1AC vs.

FUDGE
The modern surveillance state finds itself situated in a state of
indigenous exception- debates centered around the NSA, FBI,
drones, or metadata can never account for the pre-determined
absence that is native identity. Thus, we begin with the story
of Carrie Dann- a Shoshone elder who had her ranch plundered
and livestock stolen via the imperial surveillance state
Pugliese 13 (Joseph [Associate professor of cultural studies @ Macquarie
University]; State Violence and the Execution of Law Biopolitical Caesurae of Torture,
Black Sites, Drones; p. 46-55; kdf)
The articulation of a series of carceral and genocidal caesurae predicated on
biopolitically separating out the hu[myn] [humyn]/culture from the animal/vestibule
must be tracked back to those foundational moments of colonial violence that
continue to shape and inform the US nation. Spillers' concept of the vestibule works to articulate a
defining feature of colonial violence; specifically, a seriality of power that survives by being flexible and adaptive to

this colonial violence must be seen, in the

context of the US's ongoing war on terror, as operating at once intra- and
internationally; the two categories conjoined through the concept of 'relational
geographies.' 'Relational geographies' is a term coined by Trevor Paglen in his detailed identification and
different geopolitical sites and bodies. Moreover,

mapping of 'black sites,' that is, secret government and military sites that are beyond public scrutiny and

One of the black sites that Paglen discusses is Nellis Range, Nevada,
occupying Western Shoshone land. Created in 1940, Nellis Range has been described as
'the single largest gunnery range in the world' and 'the single largest "peacetime
militarized zone on earth." '57 The Western Shoshone peoples, the traditional owners of this
land, call the Western Shoshone nation 'the most bombed nation on earth.' In his analysis
of Nellis Range, which houses one of the ground control centres for the international operation
of drones, Paglen insistently draws attention to the past history of white colonial
invasion and violent displacement of the Native Americans of the region and the
contemporary relations of violence exercised by the US state in their ongoing
persecution of Indigenous Americans attempt ing to claim back lands
accountability. 56

sequestered by the US government in their establishment of black sites and

areas for nuclear weapons testing . He describes being welcomed into a trailer in Crescent Valley,
Nevada, that was home to the Western Shoshone Defense Project, and from this remote location, an elderly
Native American woman [womyn] named Carrie Dann and her staff of two full-timers and two
part-timers take on the military, the Bureau of Land Management, mining and defense contractors, and the US

says that the United States has been illegally occupying Western
Shoshone land for 150 years and that she has the paperwork to prove it. Paglen documents the repeated
violent raids that Dann and her people are compelled to endure. The US state has repeatedly
attempted to charge Dann and her people with trespassing on government land. This
a charge that Dann derisively rejects, arguing that she cannot be accused of trespassing 'land she
saw as rightly belonging to her people' precisely because 'the Shoshone NEVER
gave, ceded, or sold their land to the United States government, by treaty or
otherwise.' In the face of this defiance, the US government has attempted to crush Western
Shoshone resistance by deploying the full arsenal of state terror, including federal
government itself. Dann

agents, helicopters, a plane and a fleet of A ll- T errain V ehicles: ' "I could not

help but think of how this is how our ancestors felt when they saw the
cavalry coming. So many of my people were killed on this land and now it's
happening again." The Feds rounded up Dann's cattle and loaded them into
trucks to be sold at auction. The ranch was devastated.'62 Paglen connects this
national exercise of contemporary colonialism and state-violence to the larger,
transnational picture she has been delineating in order to underscore the system

of
continuities that hold between the two: 'For the collection of [Native American] activists sitting in an unmarked
trailer in the recesses of Nevada's vast valleys, the black world is much more than an array of sites connected
through black aircraft, encrypted communications, and classified careers. It is the power to create geographies, to

The enormity of this power to

create geographies while simultaneously obliterating others is perhaps best
exemplified by the Pentagon's ambitious proposal to create a virtual 'drone state'
that will further expropriate large tracts of Native American land, creating 'the largest Joint
Forces Future Combat Systems training site in the world':61 'Under this plan, 7 million acres (or 11,000
square miles) of land in the southwest corner of Colorado, and 60 million acres of air
space (or 94,000 square miles) over Colorado and New Mexico would be given over to
special forces testing and training in the use of remote-controlled flying machines. '65
create places where anything can happen, and to do it with impunity.'63

Paglen's concept of 'relational geographies' can be productively amplified by conjoining it with the concept of
'relational temporalities,' that is, diachronic relations that establish critical connections across historical time and

Relational temporalities draw lines of connection between seemingly

disparate temporal events: for example, the US state's genocidal history against Native
Americans and the killing of civilians in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan.
In her tracking of the violent history of attempted genocide against Native Americans, Andrea Smith writes: 'the
US is built on a foundation of genocide, slavery, and racism. '66 Situated in this context, what
becomes apparent in the scripting of the 9/11 attacks as the worst acts of terrorism
perpetrated on US soil is the effective erasure of this foundational history of statesponsored terrorism against Native Americans. This historicidal act of
diverse geographies.

whitewashing effectively clears the ground for contemporary acts of

violence against the U nited S tates to be chronologically positioned as the
'first' or hierarchically ranked as the 'worst' in the nation's history . The
colonial nation-state deploys, in the process, a type of Nietzschean 'active forgetting' that
ensures the obliteration of prior histories of massacre and terror such as the
catastrophic Trail of Tears that resulted from the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This Act enabled the
forced removal of a number of Native American nations and their relocation to
Oklahoma; in the process, at least four thousand Native Americans died. The Trail of Tears has been
described as 'the largest instance of ethnic cleansing in American history.'67 This example of state terror is what
must be occluded in order to preserve the 'innocence' of the nation so that it can
subsequently claim, post 9/11, to have lost the very thing it had betrayed long ago.
Jimmie Durham remarks on the repetition of this national ruse: 'The US, because of its actual guilt ... has had a
nostalgia for itself since its beginnings. Even now one may read editorials almost daily about America's "loss of
innocence" at some point or other, and about some time in the past when America was truly good. That self-

Such acts of
white historicide are constituted by a double logic of taken-for-grantedness and
obsessive repetition. Steve Martinot and Jared Sexton, in their forensic analysis of the
operations of white supremacy, articulate the seemingly contradictory dimensions of
this double logic: It is the same passive apparatus of whiteness that in its
mainstream guise actively forgets that it owes its existence to the killing and
terrorising of those it racialises for that purpose, expelling them from the hu[myn] [humyn] fold in
the same gesture of forgetting. It is the passivity of bad faith that tacitly accepts as 'what
righteousness and insistence upon innocence began, as the US began, with invasion and murder

goes without saying' the postulates of white supremacy . And it must do so passionately since
'what goes without saying' is empty and can be held as a 'truth' only through an obsessiveness. The truth is that

The it 'goes without

saying' is the moment in which the very ideology of white supremacy is so
naturalized as to become invisible: it is the given order of the world. Yet, in order to
maintain this position of supremacy, a logic of tireless iteration must be deployed in
order to secure the very everyday banality, and thus transparency, of white
supremacy's daily acts of violence . For those in a position to exercise these daily rounds of state
the truth is on the surface, flat and repetitive, just as the law is made by the uniform.1"l

violence, their performative acts are banal because of their very quotidian repetition; yet, because their racialized
targets continue to exercise, in turn, acts of resistance and outright contestation, these daily acts of state violence

Underpinning such acts of white supremacist violence and

historicidal erasures is the official - government, media and academic - positioning of
Native Americans as a 'permanent "present absence" 'that, in Smith's words, 'reinforces
at every turn the conviction that Native peoples are indeed vanishing and that the
conquest of Native lands is justified.'70 Precisely what gets erased in the process are
the contemporary Indian [Native American] wars that are being fought across the
body of the US nation. These are wars that fail to register as 'wars' because the
triumphant non-indigenous polity controls the ensemble of institutions - legal, military,
media and so on - that fundamentally determines what will count as a 'war' in the
context of the nation. In her work, Smith establishes critical points of connection between the war on terror
must be obsessively reiterated.

being waged in Afghanistan or Pakistan and the issue of Indigenous sovereignty within the context of the US nation:

'it is important to understand that the war against "terror" is really an attack against
Native sovereignty, and that consolidating US empire abroad is predicated on
consolidating US empire within US borders. For example, the Bush administration continues to use
the war on terror as an excuse to support anti-immigration policies and the militarization of the US/Mexico border.

another way of entrenching and

legitimating the usurpation of Native American sovereignty in the name of the
colonial nation-state. The militarization of the US's borders has seen the Department of Homeland Security
The exercise of the war on terror becomes, in other words,

oversee the domestic transposition of military technologies such as drones- that have been used to fight the war on
terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and the Horn of Africa- to the borders of both Mexico and Canada. Ted Poe,
Congress[myn], 2nd District of Texas, has introduced legislation that 'mandates the Secretary of Defense transfer
10% of eligible returning equipment from Iraq to state and local law enforcement agencies for border security
purposes. Operative here is what Roberto Lovato has termed 'ICE's [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] AI
Qaeda-ization of immigrants and immigration policy: building a domestic security apparatus, one made possible by
multi-billion contracts to military-industrial companies like Boeing, General Electric, and Halliburton. The massive
scale of this militarization of US borders becomes evident in the context of a recent US government report on
border security that states that 'The Department of Homeland security (DHS) has the largest enforcement air force
in the world ... As of September 2011, OAM [Office of Air and Marine] had approximately 267 aircraft, 301 marine
vessels, and 1,843 personnel in 70 locations primarily on the southwest, northern and southeast borders.'74 The
deployment of such militarized border technologies creates a virtual fence that effectively amplifies the securitizing
effects of the concrete and steel fence that is already in place in many sections of the US--Mexico border.
Understood in Smith's terms, the militarization of the US border and the repulsion of attendant 'aliens' constitute a
re-assertion of colonial sovereignty.

The ills of this antagonism cannot be remedied via an

examination of one specific policy. Rather than a mere political
issue, surveillance of the native is a population issue, rooted in
a colonial mindset that makes dispossession, death, and
resource extraction inevitable.
Smith 15 [Andrea, Associate Professor of Media and Cultural Studies @ Cal,
Riverside. Co-Founder of INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. NOT-SEEING:
State Surveillance, Settler Colonialism, and Gender Violence, Edited by Dubrofsky,
Rachel E. Feminist Surveillance Studies]
Surveillance studies's focus on the modern state similarly hides an
analysis of the settler colonialist and white supremacist logics of

surveillance that precede the ascendancy of the modern state,

Furthermore, attention to these colonial and white supremacist logics of surveillance
require a feminist analysis, since colonialism and white supremacy are structured by
heteropatriarchy. For instance, Mark Rifkin's When Did IndiaNS _Become StraightP
and Scott Morgensenis Spaces Between Us call atten-tion to the heteropatriarchal
nature of colonial bioinecropoliti. cs. That is, the shift from categorizing native
peoples within the U.S. polity according to their membership in distinct nations to
lumping them together under the racial category of "Indian" is often understood as
a colonial tactic. But what Rain and Ivlorgensen demonstrate is that this categorization is dependent on heteronormativity. Since they pose a threat to the colonial
order, native nations are broken up into heteronormative inch - vidual family units in
order to facilitate their absorption into the colonial state. This absorption occurs
through a colonialist surveillance strategy by which the sexual and gender identities
of native peoples must be consta_ntly marked and policed. Through this
surveillance, native peoples become racialized "Indians" who are managed
through the politics of bio - power (Rifkin 2014 Of course, as racialized subjects,
native nations still constitute a threat to the well-being of the colonial state and
hence are never properly heteronorma_tive. The United States continues to be obsessed with solving the "Indian problem," whether through boarding schools or
land allotments. But Indianization, as it were, allows colonialism to
become a population problem rather than a political problem (ibid.). Native
nations are seen as sufficiently domesticated to be adrnini stered through
government policy, rather than seen as a continuing political threat requiring
ongoing military intervention. In midi ti o nx as Driskill, Finley, Gilley, and
Morgensen (2011) argue, native peoples are fundamentally 'queered under settler
colonialism such that conquest is justified by their sexual perversity. Deemed
"sodomites," native peoples' presumed_ sexual perversity justifies their genocide.
In-digenous colonization is then achieved through sexual regulation, such as sexual
acts of to (the mass rapes of native peoples in massacres), as well as policies of
normalization in which heteropatriarchy is instilled in native communities
through allotment, boarding schools, and criminalization, among other
contemporary forms of the surveilla_nce and regulation of native peoples. As I
have argued elsewhere, sexual violence as a primary colonial strategy by
which native peoples were rendered inherently rapeable, and by
extension their lands inherently invadeable, and their resources
inherently extractable (A, Smith 2005a). Thus, contrary to Lyon's assertion that
"the focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for purposes of
influence, management, protection or direction' preceded the rise of the
bureaucratic state, these strategies were foundational to the settler state that
required the gendered reclas-sification of the people from various
indigenous nations into "Indians.' As Patrick Wolfe (1999) notes, settler
colonialism is a structure, not an event; that is, settler colonialism requires the
continual disappearance of the indigenous peoples on whose land the
settler state is situated (2). Consequently, these colonial heteropatriarchal logics
continue. As Jacqui Alexander's critique of the heteropatriarchal postcolonial state
demonstrates, on one hand, the postcolonial state (or states that strive to be
postcolonial) is imagined_ to be incapable of self-governance through its previously
described presumed sexual per It thus seeks to prove its ability to self-govern by
continuing the colonial policing of supposed sexually perverse "nonprocreative
noncitizens" within its borders to legitimate its claims to govern. In policing the

gender and sexual boundaries of the nation-state by purifying it of imagined

racialized and genderect contaminants, Alexander (2005) argues, the postcolonial
state succeeds in obfuscating the permeability of its boundaries to multinational
capital, This policing, structured under the logics of what Maria Jo sefina SaldanaPortillo (2003) terms "aggrieved masculinity," then serves to allay the anxiety of the
postcolonial state and postcolonial aspirants in the wake of the postcolonial state's
feminization within the heteropatriarchal logics of global capital, While Lyon's
analysis points us to the surveillance strategies of the state , an anticolonial

feminist analysis demonstrates that the problem is instead the

state itself as surveillance strategy. Consequently, it is no surprise that
states that have "decolonized" per the same surveillance strategies,
because surveillance is struc-tured into the logic of the state itself, That
is, if we relocate the focus of surveillance studies from the bureaucratic
state to the settler colonial, white supremacist, and heteropatriarciaal
state, we may then reformulate our analysis of surveillance.

Colonization must be at the forefront of our discussion or else

native identity becomes internalized as the transit through
which liberation occurs
Byrd 2011 (Jodi, Transit of Empire, Pg. xxiv-xxv, Vance)

rights struggles have often cathected liberal

democracy as the best possible avenue to redress the historical violences
of and exclusions from the state, scholars and activists committed to social justice have been left with
impossible choices: to articulate freedom at the expense of another, to seek power and
recognition in the hopes that we might avoid the syllogisms of democracy created through colonialism. Lisa
Lowe provides a useful caution as she reminds us that the affirmation of the desire for
freedom is so inhabited by the forgetting of its condition of possibility
that every narrative articulation of freedom is haunted by its burial, by
the violence of forgetting. The ethical moment before us is to comprehend
the particular loss of the intimacies of four continents, to engage slavery, genocide, indenture,
and liberalism as a conjunction, as an actively acknowledged loss within
the present.19 In attempting to people the intimacies of four continents, Lowe activates the Chinese
As civil rights, queer rights, and other

indentured laborer in the Caribbean just after Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 as the affective entry point
into a range of connections, the global intimacies out of which emerged not only modern humanism but a modern

colonial racialized labor force in the

Americas helps to reveal the degree to which intimacyhere tracked through the spheres of spatial
proximity, privacy, and volatilityamong Africa, Asia, and Europe in the Americas has
served as the forgotten and disavowed constitutive means through which
liberal humanism defines freedom, family, equality, and humanity. In fact, liberal
humanism, according to Lowe, depends upon the economy of affirmation and
forgetting not just of particular streams of human history, but of the loss of their
geographies, histories, and subjectivities.21 In the indeterminacies between and among
freedom, enslavement, indentureship, interior, and exterior, the recovered
Asian contract laborer, functioning as historical site for Lowe, can reveal
the processes through which liberalism asserts freedom and forgets
enslavement as the condition of possibility for what constitutes the
human. Freedom was Lowe stresses, constituted through a narrative dialectic that rested simultaneously on
racialized division of labor.20 Her turn to the

a spatialization of the unfree as exteriority and a temporal subsuming of enslavement as internal difference or
contradiction. The overcoming of internal contradiction resolves in freedom within the modern Western political
sphere through displacement and elision of the coeval conditions of slavery and indentureship in the Americas.22

But what seems to me to be further disavowed, even in Lowe's important figuration of the

in the intimacies of four continents is the settler colonialism

all meet in the Americas to labor over
the dialectics of free and unfree, but what of the Americas themselves and
the prior peoples upon whom that labor took place? Lowe includes native peoples in
history of labor

that such labor underwrites. Asia, Africa, and Europe

her figurations as an addendum when she writes that she hopes to evoke the political economic logics through
which men and women from Africa and Asia were forcibly transported to the Americas, who with native, mixed, and
creole peoples constituted slave societies, the profits of which gave rise to bourgeois republican states in Europe
and North America.23 By positioning the conditions of slavery and indentureship in the Americas as coeval

Western freedom affirms and resolves itself, and then by

collapsing the indigenous Americas into slavery, the fourth continent of settler colonialism
contradictions through which

through which such intimacy is made to labor is not just forgotten or elided; it becomes the very ground through

the other three continents struggle intimately for freedom, justice, and
equality. Within Lowe's formulation, the native peoples of the Americas are collapsed into slavery;
their only role within the disavowed intimacies of racialization is either one
equivalent to that of African slaves or their ability to die so imported labor can make use of
their lands, thus, within the intimacies of four continents, indigenous
which

peoples in the new world cannot ,

in this system,

give rise to any historical

agency or status within the economy of affirmation and forgetting,

because they are the transit through which the dialectic of subject and
object occurs .

These assaults against indigenous populations ensure violent

acts of imperialism and serial policy failure
Street 4 [Paul, writes on imperialism, racism, and thought control for ZNet,
Those Who Deny the Crimes of the Past, 11 March 2004,
http://www.zcommunications.org/those-who-deny-the-crimes-of-the-past-by-paulstreet] // myost

It is especially important to appreciate the significance of the vicious, often explicitly

genocidal "homeland" assaults on native-Americans, which set
foundational racist and national-narcissist patterns for subsequent
U.S. global butchery, disproportionately directed at non-European
people of color. The deletion of the real story of the so-called "battle of Washita" from the official
Seventh Cavalry history given to the perpetrators of the No Gun Ri massacre is revealing. Denial about
Washita and Sand Creek (and so on) encouraged US savagery at
Wounded Knee, the denial of which encouraged US savagery in the
Philippines, the denial of which encouraged US savagery in Korea,
the denial of which encouraged US savagery in Vietnam, the denial
of which (and all before) has recently encouraged US savagery in
Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a vicious circle of recurrent violence, well
known to mental health practitioners who deal with countless victims of
domestic violence living in the dark shadows of the imperial homeland's
crippling, stunted, and indeed itself occupied social and political order.
Power-mad US forces deploying the latest genocidal war tools, some
suggestively named after native tribes that white North American "pioneers"
tried to wipe off the face of the earth (ie, "Apache," "Blackhawk," and
"Comanche" helicopters) are walking in bloody footsteps that trace
back across centuries, oceans, forests and plains to the leveled

villages, shattered corpses, and stolen resources of those who

Roosevelt acknowledged as America's "original inhabitants." Racist
imperial carnage and its denial, like charity, begin at home. Those
who deny the crimes of the past are likely to repeat their offenses in
the future as long as they retain the means and motive to do so. It is
folly, however, for any nation to think that it can stand above the judgments
of history, uniquely free of terrible consequences for what Ward Churchill
calls "imperial arrogance and criminality." Every new U.S. murder of
innocents abroad breeds untold numbers of anti-imperial resistance fighters ,
ready to die and eager to use the latest available technologies and techniques to kill representatives - even just

they see as an American Predator state. This along with

much else will help precipitate an inevitable return of US power to the
grounds of earth and history. As it accelerates, the U.S. will face a
fateful choice, full of potentially grave or liberating consequences
for the fate of humanity and the earth. It will accept its fall with
relief and gratitude, asking for forgiveness, and making true reparation at
home and abroad, consistent with an honest appraisal of what Churchill,
himself of native-American (Keetoowah Cherokee) ancestry, calls " the
realities of [its] national history and the responsibilities that history
has bequeathed": goodbye American Exceptionalism and Woodrow
Wilson's guns. Or Americans and the world will face the likely
alternative of permanent imperial war and the construction of an evermore imposing U.S. fortress state, perpetuated by Orwellian denial and savage intentional
ordinary citizens - of what

historical ignorance. This savage barbarism of dialectically inseparable empire and

inequality will be defended in the last wagon-train instance by missiles and bombs
loaded with radioactive materials wrenched from lands once freely roamed
by an immeasurably more civilized people than those who came to
destroy.

Thus we affirm a land-based, revolutionary consciousness in

the face of surveillant occupation. The social education
produced by the 1AC is key to de-centering Eurocentric
approaches to surveillance
Malott 8 [Curry, faculty member in Professional and Secondary Education at West
Chester University, A Call to Action: An Introduction to Education, Philosophy, and
Native North America, p. 88-91] // myost

While the similarities between a Marxist and an Indigenous dialectical (relational) study of hu[myn] [humyn] affairs
are not hard to discern, there is one area of contestation less easily resolved, which brings us back to the central
focus of this chapter: land, which also tends to be presented dualistically by Native scholars and activists. For
example, Winona LaDuke (1992) describes industrial society, the result of primitive accumulation, as synthetic
because it has been disconnected from the natural organic connection between people and the land where the
settler-community represents the violent imposition of the inorganic. At the end of Chapter Ten, I put it like this: can
the subordinate classes of the settler-community conceive of a way to liberate themselves from the grip of their
own ruling class (the same ruling class that has exploited the labor power of the settler community in not only
putting them to work in production, but as slaughterers and wealth extractors of everyone from American Indian
[Native American]s to Iraqis) without continuing to deny Native Americans their Native American ancestral lands?
Or, will a liberated settler-community working class continue to occupy 99% of Native land? Because North
America's working class seems far from liberating itself from its ruling class, the cause of which has been associated
with many interconnected factors including whiteness (see McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2005), such a consideration is
a moot point. What is not a moot point, however, is how to work together. Winona LaDuke (1992) has addressed
this issue situating the solution within a process of collective relearning and collaboration: I would argue that

Americans of "foreign" descent must become Americans. That is not to become a

patriot of the United States, a patriot of the flag, but a patriot to the land of this
continent ... You were born here, you will not likely go away, or live anywhere else,
and there are simply no more frontiers to follow. We must all relearn a way
of thinking, a state of mind that is from this common ground ... If we are in this
together, we must rebuild, redevelop, and reclaim an understanding /analysis
which is uniquely ours. (p. 1) What this has, does, and could look like in practice is explored in detail
here and in Chapter Four. Ultimately, LaDuke is challenging all of us to rethink the philosophies that inform the way
we read the world and subsequently the choices we make in the world, which, for educators, translates into
curriculum and pedagogy (what we teach and the way we teach it). For Churchill (2002), LaDuke's " common

ground" is a unified (settlers and Natives) movement against the colonialist

governments of the United States and Canada in support of Native land reclamation as
dictated by international law. Churchill (2002) notes that fully one third of the United States is
unceded Native land and thus proposes a land base that would not disrupt the financial heart of the U.S.
that could be the new Native North America. The new Native America would of course be
governed under Native law, which Churchill (2002) argues is, in its pre-Columbian
state, inherently environmentalist, antiracist, anticapitalist/economic inequality,
anti-homophobic and anti-sexist, in short, democratic, and would therefore probably
be appealing to many people from the settler-community , who, contrary to popular opinion,
would not be expected to give up their homes or small businesses if
located on Native land. Aware of the erosive effect the colonizers' system of indoctrination has had on
these egalitarian Native values, Churchill (2002) notes that "the extent to which these realities do not now pertain
in native societies is exactly the extent to which Indian [Native American]s have been subordinated to the mores of
the invading, dominating culture" (p. 379). Because the process of colonization has perverted traditional ways
contributing to deep philosophical divisions among Native communities, where none were before, suggesting that
land reclamation would result in an automatic return to traditional ways is, at best, romantic and nave. However,

The fact that Native peoples, as a

are by far the most oppressed group
in North America warrants serious attention and major changes, as does the suffering of
many other groups in North America (and throughout the world, the focus of Chapter Four)
such as African Americans, or Africans in America as Europeans are in America but not of America, as
only those indigenous to the land can be. As this seems to be a simple "fact," deciphering who is
European, who is African and who is "Indian" [Native American] is not so
clear-cut after five hundred years of intermingling . With these complexities in mind, as
alluded to above by LaDuke, what is needed in this day and age are workable
pedagogies of unity and accompanying philosophies of praxis. While land reclamation is
undoubtedly part of the solution, alone, it is not enough. A radical social
education is also needed for everyone, Native and non-Native alike. Such an
education, outlined in Chapter Four, following critical pedagogy and Native American-conceived and
-controlled tribal education systems, should be designed to facilitate the development
of critical multicultural citizens, able to not only read the word, but their world as well, and therefore
endowed with a land-centered revolutionary consciousness complete with the
this is not to suggest current arrangements are satisfactory.

whole, based on every social indicator of oppression, such as poverty,

sense of empowerment needed to put it into action, that is, the restoration of dignity, justice, self-determination,
and hu[myn][myn]ization generally in North America, both philosophically and geographically, and the possibility of

Providing a more concrete place of departure for considering what the

settler-Left's role might look in this process, through summarizing what he understands is the general
a utopian future.

sentiment of Native Nations engaged in land reclamation regarding non-native progressives and radicals, Churchill
(2002) notes: ...When Indigenist movements like AIM advance slogans like "U.S. Out of North American," non-Indian
[Native American] radicals should not react defensively. They should cheer. They should see what they might do to
help. When they respond defensively to sentiments like those expressed by AIM, what they are ultimately defending
is the very government, the very order they claim to oppose so resolutely. And if they manifest this contradiction
often enough, consistently enough, pathologically enough, then we have no alternative but to take them on their
word: that they really are at some deep level or another aligned, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding,
with the mentality that endorses our permanent dispossession and disenfranchisement, our continuing oppression,
our ultimate genocidal obliteration as self-defining and self-determining peoples. In other words, they make
themselves part of the problem rather than becoming part of the solution. (p. 383) As Churchill alludes,

the

heart of the antagonistic relationship between settlers and communities

Native to North America is control of ancestral lands. The significance of these land
issues lies within the fact that settler/colonizer populations have overwhelmingly pursued
an agenda of replacing the Native philosophies with foreign conceptions of
land. While aware of the complexities that emerge when entire civilizations are brought together under dubious
circumstances, addressed in the second half of this chapter, we continue by considering the two poles of perception
(immigrant and Native) when considering land in post-Columbian North America and the historical development of
the two in context.

Only our bottom up approach solves - only critical readings

from the colonized can unravel the surveillance state and
reverse the panoptic gaze
Zureik 13 (Elia Zureik, Colonial Oversight, Fall 2013, pgs. 46-49, warner)
In their book Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts, Ashcroft, Griffiths and
Tiffin observe that: One of the most powerful strategies of imperial
dominance is that of surveillance, or observation, because it implies a viewer
with an elevated vantage point, it suggests the power to process and
understand that which is seen, and it objectifies and interpellates the
colonised subject in a way that fixes its identity in relation to the surveyor.
One can safely argue that colonialism and imperialism provided the impetus for developing modern surveillance
technologies. In the name of state security ,

surveillance

emerged as essential for managing the population

was also a
formal aspect of colonial policies whereby surveillance was embodied in
bureaucratic, enumerative and legal measures that aimed to control the
territory and classify the population, a pattern that some researchers call
panopticism. Edward Said expressed it succinctly when he described quantification and categorisation as
and territory. This occurred in the quotidian everyday context of people watching people. It

discursive forms of surveillance. To divide, deploy, schematise, tabulate, index, and record everything in sight (and
out of sight in original), he argued, are the features of Orientalist projections. In C A Baylys masterful book
Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India 17801870, he shows how the
gathering of information in pre- and post-colonial India involved not only census and survey data about the
population and territory but information gathered through informal surveillance by astrologers, physicians, marriage
brokers and holy men. The categorisation and enumeration of the population in pre-colonial India was carried out by
local elites, and subsequently modified and implemented by the Colonial oversight As they colonised the world,
European governments invented techniques for tracking the people they conquered. ELIA ZUREIK reveals how

spying has roots in imperial history 47 British for the purpose of ruling
and taxation. From the mid-18th century onwards the British cultivated
colonial knowledge, embedded in a corpus of Orientalist trope. Although
stereotyping of the Other is a basic staple of colonialism, Bayly rightly points
out, it is not always successful and triggers resistance by the colonised. The
domestic

resistance to British rule in India shows how the colonised successfully used the same tools of information
dissemination that were applied by the British to control them, notably the print media. In considering her work on

Clearly, the
power of colonised people to articulate their own projects, to challenge
colonial discourses and to make their own histories constrains the projects of
colonisers and sometimes remakes the panopticon into a constraint on its
constructors.
India, Panopticon in Poona: An Essay on Foucault and Colonialism, Martha Kaplan remarks:

We need to have a critical indigenous reading of the topic.

That will engage settler ideology by starting at the point of
place then deconstructing violent colonialism.
Byrd 2011 (Jodi, Transit of Empire, Pg. xxix xxx, Vance)

Although the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples and the 2007 Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples have resisted defining indigenous peoples in order to prevent nation-states from policing
the category as a site of exception, Jeft Corntassel (Cherokee) and Taiaiake Alfred (Kahnawake Mohawk) provide a
useful provisional definition in their essay Being Indigenous: 0Indigenousness

is an identity
constructed, shaped, and lived in the politicized context of contemporary colonialism. The
communities, clans, nations and tribes we call Indigenous peoples are just that:
Indigenous to the lands they inhabit, in contrast to and in contention with the colonial
societies and states that have spread out from Europe and other centres of empire. It is this
oppositional, place based existence, along with the consciousness of being in struggle
against the dispossessing and demeaning fact of colonization by foreign peoples, that
fundamentally distinguishes Indigenous peoples from other peoples of the world.32 In their
definition there emerges a contentious, oppositional identity and existence to confront imperialism and
colonialism. Indigenousness also hinges, in Alfred and Corntassel, on certain Manichean allegories of
foreign/native and colonizer/colonized within reclamations of placebased existence, and these can, at times, tip
into a formulation that does not challenge neoliberalism as much as it mirrors it. But despite these potential
pitfalls,

indigenous critical theory

could be said to

exist in its best form when it

centers itself within indigenous epistemologies and the specificities of the

communities and cultures from which it emerges and then looks outward to engage
European philosophical, legal, and cultural traditions in order to build upon all the
allied tools available. Steeped in anticolonial consciousness that deconstructs
and confronts the colonial logics of settler states carved out of

and on top of

indigenous usual and accustomed lands , indigenous critical theory has the potential in
to offer a transformative accountability. From this vantage, indigenous
critical theory might, then, provide a diagnostic way of reading and interpreting the
colonial logics that underpin cultural, intellectual, and political discourses. But it
this mode

asks

that

settler, native , and arrivant each acknowledge their own

positions within empire and then reconceptualize space and history to

make visible what imperialism and its resultant settler colonialisms and diasporas
have sought to obscure. Within the continental United States, it means imagining an entirely
different map and understanding of territory and space : a map constituted by over
565 sovereign indigenous nations, with their own borders and boundaries, that transgress
what has been naturalized as contiguous territory divided into 48 states.33 There is
always, Aileen Moreton-Robinson writes of indigenous peoples incommensurablity within the
postcolonizing settler society, a subject position that can be thought of as fixed in its
inalienable relation to land. This subject position cannot be erased by colonizing
processes which seek to position the indigenous as object, inferior, other and its
origins are not tied to migration.34