. wars or devastated by U.S. economic policy). In this set of
settler colonial relations, colonial subjects who are displaced by external
colonialism, as well as racialized and minoritized by internal colonialism, still occupy
and settle stolen Indigenous land. Settlers are diverse, not just of white European
descent, and include people of color, even from other colonial contexts. This tightly
wound set of conditions and racialized, globalized relations exponentially
complicates what is meant by decolonization, and by solidarity, against settler
colonial forces. Decolonization in exploitative colonial situations could involve the
seizing of imperial wealth by the postcolonial subject. In settler colonial situations,
seizing imperial wealth is inextricably tied to settlement and re-invasion. Likewise,

the promise of integration and civil rights is predicated on securing a share of a

settler-appropriated wealth (as well as expropriated third-world wealth).
Decolonization in a settler context is fraught because empire, settlement, and
internal colony have no spatial separation. Each of these features of settler
colonialism in the US context - empire, settlement, and internal colony - make it a
site of contradictory decolonial desires7 . Decolonization as metaphor allows people
to equivocate these contradictory decolonial desires because it turns decolonization
into an empty signifier to be filled by any track towards liberation. In reality, the
tracks walk all over land/people in settler contexts. Though the details are not fixed
or agreed upon, in our view, decolonization in the settler colonial context must
involve the repatriation of land simultaneous to the recognition of how land and
relations to land have always already been differently understood and enacted; that
is, all of the land, and not just symbolically. This is precisely why decolonization is
necessarily unsettling, especially across lines of solidarity. Decolonization never
takes place unnoticed (Fanon, 1963, p. 36). Settler colonialism and its
decolonization implicates and unsettles everyone.

The central question of this debate is that the exclusion of

indigenous peoples provides the ontological grounding for
modern sovereigntyany analysis which fails to foreground
these histories is doomed to reproduce the horrors of
colonialism
DErrico 97 (D'Errico, Peter. "AMERICAN INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY: NOW YOU SEE IT,
NOW YOU DON'T." American Indian Civics Project. CA, USA, Arcata. 24 Oct. 1997.
UMASS. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html>. //TB)
Contemporary Non-Recognition of Indigenous Peoples Over

300 million people on earth today can be said to be truly |||

are||| "indigenous" -- living on lands which they have inhabited since time immemorial. In every instance, indigenous
communities are legally circumscribed by one or more nation-states, within territorial
boundaries drawn by government geography. These 300 million constitute an increasingly self-aware force for global
rethinking of the nature of power. Their challenge is increasingly overt and serious to the world's political structure. The United Nations'
designation of The Decade of Indigenous People is a symptom of this challenge. The nature of the challenge becomes more clear when we
consider the revision of the original designation, which referred to indigenous peoples. The

plural form -- "peoples" -triggered immense anxiety and successful resistance by member states of the UN, on the
grounds that these 300 million people are individual citizens of states claiming jurisdiction
over them, and not members of independent peoples. "Peoples" in international law
implies rights of self-determination, which the United States took the lead to challenge|||d|||
as not applicable to indigenous peoples. The U.S. argues that there can collective self-determination exists only through
states, and that indigenous people are groups of individuals with shared cultural, linguistic, and social features, but without any internal coherence
as "peoples." This argument contradicts the U.S, claim that it deals with indigenous peoples on a "government-to-government" basis. Here is one
example of "now you see it, now you don't." In

light of the history of treaty-making and with an eye toward

restoring the sense of equality between nations that justified the treaty process to begin
with, American Indians are -- in concert with indigenous peoples worldwide -- asserting a
sense of their own "sovereignty." The United Nations Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is at the center of
this global struggle for self-determination. The Declaration is the product of twenty years of negotiating among indigenous peoples and U.N.
bodies. It's very title draws the line of battle -- rights of indigenous peoples (plural). Federal Indian Law When

we enter into the

realm of "federal Indian law," we need to keep in mind that we are traveling in a semantic
world created by one group to rule another. The terminology of law is a powerful naming process. In working with this
law, we will use the names that it uses, but we will always want to keep in mind that the reality behind the names is what we are struggling over.

According to the theory of sovereignty in federal Indian law, "tribal" peoples have a lesser
form of "sovereignty," which is not really sovereignty at all, but dependence. In the words of Chief
Justice John Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), American Indian societies, though they are "nations" in the general sense of the
word, are not fully sovereign, but are "domestic, dependent nations." The shell game of American Indian sovereignty -- the "now you see it, now
you don't" quality -- started right at the beginning of federal Indian law. The

foundation of federal Indian law is the

assertion by the United States of a special kind of non-sovereign sovereignty.
This continued exclusion of the native voice results in racialized genocide in the
name of protecting the nation.
Wolfe 6 [Patrick Wolfe, researches stuff on genocide and settler colonialis. Settler colonialism and the
elimination of the native, http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/pdfs/89.pdf//Rahul]

The question of genocide is never far from discussions of settler colonialism. Land is
lifeor, at least, land is necessary for life . Thus contests for land can be indeed, often are
contests for life. Yet this is not to say that settler colonialism is simply a form of genocide . In some
settler-colonial sites (one thinks, for instance, of Fiji), native society was able to accommodatethough hardly
unscathedthe invaders and the transformative socioeconomic system that they introduced. Even in sites of
wholesale expropriation such as Australia or North America, settler colonialisms genocidal outcomes have not
manifested evenly across time or space. Native Title in Australia or Indian sovereignty in the US may have
deleterious features, but these are hardly equivalent to the impact of frontier homicide. Moreover, there can be
genocide in the absence of settler colonialism. The best known of all genocides was internal to Europe, while
genocides that have been perpetrated in, for example, Armenia, Cambodia, Rwanda or (one fears) Darfur do not
seem to be assignable to settler colonialism. In this article ,

I shall begin to explore, in comparative fashion,

the relationship between genocide and the settler-colonial tendency that I term the logic
of elimination.1 I contend that, though the two have convergedwhich is to say, the settler-colonial logic
of elimination has manifested as genocidal they should be distinguished. Settler colonialism is
inherently eliminatory but not invariably genocidal. As practised by Europeans, both genocide and settler
colonialism have typically employed the organizing grammar of race. European xenophobic traditions such as antiSemitism, Islamophobia, or Negrophobia are considerably older than race, which, as many have shown, became
discursively consolidated fairly late in the eighteenth century.2 But the mere fact that race is a social construct does
not of itself tell us very much. As I have argued, different racial regimes encode and reproduce the unequal

Indians and Black

people in the US have been racialized in opposing ways that reflect their antithetical
roles in the formation of US society. Black peoples enslavement produced an inclusive taxonomy that
relationships into which Europeans coerced the populations concerned. For instance,

automatically enslaved the offspring of a slave and any other parent. In the wake of slavery, this taxonomy became
fully racialized in the one-drop rule, Journal of Genocide Research (2006), 8(4), December, 387409 ISSN 14623528 print; ISSN 1469-9494 online/06=040387-23 # 2006 Research Network in Genocide Studies DOI:
10.1080=14623520601056240 whereby any amount of African ancestry, no matter how remote, and regardless of
phenotypical appearance, makes a person Black. For Indians, in stark contrast, non-Indian ancestry compromised

As
opposed to enslaved people, whose reproduction augmented their owners wealth ,
Indigenous people obstructed settlers access to land, so their increase was
counterproductive. In this way, the restrictive racial classification of Indians straightforwardly furthered the
their indigeneity, producing half-breeds, a regime that persists in the form of blood quantum regulations.

logic of elimination. Thus we cannot simply say that settler colonialism or genocide have been targeted at particular
races, since a race cannot be taken as given. It is made in the targeting.3 Black people were racialized as slaves;
slavery constituted their blackness. Correspondingly, Indigenous North Americans were not killed, driven away,
romanticized, assimilated, fenced in, bred White, and otherwise eliminated as the original owners of the land but as
Indians. Roger Smith has missed this point in seeking to distinguish between victims murdered for where they are
and victims murdered for who they are.4 So far as Indigenous people are concerned, where they are is who they
are, and not only by their own reckoning. As Deborah Bird Rose has pointed out, to get in the way of settler

Whatever settlers may say and they

generally have a lot to saythe primary motive for elimination is not race (or
colonization, all the native has to do is stay at home.5

religion, ethnicity, grade of civilization, etc.) but access to territory. Territoriality is

settler colonialisms specific, irreducible element . The logic of elimination not only
refers to the summary liquidation of Indigenous people , though it includes that. In common
with genocide as Raphael Lemkin characterized it,6 settler colonialism has both negative and positive dimensions.
Negatively, it strives for the dissolution of native societies. Positively, it erects a new colonial society on the
expropriated land baseas I put it, settler colonizers come to stay: invasion is a structure not an event.7 In its
positive aspect, elimination is an organizing principal of settler-colonial society rather than a one-off (and

The positive outcomes of the logic of elimination can include

officially encouraged miscegenation, the breaking-down of native title into alienable
individual freeholds, native citizenship, child abduction, religious conversion,
resocialization in total institutions such as missions or boarding schools, and a
whole range of cognate biocultural assimilations . All these strategies, including
frontier homicide, are characteristic of settler colonialism. Some of them are more
controversial in genocide studies than others.
superseded) occurrence.

The Alternative is to decolonize unconditionally, solving for

indigenous oppression is impossible in the current system,
decolonization must come first.
Waziyatawin 11
(Waziyatawin, Waziyatawin is a Dakota professor, author, and activist from the Pezihutazizi Otunwe in
southwestern Minnesota , 1-2-2011, "Colonialism on the Ground," Unsettling America,
https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/colonialism-on-theground/#more-45, accessed 7/26/15) CH
Ah, but some might argue that Indigenous Peoples in the United States are
sovereign nations and are already self-determined. By what standards? Every
system and institution that we bump up against on a daily basis is not of our
making, but has been imposed under colonial rule. The economic system, land
tenure system, educational system, social welfare system, governmental structure,
religious institutions are all colonial institutions that continue to oppress Indigenous
Peoples and deny Indigenous liberation. Even freedoms that theoretically apply to
all American citizens, such as religious freedom, are routinely denied to Indigenous
Peoples. We do not even have control over the protection of our ancestors remains.
Certainly, the fundamental freedoms that are necessary for Indigenous ways of
being, such as access to homeland, clean air and water, are not part of our reality.
What, in our lives, do we have complete control over? While we, along with other
anti-statist communities, occasionally experience what Hakim Bey identifies as
Temporary Autonomous Zones (created as an alternative to the existing hegemonic
order), we have yet to produce lasting Indigenous communities in the U.S. that
operate fully outside of a colonial existence. Instead, we create spaces where our
ways of being are practiced and nurtured, where we attempt to liberate ourselves
from the oppression that surrounds our daily existence, where it is good to be
Indigenous. We make them last as long as we can, but because they, as of yet,
cannot be sustained, we are forced to return to the real world that smothers with
an oppressive weight not all of us can bear to carry. Self-determination is an
impossibility under colonial rule. Meaningful change will require dramatic action on
our part that can move us beyond colonial interference. If we as Indigenous Peoples

in the United States ever want a liberated future for our future generations or
ourselves, we have to work toward decolonization. Decolonization is the intelligent,
calculated, and active resistance to the forces of colonialism that perpetuate the
subjugation and/or exploitation of our minds, bodies, and lands, and it is engaged
for the ultimate purpose of overturning the colonial structure and realizing
Indigenous liberation.1 A growing awareness of colonialism inexorably leads to a
simultaneous dissatisfaction with the situation and a growing unrest. This, in turn,
has the potential to lead to revolutionary praxis. Thus, recognition of this colonial
reality is the first step toward our liberation. We cannot resist what we cannot
identify and name. Then we need to begin to imagine an alternative reality. Our
colonizers have told us that we must accept the way things are because we cannot
change them. That is, we must accept our own subjugation and their domination as
a natural and inevitable state. Decolonization is a rejection of that logic. It therefore
requires opening up the mind to new visions of what is possible. If we were not
subject to the authority or presence of the United States government and its
citizens what would we want our lives to look like? The struggle for decolonization
requires us to identify clearly our objectives as Indigenous Peoples and to critically
question whether those objectives are constrained by the parameters of thought set
by colonialism, or whether they traverse those parameters and reflect our desires
as free, Indigenous Peoples of the land. If this critical interrogation of our own vision
does not occur, even upon overturning colonialism we would run the risk of
replicating colonial institutions and systems among our own populations.

LINK HERE

Aff Solvency Takeouts

There is no way to solve for oppression within the system, only
a prior decolonization allows for the ridding of oppression.
Sartre 57
(Jean Paul Satre, 1957, He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature but
refused it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should
not allow himself to be turned into an institution, The introduction of The Colonizer
and the Colonized, pp. 19-21, http://atlasarts.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/Albert-Memmi-The-Colonizer-and-the-Colonized.pdf) CH
*we dont endorse gendered language.
This is doubtless the reason Memmi might be reproached for his seeming idealism;
in fact, he tells all. But one can haggle with him about his method. Perhaps it would
have been better to show the colonizer and his victim both throttled by the colonial
apparatus, that cumbersome machine, constructed at the dose of the Second
Empire and under the Third Republic, that now, after giving the colonizers every
satisfaction, turns against them and threatens to crush them. In fact, racism is built
into the system: the colony sells produce. and raw materials cheaply, and purchases
manufactured goods at very high prices from the mother country. This singular
trade is profitable to both parties only if the native works for little or nothing. The
colonial agricultural subproletariat cannot even count on an alliance with the leastfavored Europeans, for everyone lives off them, even the "small colonizers," whom
the big proprietors exploit, but who are privileged compared to the Algerians, the
average income of the Algerian Frenchman being ten times that of the Algerian
Moslem. Here the tension is born. To keep salaries and the cost of living at a
minimum, there must be great competition among native workers, so the birth rate
must rise; but since the country's resources are earmarked for colonialist
appropriation, the Moslem standard of living, on constant wages, continues to fall.
The population thus lives in a chronic state of. malnutrition. Conquest occurred
through violence, and over-exploitation and oppression necessitate con tinued
violence, so the army is present. There would be no contradiction in that, if terror
reigned everywhere in the world, but the colonizer enjoys, in the mother country,
democratic rights that the colonialist system refuses to the colonized native. In fact,
the colonialist system favors population growth to reduce the cost of labor, and it
forbids assimilation of the natives, whose numerical superiority, if they had voting
rights, would shatter the system. Colonialist denies human rights to human beings
whom it has subdued by violence, and keeps them by force in a state of misery and
ignorance that Marx would rightly call a subhuman condition. Racism is ingrained in
actions, institutions, and in the nature.of the colonialist methods of production and
exchange. Political and social regulations reinforce one another. Since the native is
subhuman, the Declaration of Human Rights does not apply to him; inversely, since
he has no rights, he is abandoned without protection to inhuman forces-brought in
with the colonialist praxis, engendered every moment by the colonialist apparatus,
and sustained by relations of production that define two sorts of individuals--one for

whom privilege and humanity are one, who becomes a human being through
exercising his rights; and the other, for whom a denial of rights sanctions misery,
chronic hunger, ignorance, or, in general, "subhumanity." I have always thought that
ideas take form from things and that the ideas are already within man when he
awakens them and expresses them to elucidate his situation. The colonizer's
"conservatism" and "racism," his ambiguous relations with the mother country-such
things are given first, before he revives them into Nero complexes.

Links

Tohono
The United States is a colonial state, and the civil rights the
1AC advocates fails because it operates in this colonial space
and is only a further progress trap resulting in the continued
colonial oppression of the Tohono.
Tuck and Yang 12 (Eve Tuck, State University of New York at New Paltz, K.
Wayne Yang University of California, San Diego, Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, Decolonization is not a metaphor, pp 6-7,
accessed 7/24/15) CH
The settler, if known by his actions and how he justifies them, sees himself as
holding dominion over the earth and its flora and fauna, as the anthropocentric
normal, and as more developed, more human, more deserving than other groups or
species. The settler is making a new "home" and that home is rooted in a
homesteading worldview where the wild land and wild people were made for his
benefit. He can only make his identity as a settler by making the land produce, and
produce excessively, because "civilization" is defined as production in excess of the
"natural" world (i.e. in excess of the sustainable production already present in the
Indigenous world). In order for excess production, he needs excess labor, which he
cannot provide himself. The chattel slave serves as that excess labor, labor that can
never be paid because payment would have to be in the form of property (land).
The settler's wealth is land, or a fungible version of it, and so payment for labor is
impossible.6 The settler positions himself as both superior and normal; the settler is
natural, whereas the Indigenous inhabitant and the chattel slave are unnatural,
even supernatural. Settlers are not immigrants. Immigrants are beholden to the
Indigenous laws and epistemologies of the lands they migrate to. Settlers become
the law, supplanting Indigenous laws and epistemologies. Therefore, settler nations
are not immigrant nations (See also A.J. Barker, 2009). Not unique, the United
States, as a settler colonial nation-state, also operates as an empire - utilizing
external forms and internal forms of colonization simultaneous to the settler colonial
project. This means, and this is perplexing to some, that dispossessed people are
brought onto seized Indigenous land through other colonial projects. Other colonial
projects include enslavement, as discussed, but also military recruitment, low-wage
and high-wage labor recruitment (such as agricultural workers and overseas-trained
engineers), and displacement/migration (such as the coerced immigration from
nations torn by U.S. wars or devastated by U.S. economic policy). In this set of
settler colonial relations, colonial subjects who are displaced by external
colonialism, as well as racialized and minoritized by internal colonialism, still occupy
and settle stolen Indigenous land. Settlers are diverse, not just of white European
descent, and include people of color, even from other colonial contexts. This tightly
wound set of conditions and racialized, globalized relations exponentially
complicates what is meant by decolonization, and by solidarity, against settler
colonial forces. Decolonization in exploitative colonial situations could involve the
seizing of imperial wealth by the postcolonial subject. In settler colonial situations,
seizing imperial wealth is inextricably tied to settlement and re-invasion. Likewise,

the promise of integration and civil rights is predicated on securing a share of a

settler-appropriated wealth (as well as expropriated third-world wealth).
Decolonization in a settler context is fraught because empire, settlement, and
internal colony have no spatial separation. Each of these features of settler
colonialism in the US context - empire, settlement, and internal colony - make it a
site of contradictory decolonial desires7 . Decolonization as metaphor allows people
to equivocate these contradictory decolonial desires because it turns decolonization
into an empty signifier to be filled by any track towards liberation. In reality, the
tracks walk all over land/people in settler contexts. Though the details are not fixed
or agreed upon, in our view, decolonization in the settler colonial context must
involve the repatriation of land simultaneous to the recognition of how land and
relations to land have always already been differently understood and enacted; that
is, all of the land, and not just symbolically. This is precisely why decolonization is
necessarily unsettling, especially across lines of solidarity. Decolonization never
takes place unnoticed (Fanon, 1963, p. 36). Settler colonialism and its
decolonization implicates and unsettles everyone.

The 1ACs framing of the Tohono as a people in crisis conceals

the erasure of the Indigenous and forces them to the margins
of public discourse.
Tuck and Yang 12 (Eve Tuck, State University of New York at New Paltz, K.
Wayne Yang University of California, San Diego, Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, Decolonization is not a metaphor, pp 2223, accessed 7/24/15) CH
This settler move to innocence is concerned with the ways in which Indigenous
peoples are counted, codified, represented, and included/disincluded by educational
researchers and other social science researchers. Indigenous peoples are rendered
visible in mainstream educational research in two main ways: as at risk peoples
and as asterisk peoples. This comprises a settler move to innocence because it
erases and then conceals the erasure of Indigenous peoples within the settler
colonial nation-state and moves Indigenous nations as populations to the margins
of public discourse. As at risk peoples, Indigenous students and families are
described as on the verge of extinction, culturally and economically bereft, engaged
or soon-to-be engaged in self-destructive behaviors which can interrupt their school
careers and seamless absorption into the economy. Even though it is widely known
and verified that Native youth gain access to personal and academic success when
they also have access to/instruction in their home languages, most Native American
and Alaskan Native youth are taught in English-only schools by temporary teachers
who know little about their students communities (Lomawaima and McCarty, 2006;
Lee, 2011). Even though Indigenous knowledge systems predate, expand, update,
and complicate the curricula found in most public schools, schools attended by poor
Indigenous students are among those most regimented in attempts to comply with
federal mandates. Though these mandates intrude on the sovereignty of Indigenous
peoples, the services promised at the inception of these mandates do little to
make the schools attended by Indigenous youth better at providing them a
compelling, relevant, inspiring and meaningful education. At the same time,

Indigenous communities become the asterisk peoples, meaning they are

represented by an asterisk in large and crucial data sets, many of which are
conducted to inform public policy that impact our/their lives (Villegas, 2012).
Education and health statistics are unavailable from Indigenous communities for a
variety of reasons and, when they are made available, the size of the n, or the
sample size, can appear to be negligible when compared to the sample size of
other/race-based categories. Though Indigenous scholars such as Malia Villegas
recognize that Indigenous peoples are distinct from each other but also from other
racialized groups surveyed in these studies, they argue that difficulty of collecting
basic education and health information about this small and heterogeneous
category must be overcome in order to counter the disappearance of Indigenous
particularities in public policy. In U.S. educational research in particular, Indigenous
peoples are included only as asterisks, as footnotes into dominant paradigms of
educational inequality in the U.S. This can be observed in the progressive literature
on school discipline, on underrepresented minorities in higher education, and in
the literature of reparation, i.e., redressing past wrongs against nonwhite Others.
Under such paradigms, which do important work on alleviating the symptoms of
colonialism (poverty, dispossession, criminality, premature death, cultural
genocide), Indigeneity is simply an and or an illustration of oppression. Urban
education, for example, is a code word for the schooling of black, brown, and
ghettoized youth who form the numerical majority in divested public schools. Urban
American Indians and Native Alaskans become an asterisk group, invisibilized, even
though about two-thirds of Indigenous peoples in the U.S. live in urban areas,
according to the 2010 census. Yet, urban Indians receive fewer federal funds for
education, health, and employment than their counterparts on reservations (Berry,
2012). Similarly, Native Pasifika people become an asterisk in the Asian Pacific
Islander category and their politics/epistemologies/experiences are often subsumed
under a pan-ethnic Asian-American master narrative. From a settler viewpoint that
concerns itself with numerical inequality, e.g. the achievement gap,
underrepresentation, and the 99%s short share of the wealth of the metropole, the
asterisk is an outlier, an outnumber. It is a token gesture, an inclusion and an
enclosure of Native people into the politics of equity. These acts of inclusion
assimilate Indigenous sovereignty, ways of knowing, and ways of being by remaking
a collective-comprised tribal identity into an individualized ethnic identity. From a
decolonizing perspective, the asterisk is a body count that does not account for
Indigenous politics, educational concerns, and epistemologies. Urban land (indeed
all land) is Native land. The vast majority of Native youth in North America live in
urban settings. Any decolonizing urban education endeavor must address the
foundations of urban land pedagogy and Indigenous politics vis-a-vis the settler
colonial state.

Although the affirmative is attacking the state, they still

believe that it can be fixed, a fatal misconception legitimizing
the genocide and colonization of the indigenous.
Smith 2005

(Andrea Smith, Native American Feminism, Sovereignty, and Social Change , Andrea
Smith is associate professor in the Department of Media and Cultural Studies at the
University of California, Riverside, Spring 2005, Feminist Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.
128-129, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20459010?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) CH
Native feminist theory and activism make a critical contribution to feminist politics
as a whole by questioning the legitimacy of the United States specifically and the
nation-state as the appropriate form of governance generally. Progressive activists
and scholars, although prepared to make critiques of the U.S. government, are often
not prepared to question its legitimacy. A case in point is the strategy of many
racial justice organizations in the United States to rally against hate crimes resulting
from the attacks of 9/11 under the banner, "We're American too." However, what
the analysis of Native women activists suggests is that this implicit allegiance to
"America" legitimizes the genocide and colonization of Native peoples, as there
could be no "America" without this genocide. Thus by making anticolonial struggle
central to feminist politics, Native women make central to their organizing the
question of what is the appropriate form of governance for the world in general.
Does self-determination for indigenous peoples equal aspirations for a nation-state,
or are there other forms of governance we can create that are not based on
domination and control? Questioning the United States, in particular, and
questioning the nation state as the appropriate form of governance for the world, in
general, allow us to free our political imagination to begin thinking of how we can
begin to build a world we would actually want to live in. Such a political project is
particularly important for colonized peoples seeking national liberation because it
allows us to differentiate "nation" from "nation state." Helpful in this project of
imagination is the work of Native women activists who have begun articulating
notions of nation and sovereignty that are separate from nation-states. Whereas
nation-states are governed through domination and coercion, indigenous
sovereignty and nation hood is predicated on interrelatedness and responsibility. As
Crystal Ecohawk states: Sovereignty is an active, living process within this knot of
human, material and spiritual relationships bound together by mutual
responsibilities and obligations. From that knot of relationships is born our histories,
our identity, the traditional ways in which we govern ourselves, our beliefs, our
relationship to the land, and how we feed, clothe, house and take care of our
families, communities and Nations."

Anti-Blackness
The attempt to solve for racism before solving for colonization
is rooted in a misunderstanding of the situation. Racism is a
tool for the colonizer, not the other way around. Without
destroying the framework of colonialism, all oppression will
continue.
Memmi 57
Albert Memmi, 1957, Albert Memmi is a French writer and essayist of TunisianJewish origin, The Colonizer and The Colonized, pp. 117-119,
http://atlasarts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Albert-Memmi-The-Colonizerand-the-Colonized.pdf, accessed 7/27/15) CH
The fact is that all oppression is directed at a human group as a whole and, a priori,
all individual members of that group are anonymously victimized by it. One often
hears that workers-that is all workers, since they are workers-are afflicted by this
and that defect and -this and that fault. The racist accusation directed at the
colonized cannot be anything but collective, and every one of the colonized must be
held guilty without exception. It is admitted, however, that there is a possible
escape from the oppression of a worker. Theoretically at least, a worker can leave
his class and change his status, but within the framework of colonization, nothing
can ever save the colonized. He can never move into the privileged clan; even if he
should earn more money than they, if he should win all the titles, if he should
enormously increase his power. We have compared oppression and the colonial
struggle to oppression and the class struggle. The colonizer-colonized, people-topeople relationship within nations can, in fact, remind one of the bourgeoisie
proletariat relationship within a nation. But the almost absolutely airtight colonial
groupings must also be mentioned. All the efforts of the colonialist are directed
toward maintaining this social immobility, and racism is the surest weapon for this
aim. In effect, change. becomes impossible, and any revolt would be absurd. Racism
appears then, not as an incidental detail, but as a part of colonialism. It is the
highest expression of the colonial. system and one of the most significant features
of the colonialist. Not only does .it establish a fundamental discrimination between
colonizer and colonized, a sine qua non of colonial life, but it also lays the
foundation for the immutability of this life. The racist tone of each move of both the
colonialist and the colonizer is the source of the extraordinary spread of racism in
the colonies. And not only the man on the street: A Rabat psychiatrist dared tell
me, after twenty years' practice, that North The colonizer who accepts African
neuroses were due to the North African spirit. That spirit or that ethnic grouping or
that psychism stems from the institutions of another century, from the absence of
technical development, from the necessary political bondage-in short, from the
whole drama. It demonstrates clearly that the colonial situation is irremediable and
will remain in a state of inertia.

The Affs view of ethnicity is an extension of a colonialist

mindset, one which is used to control those who have been
colonized.
Sium, Desai and Ritskes 12
(Aman Sium, Chandni Desai, Rick Ritskes, all three are professors at the Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Towards the tangible
unknown: Decolonization and the Indigenous future, Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, pp. 6-7, accessed 7-26-15) CH
often the decolonizing project has had to , out of necessity, focus on
reclaiming or restating the humanity of colonized peoples . Colonization has been determined
to stand as the final arbiter of who is human. Integral to this process is the delegitimization of
Indigenous humanity and life. In the process of reasserting Indigenous humanity,
too often the rubric has remained a Western styled humanism that proclaims, We
are all Indigenous, conflating Indigeneity with humanity . This approach is similarly deployed at
As mentioned earlier,

times by the nonAfrican world, which articulates an Africa as the cradle of humanity stance to conclude that we

Colonialism and its concomitant project of white

supremacy have always seen and understood Indigeneity as different and
threatening, working overtime to marginalize and erase Indigenous existence. A
claim to a shared humanity is not decolonizing and works to reinscribe a racist
framework of color-blindness. Such a claim necessarily falls back on religious (and subsequently
are all African. We firmly reject this stance.

secular) language of solidarity that believes the Sunday school notions of we are equal under God (GaztambideFernndez, this issue), and erases and minimizes the power differentials that colonialism created and continues to
maintain. As Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012) argues, The focus on asserting humanity has to be seen within the anti-

We also
push back against the project of deciding who is Indigenous through colonial
strategies of measurement and containment, of finding particular genetic, historic
and communal markers by which to legitimize who can and cannot be Indigenous.
This is particularly done through a policing of boundaries, especially under a binary
system of Indigenous/nonIndigenous, which has a long history of colonial power
taking up these tools of differentiation to divide and conquer, disenfranchise, and
steal land from Indigenous peoples . What these delineations of Indigeneity look like differ depending
colonial analysis of imperialism and what are seen as imperialisms dehumanizing imperatives (p. 27).

on context and place but the intent and logic behind them is similar. In Africa, where Indigeneity and Indigenous
governance existed before colonial rule, its formalization took place through legally inscribed identities of native
and non-native. Indigeneity came to be defined along the lines of race and ethnicity. The

distinction
between race and ethnicities was not the same as the distinction between
colonizers and colonized (p. 656), the hierarchy of races included both colonizers (from the master race)
and the colonized (from subject races). Mamdani (2001) suggests that it is worth grasping difference between
subject races and subject ethnicities. While both were colonized, the subject ethnicities were considered Indigenous
and the subject races were considered non Indigenous, immigrants (ex: the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi). In the
case of Rwanda, despite the social revolution that lead to independence, the imposed racial and ethnic categories
of colonial rule stayed intact and intensified the economic and political tensions, which eventually slid towards the
1990 genocide. Mamdani (2001) argues that though we turned the colonial world upside down, we didn't change
it (p. 9). This understanding of ethnicity is not without its problems though. The use of ethnicity continues to sever,
interrupt and re-name Indigenous identities. In Rwanda and Burundi, for example, the categories of Hutu and Tutsi
did not exist prior to the eighteenth century, when colonial anthropologists divided local peoples by physical traits
and lines of work. Some even going as far as measuring noses and cranium sizes to discover biological differences
that denoted a lesser humanity (Mamdani, 2002, p. 44). Little has changed since then. Ethnicity

is often a
residual of colonialism; it remains a measuring stick that exists as part of the states
vocabulary to measure, contain and control colonized peoples, and it remains a

dehistoricized stand-in for Indigeneity. Alfred (2009a) draws similarities between the concepts of
Third World ethnicity and Aboriginalism, saying that both are part of assimilations end-game,
the terminological and psychic displacement of authentic Indigenous identities,
beliefs and behaviors...Aboriginalism obscures everything that is historically true
and meaningful about Onkwehonwe (p. 126-127). In interrogating colonial markers of identity we
must ask: How does Indigeneity get captured and domesticated by colonial states, both here and abroad? How do
state frameworks for recognition render some constitutionally Indigenous - and because of this, visible - while
others are not? In Canada, as in other Western settler-colonial contexts, discourses of multiculturalism have tried to
place Indigenous peoples within a community of ethnic groups. As Rubn Gaztambide-Fernndez (this issue) rightly
critiques multiculturalism, its project of ethnicity and culture is one of containment and empty signifiers, stripping

Indigenous peoples, who

have occupied their lands since time immemorial become expelled by and then
invited back into the settler nation-state as Aboriginal. This process unties the
knots of history, loosens Indigenous claims to land, and reduces them to members
of a multicultural minority, always located around the nation but never within it.
Through settler constitutions such as Canadas Indian Act, Indigeneity has been denied to many
through gendered, racist policies that worked to make extinct Indigenous peoples,
removing communities so that the land does indeed look uninhabited and
pristinely empty for settler occupation (Tuck & Yang, this issue; Smith, 2010; Razack, 2002).
culture of any power in order to fit it within a colonial paradigm. Even further,

Race theorists do not take into account the plight of the

indigenous, ignoring that without involving the native voice
there is no progress.
Smith 10
Andrea Smith, Andrea Smith is associate professor in the Department of Media and
Cultural Studies at the University of California, Riverside, "Indigeneity, Settler
Colonialism, White Supremacy," Global Dialogue Volume 12 Number 2
Summer/Autumn 2010Race And Racisms,
http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=488, accessed 7/26/15) CH
This tendency for theorists of race to presume the givenness of the settler state is
not unique to Bell or Omi and Winant, and in fact appears to be the norm. For
instance, Joe Feagin has written several works on race that focus on the primacy of
anti-black racism because he argues that no other racially oppressed group has
been so central to the internal economic, political, and cultural structure and
evolution of the North American society.16 He does note that the United States is
formed from stolen land and argues that the the brutal and bloody actions and
consequences of European conquests do often fit the United Nations definition of
genocide.17 So, if the United States is fundamentally constituted through the
genocide of Native peoples, why are Native peoples not central to the development
of American society? Again, the answer is that the Native genocide is relegated to
the past so that the givenness of settler colonialism today can be presumed.18
Jared Sexton, in his otherwise brilliant analysis in Amalgamation Schemes, also
presumes the continuance of settler colonialism.19 He describes Native peoples as
a racial group to be collapsed into all non-black peoples of colour. Sexton goes so
far as to argue for a black/non-black paradigm that is parallel to a
black/immigrant paradigm, rhetorically collapsing indigenous peoples into the

category of immigrants, in effect erasing their relationship to this land and hence
reifying the settler colonial project. Similarly, Angela Harris argues for a black
exceptionalism that defines race relations in which Native peoples play a
subsidiary role. To make this claim, she lumps Native peoples into the category of
racial minority and even immigrant by contending that contempt for blacks is
part of the ritual through which immigrant groups become American .20 Of
course, what is not raised in this analysis is that America itself can exist only
through the disappearance of indigenous peoples. Feagin, Sexton and Harris fail to
consider that markers of racial progress for Native peoples are also markers of
genocide. For instance, Sexton contends that the high rate of interracial marriages
for Native peoples indicates racial progress rather than being part of the legacy of
US policies of cultural genocide, including boarding schools, relocation, removal and
termination. Interestingly, a central intervention made by Sexton is that the politics
of multiculturalism depends on anti-black racism. That is, multiculturalism exists to
distance itself from blackness (since difference from whiteness, defined as racial
purity, is already a given). However, with an expanded notion of the logics of settler
colonialism, his analysis could resonate with indigenous critiques of mestizaje,
whereby the primitive indigenous subject always disappears into the more complex,
evolved mestizo subject. These signs of racial progress could then be
rearticulated as markers of indigenous disappearance and what Denise Ferreira da
Silva terms as racial engulfment into the white self-determining subject.21 Thus,
besides presuming the genocide of Native peoples and the givenness of settler
society, these analyses also misread the logics of anti-indigenous racism (as well as
other forms of racism).

Be skeptical of any movements that do not start with ridding

the state of colonial opression
Razack 14 (Sherene Razack, Professor of Sociology and Equity Studies at the
University of Toronto, 10-7-2014, "Sherene Razack on Our Settler Legacy," Possible
Canadas, http://possiblecanadas.ca/en/sherene-razack-canadas-settler-legacy-2/)
CH
The growing, institutionalized dehumanization towards specific groups. Its as
though society is evolving based on the principle that human life doesnt matter.
Every morning, I read about 10 things that make me think were growing
increasingly distant from each other. It begins with race and becomes a structure
that invades everything. White people routinely dehumanize Indigenous people. Im
talking of a spectrum of violent acts, like police officers who drive a man out of the
city and leave him to freeze to death. The principle that this persons life is not
worth as much as yours is both an everyday act and a state practice. Look at the
tough on crime initiatives that conservatives love. What kind of cruelty and
disregard for human life do these kinds of policies come out of? I always think about
how dominant subjects make themselves dominant. Youre not born that way. I tell
my class, No one is born White. You have to learn it and you have to keep
performing it every day. People dont easily believe in their own superiority or that

others are lower forms of humanity. They have to convince themselves, and theyre
terribly haunted by it. The Settlers had to learn that Indigenous people were inferior,
were savages. But it was a very hard lesson to learn, because for one thing, theyre
not. Indigenous people had a lot of knowledge about this place and clearly had a
developed society. Because we have to be taught not to recognize the humanity of
others, maybe we can interrupt this process. We have to learn that the colonial
project that is Canada is not viable, because it is not structured on the principle of a
common humanity. We could look at all the instances where spectacular meanness
and repression have not produced anything good, moments when Canada was
tempted to be extremely vicious to Indigenous peoples. If that principle structures
your country, which is what structures this country, then its almost like you cant go
anywhere good from there. We cant move into recognizing the humanity of
refugees or other people if our day-to-day life is intensely structured by the
inhumanity with which we have treated Aboriginal people . Almost everything we do
came out of that colonial moment when we tried to figure out how to steal the land.
We have to confront this colonial paradigm before we can open the way to Others.

Fem
Gendered oppression is the tool of the colonizer, without first
decolonizing we cannot solve for the rape and assault of native
women.
Claire 2009
(September 2009, Anarchist Organizer, Mirroring Colonial Power Structures in
Radical Organizing: Rape Culture as Colonization and Community Accountability,
Unsettling Ourselves: Reflections and Resources for Deconstructing Colonial
Mentality, pp. 94-95,
https://unsettlingminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/unsettling-minnesotasourcebook1point0.pdf, accessed 7/27/15) CH
The way that patriarchy is enforced and maintained is through systematic gender oppression in the mode of sexual
abuse both physical and mental. Rape culture means the normalization and naturalization of systematic sexual

Patriarchal rape culture means that womens

bodies and sexuality socially belong as objects and property to male desire . In rape
violence and sexual abuse against women in society.

culture, it is socially perceived that womens bodies and sexuality are something men have a right and claim to, this
opens the space for systematic sexual violence physically, emotionally and psychologically. In patriarchal US
society, men are empowered to make the decisions and laws that effect and control womens bodies and lives while

When women occupy positions of power within US

colonial society, the power structures and dynamics they are enacting are still
within the constructs of patriarchal values, thus they are continuing to engage in
gender oppression. Rape culture means that women experience mental and physical forms of sexual
womens voices are devalued and silenced.

violence on a consistent, everyday basis and internalize these assaults, resulting in selfhatred and low self-esteem,
insecurities, lack of confidence, and thus further silencing. Rape culture means that women are frequently
pressured, coerced and forced into sexual acts as womens sexuality is seen as property and conquest. Rape culture
means that victims and survivors of sexual violence are often considered responsible and at fault for their own
assaults and rapes. Rape culture is how it becomes socially accepted that women are ultimately to blame for their
own rapes and assaults because of their own behavior (they dressed a certain way, theyre promiscuous, they were
drunk, they didnt fight back, they didnt say no). Rape culture pressures the silence of female victims and survivors
because we are taught that womens bodies are meant to be violated and therefore at fault. Rape culture also
means that perpetrators of sexual violence are rarely held responsible for their actions as the most common forms

Sexual violence cannot be

understood only as a tool of patriarchy but also as a tool of white supremacy and
colonization. In mainstream US society, the rapes of some women matter while the
rapes of others do not. White supremacy and rape culture means that some
perpetrators will be prosecuted and others will not. It means that whom is raped by whom
matters in deciding whether or not the act holds significance. Sexual violence is a tool of colonial
white supremacy in that it renders certain women as violable and certain men as
those capable of violating. Colonial society and rape culture make it so that women
believe themselves to be in need of protection from sexual violence and that
protection is found through the institutions and authorities that make up white
supremacist, patriarchal, colonial power structures. Examples of this are the mass lynchings of
black men by white men for in some way interacting with white women. Since the endurance of US
colonial society is dependent upon the repression, criminalization and eradication of
indigenous cultures, sexual violence is an important tool in maintaining the
permanent present absence of native peoples and thus the continued legitimacy
US settlers and colonial society claim to indigenous land . Again referencing Smith, as US
colonial society renders indigenous bodies and land as settler property and as
of sexual violence are normalized, such as date rape and domestic violence.

rightfully violable, indigenous peoples become constructed as naturally violable

within US colonial society (Conquest, 12). Due to this, indigenous women are much
more likely to be targeted for sexual violence than white women. The rapes and assaults of
indigenous women are mostly ignored or condoned by law enforcement and authorities. The perpetrators of these
sexual assaults and rapes most likely face no consequences. Indigenous women are subject to other systematic
forms of sexual violence such as enforced, mass sterilization by the state. S mith

calls this systematic

sexual violence against indigenous peoples a project of colonial sexual violence
which results in what she refers to as an internalized genocidal project through
selfdestruction (Conquest, 12). The colonial tools of sexual violence and rape
culture are used against indigenous communities to inflict massive psychological
damage and self-hatred, repressing indigenous sovereignty and identity.

Sexual Violence is impossible to solve within the current

system, through the affs reforms the colonial power structures
are only replicated.
Claire 2009
(September 2009, Anarchist Organizer, Mirroring Colonial Power Structures in
Radical Organizing: Rape Culture as Colonization and Community Accountability,
Unsettling Ourselves: Reflections and Resources for Deconstructing Colonial
Mentality, pp. 96-97,
ttps://unsettlingminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/unsettling-minnesotasourcebook1point0.pdf, accessed 7/27/15) CH
In this essay I have been referring to sexual violence and rape culture as patriarchal tools of gender oppression and
speaking as though sexual violence is only perpetrated by men against women. While statistically, almost all
perpetrators of sexual violence are men and most women have experienced some form of sexual violence, women
certainly can be and are perpetrators of sexual violence and large numbers of men are survivors of sexual violence.
Nor do I seek to imply that sexual violence is a hetero-normative act occurring between only men and women (I do
however want to stress, that due to patriarchal gender oppression and rape culture, the ways that sexual violence
affect men and women are very different). If women are perpetrators of sexual violence, or if men rape other men,

Sexual violence is
an enactment and reinforcement of colonial power, regardless of what form it takes .
Colonialism values conquest, domination, power, greed and taking by whatever force necessary. Colonialist
society is built on institutionalized hierarchies . Rape culture and sexual violence (as I hope Ive
explained well by now) are strong tools used in the maintenance of hierarchical oppression and privilege . By
living within colonialist society, our minds become colonized in the sense that we
are raised to think and understand in terms of colonial power structures and
hierarchy. We are shaped by the privilege, or lack of privilege, we receive in colonial
society and learn to behave in accordance with these privileges or oppressions. We
learn to expect, demand and control, or we learn to be controlled. We learn that we
matter or that we do not matter. Colonization means that these understandings
become so fundamental in the development of our minds that they become natural
to us. We learn to think in terms of hierarchy, power, domination and control. We learn to value power as control,
does that mean sexual violence is not a systematic tool of patriarchal gender oppression?

dominance and violence. We learn to desire power as something belonging to the individual and to assert power
over others in order to obtain more power. Throughout the anti-rape organizing and educating I have been involved
in, I have heard arguments that sexual violence cannot be gendered and is not an issue relating to gender. Sexual
violence, as I hope Ive explained well, is actually heavily gendered and one cannot separate sexual violence from
gender, just as

one cannot separate sexual violence from any colonial oppression . I want to

focus on our abilities to perpetuate cycles of violence and how we have been colonized to understand and mimic
colonial structures of violence. Sexual violence, no matter what form it takes, is a tool of colonial, patriarchal gender

This is why we
cant hope for change within the US system because US society has been built from
and out of violent colonialist power structures; its survival is dependent on the
reinforcement and maintenance of these colonial power structures. US society and
government have to be completely dismantled in order to abolish colonial rule. No
matter who is the perpetrator of sexual violence, it is a violent act that seeks to
claim dominance, to conquer, to control and to assert power. Power through
conquest, claim and dominance are what embody, drive, and maintain colonization
and colonial rule. Even if the roles of oppressor and oppressed are reversed we are
still enacting colonial systems of power and thus reinforcing and validating them.
oppression and is a manifestation of those structures of power seeking to validate themselves.

The affirmative operates in the mindset that whats best for

them is best for everyone else, but it ignores the root cause of
the oppression of indigenous women, the colonization of their
bodies. Only decolonization can solve for gendered opression
Jacobs 13 (Beverley Jacobs,Beverley Jacobs is a citizen of the Kanienkehake
Nation, Bear Clan of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from the Six Nations Grand
River Territory. She graduated with a law degree at the University of Windsor in
1994 and a masters degree in law in 2000. She is currently a PhD Candidate at the
University of Calgary. She also owns her own law firm, which is situated at Six
Nations Grand River Territory and practices part-time while working on her
Interdisciplinary Degree focusing on human rights, Indigenous research
methodologies, and Aboriginal health, FEBRUARY 13, 2013"Decolonizing the
Violence Against Indigenous Women," Decolonization,
https://decolonization.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/decolonizing-the-violence-againstindigenous-women/) CH
Colonization is violence. Colonization has had an impact on both Indigenous women
and mens roles in all relationships but Indigenous women have taken the brunt of
the impacts of colonization. Direct attacks against Indigenous women are attempts
to erase them from existence so that there will be no future generations. These are
attacks against the future of our Indigenous nations. Indigenous women are now
dealing with the high statistics of violence against them and the highest numbers of
missing and murdered Indigenous women, not only in Canada but also globally.
Violence and abuse have occurred in all societies and in all races of peoples, but the
violence against Indigenous women comes from colonization; our Indigenous
women have become the direct targets of colonial violence. This has saturated into
our communities and Indigenous women are now dealing with the violence against
them by Indigenous men and by non-Indigenous men. They are no longer safe in
their own communities. I have learned about not being safe in my own home and
community. I have learned what an abusive relationship is. In an abusive
relationship, the abuser feels the need to have power and control. When an abuser
feels that his power and control are taken away, he has to strike out at his most

vulnerable victim to regain that power and control. The victim loses her voice and
feels that she does not have any control of the situation at the time of the abuse. I
remember being silent and knowing that I could not say a word to anyone about the
abuse that was happening. I remember that silence well. When an abusive
relationship ends, the victim makes a decision to take her power back. I remember
saying that I will no longer be beaten or abused not mentally, emotionally,
spiritually, physically or sexually. I remember saying that no one will ever hurt me
again. I acknowledged that I will no longer be a victim. I had found my voice and
regained respect for myself. As a survivor of violence, I have learned not to blame
anyone else but to take responsibility for myself. I can celebrate my life and learn
from the lessons that I have learned. The abuser has an opportunity to learn that he
does not need to have that kind of power and control but can be an equal and
respectful partner. The relationship has to be a partnership. The abusive
relationships that happen to our women are also born out in the larger context of
Canadas colonial relationship to Indigenous peoples. Canadas colonial government
has been an abuser since its existence. First, it violated peace and friendship
treaties, which were based on nation-to-nation relationships, by unilaterally
establishing its government through legislation in which it had control over Indians
and lands reserved for Indians (ie. British North America Act, 1867). This legislation
then gave the government authority to establish the most racist piece of legislation
called the Indian Act. These unilateral acts were the beginning of the abusive
relationship. As a result of generations of abuse and control, Indigenous peoples
have become victims in a long-standing abusive relationship and have been
silenced through the lack of control over lands and resources, the genocidal policies
of the residential school system, and the disrespect and violence against Indigenous
women. The violence against women and the violence occurring against Mother
Earth are also directly connected. Haudenosaunee planting ceremonies
acknowledge that the women are the seed the connection between the Creator
and Mother Earth. The loss of connection of Indigenous women to their lands and
territories means that the lifeblood and carrier of future generations are also cut off.
Since the existence of the patriarchal Indian Act, there have been missing
Indigenous women who were forcefully displaced from their traditional territories for
marrying out. This was the beginning of missing Indigenous women. The
genocidal policies of the Indian Act also had an impact on Indigenous governance
systems where the womens decision-making qualities were silenced and no longer
part of the balance of these systems. And we already know what the residential
schools did to our families, including the roles of mothers and fathers and the losses
of family bonding, and the loss of the most basic tenets of a relationship: love and
emotional well-being. In order to become survivors of this abusive relationship, all
victims, including Indigenous men and women, must take their power back. Many
have already. This is what decolonization means at a very practical level taking
our power back. The language and actions about violence against Indigenous
women has to shift to actually begin the decolonization process. What do I mean by
shifting our language? It means that we have to stop behaving and to stop talking
like a victim. We have to stop blaming the abuser and take responsibility for our
own actions. We have to teach our next generations about healthy relationships,
healthy sexual relationships and how to treat each other with respect. We need to

practice our teachings by making a conscious choice about the decisions that we
make today and how each of those decisions have an impact seven generations
from now. I know my ancestors did that for me seven generations ago. The
decisions include how we teach our sons to respect themselves and to be good
men, to honour the women in their lives, to honour their children, to be good fathers
and good grandfathers; the decisions to teach our daughters to respect themselves
and their bodies, to respect all of the relationships in their lives, to know that they
are the life givers and nurturers to the next generations. Decolonization means
bringing the safety back and means living in a society where we feel safe and where
we respect each other as people. It means that our men are taking back their
rightful responsibilities to be the Warriors of our nations; to protect the women and
the children, and the lands they are all connected to, to protect the lands for our
future generations. It means that our women are taking back their rightful
responsibilities to be respected decision-makers, to carry and nurture life and to
bring those future generations into this physical world. It is the responsibility of all
generations (mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers) to ensure that we
maintain those connections to our lands and territories, with our strong languages
and ceremonies intact. Decolonization means true partnerships, whether those
partnerships are with Canada, with our non-Indigenous allies, or between
Indigenous men and women. Decolonization means that we celebrate our resiliency
in the face of an abusive relationship and choose different relationships that honor
ourselves, our communities, our women, and our lands.

Islamaphobia
The colonialist intention to spread Christianity and Democracy
is the hidden backdrop for all modern counter terror
operations.
Edmunds,11 (Jane, July 23 2011, Professor, Development Studies, University of
Cambridge, Contemporary Islam (2012) 6:6784, The new barbarians:
governmentality, securitization and Islam in Western Europe, pp. 72-73, accessed
7/16/15) CH
The use, by Muslim terrorist groups, of a militaristic form of resistance is met with a
new negation of human rights and the duty to protect is transformed into the loss of
rights on the part of some. The series of anti-terror laws and state of emergency
imposed in the USA and the UK after the attack on the Twin Towers and the London
bombings, respectively, involved the derogation of basic human rights: the right not
to be detained without a fair trial through the indefinite imprisonment of suspected
terrorists in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (Gearty 2009). Obamas promise to shut
down Guantanamo has been reversed, leaving detainees to be subject to military
trials behind closed doors. Recent anti-terror laws in the UK have facilitated the
conviction of Muslims for celebrating terrorism, yet where convictions have
collapsed, media coverage is limited. The UKs commitment to the absolute
prohibition on torture has been compromised by its apparent cooperation with U.S.
extraordinary rendition flights.3 The curtailment of the right to freedom of speech
among British Muslims has been highlighted in the case of the Luton Muslims who
protested against the homecoming parade of British soldiers from Afghanistan.
While Islam is popularly understood as irrational and aggressive, religiosity played
an important rhetorical role in justifying the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Bushs war speeches contained many references to God as did some of
Tony Blairs, giving the impression that our (Christian) values are superior to their
(Islamic) ones. The mission to save Iraq (and humanitarian interventions in, for
example, Kosovo) was elided with human rights and the argument that we
engaged in these painful but necessary interventions in order to share our superior
valuesthe rule of law, democracy and human rights, that is, human rights
supposedly coming out of Christianitywas propagated. The allegation against
Saddam (and other Third World leaders with nuclear programmes) is that they
acquire a western technology (the bomb) without having the western values and
democratic structures that allow them to use it responsibly. When a witness to 9/11
was quoted as asking Why do they hate us?, Bush portrayed this attack as one by
people who resented Americas threat of a good example. While Les Invasions
Barbares and The Hurt Locker focus on the threat from abroad and the need for
western powers to invade Muslim countries to contain the threat, attention has now
turned, with the presence of sizeable second- and third-generation Muslims in
Europe and the US, to the homegrown threat. Part of the way the governing
classes are seeking to discipline these new rebels is through a renewed focus on
their mysterious and exotic practices which, again, turns on the idea of the body.
Suicide bombers have used the object of the European gaze as a formidable

instrument for conducting a war on the west. The tactic deployed is portrayed as a
form of barbarism, irrational and rooted in outmoded and archaic religious fetishes
virgins waiting for the martyrs in Paradise for example (Dawkins 2006).

The War on Terror relies on colonial Orientalist stereotypes

that Islam is violent and irrational and inferior to Christianity
Edmunds,11 (Jane, July 23 2011, Professor, Development Studies, University of
Cambridge, Contemporary Islam (2012) 6:6784, The new barbarians:
governmentality, securitization and Islam in Western Europe, pp. 73-74, accessed
7/16/15) CH
This cultural racism also surfaces in the way particular identitiesMuslim, Arab or
North Africanare defaced in French political discourse based on an ostensibly
commendable concept of egalitarianism which demands the abandonment of thick
attachments. Ideas about cultural inferiority associated with colonialism continue to
shape political debates about the veil or the hijab (headscarf) where the veiled
Muslim evokes this double identity of both cultural inferiority and threat (Scott
2007: 17). Muslims are regarded as a threat because they refuse, by wearing the
hijab or growing a beard, to conform with the secular and civilizing culture of
France, and opt instead (apparently) to maintain a commitment to archaic signs of
faith (Guardiola-Rivera 2009: 246). In the post-9/11 era, new surveillance
strategies based on a repertoire of terrorist look-alikes developed, resulting in
cases of Sikh turbans and Muslim veils being torn off, cases which exposed
fundamental ignorance rooted in Orientalist fantasies about Eastern masculinity
and femininity (Puar 2007: 175181). Islam alone is judged, in the media, to be
fundamentalist, and other religions, which also contain fundamentalist strands, are
absent from discussions of religious radicalization. And Islam alone is portrayed as a
uniquely patriarchal and misogynistic religion, ignoring the misogynist elements of
other religions (Cesari 2008). The hijab or the veil, and more still, the burqa are, to
popular western secularism, unintelligible objects or archaic fetishes
(GuardiolaRivera 2009: 2). It seems self evident that women who wear such clothing
in a secular environment are doing so without freedom of choice, reflecting the
patriarchal oppression specific to Islam. Muslim women are portrayed as subdued
by the dominant, aggressive male Arab and denied autonomy, and the docile
subject of old colonial discourses is resurrected. Such views are prevalent in western
media and among political leaders, with the French government claiming that the
ban on the burqa reflects the countrys respect for the principle of equality for
women. What has long characterized French debates is now, post 9/11, finding a
place in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Britain and the Netherlands. Now the social cost of
being a European Muslim has increased with governments seeing them as Muslims
first and citizens second, with an implied difference between trustful Muslims
(assimilated ones) and distrustful Muslims (those who wear headscarves or beards).
Thus, they have become the current other in public discourses; what makes them
this is that they are demographically productive, apparently insensitive to European,
secular values and our knowledge of them is based on information that is focused
on mosques (Amiraux 2006), now considered not to be places of worship but a
potential source of political radicalization and extremism. A growing consensus in

the media and among politicians is developing around the view that European
Muslims, with their distinctive signs and objects linked with the backward practices
of the former colonies, are a new source of threat to national identity and security.
Fear of this threat pervades arguments about hidden dangers, particularly around
garments such as the hijab, which are portrayed as literally defying governmental
rights to surveillance as the face is hidden (even when it is not), thus preventing, at
least in the imagination, the western gaze from penetrating. In 2006 a storm
brewed in the UK when Jack Straw sparked a debate on wearing the niqab (which
covers the face) which he saw (later supported by Tony Blair) as an impediment to
normal social interaction and as symbolizing segregation rather than integration, resignifying religious symbols into concealment and a threat to security. The clash is
neatly crystallized at border crossing points, when the western need for security
through surveillance collides with the hijab-wearers insistence on staying covered.
The western press is keen to report stories of male Muslim criminals/terrorists who
use the hijab as a disguise, resonating with historical forms of resistance in past
anti-colonial struggles

Cap
Without the current colonial structures capitalism cannot exist,
only decolonization can ensure the eradication of cap.
Claire 2009
(September 2009, Anarchist Organizer, Mirroring Colonial Power Structures in
Radical Organizing: Rape Culture as Colonization and Community Accountability,
Unsettling Ourselves: Reflections and Resources for Deconstructing Colonial
Mentality, pp. 94-95,
https://unsettlingminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/unsettling-minnesotasourcebook1point0.pdf, accessed 7/27/15) CH
Capitalist and colonialist powers are dependent upon oppressive systems of
hierarchical value. They work to ensure the power and privilege of some at the
expense of the rest. Capitalism could not exist without colonialist systems and
structures that rank and oppress human life in terms of value, rendering most as
crucially exploitable and expendable in order to privilege the desires and power of
few over the needs of many. As Andrea Smith discusses in Conquest, our societal
and governmental infrastructures were built on the principle that indigenous
peoples and their lands are violable (12). White settlers asserted that indigenous
peoples were savage, primitive, less than human, and thus claimed for themselves
a righteous legitimacy to the conquest and colonization of indigenous peoples and
lands. These principles and beliefs remain firmly rooted in the makeup of our
colonialist society and government of today. The US as an imperial and colonial
power: is dependent on the continued understanding that the land we occupy today
(speaking as a settler) remains rightfully and justifiably ours. The genocide and
ongoing displacement and oppression of indigenous peoples are understood as
legitimate and necessary in order to maintain our settler claim to this land. Smith
writes that the continued claim of the United States to land and power necessitates
that indigenous people must always be in a state of disappearance, or a
permanent present absence in the US colonial imagination in order for US
colonial ownership to feign legitimacy (Conquest, 9). In order to maintain this
constant eradication of indigenous peoples, indigenous identity was, and continues
to be, criminalized. This has historically been practiced through methods such as
the genocide and forced removal of indigenous peoples from their homelands,
placing bounties to encourage and condone mass murder of indigenous peoples,
forced assimilation and ethnic cleansing through boarding schools, and the forced
sterilization of indigenous women. Currently, the continued displacement and forced
removal of indigenous peoples from their homelands, the continued occupation of
these homelands, the criminalization of indigenous cultural practices, targeted
harassment and violence by law enforcement, mass imprisonment of native
peoples, and systematic sexual assault of indigenous women are just some of the
many ways that native identity continues to be criminalized and eradicated today.
White supremacy, as another infrastructural anchor of colonialist and capitalist
power, allows for hierarchical rankings of human value so that certain lives become
socially significant and meaningful, while others are considered expendable and

exploitable. US society ultimately serves to ensure the safety and protection of

white settlers. US society could not have been built without white supremacy in that
it allowed for the justification of the genocide of indigenous peoples as well as the
continued denial of genocide having ever occurred, and that it voraciously relied on
the kidnapping and enslavement of people of color for the purpose of building the
US colonial empire. Colonial and capitalist powers remain dependent on white
supremacist hierarchies of human value in order to ensure an exploitable labor
force. Furthermore, white supremacy creates the understanding that non-white
people and land are ultimately white settler property, or, that US society functions
and exists for the benefit of white settlers (not ignoring the role of heteronormative, patriarchal and class privilege as determining factors of beneficence).
This includes the continued exploitation of people of color through the prisonindustrial-complex, the militarization of borders and criminalization of certain ethnic
groups. Colonialist and capitalist powers work together to create the overrepresentation of people of color in prisons as colonialist power renders people of
color as expendable property, thus creating a cheap and exploitable labor force for
the benefit of capitalism through the prison system. The prison-industrial-complex
also works to thwart the strength of organizing in communities of color as this
ultimately threatens colonialist infrastructure. Sexual violence and rape culture are
indispensable to the strength and function of US colonialist and capitalist power in
that they work to ensure all structural systems of oppression. Rape culture means
that US society is a culture in which sexual violence is encouraged, condoned and
perpetuated as a tool of gender oppression. Hetero-normativity means US society
forces compliance within binary concepts of gender (either male or female) and
seeks to normalize patriarchal gender oppression. US colonialist rationality
naturalizes binary concepts of gender and patriarchal gender oppression. Smith
shows us how colonizers used the oppression of women and patriarchy as a tool in
subjugating indigenous nations, Native peoples needed to learn the value of
hierarchy, the role of physical abuse in maintaining that hierarchy, and the
importance of women remaining submissive to menThus in order to colonize a
people whose society was not hierarchical, colonizers must first naturalize hierarchy
through instituting patriarchy (Conquest, 23). Through imposing the values of
hetero-normativity and hierarchical gender oppression, patriarchy is presented as
natural and was a successful tool in colonizing and instituting other hierarchical
oppressions.

Alts
The Time is now, we need to properly analyze colonization in
order to solve oppression.
Waziyatawin 11
(Waziyatawin, Waziyatawin is a Dakota professor, author, and activist from the Pezihutazizi Otunwe in
southwestern Minnesota , 1-2-2011, "Colonialism on the Ground," Unsettling America,
https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/colonialism-on-theground/#more-45, accessed 7/26/15) CH
Lest critics insist that a recognition of colonialism means condemning Indigenous
Peoples to a perpetual state of victimage, let me state now that this position does
not deny Indigenous capacity for action and resistance, but only that our actions are
often violently limited within a colonial structure. One of the criticisms frequently
hurled at decolonization theorists is that decolonization research, analysis, and
activism and its accompanying focus on colonization, means an acceptance and
advocacy of victimage, that when we attribute our social problems to external
colonial forces we are denying Indigenous agency. I think just the opposite is true.
While employing colonialism as an intellectual framework acknowledges the
horrendous injustices perpetrated against Indigenous Peoples and the limited
choices our peoples faced as a consequence, this is not inappropriate, nor is it
overstated. When the loss of Indigenous life in the Americas weighs in minimally at
95% and the ensuing land theft, loss of resources, means of subsistence and
attempts at cultural eradication are considered, to focus solely on the agency of the
less than 5% who survived and are facing severe social problems seems
disingenuous at best. An analysis of colonialism allows us to make sense of our
current condition, strategically develop more effective means of resistance, recover
the pre-colonial traditions that strengthen us as Indigenous Peoples, and connect
with the struggles of colonized peoples throughout the world to transform the world.
When colonialism is removed from the analysis, we have little alternative other than
to simply blame ourselves for the current social ills. This blaming the victim strategy
only increases violence against our own people. Predictably, those who most fiercely
deny the effects of colonialism are often the ones who advocate the most strongly
for working within the existing system. They reject dreams of liberation and
defeatist rhetoric characterizes their position. It includes such sentiments as The
world is not going to change, or We have to accept the way things are and do
what we can within the existing system. Ironically, this position denies the
profound nature and propensity of human agency and relegates the results of
human activity to negligible proportions. This is what decolonization advocates
cannot accept. Instead, we put our famaking revolutionary change, looking to the
highest potential of human agency. There was a time when my ancestors did not
need to have strategies to resist forces of colonialism. When they did, the processes
of invasion, military conquest and subjugation were unleashed so abruptly,
impromptu strategies were courageously, but unsuccessfully attempted. None of
them prevented the total onslaught of colonial violence that ensued. Through time
and processes of complete and humiliating subjugation that affected every aspect

of the lives of subsequent generations, resistance weakened into complacency. Of

course, not all Indigenous people chose this path and instead stayed the course of
spirited resistance, but today they represent the exceptions rather than the rule.
The vast majority found it easier to attempt to negotiate petty benefits from the
colonial system while maintaining low visibility and small dreams. Today, however,
we have reached an era in which the existing system is on the verge of collapse,
with colonizer and colonized alike resting near a precipitous edge. We can either
succumb to the ongoing discourse of complacency propagated by the colonizing
government, or we can mobilize for revolutionary change.

The Alternative is to decolonize unconditionally, decolonization

is a pre-requisite to any reformism
Burke 9 (Nora Butler Burke, 11-25-2009, "Building a Canadian Decolonization
Movement: Fighting the Occupation at Home," No Publication,
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nora-butler-burke-building-a-canadiandecolonization-movement-fighting-the-occupation-at-home) CH
Perhaps the first step that we can take in allying ourselves with Indigenous peoples
is to face up to our colonial past and present. And here Id like to assert that Canada
is not a post-colonial state, nor is it neo-colonial, as is the case in other parts of the
world. In Canada, colonialism dominates [4]. While Aboriginal peoples continue to
be forced or excluded from their lands , capitalist interests rush to invade their
territories in attempts to seize resources from it. Indigenous nations remain
culturally, economically and politically under attack within this colonial apparatus
a distinct experience which undoubtedly shares parallels with the experiences of
other racialized and oppressed communities in Canada. Beyond facing up to the
past, as a means of owning our history, we must take responsibility for that history.
While many of us are excluded from and denied much of the wealth of the Canadian
state ourselves, those of us who are Canadian citizens none the less benefit from
that wealth to some degree. What we can not take for granted is the fact that much
of that wealth was accumulated at the expense of Aboriginal peoples. Therefore,
any movement which seeks to address the injustices perpetrated against
Indigenous peoples must also take into account the positioning of non-native people
within this colonial state. Decolonisation is not a process which entails solely the
Indigenous nations of this continent. All people living in Canada have been distorted
by colonialism. It effects us all, not only those whom it most severely oppresses.
Therefore, a decolonisation movement cannot be comprised solely of solidarity and
support for Indigenous peoples sovereignty and self-determination. If we are in
support of self-determination, we too need to be self-determining. Unless we
exercise our own self-determination and fight our own governments, then we risk
reinforcing the isolation of Indigenous communities and their resistance. A
movement for decolonisation must be premised on a parallel process of selfdetermination. While Indigenous nations continue to assert their autonomy and
nationhood, we, as non-native settlers, must also assert our own autonomy within
our respective communities, and resist our governments attempts to further

consolidate its control over all communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. I
think it is clear from what I am saying here, but I want to take a second to address a
common misperception held by non-native people that decolonisation would require
a mass departure of all non-Indigenous peoples from the continent. While I cant
speak for any Indigenous people or communities, my understanding, based on
conversations with and readings by many Indigenous activists, has been that the
fundamental change which North American decolonisation would bring about would
be a change in the nature of the relationship between immigrants and Aboriginal
peoples. It would be to bring an end to our imperialist relationship, and an end to
the colonial imposition of foreign systems, be they governmental, ideological,
religious, or otherwise, on the many hundreds of nations which exist on this
continent. Rather than attempting to re-establish the conditions of a pre-colonial
North America, many see it as being much more realistic to abandon the current
relationship between native and non-native peoples. The state has long defined that
relationship, one which has been characterized foremost by oppressio n. It is time to
cut the state out of this relationship, and to replace it with a new relationship, one
which is mutually negotiated, and premised on a core respect for autonomy and
freedom. Furthermore, decolonisation means ridding ourselves of the super-states
of Canada and the United States. They only serve an elite few while maintaining a
liberal system of economic and social apartheid.

Only a prior analysis of the U.S.s colonial tendencies can solve

their impacts, decolonization is a pre-requisite
Waziyatawin 11
(Waziyatawin, Waziyatawin is a Dakota professor, author, and activist from the Pezihutazizi Otunwe in
southwestern Minnesota , 1-2-2011, "Colonialism on the Ground," Unsettling America,
https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/colonialism-on-theground/#more-45, accessed 7/26/15) CH
Lest critics insist that a recognition of colonialism means condemning Indigenous
Peoples to a perpetual state of victimage, let me state now that this position does
not deny Indigenous capacity for action and resistance, but only that our actions are
often violently limited within a colonial structure. One of the criticisms frequently
hurled at decolonization theorists is that decolonization research, analysis, and
activism and its accompanying focus on colonization, means an acceptance and
advocacy of victimage, that when we attribute our social problems to external
colonial forces we are denying Indigenous agency. I think just the opposite is true.
While employing colonialism as an intellectual framework acknowledges the
horrendous injustices perpetrated against Indigenous Peoples and the limited
choices our peoples faced as a consequence, this is not inappropriate, nor is it
overstated. When the loss of Indigenous life in the Americas weighs in minimally at
95% and the ensuing land theft, loss of resources, means of subsistence and
attempts at cultural eradication are considered, to focus solely on the agency of the
less than 5% who survived and are facing severe social problems seems
disingenuous at best. An analysis of colonialism allows us to make sense of our
current condition, strategically develop more effective means of resistance, recover

the pre-colonial traditions that strengthen us as Indigenous Peoples, and connect

with the struggles of colonized peoples throughout the world to transform the world.
When colonialism is removed from the analysis, we have little alternative other than
to simply blame ourselves for the current social ills. This blaming the victim strategy
only increases violence against our own people. Predictably, those who most fiercely
deny the effects of colonialism are often the ones who advocate the most strongly
for working within the existing system. They reject dreams of liberation and
defeatist rhetoric characterizes their position. It includes such sentiments as The
world is not going to change, or We have to accept the way things are and do
what we can within the existing system. Ironically, this position denies the
profound nature and propensity of human agency and relegates the results of
human activity to negligible proportions. This is what decolonization advocates
cannot accept. Instead, we put our famaking revolutionary change, looking to the
highest potential of human agency. There was a time when my ancestors did not
need to have strategies to resist forces of colonialism. When they did, the processes
of invasion, military conquest and subjugation were unleashed so abruptly,
impromptu strategies were courageously, but unsuccessfully attempted. None of
them prevented the total onslaught of colonial violence that ensued. Through time
and processes of complete and humiliating subjugation that affected every aspect
of the lives of subsequent generations, resistance weakened into complacency. Of
course, not all Indigenous people chose this path and instead stayed the course of
spirited resistance, but today they represent the exceptions rather than the rule.
The vast majority found it easier to attempt to negotiate petty benefits from the
colonial system while maintaining low visibility and small dreams. Today, however,
we have reached an era in which the existing system is on the verge of collapse,
with colonizer and colonized alike resting near a precipitous edge. We can either
succumb to the ongoing discourse of complacency propagated by the colonizing
government, or we can mobilize for revolutionary change.

Only a full decolonial revolution and rejection of the state can

solve.
Memmi 57
Albert Memmi, 1957, Albert Memmi is a French writer and essayist of TunisianJewish origin, The Colonizer and The Colonized, pp. 194-196,
http://atlasarts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Albert-Memmi-The-Colonizerand-the-Colonized.pdf, accessed 7/27/15) CH
A day necessarily comes when the colonized lifts his head and topples the always
unstable equilibrium of colonization. For the colonized just as for the colonizer, there
is no way out other than a complete end to colonization. The refusal of the colonized
cannot be anything but absolute, that is, not only revolt, but a revolution. Revolt.
The mere existence of the colonizer creates oppression, and only the complete
liquidation of colonization permits the colonized to be freed. Much has been
expected of reforms in recent times, of bourguibisme, for example. It seems to me
that there is a misunderstanding. Bourguibisme, if it means to proceed by stages,

never meant being satisfied with any stage, whatever it might be. The leaders of
the blacks presently speak of a French Union. Again, it is only one stage on the road
to complete and inevitable independence. If Bourguiba should believe in the
bourguibisme ascribed to him, and the leaders of Black Africa believe in a
permanent French Union, the process of liquidating colonization would leave them
behind. Already, the younger generation fails to understand the relative moderation
of their elders. Revolution. We have seen that colonization materially kills the
colonized. It must be added that it kills him spiritually. Colonization distorts
relationships, destroys or petrifies institutions, and corrupts men, both colonizers
and colonized. To live, the colonized needs to do away with colonization. To become
a man, he must do away with the colonized being that he has become. If the
European must annihilate the colonizer within himself, the colonized must rise
above his colonized being. The liquidation of colonization is nothing but a prelude to
complete liberation, to self-recovery. In order to free himself from colonization, the
colonjzed must start with his oppression, the deficiencies of his group. In order that
his liberation may be complete, he must free himself from those inevitable
conditions of his struggle; A nationalist, because he had to fight for the emergence
and dignity of his nation, he must conquer himself and be free in relation to that
nation. He can, of course, assert himself as a nationalist. But it is indispensable that
he have a free choice and not that he exist only through his nation. He must
conquer himself and be free in relation to the religion of his group, which he can
retain or reject, but he must stop existing only through it. The same applies to the
past, tradition, ethnic characteristics, etc. Finally, he must cease defining himself
through the categories of colonizers. The same holds true of what more subtly
characterizes him in a negative way. For example, the famous and absurd
incompatibility between East and West, that antithesis hardened by the colonizer,
who thereby sets up a permanent barrier between himsdf and the colonized. What
does the return to the East mean, anyway? Even if oppression has assumed the face
of England or France, cultural and technical acquirements belong to all peoples.
Science is neither Western nor Eastern, any more than it is bourgeois or proletarian.
There are only two ways of pouring concrete--the right way and the wrong way.

Impacts
The continued subjugation of the native dehumanizes and
dooms the indigenous people to genocide, decolonization must
occur to solve. Be skeptical of any movements that do not start
with ridding the state of colonial opression
Razack 14 (Sherene Razack, Professor of Sociology and Equity Studies at the
University of Toronto, 10-7-2014, "Sherene Razack on Our Settler Legacy," Possible
Canadas, http://possiblecanadas.ca/en/sherene-razack-canadas-settler-legacy-2/)
CH
The growing, institutionalized dehumanization towards specific groups. Its as
though society is evolving based on the principle that human life doesnt matter.
Every morning, I read about 10 things that make me think were growing
increasingly distant from each other. It begins with race and becomes a structure
that invades everything. White people routinely dehumanize Indigenous people. Im
talking of a spectrum of violent acts, like police officers who drive a man out of the
city and leave him to freeze to death. The principle that this persons life is not
worth as much as yours is both an everyday act and a state practice. Look at the
tough on crime initiatives that conservatives love. What kind of cruelty and
disregard for human life do these kinds of policies come out of? I always think about
how dominant subjects make themselves dominant. Youre not born that way. I tell
my class, No one is born White. You have to learn it and you have to keep
performing it every day. People dont easily believe in their own superiority or that
others are lower forms of humanity. They have to convince themselves, and theyre
terribly haunted by it. The Settlers had to learn that Indigenous people were inferior,
were savages. But it was a very hard lesson to learn, because for one thing, theyre
not. Indigenous people had a lot of knowledge about this place and clearly had a
developed society. Because we have to be taught not to recognize the humanity of
others, maybe we can interrupt this process. We have to learn that the colonial
project that is Canada is not viable, because it is not structured on the principle of a
common humanity. We could look at all the instances where spectacular meanness
and repression have not produced anything good, moments when Canada was
tempted to be extremely vicious to Indigenous peoples. If that principle structures
your country, which is what structures this country, then its almost like you cant go
anywhere good from there. We cant move into recognizing the humanity of
refugees or other people if our day-to-day life is intensely structured by the
inhumanity with which we have treated Aboriginal people . Almost everything we do
came out of that colonial moment when we tried to figure out how to steal the land.
We have to confront this colonial paradigm before we can open the way to Others.

This dehumanization is how the extermination of the natives

ensues, only by portraying the native body as lesser can the
colonizer justify the continuous oppression.
Gordimer 3
(Nadine Gordimer, 2003, Introduction of The Colonizer and the Colonized, by Albert
Memmi, http://atlasarts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Albert-Memmi-TheColonizer-and-the-Colonized.pdf, pp. 22-24) CH
*we dont endorse gendered language
Memmi has strikingly described the sequence of steps that leads them to "self-absolution." Conservatism brings
about the selection of mediocre men. How can an elite of usurpers, aware of their mediocrity, establish their

debasing the colonized to exalt themselves, denying ' the

title of humanity to the natives, and defining them as simply absences of qualitiesanimals, not humans. This does not prove hard to do, for the system deprives them of
everything. Colonialist practice has engraved the colonialist idea into things
themselves; it is the movement of things that designates colonizer and colonized
alike. Thus oppression justifies itself through oppression: the oppressors produce
and maintain by force the evils that render the oppressed, in their eyes, more and
more like what they would have to be like to deserve their fate . The colonizer can
only exonerate himself in the systematic pursuit of the "dehumanization" of the
colonized by identifying himself a little more each day with the colonialist apparatus .
Terror and exploitation dehumanize, and the exploiter authorizes himself with that
dehumanization to carry his exploitation further. The engine of colonialism turns in a circle; it is
privileges? By one means only:

impossible to distinguish between its praxis and objective necessity. Moments of colonialism, they sometimes
condition one another and sometimes blend.

Oppression means, first of all, the oppressor's

hatred for the oppressed. There exists a solitary limit to this venture of destructiveness, and that is
colonialism itself. Here the colonizer encounters a contradiction of his own: "Were the colonized to disappear, so
would colonization-with the colonizer." There would be no more subproletariat, no more over-exploitation. The usual
forms of capitalistic exploitation would reassert themselves, and prices and wages would fall into line with those of
the mother country. This would spell ruin. The system wills simultaneously the death and the multiplication of its
victims. Any transformation would be fatal to the system. Whether the colonized are assimilated or massacred, the
cost of labor will rise. The onerous engine suspends between life and death, and always closer to death, those who
are compelled to drive it. A petrified ideology devotes itself to regarding human beings as talking beasts. But it does
so in vain, for the colonizers must recognize them first, even to give them the harshest or most insulting of orders.
And since the colonizers cannot constantiy supervise the colonized, the colonizers must resolve to trust them. No
one can treat a man like a dog without first regarding him as a man. The impossible dehumanization of the

It is the oppressor
himself who restores, with his slightest gesture, the humanity he seeks to destroy;
and, since he denies humanity in others, he regards it everywhere as his enemy. To
handle this, the colonizer must assume the opaque rigidity and imperviousness of
stone. In short, he must dehumanize himself, as well.
oppressed, on the other side of the coin, becomes the alienation of the oppressor.

Rivers 2009
(September 2009, Anarchist Organizer, From a Male-bodied Settler Moving Towards
Allyship With Dakota Decolonization and Female and Male-Bodied Settlers,

Unsettling Ourselves: Reflections and Resources for Deconstructing Colonial

Mentality, pp. 111-112,
https://unsettlingminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/unsettling-minnesotasourcebook1point0.pdf, accessed 7/27/15) CH
The process of becoming an ally to indigenous people fighting for decolonization
differs according to ones identity, and perceived identity. What it takes for a
perceived white male to be trusted and accepted as an ally is different than a
female or non-white male. Western civilizations manifestation of colonization is
uniquely tied to the privilege carried by white males. The history of complacency,
cowardice, betrayal, dishonesty, aggression, rape, murder and genocide is one that
every male-bodied person must accept and actively confront if they hope to create
an alternate world. For the land we continue to pillage and scar, for indigenous
whose way of life we continue to deny, for our female-bodied friends fighting for a
life free of sexual and gender violence, for a life without degradation or
objectification, and for ourselves, male-bodied creatures who desire a more healthy
way of living, we must act. We must act with respect, communication, and a
creative drive that comes from within. If we do not define and design this action
ourselves, if we relegate responsibility of instigation to those who are affected by
our privilege, we are simply adding to the burden of those who deal with this shit
every day. It is my hope to be a part of a male-bodied momentum actively
confronting male-bodied privilege, sexism, colonialism and hetero-patriarchy with
each other. A momentum amongst men in which we talk and share and call each
other out and are so much more the better for it. This is one aspect of my process of
unlearning. As I come to understand my settler privilege and history of benefiting
from colonization, I also come face to face with my racism tendencies and am
forced to see my hetero-patriarchal upraising. While this may not be a direct
dialogue with you, this is an expression of vulnerability and I expect what I have
written to be challenged. Writing an essay does not make me any closer to being an
ally to those I care about, but how I go about sharing my ideas can be one step
towards mutual liberation. I will move forward with the uncomfortable and towards
my fear, listening to others and reaching out to those I share privilege with. I do not
know if I will live up to my beliefs, I do not know how to live up to the responsibility
that comes with such a history of genocide and oppression, but I will live trying. As
a second growth redwood once said to me as I sat high in its arms refusing to let it
be cut, Cut me down if you dare, I do not live like you and until you take my life I
will be here. Living.

Colonization is alive and well in the status quo

Waziyatawin 11
(Waziyatawin, Waziyatawin is a Dakota professor, author, and activist from the Pezihutazizi Otunwe in
southwestern Minnesota , 1-2-2011, "Colonialism on the Ground," Unsettling America,
https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/colonialism-on-theground/#more-45, accessed 7/26/15) CH

To be sure, the brand of colonialism in the United States today differs from the
brands of earlier times when imperial forces from Europe established colonies in the
New World as a means of expanding the wealth and power of their nations while
also battling with competing imperial nations over pieces of the global pie. Thus, in
the United States American schools teach our children that the colonial era ended
when the United States gained its freedom from Great Britain. However, this denial
of itself is simply one of colonialisms myths. This denial is so extreme that even
today the United States government insists on the language of possessions rather
than colonies to identify its holdings outside the contiguous land base it claims in
North America, despite the fact that many of them fit classic definitions of colonies
precisely because they have not been absorbed into the state. But, the interest in
domination and control over territories was established even before the entity of the
United States was born. As American colonies gained their independence from their
Mother Country, they sought to further expand their wealth and influence through
the continuing invasion and acquisition of other Peoples lands and resources and
the subjugation of the Original Peoples. The shedding of the constraints of their
Mother Country simply facilitated and hastened that project. The United States
soundly expanded its empire and is now so deeply entrenched in its colonial
acquisitions that to anyone but the most conscientious observer, those roots have
been lost in obscurity.

AT: Perms

PDB
We have 5 answers
1. Extend the derrico evidence. The central project in this
debate has to be to decolonize and to foreground
indigenous epistemologies and perspectives. The perm
just makes the alt another cog in the machinery of
mainstream white society. The end logic of the perm is
not to get the best of both worlds but to put
decolonization in the backseat to the aff and say yeah,
well get to that later.
2. Extend the alt and ANY RISK OF A LINK means you vote
neg. The perm is just a pathetic attempt by mainstream
white society at reformism and ultimately assimilation of
indigenous peoples. The perm just ends up
compartmentalizing indigeneity within existing leftist
narratives, but really leaving the status quos liberal
pluralism in place. Theres no solvency because the walia
ev indicates that indigenous struggles demand
solidarity.
3. Extend the Tuck and Yang ev. Refuse any combination of
the settler mentality and decolonization. Failure to do so
only ends up rescuing the settler state and condemning
indigenous peoples to eternal damnation in the settler
state.
4. The perm doesnt solve the aff OR the neg that the failure
to SOLELY decolonize results in rightist cooption.
5. Put the burden on them to articulate what the perm is. If
they cant say specifically how the perm would work in
relation to total and unyielding decolonization, vote neg.
We impact turned the method of the 1ac so Im not really
sure how the perm works.

All other instances

We have 7 answers
1. Its intrinsic: theyre adding the idea of other instances
that doesnt exist in either the plan or the alt
1. INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS BEG THE QUESTION OF
COMPETITION.
Competition questions whether the plan and the counterplan as they are presented
in the first affirmative and negative constructives compete with one another.
Intrinsicness permutations ask whether there is a third policy that can, in
conjunction with the first policy, solve the problems addressed by the counterplan.
This does not test the competitiveness of the first two policies.

2. INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS ARE MOVING TARGETS.

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

3. INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS DISPROVE THE VALUE OF

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

4. INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS ARE NOT CONNECTED TO

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

Thats a voter for the reasons above. Perms take 3 seconds to

make and 3 minutes to answer.
2. Extend the derrico evidence. The central project in this
debate has to be to decolonize and to foreground
indigenous epistemologies and perspectives. The perm
just makes the alt another cog in the machinery of
mainstream white society. You cant fiat that well actually
do the alt in all other instances. This destroys all alt
solvency so theres no net benefit to the perm.
3. Extend the alt. ANY RISK OF A LINK means you vote neg.
The perm is just a pathetic attempt by mainstream white
society at reformism and ultimately assimilation of
indigenous peoples. The perm just ends up
compartmentalizing indigeneity within existing leftist
narratives, but really leaving the status quos liberal
pluralism in place. Theres no solvency because the walia
ev indicates that indigenous struggles demand
solidarity.
4. Failure to refuse the myth of progress that the aff offers
only ends up rescuing the settler state and condemning
indigenous peoples to eternal damnation.
5. We hit perm all other instances every round. If you vote
on this perm, youre not really voting to do the alt in all
other instances, because you dont have control over
what the judge in the next round will do. The end logic of
this perm is that we keep telling ourselves that well do
the alt in all other instances but that this instance is SO
IMPORTANT that we cant ignore it. We keep delaying the
alt and no decolonization ever gets done.
6. The presentation of indigeneity is a continuation of
indigenous literary narratives. You have an ethical
responsibility to expose neocolonialism in every instance
its the most effective way to resist it.
7. Put the burden on them to articulate what the perm is. If
they cant say specifically how the perm would work in
relation to total and unyielding decolonization, vote neg.
We impact turned the method of the 1ac so Im not really
sure how the perm works.

2NC AT

AT cede the political

1. the only way to solve for colonization is to disregard the
state, the affirmitives allegiance to the state dooms the
indigenous to continued colonization
Smith 2005
(Andrea Smith, Native American Feminism, Sovereignty, and Social Change , Andrea
Smith is associate professor in the Department of Media and Cultural Studies at the
University of California, Riverside, Spring 2005, Feminist Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.
128-129, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20459010?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) CH
Native feminist theory and activism make a critical contribution to feminist politics
as a whole by questioning the legitimacy of the United States specifically and the
nation-state as the appropriate form of governance generally. Progressive activists
and scholars, although prepared to make critiques of the U.S. government, are often
not prepared to question its legitimacy. A case in point is the strategy of many
racial justice organizations in the United States to rally against hate crimes resulting
from the attacks of 9/11 under the banner, "We're American too." However, what
the analysis of Native women activists suggests is that this implicit allegiance to
"America" legitimizes the genocide and colonization of Native peoples, as there
could be no "America" without this genocide. Thus by making anticolonial struggle
central to feminist politics, Native women make central to their organizing the
question of what is the appropriate form of governance for the world in general.
Does self-determination for indigenous peoples equal aspirations for a nation-state,
or are there other forms of governance we can create that are not based on
domination and control? Questioning the United States, in particular, and
questioning the nation state as the appropriate form of governance for the world, in
general, allow us to free our political imagination to begin thinking of how we can
begin to build a world we would actually want to live in. Such a political project is
particularly important for colonized peoples seeking national liberation because it
allows us to differentiate "nation" from "nation state." Helpful in this project of
imagination is the work of Native women activists who have begun articulating
notions of nation and sovereignty that are separate from nation-states. Whereas
nation-states are governed through domination and coercion, indigenous
sovereignty and nation hood is predicated on interrelatedness and responsibility. As
Crystal Ecohawk states: Sovereignty is an active, living process within this knot of
human, material and spiritual relationships bound together by mutual
responsibilities and obligations. From that knot of relationships is born our histories,
our identity, the traditional ways in which we govern ourselves, our beliefs, our
relationship to the land, and how we feed, clothe, house and take care of our
families, communities and Nations.

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

AT Smiths a Liar who isnt native

Her scholarship is valuable to endorse for the decolonial
movement even in light of ethnic fraud this is written by a
Cherokee author
Russell 8 (Steve, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma member and Texas trial court
judge, Russell: When does ethnic fraud matter? 4/4/2008, Indian Country Today
Media Network, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2008/04/04/russellwhen-does-ethnic-fraud-matter-79578)
Now, if Smith or Churchill or any other professor was hired because of a claimed privilege of birth, shame on the
university. But sometimes you want an Indian for other reasons, not the least of which is to mentor Indian students.
Or, when a person claims esoteric knowledge of tribal matters (a rare claim), he opens himself to a charge of fraud
if he has not lived in an Indian community. This has less to do with tribal enrollment than with life experience. They
don't check your card at the stomp grounds in either the Cherokee or the Creek nations - those two being my

I do not play the identity police with academic judgments . Academia

When I say academia stacks the deck against
Indian work, I am talking about the work rather than the Indians, who are
just caught up in a prejudice rooted in history. That prejudice has a heavier
impact on people who are Indians by birth because we are more hesitant to step
back from the issues than those who are Indians by fantasy or affirmative action fakers. When
limited experience. So

claims not to practice Indian preference.

there is reason to hire an Indian, the process is not rocket science. If the individual is tribally enrolled, the burden of
proof should be on anybody who claims that individual is not Indian. If a person who is not tribally enrolled claims to

The test of being Indian is not who you claim,

but rather who claims you. If the University of Michigan wants a researcher and
teacher, it would appear by objective criteria they have one. If they want a Cherokee, not.
be Indian, the burden should be on the claimant.

Smith's record does not appear to require augmentation by hereditary advantage. Ethnic fraud is harmful to tribes
and sometimes to individual real Indians if they are passed over for a fake in a job that really does call for a tribal
person. Ethnic fraud is not harmful to universities unless they allow it to be. The University of Michigan should
articulate its values and rule according to those values. That's the university. That is not me. I'm not sure I would
want to associate with an ethnic fraud, as some I have met are truly disturbed individuals. How can somebody
choose to insult his or her real relatives so gravely? Often, these people are outed by offended relatives. If they do
take something meant for real Indians, they are no better than any other thieves. That's my moral judgment. That's
not a judgment that is open to a public university unless ethnicity was a bona fide qualification for the job. If the
purpose of Indian studies is to create jobs for incompetent Indians, let alone incompetent fakes, Indian studies has
no business existing. It breaks my heart to hear Indian scholars claim their scholarship would not stand up to the
level of scrutiny that Churchill's antics drew. Pray tell, why not? Are we scholars or, as the Rush Limbaughs of the

Indian studies, conducted as rigorously as any other

program at a research university, have a great deal of value. For Indians, solutions
to their many social problems. For non-Indians, a window on the origins of their
privilege. For both, an opportunity to study some very exciting writers and visual
artists whose work demands different critical skills. Inconvenient truths from
Indian history are true without regard to the identity of the person who
documents them. This is important work that deserves more respect than it gets.
The work, by its nature, has no ethnicity, any more than, say, Jewish studies
requires Jewish scholars. Anybody can learn Hebrew. Offensive as Indians may
find ethnic fraud, combating it vigorously is at war with the idea of Indian
studies as a legitimate academic discipline. We, like the University of Michigan, need to
world would say, ''race pimps?''

clarify our values.