Critical Geography Critique - UTNIF 2015

UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
Critical Geography K
1
Space......................................................................................................................... 7
1NC......................................................................................................................... 8
Foreign/Domestic Distinction.............................................................................. 12
Borders Link....................................................................................................... 16
Citizenship Link.................................................................................................. 18
Citizenship Biopower Internal Link.....................................................................21
Preferential Treatment Link................................................................................23
Security Link...................................................................................................... 24
Postcolonialism/Multiculturalism Link.................................................................25
Borders Surveillance Link................................................................................... 27
Welfare Link....................................................................................................... 29
Internet Freedom Link........................................................................................ 30
Privatization Shift............................................................................................... 31
Privatization Shift Immigration Specific...........................................................34
Impacts................................................................................................................. 36
Ethics................................................................................................................. 37
Borders Bad War.............................................................................................. 38
Root Cause......................................................................................................... 39
Discourse........................................................................................................... 40
Racism............................................................................................................... 42
Alternative............................................................................................................. 43
Alt Border Thinking.......................................................................................... 44
Alt Historical Confronation...............................................................................45
Assail Totalization............................................................................................... 47
Alt Geography of Subjects.................................................................................. 49
Open Borders..................................................................................................... 50
Foreign/Domestic PIC......................................................................................... 52
Answers to Answers.............................................................................................. 53
AT Perm.............................................................................................................. 54
AT Framework..................................................................................................... 55
AT Foreign Domestic Distinction Good...............................................................57
AT Borders Good/Inevitable................................................................................ 58
AT Realism - Surveillance................................................................................... 59
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
2
AT Realism.......................................................................................................... 61
AT Realism Its Wrong....................................................................................... 63
At Realism Its Bad............................................................................................ 65
AT Democracy Solves......................................................................................... 66
AT Democracy Solves US Specific....................................................................67
AT World State.................................................................................................... 71
Aff Answers............................................................................................................... 72
Borders/State Inevitable..................................................................................... 73
Borders Good Ethnic War.................................................................................75
Borders Good Economic Equality.....................................................................76
Alt Fails - Borders.............................................................................................. 77
State Good......................................................................................................... 78
Realism Good..................................................................................................... 80
Perm Realism................................................................................................... 81
Democracy Solves.............................................................................................. 82
Democracy Solves - Peace.................................................................................84
Democracy Solves Minority Rights..................................................................85
AT Realism = Western Discourse........................................................................86
World State Solves............................................................................................. 88
U.S. Off The Planet................................................................................................... 90
1NC....................................................................................................................... 91
Links...................................................................................................................... 98
Ex Colonization As First Surveillance..................................................................99
Ex Domestication by Surveillance....................................................................101
Ex Foreign/Domestic Link.................................................................................103
Neutral Spaces Link.......................................................................................... 113
Spatiality Link................................................................................................... 114
Citizenship Link................................................................................................ 115
Subversion Link................................................................................................ 116
Reform Link...................................................................................................... 118
Silence Link...................................................................................................... 120
Security Link.................................................................................................... 124
Nonstructural Accounts of Racism Link............................................................126
Fluidity/Border Crossing Link............................................................................128
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
3
Privacy/Welfare Link......................................................................................... 130

Welfare Link..................................................................................................... 131
Courts Link....................................................................................................... 133
Neutrality/Equality Link.................................................................................... 136
Economic Autonomy Link (Bitcoin)...................................................................138
Equality Link..................................................................................................... 140
Black/White Binary Link....................................................................................142
White Feminism Link........................................................................................ 143
White Feminism Link Savior...........................................................................146
Third Wave Feminism Links..............................................................................147
Post-Structuralism Link..................................................................................... 148
Foucault/Agamben Link.................................................................................... 149
Foucault Link.................................................................................................... 150
Heidegger Link................................................................................................. 152
Heidegger Link Throwness.............................................................................154
Heidegger Link Being..................................................................................... 155
Heidegger Starting Point Link...........................................................................156
Derrida Link...................................................................................................... 157
Deleuze Link..................................................................................................... 158
Incorporation/Welfare Link...............................................................................159
Nonviolence Link Surveillance Specific..........................................................160
Nonviolence Link.............................................................................................. 161
Nonviolence Link Liberal Accommodation.....................................................165
Emerging Markets Link..................................................................................... 166
Internal Colonialism Link.................................................................................. 167
Impacts............................................................................................................... 168
First Priority...................................................................................................... 169
Impact Framing................................................................................................ 171
Ongoing Colonization....................................................................................... 172
Genocide.......................................................................................................... 173
Root of Surveillance......................................................................................... 175
Root of Surveillance White Supremacy..........................................................176
Root of War....................................................................................................... 177
Bare Life........................................................................................................... 183
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
4
Root of Borders................................................................................................ 189

Omnicide.......................................................................................................... 190
Anthropocentrism............................................................................................. 191
Prerequisite to Heidegger................................................................................. 192
Impact to Heidegger Links...............................................................................193
First Priority vs. Heidegger...............................................................................194
Turns Gender Affs............................................................................................. 196
Ontological Violence......................................................................................... 197
ROB.................................................................................................................. 198
Alternative........................................................................................................... 199
Alt Solves Imperialism, Race, and Post-Colonialism.........................................200
Alt Solves Heidegger........................................................................................ 201
Alt Solves Feminism......................................................................................... 202
Alt Solves Resistance against Power................................................................204
Alt- Incommensurability................................................................................... 205
Decolonization of the Mind............................................................................... 207
Answers to Answers............................................................................................ 208
AT Link of Omission.......................................................................................... 209
AT Perm............................................................................................................ 211
AT Perm Surveillance..................................................................................... 216
AT Perm Marxism........................................................................................... 220
AT Perm Racialization.................................................................................... 221
AT Perm Immigration..................................................................................... 222
AT Perm Heidegger........................................................................................ 223
AT Perm Parallax Gap..................................................................................... 225
AT Intersectionality.......................................................................................... 226
AT Framework -Education.................................................................................228
AT FW Debate is Key........................................................................................ 232
AT FW Red Pedagogy=Survival Strategy..........................................................233
AT Framework Middle Ground...........................................................................234
AT This Time its Different/Outdated.................................................................235
AT State Inevitable........................................................................................... 236
AT Pacifism/Nonviolence Works........................................................................237
AT Violent Resistance Fails...............................................................................239
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
5
AT Debate on the Aff Leads to Real Change.....................................................241

AT Identity Tied to Land Bad............................................................................ 242
AT Over Focus on Land..................................................................................... 245
AT Fluid Borders............................................................................................... 247
AT We Need Objective Ways to Determine Indianness.....................................248
AT Democracy Solves....................................................................................... 249
AT Indian = Bad Term.................................................................................... 251
AT Churchill Indicts 9/11................................................................................255
AT Churchill Indicts Academic Misconduct.....................................................256
Aff Answers............................................................................................................. 257
Perm................................................................................................................. 258
Perm Totalized Focus Bad (Especially for K affs)............................................260
Perm Antiblackness....................................................................................... 261
Perm Nonviolence.......................................................................................... 263
Perm - Drones................................................................................................... 265
Perm Drones Epistemology.........................................................................266
Perm Heidegger............................................................................................. 267
AT Universality Link Heidegger......................................................................269
Surveillance Link Turn...................................................................................... 270
Surveillance Link Turn Drones........................................................................276
Surveillance Turn Impact..................................................................................277
Domestic/Foreign Distinction Good..................................................................278
Domestic/Foreign Distinction Good - Racism....................................................279
Domestic/Foreign Distinction Good - Policymaking..........................................280
Domestic/Foreign Distinction Good - Advocacy................................................281
Reforms Solve.................................................................................................. 282
Reform Solves Indigenous People Want It......................................................283
Utopianism Bad................................................................................................ 284
Institutions Good.............................................................................................. 285
At Shift Aboard or Private Nonunique............................................................287
AT Shift Aboard or Private Link Turn...............................................................288
Nonviolence Turn.............................................................................................. 290
Nonviolence Good Persuasion........................................................................292
Nonviolence Good Human Nature..................................................................295
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
6
AT US too Oppressive for Nonviolence to Work................................................296

Bitcoin Link Turn............................................................................................... 298
Foucault No Link/Prerequisite...........................................................................299
Foucault Root Cause...................................................................................... 301
Feminism Link Turn........................................................................................... 302
AT Ontology/Epistemology............................................................................... 303
Alt Fails Settler Colonialism........................................................................... 304
Alt Fails - Neolib................................................................................................ 305
Corporations Turn............................................................................................. 306
Red Pedagogy Bad........................................................................................... 308
Essentialism Turn............................................................................................. 309
Static Identity Bad............................................................................................ 311
Romanticization Turn........................................................................................ 313
Commodification Turn...................................................................................... 317
Fetishization Turn............................................................................................. 320
Victimization Turn............................................................................................. 321
Property Turn.................................................................................................... 323
Dichotomies Turn.............................................................................................. 324
AT: Prior Questions........................................................................................... 325
AT: Root Cause................................................................................................. 326
Indian = Bad Term......................................................................................... 327
Churchill Indicts................................................................................................ 329
Churchill Indicts Not a Native American.........................................................331
Smith Indict...................................................................................................... 332
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
7
Space
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
8
1NC
Their construction of the domestic space entrenches
sovereignty and implies antagonism between the internal and
external.
Hariman 96. (Robert Hariman is an American scholar of rhetoric and public
culture. He received his BA from Macalester College in 1973, and received his MA in
1975 and PhD in 1979 from the University of Minnesota. Post-Realism: The
Rhetorical Turn in International Relations. MSU Press, Aug 31, 1996. Google Books.
MMG)
Yet those (myself included) who lament the excesses of sovereignty, whether in autocratic or popular forms, cannot
The least interesting

treatments of this theme are those that condemn sovereignty and go on to
construct a fantasy world that would come into being were it dissolved altogether.
Better, then, to criticize those theories that treat the state and sovereignty as
an unproblematic unity. Following the lead of James Tully, one can take matters a step further and link
the reigning juridical notion of the state to a legalistic construction of the self. Tully characterizes juridical
theorizing as the "dominant ideology" of modern political thought and argues that it
contains the following elements. "The state is represented as an independent,
territorial monopoly of political power. Political power is the right to kill in order to
enforce universal rule of either object rights or subjective rights, such as rights ,
such as rights, natural law, common good, tradition, majority will, modernization, or
the constitution. Political power is exercises either directly by some sovereign body (monarch, community as a
do without it: all critiques must take it on as a point of reference, if not a starting point.
whole, elite) or indirectly by some representative body...to whom power is either delegated or alienated by a
sovereign ower."25 The vast majority of "sovereignty analysts" can live with this. Sovereignty triumphed, F. H.
Hinsley insists, because it more or less had to: the consent was "sooner or later unavoidable" because "men have
thought of power in terms of sovereignty," or at least came overwhelmingly to think this way given a "primary need
to ensure effective exercise of power, the more so as the growing complexity of the community was serving to
emphasize the importance of the state." We have little choice but to stick with the sovereignty for one very basic
reason: "The
internal mechanism of the modern body politic would grind to a halt of

the assumption that there was a final and absolute authority within in were to be
abandoned. In international practice the existence of a sovereign authority within the separate
community is universally recognized as the essential qualification of its membership
in the international community."26 The state is "sovereign in the domestic
context" and this sovereignty qualifies it for that agonistic arena , the international system.
Harold Laski's qualifiers, articulated in 1921, that the "orthodox theory of sovereignty" in fact coerces the parts
"into a unity" and thereby places itself "at the disposal of the social group which, at any given historic moment,
happens to dominate the life of the sate,"27 falls out of the most accounts of the standard narrative. Sovereignty is
reified and one does not, laments Lasku, inquire into the purposes for which this particular order is maintained.
indeed, the United States Supreme Court has, from time to time, joined the chorus: "Rules come and go;
governments end and forms of governments change; but sovereignty survives. A political society cannot endure
without a supreme will somewhere. Sovereignty is never held in suspense."28 One more brief restatement of the
sovereignty is power to order a domestic arena, (the word

"domestic" implying that such order has already been achieved), (b) externally,
sovereign powers exist in a system of at least theoretical independence and
equality whose relations are controlled by principles which are the reverse of those
which compromise the internal structure of states , on the strong or classical construction of
classic theory: (a) internally,
sovereignty. A modified defense creates, or sees, an analogy if not a homology between juridical terms of internal
and external rule. Central to the classical account is the notion of "legal subjectivity," drawn from the Romans and
lodged in two carriers: the paterfamilias, and the force of command or will in law, jus, derived from the populous
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
9
Romanus constructed as a unified subject. just as the paterfamilias was the "sole, self-determined, and in their
sphere sovereign representative(s) of right," so the "multiplicity of equal wills" composed of all "fathers culminated
in a center of "common legal subjectivity," the will or voice of abstract, collective legal personality.29 Traces of this
construction appear in all modern theories of sovereignty--this despite a recent claim that sovereignty as supreme
authority has a historic meaning, now lapsed. "I hesitate to include a fourth meaning, of a husband in relation to his
wife, which is obsolete as meanings get."30
The domestic/international distinction allows unlimited

surveillance and sovereign violence against those not
considered domestic.
Monahan 2006 (Torin, Professor of Communication Studies at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on institutional transformations
with new technologies, with a particular emphasis on surveillance and security
programs, Surveillance and Security Technological Politics and Power in Everyday
Life, September 28th 2006, Page 179)
information technologies are profoundly political instruments
implicated in the fortification of external borders of the Western world . Moreover,
coupled with biometric technologies, the various systems in use for regulating
border traffic, border patrol, immigration, and asylum policy establish forms of
identity politics that transform geographical borders into lived and embodied
identities. The next section describes some of the changing practices and policies regarding the United States
In this chapter I argue that
Mexico border and one of the EUs external borders, the GermanyPoland border, until the accession of ten new
specifically in Europe, one traditional

way to enter the first world legally, the application for political asylum, is gradually
blocked, leaving many refugees little option but to join the ranks of the criminalized
illegal aliens, or les sans-papiers. The central role of two biometric databases in this process, IDENT and
member states on May 1, 2004. The third section describes how,
Eurodac, is also described. The fourth section is concerned with the contrasting type of system, the one that allows
the use of information

technologies and biometrics, such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service Passenger Accelerated
specific groups of people to pass the border more easily. Here, it is argued,
Service System (INSPASS), dedicated commuter lane (DCL), and secure electronic network for travelers rapid
are inscribing identities on bodies as well, but with

somewhat different results. The final section discusses the way information technologies, and
biometrics in particular, constitute increased levels of surveillance for both Western
citizens and non-Western immigrants, refugees, and visitors in ways that more often
than not are practically immune to democratic controls. In that sense, the
inspection (SENTRI) in the United States,
informatization of the border is generally problematic. However, the different identities produced in this generalized
surveillance require a careful differential assessment of the politics of technological identification rather than a
treatment of it in general terms as one phenomenon.
Statism and nationalism make extinction inevitable.

Politics, Aberystwyth University, where he was formerly E.H.
Carr Professor and Head of Department. Realism and World
Politics edited by Ken Booth pp. 358-59
3. Reviving grand international theory for the Great Reckoning As it was in the beginning,
theorists of
International Politics today face a Twenty Years Crisis. Realism helps us understand part of
why we are where we are, historically, because it helped to constitute todays world affairs by
reifying, above all, statism and its historical adjunct nationalism. These ideas have
contributed to the growth of the most powerful structures through recent centuries,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
10
shaping the collective human consciousness about living globally. Humankind will
not cope well with its Great Reckoning, however, if political outlooks remain rooted
in the business-as-usual attitudes, structures, and behaviour that got us here in the first
place. Yesterdays common sense can be tomorrows irrationality. Blood and
Belonging still simmer in the pots of statism and nationalism, and can
easily boil over in crises; they are certainly not calculated to lead common
humanity through our uncommon collective challenges this century. If this proves to
be the case, then the middle decades of this century are set to be a
potential turning point in world history comparable to the Thirty Years War.
That period of widespread conflict and disorder tested the era of religious war
to the limit, and led to a different conception of living globally. The dynamics of
statism and nationalism face a similar test. How the Great Reckoning plays out,
and its aftermath, will depend greatly on how the most powerful agents in world
politics collectively think about living globally over the next few decades.
Confronted by the existential reality of living on a smaller and more crowded
planet at a time of old problems and new challenges, with the uneven distribution of
basics such as food, energy and water, students of International Politics have a
special responsibility in contributing to how the world thinks about the world.
This calls for big-picture thinking and grand theorising : an era of question marks
about our planetary future requires more than reductionism, micro-narratives,
cultural relativism, anti-metanarrative metanarratives, ethnocentric worldviews,
middlerange theorising, and the rest. We need a global brainstorm to think how the levels and pieces
of world politics fit together, re-exploring under new conditions the relationships between units and systems, agents
and structures, parsimony and holism, reductionism and systemic approaches, material and ideational
considerations, international and global systems, and national and world histories. offer five brief pointers towards
this re-exploration. First: pluralism. We cannot allow the discipline to be captured by one definition of science or of
theory: to do so would be to concede the field to whatever becomes the champion; pluralism helps sharpen
everybodys thinking. Second: history. As has been suggested in this and the opening chapter, remaking world
affairs begins by rethinking the ideas that made us. Three: wholes and parts. While abstracting issues for scrutiny,
we must recognise that multiple causes operate at every level, with different causal weight. And we can learn from
Kant about the unity of opposites, when it comes to wholesand parts. Four: change. Theories of International Politics
need a comprehensive theory of change. There may be things to learn from developmental systems theory (DST) in
Biology, which seeks to integrate processes that some want to separate by rejecting the idea of evolution as
merely a sequence of genomes, without worrying about the messy processes that led from one genome in one
generation to another in the next . . . these must be brought together.46 So, for example, genocentism is rejected
in favour of a comprehensive explanation that would include both evolution and development. In the same way, a
developmental theory of international politics requires a comprehensive picture integrating world history,
Economics, and Sociology with International Politics.47 Finally: reflexivity (the strategic monitoring of our ideas).
Students of International Politics without exaggerating our influence have a role in shaping the collective
consciousness about living globally. The strategic monitoring of the discipline, and of the state of the world, cannot
global business-as-usual will simply perpetuate a

world that is not working for many fellow humans and for much of the
natural world on which all depend.
but lead to the conclusion that
The alternative is grassroots resistance against the

surveillance state and empire. The decontextualized, quick fix
of the plan necessarily trades off with this and retrenches the
narrative that ordinary people have nothing to fear from a
reformed surveillance system.
Kundnani and Kumar, Arun Kundnani, professor at NYU, and author on
domestic surveillance Deepa Kumar is a professor of Middle East Studies at Rutgers
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
11
University, 2015(Arun Kundnani and Deepa Kumar, Spring 2015, Race,

surveillance, and empire, http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire)
CQF
The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in this essay were responses to political struggles of various kindsfrom anticolonial
Surveillance practices themselves

have also often been the target of organized opposition . In the 1920s and 1970s, the
surveillance state was pressured to contract in the face of public disapproval . The
insurgencies to slave rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist agitation.
antiwar activists who broke into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971 and stole classified documents managed to
expose COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down. (But those responsible for this FBI program were never brought to justice
for their activities and similar techniques continued to be used later against, for example in the 1980s, the American Indian
Movement, and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance in the 1970s
led to the Church committee report on government spying and the Handschu guidelines that regulated the New York Police
Those concerns began to be swept aside in the 1980s

with the War on Drugs and, especially, later with the War on Terror . While significant
sections of the public may have consented to the security state, those who have
been among its greatest victimsthe radical Left, antiwar activists, racial justice
and Black liberation campaigners, and opponents of US foreign policy in Latin
America and the Middle Eastunderstand its workings . Today, we are once again in
a period of revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance. Yet if
real change is to be brought about, the racial history of surveillance will
need to be fully confrontedor opposition to surveillance will once again
be easily defeated by racial security narratives. The significance of the Snowden leaks is that
Departments spying on political activities.
they have laid out the depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have. The result has been
a generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of how intrusive surveillance is in our society, but that alarm remains
constrained within a public debate that is highly abstract, legalistic, and centered on the privacy rights of the white middle class.
On the one hand, most civil liberties advocates are focused on the
technical details of potential legal reforms and new oversight mechanisms
to safeguard privacy. Such initiatives are likely to bring little change
because they fail to confront the racist and imperialist core of the
surveillance system. On the other hand, most technologists believe the problem of government surveillance can be
fixed simply by using better encryption tools. While encryption tools are useful in increasing the
resources that a government agency would need to monitor an individual, they do
nothing to unravel the larger surveillance apparatus . Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations
express concerns about loss of sales to foreign customers concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon Valley,
what should be a debate about basic political freedoms is simply a question of corporate profits.69 Another and perhaps deeper
problem is the use of images of state surveillance that do not adequately fit the current situationsuch as George Orwells
discussion of totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that Orwell warned us of the dangers of the type of
government surveillance we face today.70 Reference to Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the current debate; indeed, sales of
the book were said to have soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big
For those in certain targeted groupsMuslims, leftwing campaigners, radical journalistsstate surveillance certainly looks Orwellian.
But this level of scrutiny is not faced by the general public . The picture of surveillance today is
Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence.
therefore quite different from the classic images of surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an undifferentiated
mass population subject to government control. What we have instead today in the United States is total surveillance, not on
everyone, but on very specific groups of people, defined by their race, religion, or political ideology: people that NSA officials refer to
as the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy director of the NSA, told an audience: Contrary to some of the stuff thats
been printed, we dont sit there and grind out metadata profiles of average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid
intelligence targets, you are not of interest to us.72 In the national security world, connected to can be the basis for targeting a
it points to the ways that

national security surveillance can draw entire communities into its web, while
reassuring average people (code for the normative white middle class) that they
are not to be troubled. In the eyes of the national security state, this average person must also express no political
whole racial or political community so, even assuming the accuracy of this comment,
views critical of the status quo. Better oversight of the sprawling national security apparatus and greater use of encryption in digital
communication should be welcomed. But by themselves these are likely to do little more than reassure technologists,
while
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
12
racialized populations and political dissenters continue to experience

massive surveillance. This is why the most effective challenges to the
national security state have come not from legal reformers or
technologists but from grassroots campaigning by the racialized groups
most affected. In New York, the campaign against the NYPDs surveillance of
Muslims has drawn its strength from building alliances with other groups affected by
racial profiling: Latinos and Blacks who suffer from hugely disproportionate rates of
stop and frisk. In Californias Bay Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland
Security-funded Domain Awareness Center was successful because various
constituencies were able to unite on the issue, including homeless people, the poor,
Muslims, and Blacks. Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los Angeles Police
Department, which would have profiled communities on the basis of race and
religion, was shut down after a campaign that united various groups defined by race
and class. The lesson here is that, while the national security state aims to create fear and to divide people, activists
can organize and build alliances across race lines to overcome that fear . To the extent that
the national security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar movement, environmental rights activists, radical journalists and
campaigners, and whistleblowers, these groups have gravitated towards opposition to the national security state. But understanding
the centrality of race and empire to national security surveillance means finding a basis for unity across different groups who
experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim, Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white dissidents and radicals .
It is on such a
basis that we can see the beginnings of an effective multiracial opposition
to the surveillance state and empire.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
13
Foreign/Domestic Distinction
Domestic and international surveillance strategies are
inextricably bound- the affirmatives attempt to constitute
them as separate entities allows the same tactics to continue
in the international sphere and the U.S.
Graham 9 (Stephen. "Cities as Battlespace: The New Military
Urbanism." City13.4 (2009): 383-402.
http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/doi/full/10.1080/1360481090329
8425#_i6. KLB)
the burgeoning movements of the far right, often heavily
represented within policing and state militaries, tend to see rural or exurban areas
as the authentic and pure spaces of white nationalism linked to Christian traditions.
Bastions of ethnonationalist politics,
Examples here range from US Christian Fundamentalists, through the British National Party to Austrias Freedom
The fastgrowing and sprawling

cosmopolitan neighbourhoods of the Wests cities, meanwhile, are often
cast by such groups in the same Orientalist terms as the megacities of
the Global South, as places radically external to the vulnerable nation
threatening or enemy territories every bit as foreign as Baghdad or Gaza.
Paradoxically, the imaginations of geography which underpin the new military
urbanism tend to treat colonial frontiers and Western homelands as
fundamentally separate domainsclashes of civilizations in Samuel Huntingtons incendiary
proposition (1998)even as the security, military and intelligence doctrine addressing
both increasingly fuses. Such imaginations of geography work to deny the
ways in which the cities in both domains are increasingly linked by
migration and investment flows to constitute each other. In rendering all mixedup
Party, the French National Front and Italys Forza Italia.
cities as problematic spaces beyond the rural or exurban heartlands of authentic national communities, telling
movements in representations of cities occur between colonial peripheries and capitalist heartlands. The
construction of sectarian enclaves modelled on Israeli practice by US forces in Baghdad from 2003, for example,
was widely described by US security personnel as the development of USstyle

gated communities in the country . In the aftermath of the devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane
Katrina in late 2005, meanwhile, US Army Officers talked of the need to take back the City from Iraqistyle
the imaginations of urban life in colonized zones interact

powerfully with that in the cities of the colonizers . Indeed, the projection of colonial
tropes and security exemplars into postcolonial metropoles in capitalist heartlands
is fuelled by a new inner city Orientalism (Howell and Shryock, 2003). This relies on the
widespread depiction amongst rightist security or military commentators
of immigrant districts within the Wests cities as backward zones
threatening the body politic of the Western city and nation. In France, for
example, postwar state planning worked to conceptualize the mass, peripheral
housing projects of the banlieues as near peripheral reservations attached to, but
distant from, the countrys metropolitan centres (Kipfer and Goonewardena, 2007). Bitter
insurgents. As ever, then,
memories of the Algerian and other anticolonial wars saturate the French farrights discourse about waning white
power and the insecurity caused by the banlieuesa process that has led to a dramatic mobilization of state
security forces in and around the main immigrant housing complexes.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
14
International surveillance techniques are imported and used

within the US to demonize immigrations, monitor dangerous
populations and create violent solutions. The result is war
against minority populations.
Graham 9 (Stephen. "Cities as Battlespace: The New Military
Urbanism." City13.4 (2009): 383-402.
http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/doi/full/10.1080/1360481090329
8425#_i6. KLB)
the contemporary rights conflation of terrorism and migration
that simple acts of migration are now often being deemed to be little more
than acts of warfare. This discursive shift has been termed the
weaponization of migration (Cato, 2008)the shift away from emphases on moral
obligations to offer hospitality to refugees toward criminalizing or
dehumanizing migrants bodies as weapons against purportedly
homogenous and ethnonationalist bases of national power. Here the latest
Indeed, such is
debates about asymmetric, irregular or low intensity war, where nothing can be defined outside of boundless
and neverending definitions of political violence, blur uncomfortably into the growing clamour of demonization by
right and farright commentators of the Wests diasporic and increasingly cosmopolitan cities. Samuel Huntington
(2005), taking his clash of civilizations thesis (1998) further, now argues that the very fabric of US power and
national identity is under threat not just because of global Islamist terrorism but because nonwhite and especially
Latino groups are colonizing, and dominating, US metropolitan areas. Adopting such Manichean imaginations of the
world, US military theorist William Lind (2004) has argued that prosaic acts of immigration from the Global South to
the Norths cities must now be understood as acts of warfare. In Fourth Generation war, Lind writes, invasion by
immigration can be at least as dangerous as invasion by a state army. Under what he calls the poisonous ideology
of multiculturalism, Lind argues that migrants within Western nations can now launch a homegrown variety of
Given the twoway movement of the

exemplars of the new military urbanism between Western cities and those on
colonial frontiers, fuelled by the instinctive antiurbanism of national security states,
it is no surprise that cities in both domains are starting to display startling
similarities as well as their more obvious differences. In both, hard, military
style borders, fences and checkpoints around defended enclaves and security
zones, superimposed on the wider and more open city, are proliferating. Jersey
barrier blast walls, identity checkpoints, computerized CCTV, biometric
surveillance and military styles of access control protect archipelagos of
fortified enclaves from an outside deemed unruly, impoverished or
dangerous. In the former case, these encompass green zones, war prisons, ethnic and
sectarian neighbourhoods and military bases; in the latter they are growing around strategic
Fourth Generation war, which is by far the most dangerous kind.
financial districts, embassy zones, tourist spaces, airport and port complexes, sport event spaces, gated
In both domains, efforts to identify urban

populations are linked with similar systems of surveillance, tracking and
targeting dangerous bodies amidst the mass of urban life . We thus see
parallel deployments of hightech satellites, drones, intelligent closed
circuit TV, nonlethal weaponry and biometric surveillance in the very
different contexts of cities at home and abroad. And in both domains, finally, there is
a similar sense that new doctrines of perpetual war are being used to
permanently treat all urban residents as perpetual targets whose benign
nature, rather than being assumed, now needs to be continually
demonstrated to complex architectures of surveillance or data mining as
communities and export processing zones.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
15
the subject moves around the city. Such moves are backed by parallel legal
suspensions targeting groups deemed threatening with special restrictions, pre
emptive arrests or a priori incarceration within globestraddling extralegal torture
camps and gulags. Whilst these various archipelagos of enclaves function in a wide variety of ways they are
similar in that they replace urban traditions of open access with security systems that force people to prove
legitimacy as they gain access. Urban theorists and philosophers now wonder whether the possibilities of the city as
a key political foundation for dissent and collective mobilization within civil society are being replaced by complex
geographies made up of various systems of enclaves and camps which link together whilst withdrawing from the
urban outside beyond the walls or accesscontrol systems (Graham and Marvin, 2001; Diken and Laustsen, 2005, p.
In such a context one wonders whether urban securitization might

reach a level in the future which would effectively decouple the strategic
economic role of cities as drivers of capital accumulation from their
historic role as centres for the mobilization of democratic dissent.
64).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
16
International surveillance strategies are paralleled in the U.S.

and serve to create an us/them distinction in order to identify
and destroy the others within the U.S.
Graham 6 (Stephen, Cities and the 'War on Terror'. 2006. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, Volume 30, Issue 2. Pgs. 255 276. KLB)
Programmes of organized, political violence have always been legitimized and

sustained through complex imaginative geographies. This term following the work of
Edward Said (2003) and Derek Gregory (1995) denotes the ways in which imperialist societies
tend to be constructed through normalizing, binary judgments about both foreign
and colonized territories and the home spaces which sit at the heart of empire.
Such imaginative geographies are crucial to what Kipfer and Goonewardena (2005) have called
the colonial splitting of reality that sustains all empires . Edward Said (2003), for example,
argues that imaginative geographies have long been crucial in sustaining Orientalist
treatments of the Arab world as Other amongst Western colonial powers. As Derek
Gregory (2004a: 18) puts it, such geographies function by fold[ing] distance into difference through a series of
They operate by multiplying partitions and enclosures that

serve to demarcate the same from the other . And, as imaginations given
substance, or architectures of enmity, they do geopolitical work by designating the familiar
space inhabited by a putative us, and opposing it to the unfamiliar geographies
inhabited by a putative Other the them who become the legitimate target for
military or colonial power (ibid.: 18). Imaginative geographies thus tend to be characterized by stark
spatializations.
binaries of place attachment. Not surprisingly, these tend to be particularly powerful and uncompromising during
times of war. As Ken Hewitt (1983: 258) has argued, war . . . mobilizes the highly charged and dangerous dialectic
such
polarizations are manufactured and recycled discursively through racist and
imperial state and military discourses and propaganda, backed up by popular
cultural representations. Together, these work to produce an unbridled
sentimentalizing of ones own while dehumanizing the enemys people and
land (ibid.: 258). To Hewitt, such binaried constructions seem an essential step in
cultivating readiness to destroy the latter (ibid.: 258). The purpose of this article is to
of place attachment: the perceived antithesis of our places or homeland and theirs . Very often,
demonstrate that the Bush administrations war on terror rests fundamentally on such two-sided constructions of
the discursive construction of the war on terror

2001 has been deeply marked by attempts to rework imaginative
geographies separating the urban places of a putative US homeland from those
Arab cities purported to be the sources of terrorist threats against US national
interests. Such reworkings of popular and political imaginative geographies operate by
projecting places, and particularly cities, into two mutually exclusive, mutually
constitutive, classifications: those, in Bushs famous phrase, who are either with us
or against us (see Graham, 2004). Binaried portrayals suggesting an absolute separateness between
(particularly urban) place. The article argues that
since September 11
homeland cities and the Arab cities of the target Other are powerfully reinforced by neoconservative geopolitical
ideologies (Roberts et al., 2003). These stress the supposed disconnection of countries deemed to be hotbeds of
threats to US interests from normalized processes of neoliberal globalization. Normatively, they emphasize the
imperative of integrating such territories into processes of neoliberal globalization, if necessary through the use of
pre-emptive acts of US military aggression such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq (Roberts et al., 2003). Thomas
Barnetts influential The Pentagons New Map (2004) is one example of a range of neoliberal imaginary geopolitical
renderings of the world seized upon by the Bush administration as supporting the war on terror. Barnetts global,
binary schema stresses the putative disconnection of the US militarys target zones in the Middle East, Africa and
Central America or what he calls the non- integrating gap from the rest of the world, a zone which is seen to
be integrating benignly through processes of neoliberal capitalism to constitute what Barnett calls a functioning
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
17
such
attempts at constructing a mutually exclusive binary a securitized inside
enclosing the urban places of the US Empires homeland, and an urbanizing
outside, where US military power can pre-emptively attack places deemed sources
of terrorist threats are inevitably both ambivalent and ridden with
contradictions. They rest alongside the ratcheting-up of state surveillance
and repression against Others targeted within US cities and society. They
are paralleled, as we shall see later in this article, by military strategies which
increasingly treat the inside spaces within the US and the foreign ones
in the rest of the world as a single, integrated, battlespace prone to the
rapid movements of terrorist threats into the geographical and urban
heartlands of US power at any instant. And they obscure the complex geographies and political
core. In a world of intensifying transnational migration, transport, capital and media flows, however,
economies of primitive accumulation which closely tie predatory post-war reconstruction and oil contracts in Iraq,
and homeland security contracts in US cities, to the same cartel of Bush-friendly oil companies, defence and
security contractors and private military corporations (Harvey, 2003; Chatterjee, 2004; Boal et al., 2005). Whilst
the imaginative geographies underpinning the war on terror are far from original (see
revivify long-established colonial and Orientalist tropes
to represent Middle Eastern culture as intrinsically barbaric, infantile,
backward or threatening from the point of view of Western colonial
powers (Gregory, 2004a). Arab cities, moreover, have long been represented by Western powers as dark,
dramatic,
Driver, 2001). In fact, they
exotic, labyrinthine and structureless places that need to be unveiled for the production of order through the
By burying
disturbing similarities between us and them in a discourse that
systematically produces the Third World as Other, such Orientalism
deploys considerable symbolic violence (Gusterson, 1999: 116). This is done,
crucially, in order to produce both the Third World and the West (ibid.: 116).
ostensibly superior scientific, planning and military technologies of the occupying West.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
18
Borders Link
Borders are a Eurocentric notion which re-inscribe racism,
patriarchy and are responsible for the spreading of state
power
Paasi 2005 [Anssi, Anssi Paasi is Professor and Head of the Department of
Geography, University of Oulu, Finland. Bordering Space, Chapter 1: The Changing
Discourses on Political Boundaries Mapping the Backgrounds, Contexts and
Contents, pp 17-19]
regional transformation seems to be a perpetually accelerating phenomenon,
we have for a long time been used to living with certain large-scale socio-spatial
facts in our modern world, prominent among which has been the existence of states and
their boundaries, a certainty that has been canonized in international law and in the actions of the United
Nations. This fact has dominated international relations, even though it is well-known that most
currently existing states are not nation-states, in the sense that several ethnonational groups co-exist within them, either peacefully or in conflict. Some of these groups may
be struggling fiercely for autonomy or a state of their own . Most of the existing
political boundaries were originally created by the European nation-states, so that De
Vorsey and Biger (1995, see also Burghardt, 1996) are ready to argue that it is difficult to identify any
international boundary r that has not directly involved a European state at some stage
of its evolution. Similarly, it was the peoples from the continent of Europe that imposed a
model of the space of states and a specific state-centred structure of political
economy on the rest of the planet, beginning in the 17th century - a model that involved boundaries
Although
and frontiers (Shapiro, 1999). Boundaries have been a key category in political geography and political science
since the 19th century, but it was above all the collapse of the East-West divide at the beginning of the 1990s that
gave rise to a new interest in political boundaries. The 1990s and the first years of the new millennium have
witnessed a dramatic increase in boundary studies all over the world, but particularly in Europe. The themes have
varied from problems associated with the existing state boundaries to the roles of symbolic borders in the
construction of contested social identities. Particularly important topics of research have been the diverging forms
of crossborder interaction, emerging new regionalizations and region-building projects. Not only have the roles of
concrete state boundaries been evaluated but also the 18 B/ordering Space symbolic and metaphorical roles of all
kinds of social, political, cultural and historical borders (Newman and Paasi, 1998; Anderson and O'Dowd, 1999;
Donnan and Wilson, 1999; van der Velde and van Houtum, 2000). The sociologists Lamont and Molnar (2002) have
boundaries has been associated

social and collective identity, commensuration,
census categories, cultural capital, cultural membership, racial and ethnic group positioning,
hegemonic masculinity, professional jurisdictions, scientific controversies, group
rights, immigration or contentious politics, and this list is by no means exhaustive.
Geographers have also expanded their traditional ideas of political boundaries as frozen lines and have
begun to map the roles and functions of boundaries as institutions, symbols and
discourses that are `spread' everywhere in society , so that they are not confined to
the border areas themselves (Paasi, 1996). Attention has been paid to boundary-drawing
practices, whether conceptual and cartographic, imaginary and actual, or social and aesthetic (O'Tuathail and
Dalby, 1998). These practices are always part of broader social action and have typically been
based on the processes of Òthering', i.e. the construction of
symbolic/cultural boundaries between ùs' and `the Other'. Spatializations of
noted in their review of the boundary literature how the idea of
with
research into such divergent topics as cognition,
identity, nation and danger, for instance, are examples of boundary-drawing practices which are always contested
These practices, in which national (spatial)

manifest themselves in such areas as foreign
and reflect power relations (Campbell, 1992; Tickner, 1995).

socialization and education play a crucial role,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
19
policy, media discourses and popular culture (Paasi, 2003a). Another topical example of boundaryproducing practices concerns geopolitically challenging spatializations based on supra-national forms of culture,
especially those referred to as `civilizations', as suggested by Huntington (1993) in his much debated - and
criticized - treatise (O'Tuathail, 1996; Nierop, 2001). As far as the changing roles of political boundaries, and state
boundaries are
not merely lines on maps, forming unproblematic backgrounds and limits to political life, but crucial
boundaries in particular, are concerned, Anderson (1996) reminds us that current (political, A.P.)
elements in achieving an understanding of political life. He notes how any examination of the justifications for
boundaries will normally raise dramatic questions on such themes as citizenship,

identity, political loyalty, exclusion, inclusion and the ends of the state. These questions
are increasingly important in the present world, characterized as it is by the flows of economic assets, information,
refugees and immigrants. Inspired by these seemingly border-eroding processes, some authors have claimed that
boundaries, and even states, will vanish or at least lose their role in the contemporary world. However, the
simultaneous strengthening of old ideologies such as (ethno-)regionalism and nationalism seems to make a
mockery of the most utopian visions of the borderless world. The future role of boundaries is not, of course, an
What is
needed is a deeper scrutiny of the social practices and discourses in which
boundaries are produced and reproduced . I will argue in this paper that state power and the
ideas of sovereignty, citizenship and identity still provide the social, political and
cultural framework for `reading' the contextual but simultaneously re- scaling
meanings of boundaries and the power relations that are involved in the very
constitution of them. The constantly advancing process of constructing the European Union, for instance, is
either-or question, and we certainly will not be able to write boundaries off in our academic discussions.
transforming the existing geopolitical ideas on political boundaries and will inevitably fuse the spatial scales in this
specific context, but this does not detract from the fact that the state still remains important (Paasi, 2001). New
approaches to border research suggest that political boundaries - as well as territories and their inherent
A historical
perspective is therefore inevitable in any account on the meanings of political
boundaries. This paper will therefore begin with a brief analysis of the history of state territoriality, before
symbolisms and institutions - are social constructs and processes rather than stable entities.
reflecting on different boundary drawing practices and the meanings of boundaries as ideologies, forms of
symbolism and markers of identity. A critical analysis will then be made of the contrasting boundary narratives that
are currently emerging in the globalizing world. This will be followed by some methodological suggestions for future
border research.
Borders turn the case.

Salter 05(Mark B.; Professor at the School of Political Studies, University of
Ottawa; Ph.D., Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1999;
M.Sc., International Relations, London School of Economics, London, 1995; B.A.
(Hons), Politics and Liberal Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, 1994; At the
Threshold of Security: A Theory of International Borders; Global Surveillance and
Policing: Borders, Security, Identity, P 36-50, 2005, Elia Zureik and Mark B. Salter,
eds.)TKH
We might point to three dynamics of this border control mechanism: the
weaknesses of biometrics, the reliance on technological fixes to an inherently
psycho-governmental problem, and the failure of risk management as a strategy for
security. In short, states are faced with a dilemma in the post-9/11 world: a
totalitarian strategy to increase their surveillance of domestic (and international)
populations so that they might know more; or the bifurcation of world regions and
world populations into safe and dangerous in a way that completely replicates the
nineteenth-century imperial model of the colonial world and reverses any modern
movement towards freedom of mobility. Borders in either case become mechanisms
of state control for either those on the inside or those on the outside.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
20
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
21
Citizenship Link
You reinscribe the colonial practice of citizenship at the root of
modern surveillance practices.
Berda, doctoral candidate at he Princeton department of sociology, 2013 (Yael
Berda, Managing Dangerous Populations: Colonial Legacies of Security and
Surveillance, Late 2013, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=2297906)CQF
Few activities reveal the power of the modern state more than monitoring borders,
control of population movement (Mongia 1999) classification of subjects and
segregation of groups (Soysal 1994) and issuing identity cards (Torpey & Caplan 2001).
Constructing maps, monitoring entry of foreigners, processing passports are all central to political regimes as they
In colonial regimes,
direct violence proved ineffective when subjects fled from the control of the state,
so more sophisticated forms of control through documentation and surveillance
were developed (Scott 2009). Particularly in British colonies, a plethora of surveillance
methods were established to monitor dangerous populations (Kemp 2004): travelling
are constructed and experienced by both civil servants and the public (Gupta 2012).
passes, distinctive zones and permit regimes in Egypt (Mitchell 2002), India and Pakistan (Zamindar, 2007) South
Histories of surveillance of
movement in North America and Europe have shown their fundamental
ties to the making of citizenship (Zamindar 2007). However, in colonies and postcolonies these technologies were perpetuated to control displacement and exclusion
of those classified as refugees (Zureik 2011), intruders, illegal aliens, and migrant
workers. The legacies of colonial systems that managed population movement for
security purposes, contributed to the current global mobility regime organized
around a trinity of threats: Immigration, crime and terror (Shamir 2005). The shift from
securing territory to monitoring population begins in the colonies. When colonial
powers seized political sovereignty over territories for purposes of extraction or
strategic power, they treated subject populations as fundamentally inferior (Steinmetz
Africa (Evans 1997) and Israel (Shenhav and Berda 2009).
2008). Colonial state administrations used two sets of laws and practices that have been defined as the rule of
Continuous
violence and extraction methods exacerbated the hostility of local populations that
were became officially viewed as suspect and dangerous. Michele Foucault omitted
the administrative history of the colonies when he observed the shift from
Westphalian sovereignty to practices of governmentality, which he defined as a
power that has the population as its target, political economy as its major form of
knowledge and apparatuses of security as its essential technical element (Foucault
2007: 108). In the colonies, as population movement within the state became the
major problem of colonial rule (Legg 2011), the security apparatus went from being a
technical element to the very way the colonial government defined the population
and its relationship to the state. Therefore, practices of security and surveillance were
no longer separate from the political economy and bureaucratic administration . State
colonial difference (Chatterjee 1993): laws for the rulers, and laws for the subject populations.
of Emergency in the colonies was used as an elastic category, stretching over riots and insurgencies, as well as to
allow for colonial capitalism. Eventually 'emergency' was used in "situation of danger that can never be
exhaustively anticipated or codified in advance (Hussain 2003: 19). Legal emergency was institutionalized and
became the practical foundation of colonial government. Emergency laws in the colonies gave powers to officers to
use extreme measures, but never specified against which populations these tools could be used. In order to turn the
emergency laws into administrative practice, population had to be categorized on two axes: demographic traits
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
22
-religion, ethnicity, language, gender and class and administrative relationship to the state patriot, suspect,
security threat or enemy-of-the- state. The shift from securing territories and borders to surveying population took
In the US and Europe the shift from securing

space to managing monitoring population changes later with processes of
decolonization and growing economic inequalities (Joppke 1998; Gilroy 2005).
Decolonization and subsequent immigrations from less affluent to more affluent
parts of the globe created a mobility regime of suspicion that conflates crime,
immigration and terrorism through biosocial profiling (Shamir 2005) in which
Surveillance is standardized and no longer reserved for suspicious persons. When
place in the colonies between the two World Wars.
Foucault finally acknowledged the role of the colonies in the shift of focus from securing territory to control of
colonial models were brought back to the

west so it could practice something resembling colonization, or internal
colonialism...on itself (Foucault 2003, 103). In the aftermath of 9/1, emergency laws
have institutionalized and standardized the surveillance of citizen
populations and provided it with democratic legitimacy . The paradigmatic shift from securing
population, he called it a boomerang effect:
territory to controlling population that began with decolonization has crystallized into formal organizations and
security is no longer the exclusive business of ministries of defense. In 2003, the department of Homeland Security
combined immigration services (Fernandez 2005) with security, intelligence, police and border management. In
2007, The UKs ministry of interior established the Office of security and counter-terrorism. In 2008, Israel launched
a combined population, immigration and border control authority replacing departments in the ministry of interior
The sociology of security

and surveillance offers us a gateway to understand impacts of colonialism and
modernity on the contemporary experience of the state, where security threats are
no longer created by war, but by population movement in daily life.
and the military-civil administration of the Occupied Territories (Gordon, 2011).
The concept of citizenship has an intricate historical

connection to whiteness and masculinity. In its development
its primary purpose became to delineate between those
included vs excluded in society. Colonialism used this implicitly
exclusive attribute to develop a docile population driven by the
pursuit of citizenship
Glenn '04 (Evelyn Glenn, a Professor of Gender & Women's Studies and of
Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, "The Changing Terrain
of Race and Ethnicity", 2004)
In this chapter, I examine citizenship as one of the principal institutions through which
unequal race and gender relations have been constituted and also contested in the United
States. Citizenship has been key to inequality because it has been used to
draw boundaries between those included as membersof the community and

entitled to respect, protection, and rights and those who are excluded and
thus denied recognition and rights. First, I examine the ideological and material roots
of exclusion in Western concepts of citizenship. I then explore shifting boundaries of
exclusion, showing that there has not been a linear process of increasing inclusiveness, but
rather a much more uneven and contested process. Third, I examine various approaches to
understanding and explaining race and gender exclusion in American citizenship despite its
framing in the rhetoric of universal rights. I argue for an approach that views ascriptive
exclusion and stratification as central to, rather than a deviation from, American conceptions
of citizenship. Finally, I develop a concept of citizenship that considers not only the
definitions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution, laws, and court decisions, and other formal
documents but also localized practices in which local officials as well as members of the
public enforce and challenge the boundaries of citizenship and the rights associated with
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
23
Since
the earliest days of the nation, the idea of whiteness has been closely tied to
the notions of independence and self-control necessary for republican
government. This conception of white masculine citizenship was rooted in
the historyof the United States as a white settler nation that grew out of the
conquest and seizure of territory from indigenous peoples. Its economy was
developed to provide raw materials for the European market and relied on
various forms of coercive labor, including chattel slavery. Imagining nonEuropean others as dependent and lacking the capacity for self-governance
helped rationalize the takeover of their lands, resources, and labor. The
it.ROOTS OF EXCLUSION: INDEPENDENCE-DEPENDENCE AND PUBLIC-PRIVATEDIVIDES
extermination and forced removal of Indians and the enslavement of blacks by European
settlers therefore seemed justified (Horsman 1981). This formulation was transferred to
other racialized groups, such as the Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos, who were brought to
the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as low-wage laborers.
Often working under coercive conditions of indenture or contract labor, they were treated as
unfree labor and denied the right to become naturalized citizens (Cheng and Bonacich
1984, chs. 1 and 2; Lopez 1996, 44; Salyer 1995; Melendy 1977, ch. 2). It was not just
whiteness but masculine whiteness that was being constructed in the

discourse on citizenship. Indeed, the association of republican citizenship
with masculinity had even more ancient roots than race. As the American
colonists struggled to articulate their cause in the struggle for independence
from England, they harked back to classical conceptions that associated
patriotism and public virtue with masculinity. As Rogers Smith (1989, 244) argues,
American republicans identified citizenship with material self-reliance, participation in public

life, and martial virtue. The very words public and virtue derived from Latin terms
signifying manhood. The equation of masculinity with activity in the public domain of the
economy, politics, and the military was drawn in explicit contrast the equation of femininity
with the activities of daily maintenance carried out in the private domestic sphere. Those
immured in the domestic spherewomen, children, servants, and other dependentswere
not considered full members of the political community
Citizenship is a way of ethnically cleansing the nation state.

Torney 2k
John Torpey is an Assistant Professor of Sociology and Chair of the International
Studies Faculty Board at the University of California, Irvine, The Invention of the
Passport. IG
This book examines some of the background to such efforts to identify and track the movements of foreigners. The
the historical development of passport controls as a way of

illuminating the institutionalization of the idea of the "nation-state" as a
prospectively homogeneous ethnocultural unit, a project that necessarily entailed
efforts to regulate people's movements. Yet because nation-states are both
territorial and membership organizations, they must erect and sustain boundaries
between nationals and non-nationals both at their physical borders and among
people within those borders. Boundaries between persons that are rooted in the legal category of
study concentrates on
nationality can only be maintained, it turns out, by documents indicating a person's nationality, for there simply is
no other way to know this fact about someone. Accordingly, a study that began by asking how the contemporary
passport regime had developed and how states used documents to control movement ineluctably widened to
include other types of documents related to inclusion and exclusion in the citizen body, and to admission and
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
24
refusal of entry into specific territories. I argue that, in the course of the past few centuries, states have successfully
usurped from rival claimants such as churches and private enterprises the "monopoly of the legitimate means of
THE INVENTION OF THE PASSPORT is, their development as states

has depended on effectively distinguishing between citizens/subjects and possible
interlopers, and regulating the movements of each. This process of
"monopolization" is associated with the fact that states must develop the
capacity to "embrace" their own citizens in order to extract from them the
resources they need to reproduce themselves over time. States' ability to
"embrace" their own subjects and to make distinctions between nationals and nonnationals, and to track the movements of persons in order to sustain the boundary between these two groups
movement" - that 2
(whether at the border or not), has depended to a considerable extent on the creation of documents that make the
relevant differences knowable and thus enforceable. Passports, as well as identification cards of various kinds, have
been central to these processes, although documentary controls on movement and identification have been more
or less stringently developed and enforced in different countries at various times.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
25
Citizenship Biopower Internal Link

Sovereignty D/A- Citizenship is rooted in biopolitical power
that reduces alterity to bare life.
Zembyas 10 (Michalinos Zembyas ., The Open University of Cyprus., Agambens
Theory of Biopower and Immigrants/Refugees/Asylum Seekers Discourses of
Citizenship and the Implications For Curriculum Theorizing.,Pages 6-8)KM
Agambens analysis of biopower offers a valuable basis for developing an
alternative response to the liberal/humanitarian discourses of citizenship, because
Agamben traces and speci- fies explicitly the problematic in the priority given to
national security and citizenship over moral obligation to the Other (Papastergiadis,
2006). Liberal and humanitarian discourses grounded in human rights or principles of justice remain blind to the
biopolitical aspects analyzed in Agam- bens work (Ek, 2006). The problem with liberal/humanitarian arguments is
that they appropriate the figure of the Other in ways that elide the substantive differences between ways of being
displaced from home (Ahmed, 2000, p. 5). Differences are concealed by universalizing the condition of
displacement and by placing all immigrants/ refugees/asylum seekers into a singular category, as if they all
Agambens pointwhich takes him beyond a familiar critique

of rejecting singularitiesis to question the very notions of humanity, citizenship
and the rule of law within the modern nation state which make possible the
generalization of the logic of the camp. In this part of the article, I want to consider how Agambens
experience the same thing.
views can trouble current understandings of citizenship education (Richardson & Blades, 2006) and expand the set
Knight Abowitz
and Harnish (2006) urge educators and curriculum theorists to build on the strong
array of diverse critical discourses of citizenship (e.g., critical citizenships,
transnationalism) because these discourses challenge traditional definitions of
bounded membership and push against traditional boundaries of agency, identity,
and membership (p. 680). Cosmopolitan (Nussbaum, 1997), transnational (Baubck, 1994) and postnational (Soysal, 1994) views have challenged normative meanings of identity,
membership, citizenship practice, and education. Although critical and transnational
perspectives are certainly included in scholarly debates, point out Knight Abowitz and Harnish (2006), the
current formal, taught curriculum of citizenship produces a relatively narrow scope
and set of meanings for what citizenship is and can be (p. 657). The question is: How can
of meanings around citizenship. In their review of contemporary discourses of citizenship,
Agambens ideas enrich the current taught curriculum of citizenship? For Agamben, to turn only to
liberal/humanitarian (e.g., human rights) discourses in addressing the situation of others (i.e.,
immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers), without also attempting to think beyond such discourses, is to fail to
recognize that the fates of human rights and the nation-state are bound together such that the decline and crisis
Agamben seems to be suggesting

that it is very important to understand the devastating consequences of bounded
membership; critical citizenships can certainly align forces with Agambens views on
interrogating bounded membership. Faced with increased migration after the Second World War,
of one necessarily implies the end of the other (1998, p. 134).
Europe and the United States in particular, have gradually created an increasingly complex system of civic
immigration procedures that is dependent on bounded membership

and the immigrant/refugee/asylum seeker as a fearsome figure who threatens
our bounded membership (Tyler, 2006). The results are millions of stateless people
inside the territorial states and inhu- mane citizenship and migration policies and
practices (Ek, 2006). As it has already been noted, Agambens analysis reveals all
the shortcomings of the intersection between fearism and liberal/ humanitarian
discourses of citizenship that are still founded in territorial mythsmyths that
ignore the biopolitical matrix (Minca, 2006). Agamben essentially asks us to see the
stratifications and
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
26
current juridico-political frame as ideology with material implications; at the center
of this ideological frame is the bourgeois nationstate, which bestows individuals
with rights and progressively incorporates them into a body (the nation). For instance, the expression I love
or hate them because they are like me, or not like me (Ahmed, 2005, p. 108) indicates the ideological aspects that
collective bodies entail. Hence in hating an Other, a subject also loves itself and those that are similar to itself. This
attachment structures political life within a community and provides an affective orientation that characterizes the
thinking of this community (or nation). As Kristeva (1993) argues, the nation is an effect of how bodies move toward
The citizens become members of the bodynation, members to

be managed, measured in certain ways, and contained (Minca, 2007). Thus the definition
of belonging to the nation becomes the states guiding political preoccupation.
[...] It is within this exclusive inclusion...that the very principle of citizenship and the
idea(l) of belonging are born (p. 88). When the nationstate begins to
systematically isolate a bare lifeendowed with citizenship rights or notthen
citizenship becomes definable only in terms of the camp, as Agamben asserts.
Critical and transnational discourses on citizenship can use Agambens views to
raise questions about identity, membership and citizenship questions that are issues of
it and create boundaries.
public debate, yet in curricular texts such questions are marginalized (Knight Abowitz & Harnish, 2006). For
immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers can be considered as limit concepts

to radically call into question the fundamental categories of the
nationstate, including rights and citizenship. Immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers
are powerful figures that invite educators, curriculum theorists, students, and the
whole community to confront the politics of what Agamben has described as
inclusive exclusion. This inclusive exclusion brings to mind Kristevas (1982) view of the abject. The abject
for Kristeva is an object which is excluded but which still challenges its master (1982, p. 2). Although it is
excluded, it is simultaneously included in that it continues to disturb borders
(between us and them) and norms. Thus the abject does not stand opposed to
the subject, at a distance, definable. The abject is other than the subject but is only
just the other side of the border (Young, 1990, p. 144). What is of interest here is an
understanding of abjection as that which disturbs borders and norms such as rights
and citizenships.
example,
(e.g., see Agamben, 1994)
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
27
Preferential Treatment Link

United States and allied citizens are given preferential
treatment when it comes to surveillance- this practice is
unsustainable and replicates violence
Chesterman 11 [Simon Chesterman, ?-?-2011, One Nation Under Surveillance A New Social Contract
to Defend Freedom Without Sacrificing Liberty. , Dreier T (2011). One Nation Under Surveillance A New Social
Contract to Defend Freedom Without Sacrificing Liberty. jipitec, Vol. 2. (urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30966)]-DD
This instance of the more general reluctance to share intelligence within an international organization such as the United Nations suggests that a more
productive means of challenging specific listings may draw upon the bilateral intelligence relationships described in Chapter one. As the United States
From the adoption of

formal de-listing procedures in November 2002 until December 2005 only two
individuals were de-listed. One was a British citizen and the other was a resident of
Germany. Both were removed from the list only after intense lobbying by the
respective governments and in one case de-listing was linked to cooperation with
the authorities in investigations of terrorist activities. Such a practice, which
favours the citizens and residents of allies of the United States, is
unsustainable. Indeed, there are already indications that in countries not in a position like Britain, Germany, Canada, Sweden, or
proposes the majority of listings, a countrys relationship with the United States will therefore be crucial.
Switzerland to lobby the United States, sanctions are already being implemented selectively. It now seems probable that the greatest problem for the
effectiveness of the regime will not be challenges from courts but the reluctance of states to add[ to the list. This was first identified as a problem in late
2002, with some states citing practical and legal constraints preventing them from submitting the names of individuals and entities under ongoing
Advancing this
debate would profit from closer examination of the history of intelligence sharing
with international organizations, especially in the context of implementing regimes
such as weapons inspections in Iraq. Effective use of intelligence by such
organizations depends on both a demonstrated ability to receive confidential
information appropriately and a capacity to assess its accuracy, relevance, and
implications.112 In the repertoire of the UN Security Council there is, in fact, some experience in drawing upon sensitive information to
investigation, or expressing concerns about the legality of listing individuals prior to a judicial finding of culpability.111
implement Council decisions: in the practice of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals, which have had to balance the need to protect sources and
methods, the rights of an accused, and the integrity of the tribunal itself.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
28
Security Link
Your scenarios only fuel securitization, which is the root cause
of racist mass surveillance.
CQF
The election of Barack Obama as president in 2008 was said to have ushered in a
new post-racial era, in which racial inequalities were meant to be a thing of the
past. African Americans and Muslim Americans placed their hopes in Obama, voting for him in large numbers.
But in the so-called post-racial era, the security narrative of hard-working families
(coded white) under threat from dangerous racial others has been as powerful as
ever. The unprecedented mass deportation of more than two million people
during the Obama presidency is one form taken by this post-racial
racialized securitization. Over the last two decades, the progressive criminalization of
undocumented immigrants has been achieved through the building of a militarized
wall between Mexico and the United States, hugely expanding the US border patrol,
and programs such as Secure Communities, which enables local police departments
to access immigration databases. Secure Communities was introduced in 2008 and stepped up under
Obama. It has resulted in migrants being increasingly likely to be profiled, arrested,
and imprisoned by local police officers , before being passed to the federal authorities for deportation.
Undocumented migrants can no longer have any contact with police officers without
risking such outcomes. There is an irony in the way that fears of illegal
immigration threatening jobs and the public purse have become stand-ins for real
anxieties about the neoliberal collapse of the old social contract: the measures that
such fears lead toracialization and criminalization of migrants themselves serve to
strengthen the neoliberal status quo by encouraging a precarious labor market. Capital, after all, does not
want to end immigration but to profit from a vast exploitable labor pool that exists
under precarious conditions, that does not enjoy the civil, political and labor rights of citizens and that is
disposable through deportation.66 What brings together these different systems of
racial oppressionmass incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass
deportationis a security logic that holds the imperial state as necessary to
keeping American families (coded white) safe from threats abroad and at home .
The ideological work of the last few decades has cultivated not only racial security
fears but also an assumption that the security state is necessary to keep us safe .
In this sense, security has become the new psychological wage to aid the reallocation of
the welfare states social wage toward homeland security and to win support for
empire in the age of neoliberalism . Through the notion of security, social and economic anxieties
generated by the unraveling of the Keynesian social compact have been channeled toward the Black or Brown
this
homeland in need of security has been symbolized, above all, by the white
domestic hearth of the prefeminist fifties, once again threatened by
mythical frontier enemies, hidden subversives, and racial aggressors. . That
street criminal, welfare recipient, or terrorist. In addition, as Susan Faludi has argued, since 9/11,
this idea of the homeland coincides culturally with the denigration of capable women, the magnification of manly
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
29
men, the heightened call for domesticity, the search for and sanctification of helpless girls points to the ways it is
gendered as well as racialized.67
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
30
Postcolonialism/Multiculturalism Link
Postcolonilism/multiculturalism serves as an alibi for colonial
practices that have become more intense than ever.
Miyoshi, professor of Japanese literature and culture at University of California,
1993 (Masao Miyoshi, Summer 1993 In the Journal Critical Inquiry: A Borderless
World? From Colonialism to Transnationalism and the Decline of the Nation State pp
727-730) CQF
The circumstances surrounding this process of "liberation" and "independence," however, have no widely accepted
narrative as yet. Does colonialism only survive today in a few places such as Israel, South Africa, Macao, Ireland,
The problem we face

now is how to understand today's global configuration of power and culture that is
both similar and different vis-a-vis the historical metropolitan-colonial paradigm. This
and Hong Kong? Does the rest of the world enjoy the freedom of postcolonialism?
paper is concerned with such transformation and persistence in the neocolonial practice of displacement and
The current academic

preoccupation with "postcoloniality" and multiculturalism looks
suspiciously like another alibi to conceal the actuality of global politics. This
paper argues that colonialism is even more active now in the form of transnational
corporatism. We might begin with the beginning of the decolonization process.7 The end of the cold war in
ascendancy, and with its specular engagements in discourse.
1989 has enabled us to look back at the history of the past half-century-or even longer-from a perspective informed
by truly radical change. We are, for instance, once again reassessing the end of World War II, which fundamentally
altered the world system. The destruction of German and Japanese aggressions did not result in the full
resuscitation of the hegemony of the European industrial states. The Western European nations, especially Britain
and France, were too fatally injured to be able simultaneously to rebuild their domestic industrial bases and to
sustain their military forces to dominate their colonies. In retrospect, we see that the Soviet Union kept up the front
of a military superpower while disastrously wrecking its production and distributive systems. The avowed war
objective of Germany and Japan--liberation and display the particular complexities of individual circumstances.
It
does seem undeniable, however, that while oppression and suffering continue
unabated, the administrative and occupational mode of colonialism is irreversibly
being replaced by an economic version especially after the end of the cold war. To
complicate the situation further, the status of the aborigines in settlement societies
such as Australia, Taiwan, the United States, Canada, and the Pacific islands, to take
random examples, is far from clarified. Serious legal disputes are distinct
possibilities in the near future in some of these areas, for example, in Hawaii and
Australia. There are six interrelated developments in post-World War II history, none of which should or could be
considered in isolation. It is indeed possible to argue that any one of these developments needs to be studied in
close conjunction with every other. They are: (1) the cold war (and its end); (2) decolonization; (3) transnational
corporatism; (4) hightech revolution; (5) feminism; (6) the environmental crisis. There are adjacent cultural
coordinates such as postmodernism, popularization of culture, cultural studies, de-disciplinization, ethnicism,
economic regionalism (tripolarism), and so on. The relationship between the two groups is neither homologic nor
causal, but its exact nature requires further examination in a different context. decolonization through a new world
the colonized of the

world that had sided with their master states in World War II seized the day and
would not settle for less than independence and autonomy. Liberation was
demanded and allowed to take place over several subsequent decades, albeit under
varying circumstances. After World War II, independence appeared to have ended
the humiliating and exploitive colonial domination that had lasted anywhere from
decades to centuries in countries covering at least 85 percent of the earth's land
surface. And yet freedom and self-rule-for which the colonized had bitterly struggled
often at the cost of immense sacrifice-were unexpectedly elusive . Decolonization
order (die neue Ordnung and sekai shin chitsujo in Axis slogans)-was a total sham;
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
31
neither effected emancipation and equality nor provided new wealth or

peace. Instead, suffering and misery continued nearly everywhere in an altered form,
at the hands of different agencies. Old compradors took over, and it was far from rare that they went on
to protect their old masters' interest in exchange for compensation. Thus the welfare of the general
population saw little improvement; in fact, in recent years it has worsened in many
old colonies with the possible exceptions of the East Asian Newly Industrialized
Economies (NIEs) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).8 The
"postcolonial" deterioration that Basil Davidson recently called "the black man's
burden" was a result of double processes of colonization and decolonization , which
were inextricably intermeshed.9 We are all familiar with the earlier stage . As the colonizers drew
borders at will, inscribing their appropriation on a map, tribes were joined
or fragmented. Those who were encircled by a more or less arbitrary
cartographic form were inducted into servitude on behalf of the distant
and unseen metropolis. Western culture was to be the normative
civilization, and the indigenous cultures were banished as premodern and
marginal. And although subaltern resistance proved far more resilient than anticipated, and colonial
programs were never really fulfilled anywhere, the victor's presence was powerful
enough in most places to maintain a semblance of control and order despite
unceasing resistance and opposition. With the removal of formal colonialism after World
War II, the cartographic unit that constituted a colony was now perceived both by the 8. In
many regions of the world, there were some improvements in general welfare . As to
starvation, for instance, the ratio of the chronically undernourished to the total population in the Middle East, South
America, and Asia has been reduced to nearly one-half between 1970 and 1990. In Africa, however, there is hardly
any change in the same period. See Sekai o yomu kii waado (Tokyo, 1992), pp. 82-83. 9. See Basil Davidson, The
Black Man's Burden: Africa and the Curse of the Nation-State (New York, 1992). An Africanist journalist, Davidson
may be overly influenced by his observations of Africa when he writes about the rest of the world. He is, for
instance, much too pessimistic-and Orientalist!-as he predicts that aside from Japan no Third World nation will
departing colonizers and the newly freed to be a historically

autonomous territory, that is to say, a modern nation-state, with a national history,
national language, national culture, national coherence, and finally a state
apparatus of its own as symbolized by a national anthem, flag, museum, and map.
The entity was, however, no more than a counterfeit reproduction of, and
by, its former conqueror in many places, having neither a discrete history nor logic that would
become industrialized.
convince the newly independent citizens of its legitimacy or authenticity. Earlier, while struggling against the
oppressors, self-definition was not difficult to obtain: opposition articulated their identity. Once the Europeans were
the residents of a colonial territory were thrown back on their old

disrupted site that had in the precolonial days operated on a logic and history
altogether different. The liberated citizens of a colony now had to renegotiate the
conditions of a nation-state in which they were to reside thereafter . Retroversion to
gone, however,
nativism might have been an option, but the Third World was fraught with inequalities and contradictions among
various religions, tribes, regions, classes, genders, and ethnicities that had been thrown together in any given
colonial territory. And production and distribution were often horrendously inefficient. The golden age of a nationstate's memory proved to be neither pure norjust, nor even available, but a utopian dream often turned into a
bloody nightmare. The hatred of the oppressors was enough to mobilize toward liberation but was inadequate for
the management of an independent state. As Fanon had predicted early in the game, attempts at nativism indeed
ended in disastrous corruption and self-destruction, and they are still ongoing events in many parts of the world.
Once absorbed into the "chronopolitics" of the secular West, colonized space cannot reclaim autonomy and
seclusion; once dragged out of their precolonial state, the indigenes of peripheries have to deal with the knowledge
the conditions of the

modern nation-state are not available to most former colonie s.1
of the outside world, irrespective of their own wishes and inclinations. And yet
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
32
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
33
Borders Surveillance Link

Your aff is just the last stage in the US process of moving its
most egregious surveillance of immigrants outside of its
boarders
Torney 2k
Passport. IG
to impose strict documentary surveillance on
the Chinese in response to the wishes of political interests in the Western states of
the country, the regulation of immigration was becoming more and more clearly
understood as a mandate of the federal government in the United States. Hearings by
joint congressional committees to determine the goals of US immigration policy had
led to recommendations aiming "not to restrict immigration, but to sift it, to
separate the desirable from the undesirable immigrants, and to permit only those to
land on our shores who have certain physical and moral qualities." 26 In pursuit of this
During the same period when the law had come
objective, immigration regulation came to focus on those who might be a burden on the public purse and those
regarded as "unassimilable" or otherwise unworthy of inclusion in the American civic body. Against this background,
Congress adopted the Immigration Act of 1891, which placed the regulation of immigration under the authority of
the Secretary of the Treasury, created a new Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department,
strengthened the enforcement provisions of earlier laws, and installed twenty-four border inspection stations .
All
of these measures contributed to the bureaucratic institutionalization of

immigration control, which for the first time had become national in character as a
consequence of this legislation. Yet for the time being, Chinese immigration continued to be regulated
by the Exclusion Acts, whereas that from Europe was governed by the Superintendent of Immigration - a fact that,
ironically, allowed the Chinese more leeway to challenge their treatment in the courts. 27 In keeping with the
recommendations of the congressional inquiries into the aims of American immigration policy, the administrative
structures called forth by the 1891 law were designed to enable the government to distinguish between those who
were thought to be good 101 25 THE INVENTION OF THE PASSPORT candidates for American citizenship, and those
who were not. These priorities promoted a process whereby all immigration would be administered by the same
With the
increasing prevalence of eugenics and other race-conscious approaches to
population management, the ranks of those held to be unworthy of admission
into or citizenship in the United States expanded beyond the Chinese to include a
variety of groups regarded as impure, unclean, idiotic, nonwhite, or incapable of
understanding the principles of republicanism. The proliferation of the categories of excludables
bureaucracy (even if different groups of potential immigrants were subjected to different policies).
pushed in the direction of a more uniform administration of immigration control, and in the early 1900s the
separate administration of Asian and European immigrant streams disappeared as the drift toward the
"nationalization" of immigration regulation became consolidated institutionally. In 1903, the work of the
Commissioner General of Immigration in the Treasury Department was transferred to a full-fledged Bureau of
Immigration in the newly created Department of Commerce and Labor, and Chinese immigration fell under its
purview along with that of Europeans. The exclusion of the Chinese was rendered permanent in 1904, a harbinger
of things to come for other Asian and European national groups - as long as the necessary documents could be
created and imposed. In 1907, the "Gentlemen's Agreement" closed off the access of Japanese laborers to the
United States when the Japanese government agreed to stop issuing them passports, a policy later extended to
Japanese women who were to travel to the United States as "picture brides" of future husbands whom they knew
only as a photograph. The situation was more complicated with Filipinos, subjects but not citizens of the United
States after acquisition of the islands from Spain. As US "nationals" - persons "owing allegiance, whether citizens or
not, to the United States" - they could not be subjected to restrictive immigration laws. Ironically, however, the
acquisition of overseas possessions such as the Philippines forced the US government to expand access to
passports to a variety of non-citizen "nationals," reversing the general trend toward distribution of those documents
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
34
Along with the growing worries about the racially inferior,

concerns also spread that various categories of persons would render the American
stock less wholesome in political, moral, or medical terms. The latter fear soon helped give
exclusively to citizens. 28
birth to the Public Health Service and to legislation excluding those with contagious illnesses. US restrictions on the
admission of the medically dubious stimulated the development overseas of both governmental and steamship
company efforts to insure that would-be emigrants would pass muster when they arrived in American ports. 29
Gradually, many of the activities associated with US 102 TOWARD THE "CRUSTACEAN
TYPE OF NATION" immigrant inspection would be transferred abroad, as control
of immigration moved from the territorial borders of the United States to
the emigrant-sending countries themselves - a development that would
dramatically enhance the capacity of states to restrict the influx of
outsiders.
Domestic welfare drives the desire for boarder control

Torney 2k
Passport. IG
The process through which states monopolized the legitimate means of movement thus took hundreds of years to
the shift of orientations from the local to the "national" level

that accompanied the development of "national" states out of the panoply of
empires and smaller city-states and principalities that dotted the map of early modern Europe. The
process also paralleled the rationalization and nationalization of poor
relief, for communal obligations to provide such relief were an important
source of the desire for controls on movement. Previously in the domain of private and
come to fruition. It followed
religious organizations, the administration of poor relief gradually came to be removed from their purview and
lodged in that of states. As European states declined in number, grew in size, and fostered large-scale markets for
wage labor outside the reach of landowners and against the traditional constraints imposed COMING AND GOING by
These processes, in
turn, helped to expand "outward" to the "national" borders the areas in which
persons could expect to move freely and without authorization. Eventually, the
principal boundaries that counted were those not of municipalities, but of nationstates. The process took place unevenly in different places, following the line where
modern states replaced non-territorial forms of political organization 10 and "free" wage
localities, the provision of poor relief also moved from the local to the national arena. 9
labor replaced various forms of servitude. Then, as people from all levels of society came to find themselves in a
state controls on movement among local spaces

within their domains subsided and were replaced by restrictions that concerned the
outer "national" boundaries of states. Ultimately, the authority to regulate movement came to be
more nearly equal position relative to the state,
primarily a property of the international system as a whole - that is, of nation-states acting in concert to enforce
Where pronounced state controls on movement

operate within a state today, especially when these are to the detriment of
particular "negatively privileged" status groups, we can reliably expect to find an
authoritarian state (or worse). The cases of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, apartheidera South Africa, and Communist China (at least before the 1980s) bear witness to this
generalization. The creation of the modern passport system and the use of similar systems in the interior of a
their interests in controlling who comes and goes.
variety of countries - the product of centuries-long labors of slow, painstaking bureaucratic construction - thus
signaled the dawn of a new era in human affairs, in which individual states and the international state system as a
whole successfully monopolized the legitimate authority to permit movement within and across their jurisdictions.
The point here is obviously not that there is no unauthorized (international)
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
35
migration, but rather that such movement is specifically "illegal"; that is, we speak
of "illegal" (often, indeed, of "undocumented") migration as a result of states'
monopolization of the legitimate means of movement. What we now think of as "internal"
movement - a meaningless and anachronistic notion before the development of modern states and the state
system - has come to mean movement within national or "nation-states." Historical evidence indicates clearly that,
well into the nineteenth century, people routinely regarded as "foreign" those from the next province every bit as
much as those who came from other "countries."
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
36
Welfare Link
Decreased welfare surveillance will only make boarder
surveillance a more pressing state imperative.
Torney 2k
Passport. IG
It is true that the newly permanent passport controls that persisted after the First World War generally applied not
the desire to control

borders against unwanted entrants, however, and aliens had increasingly come to
be seen as lacking any prima facie claim to access to the territory of a state other
than their own. In the absence of telltale markers such as language or skin color - which are themselves
just to foreigners, but to both citizens and aliens. This was a necessary outcome of
inconclusive as indicators of one's national identity, of course, but which nonetheless frequently 120 92 TOWARD
THE "CRUSTACEAN TYPE OF NATION" have been taken as such - a person's nationality simply cannot be determined
without recourse to documents. As an ascribed status, it cannot be read off a person's appearance. The (re)
imposition of passport controls by numerous West European countries and the United States
during the First World War and their persistence after the war was an essential aspect of that
"revolution identi- ftcatoire" 94 that vastly enhanced the ability of governments to
identify their citizens, to distinguish them from non-citizens, and thus to construct
themselves as "nation-states." With the general rise of the protectionist state out of the
fires of the First World War, 95 the countries of the North Atlantic world became caught up in
a general trend toward nationalist self-defense against foreigners. Documents such
as passports and identification cards that help determine "who is in" and "who is
out" of the nation here took center stage, and thus became an enduring and
omnipresent part of our world. These documents were an essential element of that burgeoning
"infrastructural" power to "grasp" individuals that distinguishes modern states from their predecessors. 96 Specific
historical forces such as the development of welfare states and the rise of
labor movements seeking to control access to jobs and social benefits
certainly played their part in promoting immigration controls and the
sharpening of states' capacities to distinguish between "them" and "us. " 97
Yet there were specifically political factors involved as well, particularly the advance of processes of
democratization that increasingly brought the individual members of national states into closer relationship with
The tighter connection between citizens and states as a

result of democratization led to an intensified preoccupation with determining who
is "in" and who is "out" when it came to enjoying the benefits - both political and
economic - of membership in those states. This is one of the ways that democratization promoted
states across the North Atlantic world.
bureaucratization, a dynamic that Weber noted long ago. In the process, passports became essential to the
bureaucratic administration of modern mass migration, just as identity cards have become something like the
"currency" of domestic administration, marking out eligibles from ineligibles in the areas of voting, social services,
and much more besides.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
37
Internet Freedom Link

The free internet is just a space for corporate control of
information.
Cohen 10. (Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D. Brown University, founder and editor of International Journal of Applied
Philosophy and International Journal of Philosophical Practice; ethics editor of Free Inquiry Magazine; co-founder and
Executive Director of the National Philosophical Counseling Association (NPCA); and President of the Institute of
Critical Thinking: National Center for Logic-Based Therapy. Mass Surveillance and State Control: The Total
Information Awareness Project. October 2010. Page Numbers Omitted. MMG)
But it is not just the average American who is subject to being manipulated; the
mainstream media is, and has been so subject. Giant media corporations have come
largely under government influence or control. To a considerable extent, this is due to consolidation. A
relatively few number of companies now control all of cable and network TV (News Corp, General Electric, Viacom,
Disney, and Time Warner being the prominent conglomerates). These companies also have joint ventures with the
telecom companies such as AT&T and Comcast. All of
these companies are beholden to the
government
for media ownership caps, mergers, tax breaks, military contracts, and other means of expanding
their bottom lines. They also have lobbies in Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and are,
therefore, disinclined to report news that strains their relationship with the government. A classic example of this is
Even the New York Times was relegated to quoting government

spokespersons in making the case for the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq.
the lead-up to the Iraq war.
An instructive example of what can happen to a company that refuses to cooperate with government is that of
Qwest Communications, which refused to assist the Bush administration in its warrantless surveillance program.8
According to the former CEO of Qwest, Joseph P. Nacchio, the Bush administration had withdrawn lucrative
government contracts due to Qwests refusal to comply with the directive to cooperate in its program. Qwest had
entered into two classified government contracts and in 2000 and 2001, Nacchio participated in discussions with
high-ranking government officials about the awarding of other similar contracts; but Qwests refusal to participate in
the program of warrantless surveillance, claimed Nacchio, led the Bush administration to cancel these contracts.
The Net Neutrality Crisis If the abuses of power perpetrated by the Bush administration teach us anything, it is that
we cannot afford to place our blind trust in any government administration. But this
means that we need a vigilant media to keep us informed . Unfortunately, the
mainstream corporate media has been asleep at the wheel; and given its insatiable drive for
profit maximization, and its reliance on the government to feed this appetite, there is presently no good reason to
we might conclude that the free and open

architecture of the Internet provides the answer to our need to be kept
informed. Unfortunately, as will be discussed in Chapter 7, the Internet is also in clear
and present danger of becoming another branch of the corporate,
mainstream media. Currently, there are powerful telecommunication companies such
as Comcast seeking to turn the free and open architecture of the net into a pay for
play system according to which only companies that have deep pockets would be able to afford an Internet
presence. Consequently, these companies, which include the major cable and broadcast media
corporations, would have the ability to control, censor, and otherwise
manipulate the flow of information through the Internet pipes. This would mean the end of net
think that it will perform better in the future. So
neutrality and a brave new world of Internet control.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
38
Privatization Shift
The aff just leads to outsourcing of surveillance to private
companies.
Parton 15 (Heather, began as a commenter on the blogs of Bartcop and Atrios
and launched her own blog on January 1, 2003, calling it Hullabaloo, She won the
2005 Koufax award for blog writing and accepted the Paul Wellstone Award on
behalf of the progressive blogosphere from the Campaign for America's Future at
their "Take Back America" conference. Digby had initially kept her identity secret
and it was widely assumed that Digby was male until she made an appearance at
the 2007 CAF conference to accept the award. Digby has since written regularly at
Salon as Heather Digby Parton. She also won the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and
Analysis Journalism, March 19, 2015, A racial Big Brother debacle: Why is the
government spying on Black Lives Matter protests?, Salon,
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/19/a_racial_big_brother_debacle_why_is_the_govern
ment_spying_on_black_lives_matter_protests/)
Its comforting that we have the assurance of everyone from the president on down that the government has no
interest in intruding on the lives of fellow Americans without cause as they did back in the bad old days. After all, in
these days of hyper awareness over the terrorist threat, it doesnt take much imagination to see how that sort of
thing could get out of hand, so its important that they follow the rules. Now there was a time when the cause of
anti-communism required that we be extra-vigilant because the Russians were coming and dissent was closely
monitored by police and the FBI in order that the government keep tabs on all those potential commie infiltrators
quite recently, it was found that the

authorities had peace activists under surveillance in the wake of 9/11. The
Washington Post reported in 2006: A database managed by a secretive Pentagon
intelligence agency called Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, was found last
month to contain reports on at least four dozen antiwar meetings or protests, many
of them on college campuses. Ten peace activists who handed out peanut butter
and jelly sandwiches outside Halliburtons headquarters in Houston in June 2004
were reported as a national security threat. So were people who assembled at a
Quaker meeting house in Lake Worth, Fla., or protested military recruiters at sites
such as New York University, the State University of New York and campuses of the
University of California at Berkeley and at Santa Cruz. The protesters were written
up under a Pentagon program called Talon, which is supposed to collect raw data on
threats to defense facilities in the United States. CIFA, an agency created just under
four years ago that now includes nine directorates and more than 1,000 employees,
is charged with working to prevent terrorist attacks. The logic that peace activists
must be in league with terrorists has never been adequately explained, but it
follows along the same line of thought which leads conservatives to assume that
decadent left-wing hippies are natural allies of Muslim fundamentalists . The great sage of
such as Martin Luther King and John Lennon. And even
late 20th Century conservative philosophy, Ann Coulter, said it best: We need to execute people like John Walker
[Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise,
they will turn out to be outright traitors. She later clarified that statement by saying, When I said we should
execute John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was, We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and
televise it on prime-time network TV. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. Yes, she
said we should burn him alive on television. The Pentagon ended the appropriately dystopian sounding program
Talon, although its hard to know exactly what any of the agencies charged with keeping the terrorist threat at bay
are really doing because they are secret. Edward Snowdens revelations only involved the most sophisticated of
high tech government surveillance activities. It was shocking because of the sweeping nature of the programs and
the fact that the NSA said outright that the mission was to collect it all. But perhaps the more prosaic forms of
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
39
domestic surveillance activity should concern us as well. For instance, Lee Fang reported this story at The
Members of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force tracked the time and location
of a Black Lives Matter protest last December at the Mall of America in Bloomington,
Minnesota, email obtained by The Intercept shows. The email from David S. Langfellow, a St. Paul police officer
Intercept:
and member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, informs a fellow task force member from the Bloomington police
that CHS
just confirmed the MOA protest I was taking to you about today, for the
20th of DEC @ 1400 hours. CHS is a law enforcement acronym for confidential
human source. Jeffrey VanNest, an FBI special agent and Joint Terrorism Task Force
supervisor at the FBIs Minneapolis office, was CCd on the email. The FBIs Joint
Terrorism Task Forces are based in 104 U.S. cities and are made up of approximately
4,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The FBI characterizes them
as our nations front line on terrorism. It should be noted that this so-called threat
happened months before the al-Shabab video vaguely implying a threat to the Mall
was released in late February. In this earlier incident, a confidential informant told
the police that someone was preparing to vandalize the mall as part of the Black
Lives Matter protest. An FBI spokesman told The Intercept they have absolutely no
interest in that campaign and that they make certain not to interfere with people
exercising their rights under the First Amendment. They also noted that vandalism
is not a crime that the Joint Terrorism Task Force is authorized to track and had no
idea why it would have been informed of this information. Unfortunately,
considering the federal governments history of illegally spying on Americans for
any number of reasons, the burden to explain such activity belongs to them. One
thing to keep in mind is that there is no prohibition against using information of
other potential crimes gleaned during terrorism related investigations to pursue
non-terrorism investigations. So perhaps its also useful to recall this expos from a while back in which it
was revealed that the DEA routinely lies about where it got information: A secretive U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence
intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to
authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of
Americans. Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents
reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to
conceal how such investigations truly begin not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes
from prosecutors and judges. One of the ways they do that is by re-creating the investigative trail to hide how
they got the information. This is routinely done to protect confidential sources from being revealed in open court
but the government has evidently decided that its secret surveillance activities now qualify for that designation as
well. There is no evidence that anything like this happened in this Black Lives Matter surveillance, but those stories
Its not difficult to see how easy it is that

members of the joint terrorist task force, whether local or federal or both, might be
doing what these agencies have always done monitor the peaceful activities of
American citizens protesting their government under the guise of keeping us safe
from foreign threats. Whether their information comes from secret wiretaps or
secret informants its wrong. All that is part of an old story in American life and one which requires that
illustrate just how incestuous all these police agencies are.
civil libertarians be constantly vigilant in keeping an eye on them and pushing back wherever possible. But Fang
reports that we have gone to a new level of Big Brotherism with the Mall of America: As reported by the Star
Tribune, emails released earlier this week reveal apparent coordination between Sandra Johnson, the Bloomington
city attorney, and Kathleen Allen, the Mall of Americas corporate counsel. Its the prosecutions job to be the
enforcer and MOA needs to continue to put on a positive, safe face, Johnson wrote to Allen two days after the
protest, encouraging the mall company to wait for a criminal charge from the city before pursuing its own lawsuit.
Agree we would defer any civil action depending on how the criminal charges play out, Allen wrote back. This
means that
the city was working hand in hand with a private corporation, using the
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
40
criminal justice system as the enforcer to help the corporation collect money in a
civil action. Evidently they felt it would look better in civil court if the protesters who
were being asked to pay the costs of policing the mall during the protest had been
charged. 11 of them were hit with misdemeanors, none of them having to do with
property damage or theft. But thats not the most chilling part. In a follow-up article, Fang revealed
something even more insidious: Documents obtained by The Intercept indicate that security staff at the Mall of
America in Bloomington, Minnesota used a fake Facebook account to monitor local Black Lives Matter organizers,
befriend them, and obtain their personal information and photographs without their knowledge. Evidence of the
fake Facebook account was found in a cache of files provided by the Mall of America to Bloomington officials after a
large Black Lives Matter event at the mall on December 20 protesting police brutality. The files included briefs on
individual organizers, with screenshots that suggest that much of the information was captured using a Facebook
account for a person named Nikki Larson. Metadata from some of the documents lists the software that created
them as belonging to Sam Root at the Mall of America. A Facebook account for a Sam Root lists his profession
as Intelligence Analyst at Mall of America. The Mall of America corporation had been privately collecting dossiers
on protesters of many kinds for months. In fact, one of the Facebook accounts used to stalk them online was
created all the way back in 2009. The Mall is quite proud of its counter-terrorism unit called Risk Assessment and
Mitigation, or RAM which is known for its aggressive behavior toward patrons, especially those who look as though
they just might be terrorists (whatever those patrons look like.) For some strange reason, they seem to have
what we have here are the

the national Joint Terrorism Task Force, the local police, the City Attorney and some
clandestine corporate intelligence operation for the Mall of America all involved in
the monitoring of the Black Lives Matter campaign which is not a matter of
terrorism, national security or criminal behavior. The only known threat has to do
with an unknown confidential informant who allegedly told police (who then
informed the FBI) the protesters planned to vandalize the mall. We know that much
of our national security surveillance work has been outsourced to private
companies. But thats Eisenhowers military industrial complex doing what its been
doing for 50 years. Perhaps the domestic police agencies have come up with a
more modern public/private partnership where the private corporation
does the dirty work of stalking peaceful protesters and then
confidentially informs the police agencies who, as part of a Joint Task
Force will keep the federal agencies in the loop. After all, it would be an infringement of
thought the Black Lives Matter campaign was worthy of similar attention. So
the corporations individual freedom to suggest they dont have a right to spy on anyone they choose, especially
citizens protesting the police? Theyre just trying to keep a positive, safe face on the USAs single greatest
achievement, the shopping mall. What could be more patriotic than that?
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
41
Privatization Shift Immigration Specific

Their policy action only pushes surveillance into the private
sector which extends anti-immigrant enforcement to the local
levelits normal means.
Lahav 03. (Dr. GALLYA LAHAV. Associate Professor; with tenure, 2005; State University of New York, Stony Brook,
Department of Political Science. MIGRATION AND SECURITY: THE ROLE OF NON-STATE ACTORS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES IN LIBERAL
DEMOCRACIES. 2003. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf/2/ITT_COOR2_CH16_Lahav.pdf. MMG)
national legislation and immigration reforms represent the most obvious policy
responses to immigration, administrative decisions and policy implementation may provide more practical
implications of the character of immigration control. What has gone unnoticed in all these policy
developments has been the reliance on third-party, non-State actors who provide
services, resources and non-public practices that are otherwise unavailable to central government
officials (Gilboy, 1997). More specifically, policy implementation has relied on the enlistment or
collaboration (also known as burden-sharing in political jargon) of non-State actors, who have the
economic, social and/or political resources to facilitate or curtail immigration and
return. They represent efforts of States to extend the burden of implementation away
from central governments and national borders, and to the source of control, thereby increasing national
efficacy and reducing the costs to central governments. Most of these processes have relied on
reinvented modes of remote control mechanisms that enable States to control migration. The
While
development of the relationship between States and non-State actors in meeting security goals captures a global
era marked by both a political desire to control movement and agents willing and able to play on the link between
any analysis of an enlarged migration playing field

needs to go beyond the typical analysis of State policies in terms of legislation and
focus on implementation structures. In this framework, we can reconceptualize State and public
migration, crime, and security. Thus,
regulatory modes by identifying the number of levels available to policy-makers in controlling migration. Domestic
Liberal States have been able to extend their realm of action and overcome certain constraints by shifting the
liabilities to: international and supranational actors; private actors (through privatization); and local agents (through
decentralization). As the next section shows, these strategies are not new; they are reinvented when States
The proliferation of
non-State actors in regulating immigration is evident on both levels of policy
immigration (intake) and immigrant policy (integration ). Three types of actors private, local,
migration concerns are most driven by security issues. C. ACOMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
and international have been incorporated by liberal States to monitor external and internal sites, including
questions of entry, stay and exit of migrants. Despite substantial structural and cultural differences between the EU
and US, which mediate policy organization, implementation and effectiveness, a comparative analysis of the
American and European cases reveals that policy tools are transferable. It suggests that an international regime on
immigration is possible; however, unlike regimes for capital and goods, an international migration regime may be
more oriented to protectionism, with some adverse effects on civil liberties. Private Actors Private actors, or
independent authorities who rely on market forces have become crucial immigration agents in extending the area
of what is referred to as remote control immigration policy (Zolberg, 1999). These actors include airlines, shipping
carriers, transport companies, security services for entry; employer groups for work; universities, propriety schools
such as language or aviation facilities, hotels, health care services and civic actors, such as churches, families,
trade unions and NGOs for immigrant stays. They also include detention centers, for-profit security services and
space for deportation and exit. Often constrained by international agreements, these actors are either incorporated
by the State or contracted out. To the extent that their functions have evolved from contractors into regulators
from the public to the private sphere, we can speak about these processes as a privatization of regulation. The
with little training

investments, private carriers and agencies are able to partake in an enlarged
migration control as agents of the State. In return for government cooperation, they
are assured a smoother flow of business, trade, labor, and tourism . A core actor in the
incentives for cooperation are economic; the constraints are sanctions or fines. Thus,
enlarged control system at the entry level is transport or carrier companies. This is not new. Carriers have long been
obliged, at their own expense, to transport inadmissible passengers back to their countries of departure. Sanctions
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
42
against ships have been in force in the United States, since the Passenger Act of 1902. However, since the adoption
transport companies
have been increasingly forced to assume the role of international immigration
officers imposed on them by States. The standards of the convention established the airlines
responsibility to ensure that passengers have the necessary travel documents. Apart from ICAO guidelines, many
countries have introduced laws that increase the responsibilities of carriers and levy
fines against them for non-compliance. In 1994, all EU countries, with the exception of Spain, Ireland,
of guidelines established by the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO),
and Luxembourg passed laws increasing carriers responsibilities. The abolition of internal borders critical to
European integration has been essentially mitigated by the flurry of legislation and implementation of the carriers'
liability to check passengers. Indeed, more stringent security checks at airports--of identity cards, tickets, boarding
passes, baggage, and so on--have made the absence of passport controls virtually irrelevant. International
instruments have further sanctioned the role of States in controlling their borders. In the European Union, memberStates refer to their obligations to Article 26 of the 1990 Supplementation Agreement of the Schengen Convention
in relying on carriers to serve as immigration officers. Although private actors have long been incorporated in
European policy-making through neo-corporatist arrangements, even in the United States, independent
commissions to regulate inter-State commerce had been established by the late 1880s. Devolution of inter-State
regulation to expert bodies in the US may be traced back to federal government adoption of the InterState
Commerce Act regulating the railways and setting up a corresponding regulatory body (InterState Commerce
Commission). The United States Congress, thereby delegated its own power to regulate an important part of
interState commerce, namely railway traffic to an agency designed especially for the purpose. This was an
important institutional innovation at the federal level (Majone, 1996: 16). It represented the transfer of activities of
market activities may be generally regulated in

areas which are considered important, and in need of protection as well as control.
Security concerns have laid the grounds for enlistment of private actors in State
regulations, and have been justified to compromise certain civil liberties . In the wake of
State interests to private actors. In this way,
September 11th, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has threatened to use its power to issue a
security directive to force airlines to hand over passenger information so that the federal government could screen
reservation records for possible terrorists (The Washington Post, September 27, 2003). These options place private
companies in delicate positions, as exemplified by the notorious JetBlue Airways outrage, which has led to a 2003
class action lawsuit on behalf of 5 million passengers, for giving personal information to a Defense Department
contractor.2 Such episodes tap into the ideological conflict that exists between protecting privacy rights and
security interests (Guarding Privacy vs. Enforcing Copyrights, New York Times, September 28, 2003). Furthermore,
in a corporate culture, travel industry groups have voiced concern that new airport security systems could hurt the
Security concerns however have prevailed, and are a

powerful motive to justify the incorporation of non-State or private actors who can
help with monitoring functions in ways otherwise unavailable to central government
officials. At the internal level of immigration control, the private counterpart to admissions
regulation lays in the employment sector, where immigration control may be
equally effective. Increasingly, approaches to stem illegal migration at the work site
have been developed to extend and redistribute the liabilities of migration control
outside of the central State, and make employer groups more significant actors. In the early to midindustry (CNN, October 29, 2003).
1970s, most advanced European countries instituted similar provisions adopted by the French as early as 1926, 3
and have adopted and refined employer sanctions (see Table 2).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
43
Impacts
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
44
Ethics
We have an ethical obligation to challenge static maps and
identity stories. Only by accepting an uncertainty in this space
can we transform spaces of inclusion/exclusion.
Shapiro 97 (Michael J Shapiro, educator, philosopher, and writer. He is a
Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii at Mnoa. Violent
cartographies: mapping cultures of war, January 1997)
More generally,
shedding the structure of past, violent inscriptions, Sorger is finally able

to live in the present, to achieve a "presence of mind" in his reaching out to the
world, to become "capable of penetrating to the depths of space and of
participating in the peaceful beauty of his present .""5 Sorger's ability to find peace in his present
by finding a voice that struggled to free itself from what Samuel Beckett has called, in a work
with the same insight, "their vociferations"135 is exemplary. And, more generally, the writing and insights of
both Taussig and Handke are exemplary; they reflect an ethical practice that is continuous with the
approach to ethics elaborated throughout this chapter, which seeks to oppose an ethics of
writing to a violence of representation and by analogy a commitment to
respect for alterity to the impulse toward war. There are no definitive answers to the issues of
identity and space that either bring people together peacefully and respectfully or drive them toward violent
An ethics and politics that accepts uncertainty would encourage

encounter rather than conceptual mastery. It would transform the spaces of
inclusion and exclusion that constitute peoples and their Others into domains in
which place and person must be endlessly negotiated. It would regard the stories
that have produced various consolidations of place and peoples as practices subject
to that same negotiation. When various stories or versions of the present promote an end to ethics and
confrontation.
politics-for example, those that proclaim the end of history--those who are interested in keeping ethics and politics
alive must work on more promising stories. More specifically to the point of the genre in which I am presently
can only facilitate perpetual encounters by

practicing a writing that is resistant to all static maps and all fixed identity stories .
The ethical regard toward which Levinas and Derrida have pointed and its enactment in
functioning, those of us who write on global matters
the exemplary writing practices of those who, like Taussig and Handke, resist representational violence can be
along with others to which I have referred throughout this

investigation, to migrate into our various practices of space and identity . Finally, apart
from the impetus to write against conceptual closures, their injunctions and
enactments amount to a call to unread the global histories and unmap the moral
geographies that fix the violence of representation one simply reproduces when one
remains unreflectively within the already said .
approached ' low those examples,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
45
Borders Bad War

Borders are a Eurocentric notion that are responsible for the
ethnic conflicts in the Middle East and Africa
Agnew 2008 [John, Agnew is currently Distinguished Professor of Geography at
the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). From 1975 until 1995 he was a
professor at Syracuse University in New York. Dr. Agnew teaches courses on political
geography, the history of geography, European cities, and the Mediterranean
World., Borders on the mind: re-framing border thinking, Ethics and Global Politics,
pg 5, http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/856/258.pdf]
To many commentators on borders, however, they are explicitly deemed as arbitrary, contingent, or even
international borders are not just any old boundaries. To begin

it is hard to find a single international boundary that has not been
inspired by the example and practices of an originally European statehood. Much of
this was the direct result of the imposition and subsequent breakup of European
empires outside of Europe into state-like units, even if, as in Latin America, there was rather more local
inventiveness than there was at a later date in Asia and Africa. But it has also been more broadly the
result of the spread of a model of territorial statehood, a state-centered political
economy, and the association of democracy with territorial citizenship from Europe
into the rest of the world. At one and the same time, both a political ideal and set of socio-political
perverse. Most importantly,
with, worldwide,
practices, the imagination of territorial statehood rests on imitation and diffusion of established political models
that define what is and what is not possible in the world at any particular time and in any particular place. J.
European (and, later, American) cultural hegemony

has thus written the script for the growth and consolidation of a global nationstate system. The model of statehood has had as its central geographical moment
the imposition of sharp borders between one state unit (imagined as a nation-state, however
implausible that usually may be) and its neighbors. Previously in world history, a wide range of types of
Agnew 6 (page number not for citation purpose)
polity co-existed without any one*empire, city-state, nomadic network, dynastic state, or religious polity*serving
It is only with the rise of Europe to global

predominance that an idealized European territorial state became the global
archetype. Part of the political tragedy of the contemporary Middle East and
Africa, for example, lies in the attempted reconciliation of the
EuroAmerican style territorial state of sharp borders with ethnic and
religious identities distributed geographically in ways that do not lend
themselves to it.36 Lurking behind bordering everywhere is the effect of that nationalism which has
as the singular model of best political practice.
come along with the territorial nation-state: that being perpetually in question, national identity has to be
constantly re-invented through the mobilization of national populations (or significant segments thereof).
Borders, because they are at the edge of the national-state territory, provide the essential focus for
this collective uncertainty.37 Even as defined strictly, therefore, but also by remaining in perpetual
question, state borders provide the center of attention for more generalized elite, and sometimes popular, anxiety
about what still remains to be achieved by the state for the nation.38 The everyday nationalism in which borders
are implicated as central moments, then, is not a project that simply takes place at the border or simply between
adjacent states.39 Indeed, it is only secondarily territorial in that its origins often lie in distant centers and in
scattered Diasporas where elites and activists engage in the task of defining and defending what they understand
as the nationstates borders, the better to imagine the shape or geo-body of their nation. Consider, for example,
the histories of Irish nationalism and Zionism with their origins in scattered Diasporas.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
46
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
47
Root Cause
We control the root cause. The surveillance of the globe
produces U.S. cities as targets.
beginning of this dimension of derealizationthe displacement of direct vision by
aerial imaging devicesoccurred in World War I, when, with the use of aerial
photography, "a terrain was reduced to a set of coded topographical features,
'grounded' by the digital logic of the grid ."45 Photography is simply part of a more general
The
implication of technologies designed to speed up and intensify the reading of signs for military-logistical purposes.
Virilio speaks of the production of a "delocalized language which can now be grasped via brief and distant glances."
These digitalized and highly symbolic languages have replaced the earlier
condensations of military signs, the "signal flags, multicolored pennants, schematic emblems . . . that
replaced faltering voice signals."46 As a result of the reigning abstractions and distancing
technologies, there has been a representational change from earth and bodies to
coordinates and symbols arrayed by digital logic . Although this logistically driven
move to abstractions to speed up reading was originally developed during
specifically violent historical episodes, it is no longer episodic . Because the modern
notion of national security is linked with a militarization of the globe, imaging from
space satellites and highaltitude aerial reconnaissance, with at least potential
hostilities in mind, is a continuous, everyday phenomenon . Nothing testifies to this more
vividly than the cover illustration of a pamphlet published by the National Defense University: a
"computergenerated image of the Los Angeles area." It is noted that "Earth data ('quantified and codified
information about the earth and its surface features') was used to produce the image and is a critical element in the
This view of the earth, which shows a digitalized,

contour map-oriented cityscape of Los Angeles with a superimposed
target-sighting symbol, produces Los Angeles as a simulated target zone .
use of many new weapons."47
In the language of information processing, the authors tell us that "digital earth data" are "information about the
The pamphlet is at once a

nontechnical discussion of the concepts implicated in the visual surveillance aspect
of the militarization of the globe and a call to arms (the authors complain that at the moment of
earth needed for accurate positioning, targeting, and navigation."48
their writing there were large gaps in information provided by the Defense Mapping Agency, which is responsible for
supplying the "data" needed to guide weapons to their targets). Anticipating the logistics of the Gulf War ,
they
point to the specific need for advanced photographic surveillance to provide cruise
missiles with a "point positioning data base," because this weapon operates with a
proleptic map, a "prestored digital scene of the target ."49 Apparently their dire warnings were
not heeded, for one surveillance expert admitted (on a television reprise of Gulf War intelligence), that the Lacross
spy satellite was pressed into service to feed the "hungry brains" of the Cruise missiles with terrain maps just
before the actual hostilities commenced.50
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
48
Discourse
Discourse is key determines policy implementation and power
relations.
Pred 2005 [Allan, Allan Pred is Professor in the Department of Geography,
University of California at Berkeley, USA. Bordering Space Chapter 9 Scientists
Without Borders Or Moments of Insight, Spaces of Recognition: Situated Practice,
Science, and the Navigation of Urban Everyday Life, pp 143-144]
Invisible geographies' is not an oxymoron.
Invisible geographies are associated with

meanings, discourse and knowledge, with the places in which they occur, with their spatial
circulation and interconnections. For just as thought and action are always inseparably conjoined, just as knowing
and doing are always becoming one another,
situated practices are always fused together with
specific forms of meaning, discourse or knowledge, always melted together with them. For what people
do or do not know, the discourses they have or have not been exposed to, the contextflexible meanings and taken-for-granted or contested categories that have entered
into their subject formation, can in no way be divorced from the situated practices
in which they have participated - or have been excluded from. Meanings are always
produced or encountered in situated practices . Participation in the situated practices of everyday
life is one with the navigation and negotiation of meanings. And meanings can neither shift nor be contested other
than by the way of situated practices. Discourse never simply floats in the ether, enjoying a state of ontological
independence. Every discourse becomes by way of a set of situated practices . For every
discourse has its sites of production. Its spatially articulated networks of circulation. Its sites of reception and
reworking. Or its sites of contestation. Even when modern telecommunications or the internet are involved. And, of
all knowledges are embodied situated knowledges , rather than disembodied

unlocatable (universal) knowledges (Haraway, 1991). All knowledges are produced, modified, and acquired
course,
or learned at specific sites of academic, scientific, or other practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Where some
networks of contact and exchange, and not others, come into conjuncture. Where some power relations, and not
others, are at work. `[T]he specificity of place also derives from the fact that each place is the focus of a distinct
mixture of wider and more local social relations' (Massey, 1993, p. 68). Once again, ìnvisible
geographies'
is not an oxymoron. Invisible geographies are associated with social
relations, and most especially with power relations - with their on-theground implementation, their in-place micro-operation, their control of space,
their frequent exercise at a distance, and with the spatially dispersed networks
through which they operate and subjectify . At some level virtually every situated practice scientific and otherwise - is enmeshed with power relations . For, regardless of their myriad forms,
power relations are always in some measure about actual or potential behaviors ,
about the borders of (im)permissible action, about determining who - individually or collectively - may or
may not do what, when, and where, under what conditions of control or surveillance ,
if any. And yet, whether enabling or constraining, power relations themselves do not spring full 144
B/orderingSpace blown out of nothingness. They both emerge out of and are transformed through situated
practices. 2 `[T]he manufacture and manipulation of laboratory phenomena are part of a network of power
relations running throughout modern societies' (Livingstone, 1995, p. 23, quoting Joseph Rouse).
Discourse about otherness perpetuates violent liberal

exclusions.
Zembyas 10 (Michalinos Zembyas ., The Open University of Cyprus., Agambens
Theory of Biopower and Immigrants/Refugees/Asylum Seekers Discourses of
Citizenship and the Implications For Curriculum Theorizing.,Pages 3-5)KM
Public discourses and news media against immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
49
play a crucial role in circulating the idea that these groups pose a threat to the well
being and security of a state. Once the Other is constituted as a threat to our
sense of national belonging, then we learn to desire and demand their exclusion
from the sphere of human values, civic rights and moral obligations (Papastergiadis, 2006;
Tyler, 2006). It is this process that we need to interrogate, as Agamben urges us. He
writes: It would be more honest and, above all, more useful to carefully
investigate...[the] deployments of power by which human beings could be so completely deprived of their rights...that no act committed against them could appear
any longer a crime (1998, p. 171). But how do liberal and humanitarian discourses of citizenship education
respond to such obvious cases of misrecognition and violation of human rights? In their recent critical review of
contemporary discourses of citizenship, Knight Abowitz and Harnish (2006) conclude that liberal citizenship
discourses are with civic republicanism the two dominant discourses in K12 curricular and policy texts. In
liberal discourses prioritize individual rights and equality for exercising
freedom. As Knight Abowitz and Harnish explain, freedom from the tyranny of authority and
the deliberative values of discussion are viewed as the two primary values in this
discourse. A significant focus of this discourse is also on learning the values and
skills necessary to take part in a multicultural society. In multicultural societies in which
particular,
immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers constitute an important component of culturally diverse public life,
schools perennially create and recreate citizens and the nation (p. 664). An additional question, then, that may be
raised at this point is: How do liberal discourses of citizenship treat the representations of immigrants, refugees
One of the central strategies employed by liberal

discourses of citizenship to respond to fearism is to generate forms of recognition
for immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers that work against their identification as
hate figures (Tyler, 2006). Thus, there is a coupling of humanitarian and liberal values; that is, humanitarian
and asylum seekers as fearsome individuals?
discourses ask the public and schools to see immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers as individuals with humanity,
The strategy of re-humanization of the Other

is a pervasive one, seen especially in key professional literature of the social
studies, conflict resolution, and peace education and in the literature of non profit
and humanitarian organizations (Zembylas, 2008). In this discourse, normative values relating to
assuring us (the hosts) that they are just like us.
respect, empathy and tolerance ask humanitarian subjects.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
50
Racism
K is a pre-requisite to the aff borders are the root cause of
racism
Natter 2005 [Wolfgang, Wolfgang Natter is Associate Professor in the Department
of Geography, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA. Bordering Space, Chapter
II: Friedrich Ratzels Spatial Turn Identites of Disciplinary Space and its Borders
between the Anthropo and Political Geography of Germany and the United States,
pp 183 184]
Everything and everyplace is in some important sense a potential border , the tendency of which
Restless movement, as the signature of mankind, has created a
culture in which people of the most different origins meet and are transformed , making
highly suspect claims for any essential equation between race and region. Even when certain cultures stay ìn place' over longer
periods of time, at the borders, there still occurs contact and mixing with other groups (Ratzel, 1906,
p. 465), whether these others be called peoples, or nations or races. In Ratzel's mature work, when the concept of race is addressed, it
is simultaneously critiqued for being at best an inexact category. Race , it appears to Ratzel,
cannot be definitively anchored by language, by physical attributes, by character
disposition, or demonstrated evidence of origins . At best, the concept thus registers a phase
of 184 B/ordering Space broader global contact between cultures, the moment when the concept of
peoples [Voelker] is no longer adequate to measure degrees of separation between
cultures, just as before that the identity marker peoples had supplanted the
separation of humans into stems [Stamme]. What is true of races is equally so for the notion of `peoples'. As little as `race'
is uniform, so too peoples, which likewise are purported to be completely uniform, `show the `tears' [Risse] of the bordering of previous admixtures of
is to foster an admixture of elements, or in the case of human culture, hybridity.
humanity [Mischungsbestandteile]' (Ratzel, 1906, p. 474). Contrary to those such as Gobineau or Chamberlin who argued for the purity of a purported German race, Ratzel insisted that
the above applied especially to the past and present inhabitants of Germany. In his lecture notes, notably those devoted to the topic of Germany; Ratzel even more pointedly makes fun
of those who indulge in the proclivity of paying homage to presumed (Aryan) ancestors, àlthough often enough not a drop of blood of the presumed ancestor flows in his veins. In
Germany, we often find people whose faces are beautified Irish or Russian features, exclaiming themselves to be the children of the blond ancient Germans, or Slavic West Prussians or
Silesians who honor the accounts of Tacitus and apply his reports about the Germans to themselves as much as do the half or fully Celtic Pfaelzer or Badenser'. Nor was this situation to
be lamented: Ìt is an entirely erroneous opinion to believe that a people is stronger in every regard, the more uniform it is. In fact, exactly in those peoples who have achieved the most,
multiple races and nationalities are at work together in achieving political and all the more, economic success ' (Ratzel, 1906).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
51
Alternative
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
52
Alt Border Thinking

The alternative is to engage in border thinking, which allows
for epistemologies that could have been.
Escobar 7 (Arturo Escobar, Colombian-American anthropologist and the Kenan
Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina,
WORLDS AND KNOWLEDGES OTHERWISE1 The Latin American modernity/
coloniality research program, 3/1/2007)
border thinking as thinking from another place, imagining an
other language, arguing from another logic ( p. 313). It is a subaltern knowledge
conceived from the borders of the colonial/modern world system that strives to
break away from the dominance of eurocentrism. Border thinking refers to the
moments in which the imaginary of the world system cracks (2000, p. 23), an
epistemology of and from the border (p. 52), a kind of double critique (Khatibi) that is critical of both
Mignolo develops his notion of
Occidentalism/eurocentrism and of the excluded traditions themselves; this ability stems from its location in the
Border thinking is an ethical way of thinking because, in its

marginality, it has no ethnocidal dimension . Its aim is not to correct lies and tell the
truth, but to think otherwise, to move toward an other logic in sum to change the terms,
not just the content of the conversation (p. 70). Border thinking enables a new view of the diversity
and alterity of the world, one that does not fall into the traps of a culturalist
(essentialist) rhetoric but rather highlight the irreducible differences that cannot be
appropriated by the monotopic critique of modernity (the radical critique of Western
borderlands (Anzaldua).
logocentrism understood as a universal category), and that does not conceive of difference as antithesis in search
Border thinking is complementary to deconstruction (and to all critical discourses

it sees decolonization as a particular kind of deconstruction but moves
towards a fragmented, plural project instead of reproducing the abstract universals
of modernity (including democracy and rights). Border thinking, finally, is an attempt to move beyond
of revanchism.
of modernity);
eurocentrism by revealing the coloniality of power embedded in the geopolitics of knowledge a necessary step in
order to undo the subalternization of knowledge and to look for ways of thinking beyond the categories of Western
Elsewhere I have introduced the notion of alternatives to modernity

to refer imagine an explicit cultural-political project of transformation from the
perspective of modernity/coloniality more specifically, an alternative construction
of the world from the perspective of the colonial difference. The dimension of alternatives to
thought (p. 326). 7
modernity contributes to a weakening of modernity as logocentrism, as some of the philosophers of end of

modernity would have it (e.g., Vattimo 1991), but from a different position. We should be clear also about what this
It does not point towards a real pristine future where development or

modernity no longer exist; it is intended rather to intuit the possibility of imagining
an era where development and modernity cease to be the central organizing
principles of social life a moment when social life is no longer so permeated by the
constructs of economy, individual, rationality, order, and so forth that are
characteristic of Eurocentered modernity. Alternatives to modernity is a reflection of
a political desire, a desire of the critical utopian imagination, not a statement about
the real, present or future. Operating in the cracks of modernity/ coloniality, it gives
content to the Porto Alegre Global Social Forum slogan, another world is possible.
Alternative development, alternative modernities, and alternatives to modernity are
partially conflicting but potentially complementary projects. One may lead to
creating conditions for the others .
concept is not:
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
53
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
54
Alt Historical Confronation

The alternative is a confrontation of the history of racial
surveillance. The decontextualized, quick fix of the plan
necessarily trades off with this and retrenches the narrative
that ordinary people have nothing to fear from a reformed
surveillance system.
CQF
The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in this essay were responses to political struggles of various kindsfrom anticolonial
Surveillance practices themselves

have also often been the target of organized opposition . In the 1920s and 1970s, the
surveillance state was pressured to contract in the face of public disapproval . The
insurgencies to slave rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist agitation.
antiwar activists who broke into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971 and stole classified documents managed to
expose COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down. (But those responsible for this FBI program were never brought to justice
for their activities and similar techniques continued to be used later against, for example in the 1980s, the American Indian
Movement, and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance in the 1970s
led to the Church committee report on government spying and the Handschu guidelines that regulated the New York Police
Those concerns began to be swept aside in the 1980s

with the War on Drugs and, especially, later with the War on Terror . While significant
sections of the public may have consented to the security state, those who have
been among its greatest victimsthe radical Left, antiwar activists, racial justice
and Black liberation campaigners, and opponents of US foreign policy in Latin
America and the Middle Eastunderstand its workings . Today, we are once again in
a period of revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance. Yet if
real change is to be brought about, the racial history of surveillance will
need to be fully confrontedor opposition to surveillance will once again
be easily defeated by racial security narratives. The significance of the Snowden leaks is that
Departments spying on political activities.
they have laid out the depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have. The result has been
a generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of how intrusive surveillance is in our society, but that alarm remains
constrained within a public debate that is highly abstract, legalistic, and centered on the privacy rights of the white middle class.
On the one hand, most civil liberties advocates are focused on the
technical details of potential legal reforms and new oversight mechanisms
to safeguard privacy. Such initiatives are likely to bring little change
because they fail to confront the racist and imperialist core of the
surveillance system. On the other hand, most technologists believe the problem of government surveillance can be
fixed simply by using better encryption tools. While encryption tools are useful in increasing the
resources that a government agency would need to monitor an individual, they do
nothing to unravel the larger surveillance apparatus . Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations
express concerns about loss of sales to foreign customers concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon Valley,
what should be a debate about basic political freedoms is simply a question of corporate profits.69 Another and perhaps deeper
problem is the use of images of state surveillance that do not adequately fit the current situationsuch as George Orwells
discussion of totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that Orwell warned us of the dangers of the type of
government surveillance we face today.70 Reference to Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the current debate; indeed, sales of
the book were said to have soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big
For those in certain targeted groupsMuslims, leftwing campaigners, radical journalistsstate surveillance certainly looks Orwellian.
Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
55
But this level of scrutiny is not faced by the general public . The picture of surveillance today is
therefore quite different from the classic images of surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an undifferentiated
mass population subject to government control. What we have instead today in the United States is total surveillance, not on
everyone, but on very specific groups of people, defined by their race, religion, or political ideology: people that NSA officials refer to
as the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy director of the NSA, told an audience: Contrary to some of the stuff thats
been printed, we dont sit there and grind out metadata profiles of average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid
intelligence targets, you are not of interest to us.72 In the national security world, connected to can be the basis for targeting a
it points to the ways that

national security surveillance can draw entire communities into its web, while
reassuring average people (code for the normative white middle class) that they
are not to be troubled. In the eyes of the national security state, this average person must also express no political
whole racial or political community so, even assuming the accuracy of this comment,
views critical of the status quo. Better oversight of the sprawling national security apparatus and greater use of encryption in digital
while
racialized populations and political dissenters continue to experience
massive surveillance. This is why the most effective challenges to the
national security state have come not from legal reformers or
technologists but from grassroots campaigning by the racialized groups
most affected. In New York, the campaign against the NYPDs surveillance of
Muslims has drawn its strength from building alliances with other groups affected by
racial profiling: Latinos and Blacks who suffer from hugely disproportionate rates of
stop and frisk. In Californias Bay Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland
Security-funded Domain Awareness Center was successful because various
constituencies were able to unite on the issue, including homeless people, the poor,
Muslims, and Blacks. Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los Angeles Police
Department, which would have profiled communities on the basis of race and
religion, was shut down after a campaign that united various groups defined by race
and class. The lesson here is that, while the national security state aims to create fear and to divide people, activists
can organize and build alliances across race lines to overcome that fear . To the extent that
communication should be welcomed. But by themselves these are likely to do little more than reassure technologists,
the national security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar movement, environmental rights activists, radical journalists and
campaigners, and whistleblowers, these groups have gravitated towards opposition to the national security state. But understanding
the centrality of race and empire to national security surveillance means finding a basis for unity across different groups who
experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim, Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white dissidents and radicals .
It is on such a
basis that we can see the beginnings of an effective multiracial opposition to the
surveillance state and empire.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
56
Assail Totalization
We must engage in an epistemological retracing of lost
narratives of the space between in order to assail the
totalization of the spaces and find true ethical engagements.
to think beyond the confines of the state sovereignty orientation, it is
therefore necessary to turn to ethical orientations that challenge the spatial
predicates of traditional moral thinking and thereby grant recognition outside of
modernity's dominant political identities. This must necessarily also take us outside
the primary approach that contemporary philosophy has lent to (Anglo-American)
ethical theory. As applied at any level of human interaction, the familiar neo-Kantian ethical injunction is to
seek transcendent values. Applied to the interstate or sovereignty model of global space more specifically, this
approach seeks to achieve a set of universal moral imperatives based on shared
values and regulative norms. This dominant tradition has not yielded guidance for specific global
encounters because it fails to acknowledge the historical depth of the identity claims
involved in confrontations or collisions of difference difference that includes incommensurate
practices of space and conflicting narratives of identity. The tradition depends instead on two highly
abstract assumptions. The first is that morality springs from what humanity holds in
common, which is thought to yield the possibility of a shared intuition of what is
good. The second is that the values to be apprehended are instantiated in the world
and are capable of being grasped by human consciousness, wherever it exists . As
In order
Hegel pointed out in one of his earliest remarks on Kantian moral reasoning, Kant's system involves "a conversion
of the absoluteness of pure identity... into the absoluteness of content."16 Because, for Kant, the form of a concept
is what determines its Tightness, there remains in his perspective no way to treat "conflicts among specific
A brief account of an encounter between alternative spatial imaginaries

helps to situate the alternative ethical frame to be elaborated later . It is provided by the
matters."17
reflections of the writer Carlos Fuentes after an unanticipated encounter with a Mexican peasant. Lost while driving
with friends in the state of Morelos, Mexico, Fuentes stopped in a village and asked an old peasant the name of the
village. "Well, that depends," an swered the peasant. "We call it the Village Santa Maria in times of peace. We call it
Zapata in times of war." Fuentes's meditation on this response reveals the historical depth of forms of otherness
the peasant has existed within a

narrative trace that tends to be uncoded in the contemporary institutionalized
discourses on space: That old campesino knew what most people in the West have ignored since the
that exist relatively unrecognized within modernity. He notes that
seventeenth century: that there is more than one time in the world, that there is another time existing alongside,
above, underneath the linear time calendars of the West. This man who could live in the time of Zapata or the time
of Santa Maria, depending, was a living heir to a complex culture of many strata in creative tension.18 Fuentes's
reaction constitutes an ethical moment.
Provoked by an Other, he engages in an ethnographic

self-reflection rather than reasserting modernity's dominant temporal and spatial
imaginaries; he recognizes an Other who cannot be absorbed into the same. His
reaction cannot therefore be contained solely within what constitutes the ethical life
of his community. By encountering an alterity that is at once inside and wholly
outside of the particular narrative within which his social and cultural selfconstruction has been elaborated, he is able to step back from the story of
modernity that is continually recycled within the West's reigning discourses on time
and space: "What we call 'modernity' is more often than not this process whereby the rising industrial and
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
57
mercantile classes of Europe gave unto themselves the role of universal protagonists of history." 19
face with an otherness
Face to
that these "protagonists," those who have managed to perform the dominant
structures of meaning, have suppressed,
Fuentes is able to recover the historical trace of that

otherness and, on reflection, to recognize that the encounter must yield more than
mere affirmation for his practices of self. Most significantly, the encounter produces
a disruption of the totalizing conceptions that have governed contemporary
societiesfor example, the illusion that they are unproblematically consolidated and
that they have quelled recalcitrant subjectivities. Therefore, in order to elaborate
the ethical possibilities toward which Fuentes's story points, we can consider an
approach that assails such totalizations with the aim of providing an ethics of
encounter.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
58
Alt Geography of Subjects

The alternative is a geography of subjects in which we take on
an action centered perspective to break down the bordering of
spaces in everyday activities
Werlen 2005 [Benno, Benno Werlen is Professor in the Geographical Institute,
Friedrich-Schiller University of Jena, Germany. Bordering Space, Chapter 3:
Regions and Everyday Regionalizations From a Space-centred Towards an Actioncentred Human Geography, pp 47-48]
A significant number of social processes and problems involve some spatial component.
Bordering processes are a specific expression of this. My argument is that, for a more adequate
understanding of these and other forms and processes of `regionalization' and the constitution
of socio-spatial relations in general, we must not base our analysis on the spatial aspects of
social conditions, but on the activities that constitute those socio-spatial relations . In
respect to most methodological approaches and perspectives in contemporary human
geography, this approach implies a rigorous categorical shift from `space'
to àction' or from what I call à geography of things' to `geographies of
subjects'. Consequently, geographers should rather be interested in the regionalizing
implications of activities, and not so much in the analysis and description of regions in the traditional
sense. This shift of focus implies therefore a shift from regional analysis to what I call the analysis of everyday
regionalization. Or, more generally speaking: from spatial description to subjective understanding and a social
From an action-centred perspective it becomes - I

- more feasible to recognize than before, that ` establishing, transforming, or
abolishing spatial demarcations, thus the bordering of spaces' in the broad sense,
should be seen as a means of everyday activities , never as their aim. Thus, these bordering
processes can be viewed as the outcome of the `world binding' of agents . This
explanation of everyday geography-making.
suggest
perspective provides a systematic methodological basis that complements the conceptualizations of `region' as
they were recently proposed, for instance, by Paasi (1996), Thrift (1996) and Allen, Massey and Cochrane (1998).
this approach stands in strong contrast, first, to all attempts to conceive

regions and spatial relations as entities constituted by classificatory activities of a
scientific observer, as the tradition of spatial science would have it. Second, it also exists in contrast to all
However,
approaches that begin with regions, borders, spatial patterns and other spatial phenomena and work toward an
analysis of social structures, rather than the other way round. In the first section of this paper I will present the
theoretical and methodological implications of the shift in perspective from `space' to àction ' . 48 B/ordering
Space The main point of the argument will be that `space'
is an element of àction' and not

àction' an element of `space', as a majority of geographical approaches - implicitly
or even explicitly - still claim. In the second half of the paper I will discuss the consequences of this shift
in perspective for the understanding of regionalization and bordering processes, and I will discuss the concepts of
èveryday regionalization' and `geography-making' in a wider context.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
59
Open Borders
An Open Borders politics is the only way to combat the harms
of borders
Hughes 13 [Bob, Bob Hughes was one of the five co-signatories of the 2003 No
One Is Illegal Manifesto. He has been engaged in various campaigns against
detention and in support of migrants and asylum seekers for the past 12 years, and
is currently writing about what a world that took equality seriously would be like,
August 16, 2013, Open borders for a sustainable future,
https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/bob-hughes/open-borders-forsustainable-future]
Killings and deaths as unbearable as Jimmy Mubengas, in front of the passengers and crew of a British Airways
aircraft, at Heathrow in 2010, are not only common in the war on immigration, they are inevitable. His was one of
at least 20 deaths in Britains immigration system; a figure dwarfed by the 17,000 who have died at Europes
borders since 1993 - the year when immigration detention first began to grow in Britain. In September 2003, five of
us set up No One Is Illegal, UK, to denounce claims made by the British Government that this system could be made
The brutal language of politicians like Home Secretary David Blunkett openly
belied any real concern to be humane. Moreover, it is physically impossible to stop
people moving when they need to, without harming them or their families, especially if
they are not rich. And incredibly, nobody has ever come up with a clear reason why this
cruelty is necessary. To us, these laws are explicable only by racism , driven largely by
the media, which successive governments have sought to appease. They have ended up undermining the rule
fair or humane.
of law itself, a fact which should concern everybody. As our manifesto puts it: 'Under all other laws it is the act that
Literally and explicitly, people are

now arrested and imprisoned, deported and abused and killed, or simply left to die
in whatever way happens to befall them, just for being who they are, not for anything they
may have done or even might do. Failing to challenge this nonsense involves failing
to challenge a force that will happily destroy society and is doing so, and which we all recognise
and were taught about in school: the force of arbitrary, authoritarian power; the mindset that
believes that rules are more important than lives, and that defers to power and holds
is illegal, but under immigration law it is the person who is illegal.'
the weak in contempt; the 'hard-headed realist', 'cruel to be kind', 'tough choices' brigade that is also happy to cut
benefits for the sick, drive down wages and destroy jobsand then blame the poor for their own poverty, while
pouring our money into aggressive foreign wars (and creating further refugees to demonise). Their hypocrisy cries
out to be exposed. The tougher they talk, the further they distance themselves from the dirty work. The bigger the
stench, the longer the chain of departments, directorates, sub-directorates, agencies, contractors and
subcontractors separating the upright politician from the racist thugs with the shaved heads, enthusiastically
How can any society thrive which harbours and nourishes such
an industry? The prison companies, the deportation companies, the special 'courts' (so-named only recently)
implementing their policies.
where well-paid careers are to be had by the morally-confused but ambitious. And so on ... a monster that must be
fed and fed and fed, as long as the tough-talking hypocrites continue to play the game they've embarked upon and
now couldn't get out of even if they wanted to. What would happen, if we said This emperor has no clothes? What
if we were to scrap these anti-immigrant laws? Its extraordinary how little hard evidence anyone has found to
justify the hysteria. We should be ashamed! Millions could probably have been raised from poverty with the money
that's been spent on reports and books and articles debating whether the impact of scraping the laws would be
beneficial to the economy or not, or if not to the economy, to 'social cohesion', or some other newly-discovered
precious item that might possibly be affected. Let's just say it would probably be copeable-with. After all, we coped
The problem, insofar as

there has ever been one, is the racists, and the inequality that feeds racism . If we
cannot quite bring ourselves to think of a world without borders, how
about a world where borders do something useful? I would be proud to belong to a
with foreigners before all these laws came along, which wasn't all that long ago.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
60
country within whose borders anybody who could get themselves here could feel safe at last, and cared for; a
country where the hospitals and doctors treat you because you are ill, not because you are a national citizen; where
the schools and universities educate you because you want to learn; a country whose representatives speak out
clearly and forthrightly against tyranny and warmongering and the destruction of people's livelihoods wherever
we are concerned
about how much such an 'idealistic' setup would cost, why not question why so
many things that used to be available when needed now have a financial cost ? Let's
they are, and who use our collective resources to help people and fight injustice. If
take everything that is important to life, to people's health and happiness, back out of the money economy. To a
surprisingly large extent, this would only mean going back a few years to the time before our public services
acquired 'internal markets' - a time when the British National Health Service, for example, gave almost the best
value for money in the world in terms of health outcomes. Which raises the exciting thought that a society with
fewer price-tags is a lower-impact society (as suggested in Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson's recent book about
Scrapping anti-immigrant laws, and following through the

implications, could lead us to the sustainable future we all supposedly aspire to. But surely I am
talking about socialism? Or communism or anarchism? My modest demand is a politics that
respects people, which will not harm people without a very good reason. In fact, this is
inequality, The Spirit Level).
already supposed to be a basic principle of law. As the Royal College of Surgeons says on its letterhead: "First, Do
No Harm". Or as the wise prince in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice put it (I paraphrase): "Do what the hell
you like, as long as you do not spill one drop of blood". Is this 'politically realistic'? 'Hard-headed realists' often tell
us that opposing immigration controls is politically impossible, because public opinion is now so implacably hostile
to immigration. Indeed, the steady stream of anti-immigrant yarns over the years by the likes of the Daily Mail and
the Murdoch press have had some effect: 'immigration' is now at or near the top of public concerns in public opinion
surveys. This brings up two questions: first, since when does a grownup democracy crucify people 'by popular
demand'? And second, do these polls really reflect what people think? We often ask the people we meet in shops,
airports and elsewhere what they think about immigration controls. Almost always we get answers like: 'we ought to
be able to go where we like: we're all humans!' We wondered whether perhaps the biggest political grouping in
Britain might be the people who think they're the only ones in Britain who think immigration controls are mad. Two
years ago, the extraordinarily principled company Lush Cosmetics financed a YouGov poll, to test a proposition
drafted by No One Is Illegal: "People should be free to live and work wherever they wish, and enjoy all the same
rights as all other residents. No One Is Illegal." 54% either agreed or strongly agreed. 31% had no clear opinion.
Only 16% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. YouGov designed a subsidiary set of questions to tease out
people's feelings about controls, and whether they should apply to everyone or just to other people. This showed
somewhat higher support for controls, but with only a slight bias against foreigners, and nothing like the blanket
opposition to immigration promoted by the media. So, at the very least, the public is much less clear on this issue
than the media and the politicians say they are. There is room for debate. And it suggests that in spite of
everything they've been put through these last thirty or so years, British people are still normal, sane people; not
savages or fascists. That is consistent with the sense that many people have, that politics has left the people
An Open Borders politics could be

the start of public re-engagement with politics and a transformation of our political
system.
behind, in a whirl of heavily-armed paranoia and high-impact fantasy.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
61
Foreign/Domestic PIC
The text of this PIC is just the the plan text without the word
domestic.
The Foreign/domestic distinction links are the net benefit
Aff should use the foreign/domestic distinction good stuff to
answer.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
62
Answers to Answers
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
63
AT Perm
The Perm fails. Western cartography shuts out alternative
voices.
To disclose the structure of this spatial complacency and ethical in- sensitivity. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari
have represented the confrontation between the merging state system and various tribal peoples with a geometric
The coating of the state, they suggest, created a disturbance in a system of

'itinerant territoriality."" While the normative geometry of these itinerantly oriented societies takes the form
of a set of nonconcentric segments, a heterogeneous set of lineage- based power centers
integrated through structures of communication, the state is concentric in structure,
an immobilized pattern of relations controlled from a single center. The stateoriented geometry produces a univocal code, a sovereignty model of the human
subject that overcodes all segmental affiliations. For this reason , those, like Mill,
schooled in the geometry of the state cannot discern a significant social and
political normativity in segmentally organized groups . They see no collective coherence in
metaphor.
peoples with a set of polyvocal codes based on lineage. In short, having changed the existing geometry, linear
reason of state dominates, privileging what is sedentary and disparaging and arresting what moves or flows across
It makes labor sedentary and counteracts vagabondage. and it gives the

nomad no space for legitimate existence (in various senses of the word space)!' This lack of
boundaries.
legitimacy continues to be reflected in the inattention to spatial practices and marginalized identities in
contemporary political and ethical discourses. Specifically, among what is silenced within stateoriented societies
are nomadic stories, the narratives through which nonstate peoples have maintained their identities and spatial
they are not able to

perform their identities, to be pan of modern conversa tions. Such cartographic
and, by implication, ethnographic violence forecloses conversation. This
coherence. In the context of what Deleuze and Guattari call the state geometry,
violence of state cartography is elaborately described and powerfully conceptualized in Paul Carter's account of the
European encounter with Australian Aboriginal peoples." The European state system's model of space involved
boundaries and frontiers, and its advance during its colonizing period pushed frontiers outward. During the "stating"
when the European spatial imaginary was imposed, those on the other
side of the frontier, the Aborigines, were given no place in a conversation
about boundaries. Carter suggests what amounts to a Levinasian ethical frame for
treating boundaries. The boundary could be seen as "a corridor of legitimate
communication, a place of dialogue, where differences could be negotiated ." lndeed, by
of Australia,"
regarding a boundary as "the place of communiated difference" instead of proprietary appropriation (the European
For Aborigines,
boundaries are "debatable places," which they regarded as zones for intertribal
communication!" As we know, however, Australia was ultimately "settled," and the
boundaries served not to acknowledge a cultural encounter but to establish the
presence of the Europeans, practically and symbolically. This violence, which
substituted for conversation, is already institutionalized in the form of what is
represented as "Australia" just as other names and boundaries on the dominant geopolitical world map
are rigidified and thus removed ,from the possibility of encounter. To the extent that community,
society and nation fail to reflect the otherness within, we have a cartographic
unconscious, an ethics of ethics that establishes a set of exclusionary practices
that are represented in the seemingly innocent designations of people and
place. The various discourses springing from this unconscious are legion; for
model), the Europeans would have summoned a familiar practice from the Aborigines.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
64
example, as I noted earlier, "the ethics of international affairs" reaffirms the

violence, the nonencounters and nonconversations, that the state system
perpetuates. It is time to unread the old map and begin the process of writing
another one, a process without limit.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
65
AT Framework
Conventional policy-oriented analysis fails, rather, we should
prioritize analyses of the individual as it relates to borders and
state powers
Salter 05(Mark B.; Professor at the School of Political Studies, University of
Ottawa; Ph.D., Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1999;
M.Sc., International Relations, London School of Economics, London, 1995; B.A.
(Hons), Politics and Liberal Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, 1994; At the
Threshold of Security: A Theory of International Borders; Global Surveillance and
Policing: Borders, Security, Identity, P 36-50, 2005, Elia Zureik and Mark B. Salter,
eds.)TKH
Conventional political accounts of migration focus on masses of moving populations
broad demographic and social trends or the public policy process by which those
populations are constrained or enabled. This account turns traditional analysis on its head and asks:
What if we were to put the individual at the centre of our analysis ? This is
not to adopt a method wherein the life-experience of an individual stands in for any
representative social group. It is important not to fill the position of the individual in
this analysis as a universal, white, property-owning, male citizen (or any other figure). Rather, our
aim is to put an empty marker in the place of the individual and track how different
force fields empower or limit the individuals progress through the global mobility
regime. In this model, we point to a number of factors affecting the mobile individual:
construction of the traveller through social scripts; material body characteristics, which often suggest particular
scripts and are a subject of biometrics and documentation; linguistic ability and the implicit compliance with the
admission or
exclusion at the border within a framework of international rights and responsibilities,
which is dependent on technologies of risk assessment and the application of
discretion under the shadow of failure and catastrophe; state capacity for
intelligence gathering, information management and risk assessment; state policing powers; and
finally, surveillance of the individual before, during and after the border moment . In a
typical journey, an individual will face several points of decision or discretion: legal, social and
confessionary examination at the border; the facilities or constraints imbued by class position;
financial ability to leave home (passport, agency, ticket); financial and bureaucratic ability to travel internationally
(visa, ticket); linguistic and social ability to enter the target country (examination, confession, discretion); and
Traditional narratives of migration describe the macroprocess in terms of push and pull factors that induce or deter populations from
moving. Scholars discuss economic, political and humanitarian motives for international
movement (hope for a better future, fear of harm, etc.) (Brettell and Hollifield 2000). The abstraction
of the push/pull model of migration or the policy-oriented analysis of
specific border cases helps downplay the role of social scripts and agency
in migration. However, this model of migration downplays the crucial role that state
policies and state agents have in facilitating or restricting mobility. Governments are
key players in this narrative, by establishing barriers and inducements to specific
kinds of movements harsh refugee adjudication procedures, fast tracks for entrepreneurial investors, and
so on. By placing the individual the body of the individual in the centre of the
analysis, we see that both macro- and micro-politics of power structure
the permeability of state borders. This analysis in no way detracts from
the ability of the state to repress or to exclude, but puts forward the idea
finally, the ability to leave that country again.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
66
that the states ability to construct and to include should play an equal
role in study. As Foucault suggests, we must be attendant not only to the power to
prohibit or to regulate, but also to the power to create and to normalize . In addition to
the ability of the state to admit or exclude travellers, state agents such as visa, passport and immigration
officials, not to mention police and intelligence officers have the capacity and
responsibility to define travellers as desirable or undesirable , safe or risky, healthy or
diseased, etc., definitions which have profound effects on the freedom of those
individuals. In doing this, we must be mindful that the ability to construct and to
repress are not democratic, and involve the application of power (both
repressive and constructive) which may take the form of knowledge, material or
class position, as well as physical violence. This contrapuntal position draws on the
tension between empiricism and constructivism : working from the material
circumstances of global mobility, but admitting that these circumstances are the
result of political discourses that are not reducible to physical factors . Following Bigos
criticism of post-structural theory, following the work of Said and others, this prompts us to include the
category of experience without making this category foundational or irreducible
in our analysis of global mobility regime (Bigo 2002). The focus on micro-politics,
rather than macro-politics, illustrates the importance of the politics of
scale. As Adey suggests, little research has been completed on the microscale
movements that occur in border zones and airports. This lack of enquiry is somewhat
paradoxical given that the control of international mobilities that cross through
airports and border zones are effectively managed, filtered and screened within these
sites (2004b: 1365). This individualistic orientation is prompted by three concerns: normative, theoretical and
empirical. While policy analysis provides an important empirical
superstructure for this project, we have invested in an empathetic project
in which we keep firmly in our view that these restrictions and regulations
are important and fundamental in structuring the possible lives of millions
of travellers. Rather than discuss the lack of international agreement on a TRIPS
visa (which would allow all professionals with particular skills the ability to travel without restriction), this kind
of analysis will investigate the ways in which the mobility gradient changes with skill
level, not in a bilateral sense but within a much wider ambit. This individualist
orientation refocuses our attention on the micro-politics of border control.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
67
AT Foreign Domestic Distinction Good

The internet has destroy any use the foreign/domestic
distinction could have.
Lee 12/22/13 Timothy B. Lee; Timothy B. Lee covers technology policy, including
copyright and patent law, telecom regulation, privacy, and free speech. He also
writes about the economics of technology. He has previously written for Ars
Technica and Forbes; The NSA is trying to have it both ways on its domestic spying
programs; https://goo.gl/VggCwm
On Friday, the Obama administration told a federal judge that even after the disclosures of Edward Snowden, a
legal battle over the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program poses a grave threat to national
security. A declaration by acting Deputy NSA Director Frances Fleisch argues that litigating a constitutional
challenge from the Electronic Frontier Foundation could reveal operational details of NSA surveillance programs,
tipping off terrorists to the best ways to evade detection. Fleisch's argument suggests that the agency expects the
American people to simply trust it to use its vast spying powers responsibly without meaningful public oversight.
Traditionally, domestic surveillance

powers were held by law enforcement agencies, not the NSA . And the existence of the
That's not how domestic surveillance is supposed to work.
spying powers were not secret. Everyone knows that the FBI and local police departments have the power to
compel telecommunications companies to disclose their customers' communications. But first they must get a
warrant, supported by probable cause, from a judge. That oversight gives Americans confidence that domestic
Things are very different when the U.S. government

spies on people overseas. Obviously, U.S. intelligence agencies don't generally have
the power to compel foreign telecommunications companies to cooperate with
surveillance efforts. So instead of a formal legal process, they traditionally have used covert meansbribing
surveillance powers won't be abused.
insiders, installing bugs, tapping undersea cables, hacking into foreign networksto intercept foreign
the government must keep secret not only the

specific surveillance targets, but the fact that the surveillance program exists at all .
communications. For these methods to work,
If the program's existence is revealed, the foreign government is likely to shut it down. That secrecy meant that
American foreign intelligence-gathering operations have not had the checks and balances that applied to domestic
law enforcement surveillance. But Americans were protected by the rule that American foreign intelligence
But now the Internet has made a hash of

the tidy distinction between foreign and domestic surveillance . Today,
citizens of France, Brazil and Nigeria routinely use Facebook, Gmail, and other
American online services to communicate. Americans make calls with Skype. And
much Internet traffic between two foreign countries often passes through the United
States. The NSA has reacted to this changing communications landscape by trying to claim the best of both
agencies were only supposed to operate overseas.
worlds. The FISA Amendments Act, passed in 2008, gave the NSA the power to compel domestic
telecommunications providers to cooperate with the NSA's surveillance programs. Yet the NSA has resisted the
transparency and judicial oversight that has traditionally accompanied domestic surveillance. They've argued that
disclosing the existence of these programs would compromise their effectiveness. And they've argued that because
the "targets" of surveillance are overseas, only limited judicial oversight by the secretive Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, not individualized Fourth Amendment warrants, were required. But the NSA programs revealed
by Snowden, including PRISM and the phone records program, look more like domestic surveillance programs than
foreign ones. Like conventional domestic wiretaps, they rely on compelling domestic firms to cooperate with
surveillance. Like conventional wiretaps, they sweep up information about the communications of Americans on
American soil. And like domestic wiretaps, information collected by the NSA is sometimes shared with domestic law
enforcement agencies for prosecution of Americans. If the NSA is going to run what amounts to a domestic
surveillance program that collects the private information of Americans on American soil, it's going to face pressure
to subject that program to the same kind of oversight as other domestic surveillance program. That means
disclosing the general characteristics of the programbut not the specific targetsto the public. And it means
requiring individualized warrants, supported by probable cause, before the government can intercept the
communications of Americans on American soil.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
68
AT Borders Good/Inevitable
Collapse of borders are inevitable globalization and backlash
against borders prove
There is, then, nothing at all natural*physically or socially*to borders. They are
literally impositions on the world. This is not to say that borders are somehow simply metaphorical or
textual, without materiality; lines on a map rather than a set of objects and practices in space.43 It is more
that borders are never transcendental objects that systematically secure spaces in
which identities and interests can g o Borders oAL the mind: re-framing border thinking 7 (page
number not for citation purpose) unquestioned. We may today also be living in a time when
they will begin to lose their grip because they no longer match the
emerging spatial ontology of a world increasingly transnational and
globalized.44 In the first place, as impositions, borders frequently transgress rather
than celebrate or enable cultural and political difference . For example, the USMexican border cuts through historic migration fields and flows of everyday life,45
perhaps around 40 million people have US-Mexico crossborder family relations;46 the Israel-Gaza border
is a prison perimeter premised on collective punishment of a population for electing
rocket-firing adherents to Hamas; and most borders in the Middle East and Africa
make no national or cultural sense whatsoever (e.g. the Somalia-Ethiopia border with more than 4
million Somalis within Ethiopia or the Israel-Palestine border that is constantly in mutation as Israeli settlers
encroach on what had been widely agreed was Palestinian territory). But in every one of these cases, borders
The perpetual instability of

the border is precisely what gives it such symbolic power in the minds eye of the
nationalists who favor/challenge it.
play a crucial role in focusing the aspirations of the groups on either side.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
69
AT Realism - Surveillance
Realism is not true especially in the context of surveillance
constructivism is the only way to explain international
intelligence cooperation
Wethered, PHD in Politics and international studies at University of Warwick,
2014 (Marcus, Does Realism Best Explain Intelligence Cooperation Between
States? 8/8/2014, http://www.e-ir.info/2014/08/08/does-realism-best-explainintelligence-cooperation-between-states/) CQF
Intelligence cooperation is not merely about mutual gains and humanitarian goals,
as Liberals argue; it is about shared identities and norms . Intelligence agencies work
together because they have a shared identity . For example, the Five Eyes of the
UKUSA treaty (the US, UK, New Zealand, Canada and Australia) all share an interest
in protecting and extending their liberal-democratic identity. So they group together
to form an imagined security community based on the shared values and norms
that they use to comprised their collective identity .[23] Just as satellite states of the Soviet Union all
shared intelligence in the interest of defending and extending their Communist regime, liberal states do so for the extension of a
While Liberal accounts would argue that it is institutions and

treaties that form multinational intelligence cooperation, Constructivists would point
out that the underlying reason for this is based on identities. The Realist assumption
of the literature is that collaboration is not an end in itself, it is utility that drives
collaboration.[24] However it seems highly unlikely that, for example, the US
would suddenly renege on a sharing agreement with the UK in order make
an enemy of them when the immediate opportunity for relative advantage
becomes apparent. The same goes for most examples of states with shared
identitiesthere is a long-term interest in trust and shared value s, not the onedemocratic peace regime.
upmanship that Realist predict. Where practical examples of cooperation prove to be beyond their explanatory powers, Realists
often turn to Game Theory to rationalise why cooperation may appear to be based on mutual gains, when it fact this is just a Realist
motive to maximise interests.[25] Gill and Walsh both make reference to intelligence cooperation being akin to the Prisoners
Dilemma when they argue that states cooperate, rather than defect, when it suits their self-interest.[26] Hence for a Realist,
Constructivists show that intelligence

cooperation is motivated by more than mere self-interest. Constructivism reveals
how the Prisoners Dilemma thought-experiment is a loaded example to
justify a Realist pursuit of self-interest. This is because in the real world
practice of intelligence cooperation a Prisoners Dilemma is never a oneoff opportunity to gain relative advantage; instead, IR reality presents a
situation in which both prisoners have played the game before and know
that they will play it again. Decisions to cooperate are never a one-off in reality ,
because states have a history of relationships and rivalries that govern their
interaction. To that effect, the outcome is likely to be cooperation, rather than defection, because the actors have built up a
cooperation is not an end, it is the means to the end of self-interest.
history of trust and they know that if they cooperate it will help them in future deals, as they are likely to enter into the same
dilemma with each other again. Fr om
this long-term game of cooperation, states will not

make decisions based on Realist utility but instead, they will share
intelligence to create an identity community based on trust and shared
values.[27]Munton explains that intelligence cooperation is as much about soft power and
non-material gains as it is about gaining intelligence . Munton focuses his article on
Canadian intelligence sharing with the US over Cuban activities in the 1960s.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
70
Munton explains that while Realist theory provides a reasonably satisfying

explanation of why the United States would seek help, it does not explain as well
why Canada willingly provided assistance.[28] Munton shows how Canada stood to gain
nothing in Realist terms; however, Constructivism can explain that the reason
Canada shared their intelligence on Cuba with the US was in order to develop trust
and to protect the liberal-democratic identity against the threat of Communism .
Constructivist theory develops on Realist and Liberal-Institutionalist accounts by adding structure and agency into the causal
framework of intelligence liaison. We have already seen how states act within the bounds of certain identity structures, because one
intelligence
agencies have been a key force in recognising the existence of such identity
structures in IR and have even made efforts to influence them. Stonor Saunders
book, Who Paid The Piper, explains how intelligence agencies have attempted to
influence identity structures in IR.[29] The CIA was uncovered to be funding and cooperating with certain people
liberal-democracy is unlikely to stab another in the back by not cooperating on intelligence. Furthermore,
and institutions to help set the agenda of what people want, namely to make European populations want to identify with liberaldemocratic structures rather than Soviet Communist structures. This also shows the use of non-militaristic action and soft power by
Constructivist accounts
explain the existence and use of structures that govern the intelligence
cooperation between states. Constructivism uses the concept of agency to
correct the Realist notion that states are the main actors in IR and that
their actions are predetermined by self-interest. Agents are often what set a
states interest in intelligence cooperation, and often an agents interests are
constructed by their relationship with another agent. For example, Bush and Blair shared a strong
intelligence agencies, which transcends the explanatory powers of Realism. Hence,
friendship and grand vision for the world, because of their compatible personalities and agendas in the Middle East their countries
came to vastly increase their intelligence sharing.[30] A further example would be the close relationship between Thatcher and
Reagan, which lead to the US secretly providing clandestine help to the UK during the Falklands war.[31] Hence,
Constructivism explains how agency can change the interests and

identities of states and consequently can change its intelligence
cooperation agreements with other states.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
71
AT Realism
Realism fails empirically and normatively
Jones 99 Richard Wyn Jones; Jones is a Welsh academic at Cardiff University
where he is a Professor of Welsh Politics; Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory;
http://goo.gl/bfw6Qb
Statism is a view of the world that regards states conceived in unitary and often
anthropomorphized termsas the only truly significant actors in world politics . Statism also
involves a normative claimand herein lies the justification for referring to statism rather than statecentrism
The statism
of traditional security studies is a product of the fact that the whole approach is
itself based on the foundations of a realist understanding of world politics . As John
Garnett argues: Perhaps the most pervasive assumptions underlying contemporary
strategy are those associated with the theory of political behaviour known as
realism (Garnett 1987a: 9; see also Gray 1982a: 188). Statism is one of the central tenetsif
not the central tenetof all forms of realism. It is, however, open to criticism on
both empirical and normative grounds. Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory: Chapter 4 Empirically,
realists regard statism as being justified, indeed necessary, because this
perspective reflects the reality of international relations: States are placed at the
center of the analysis of world politics because they are at the center of the
international stage, particularly when security issues are concerned. For realists,
international relations is defined in terms of the interaction of states. Thus one arrives at the
tautological argument that states are at the center of the study of international
relations because international relations is about the interrelationship of states. But
even leaving aside any qualms about the logical status of such an argument, we are
left with a far more fundamental question. How realistic is the realists statism ? While
that, in political terms, states should be accorded a high, if not the highest, value in themselves.
very few scholars, whatever their theoretical perspective, would want to doubt the importance of states in world
politics, statism, with its tendency to make unitary conceived states the exclusive focus of analysis, seems,
empirically speaking, to be highly problematic.
One of the major consequences of the

fetishization of the state is the construction and reification of the socalled
inside/outside dichotomy based on the concept of sovereignty. This
dichotomy resonates throughout the realist view of international politics
(Walker 1993). One of the implications of this binary opposition is a rigid differentiation between the substate and
the suprastate levels of analysis. Although the latter is seen as the preserve of international relations specialists,
the former is considered to be within the purview of other disciplines and largely irrelevant to the concerns of
Realists argue that although domestic politics within a state

may be interesting, one does not need to know anything about it in order to
understand that states international political behavior. A state (any state) will
behave in certain statelike ways no matter what its internal composition because of
the constraining influence of international anarchy . Thus Colin S. Gray can confidently proclaim:
The strategic theorist does not know, cannot know, who will be in office, who will
be aligned with whom.... But the theorist does know how statesmen behave and
why they behave as they do (Gray 1992: 627). Although no one can doubt the elegant
simplicity of this position, crucial questions remain: Is the realists statism
analytically useful? Can the internal politics of the state be ignored, thus allowing analysts to concentrate
international relations.
their attentions solely on the determining influence of the international realm of necessity? The experience of the
end of the Cold War, undoubtedly the greatest change in the international security environment in decades,
suggests not. The failure of any international relations specialist working within the realist paradigm to foresee the
end of the Cold War and the remarkably peaceful disintegration of the Soviet Union has been much commented
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
72
upon (among the voluminous literature, see, for example, Gaddis 19921993; Wohlforth 1995; Waltz 1995;
Mearsheimer 1995; also the symposium on the end of the Cold War and theories of international relations in
International Organisation Vol. 48, No. 2 (1994), pp. 155277). According to Gray: The fact that most realists or
neorealists did not predict the fall of the House of Lenin in the 1980s was a failure in prescience, not of paradigm.
The ending of the Cold War has occurred for reasons fully explicable without strain by realist argument. (Gray 1992:
Many realist writers have tried to provide ex post facto explanations for the end
of the Cold War. Working from realist precepts, they argue that the reforms of
Mikhail Gorbachev were, in the words of Kenneth Waltz, an externally imposed necessity
(Lebow 1994: 266). But these arguments are not persuasive. The reforms instituted in the
Soviet Union after 1985 went far beyond what was necessary if Gorbachev and his
colleagues were simply concerned with adjusting to relative economic decline. As
Richard Ned Lebow trenchantly observes: None of... [the realists] insisted that the
Soviet Unions relative decline demanded a leader who would introduce Western
style democratic reforms, hold relatively free elections, acknowledge the legal right
of republics to secede from the Soviet Union, encourage anticommunist revolutions
in Eastern Europe, agree to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, withdraw Soviet forces from
the territories of its former members, accept the reunification of Germany within
NATO.... Such recommendations, let alone a prediction that all this would soon come
to pass, would have been greeted derisively as the height of unrealism. (Lebow 1994:
629)
264) The reforms in the Soviet Union were literally unthinkable for those trapped within a realist mindset. Quite
simply, to understand the end of the Cold War, one cannot merely concentrate on state/system interaction. Rather,
the focus must also embrace an analysis of events within the state and of transnational, but nonstate, interaction.
Crucial to any understanding of events after 1985, for example, are the Western European peace movement, the
Eastern European dissidents, and their interaction; the influence of Western alternative security thinking on the
Soviet leadership; the rise of nationalism among subservient nationalities in Eastern Europe; the collapse of
confidence in the shibboleths of MarxismLeninism; and many other factors not amenable to interrogation within
As Lebow observes, Soviet

foreign policy under Gorbachev is outside the realist paradigm. To explain it, the
analyst must go outside the paradigm and look at the determining influence of
domestic politics, belief systems, and learning (Lebow 1994: 268).
the traditional realist framework (RisseKappen 1994; see also Chapter 6).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
73
AT Realism Its Wrong

Realisms fails because it tries to rationalize international
relations
George 94 Jim George; Expert in international relations who lectures at
Australian National University; Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical
Reintroduction to International Relations; http://goo.gl/zV4OPv
a diverse group of scholars from across the political
spectrum who have recently highlighted the dangers and inadequacies of orthodox
approaches to International Relations in the 1990s. For example, the Cold War historian
John Lewis Gaddis has recently expressed his disquiet with the current state of
affairs. Indeed, Gaddis has illustrated how the analytical emperor of International Relations is naked after all.
More precisely, the dominant perspective in International Relations, articulated latterly as neoRealism, has illustrated that it cannot adequately explain that which it assured a
generation it understoodthe behavior of the Soviet Union as power politics actor in
the anarchical system. This is primarily because Realism, in any of its guises,
represents its knowledge of the world in terms of generalized, universalized, and
irreducible patterns of human behavior, which reduces global politics to the
incessant, anarchical power struggle among states and rational interstate
activity to the simple utilitarian pursuit of self-interest . From such a perspective
there can be no rational explanation for Soviet behavior in peacefully relinquishing
its power status and systemic authority other than, in Traditional power politics
terms.3 Hence the shrill triumphalism of those invoking the victory of the Western
superpower in its power struggle with its mortal Cold War enemy. And hence the
continuance of the successful" power politics principles in the Gulf.
My concerns here echo those of
Realism is doomed by its simple view of international relations

The major target of critical social theory has been an International Relations orthodoxymost
influentially manifested in the scientific neo- Realism of (mainly) U.S. scholarship but also
in its (mainly) British Traditionalist counterpart that continues to represent as the reality of
International Relations a narrow, self-affirming, and self-enclosed image of the world
out there.22 On this basis, a complex, ambiguous, and heterogeneous matrix of existence
has been reduced, in International Relations intellectual and policy circles, to a
simplistic, universalized image of the real world, which is fundamentally detached
from the everyday experience of so much of that world . I will argue here, however, that,
contrary to any Realist doctrine, reality is never a complete, entirely coherent
thing, accessible to universalized, essentialist, or totalized understandings of it . Nor
can the question of reality be exhausted by reference to the facts of the world or any simple aggregation of them,
reality is always characterized by ambiguity, disunity, discrepancy,

contradiction, and difference. An adequate political realism, consequently, is one
that above all recognizes its limitations in this regard and acknowledges its partial,
because
problematic, and always contestable nature. Inadequacy, in this sense, is the representation of a partial,
particularistic image of reality as (irreducible, totalized, and uncontestable) reality itself. The problem, as R. N. Berki
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
74
suggests, is that it has been precisely this inadequate and primitive representation of reality that has dominated
within the Anglo-American intellectual community, particularly that sector of it concerned with International
As a consequence, two rather primitive subthemes have become integral

to the question of political reality in International Relations. The first projects reality as
existing out there and is articulated through the language and logic of immediacy .
Relations.23
Reality, on this basis, is a world of tangible, palpable, perceptible things or objects. ... It is material and
concrete.24 The real world, consequently, is that which is immediately "there, around us and disclosed to us by
Realism in International Relations thus becomes the commonsensical

accommodation to the tangible, observable realities of this (external) world. At this point the
second primitive Realist theme reaffirms the first and, by its own logic at least,
grants it greater legitimacy. This is the necessity theme, which confirms the need for accommodation to
the facts of reality but accords them greater historical and philosophical facticity. Reality now becomes
the realm of the unchangeable, inevitable and in the last resort inexorable
occurrences, a world of eternity, objectivity, gravity, substantiality and positive resistance to
human purposes.25 In this manner, Realism is imbued with moral, philosophical, and
even religious connotations in its confrontation with the real world out there. It
sensory information.
becomes moral in that it observes certain rules of conduct integral to the reality of human behavior. It can take on a
religious dimension in that reality is understood as an accommodation to an inexorable destiny emanating from the
realm of ultimate necessity. Its philosophical status is established as Realists, acknowledging the need for
accommodation, represent their understanding of reality in the serious, resigned manner of, for example, the
The knowledge form integral

to this Realist philosophy is that concerned, above all, with control . More precisely, the
scholar-statesman contemplating the often unpalatable is of the world.
knowledge form integral to a Realism of this kind is positivism; its philosophical identity, as a consequence, is
this positivist-Realist
identity is represented as the opposition between the forces of rationality, unity,
and progressive purpose and an anarchical realm of danger and threat in
permanent need of restraint. A genuine (posi tivist) Realist, in this circumstance, is the observer of the
marked by dualism and dichotomy. At its most powerful (e.g., during the Cold War),
world out there aware, above all, of the need for the law and order proffered by the sovereign state in a postRenaissance world of states. The Realist, accordingly, remains heroically pessimistic, trusting only in the forces of
law and order, and their maintenance by force, as a permanent and ever precarious holding operation
[understanding peace, tranquility, prosperity, freedom [as] a special bonus, accruing to people as a result of living
Realist approach represents logical and

analytical inadequacy in that in detaching itself from theory and interpretation it
effectively detaches itself from the (historical, cultural, and linguistic) context of everyday
human existencefrom the social and intellectual lifeblood of reality . Even in its most
in a well ordered society.26 As Berki suggests, this
sophisticated form (e.g., Popperian/ Lakatosian), a positivist-Realist approach represents an anachronistic residue of
the European Enlightenment and, in general, mainstream Western philosophy, which continues the futile quest fora
it stands
as a dangerous source of analytic/policy paralysis, in the face of the extraordinary
events associated with the end of the Cold War and in the face of widespread recognition that it is seemingly
incapable of moving beyond its primitive intellectual agenda.27 Realism in International Relations,
accordingly, constructs its explanatory agenda upon one variant or another of a
spectator theory of knowledge, in which knowledge of the real world is gleaned
via a realm of external facts (e.g., of interstate anarchy) that impose themselves upon the individual
grand (non)Theo- ry of existence beyond specific time, space, and political purpose. More immediately,
scholar-statesman, who is then constrained by the analytic/policy art of the possible. In its (mainly) North
American variant, infused with (primarily) Popperian insight and behavioralist training rituals since the 1960s, this
has resulted in a Realism set upon the enthusiastic invocation of falsifications scientific principles. The (mainly)
British alternative, meanwhile, has invoked a species of intuitionist intuitivism often more sensitive in tone to the
As a consequence, the
questions asked and (historicophilosophical) issues raised by International Relations
scholarship have been severely limited, to the extent that complex epistemological/
ontological debates over knowledge, meaning, language, and realitythe issues of how
various critiques of positivism but ultimately no less committed to its perpetuation.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
75
we think and act in the worldhave been largely confined to the primitive Realist
framework described earlier.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
76
At Realism Its Bad

Realism leads to war and racism while mishandling disease,
ecological destruction, security problems, crime, and gender
oppression
unless we seriously reappraise the way we think and
act in the post-Cold War era, the United States and its Western allies will become
involved in a series of future conflicts that defy the kind of simplistic conceptual and strategic
responses of the past generation. The related and more general problem I am concerned with in this book is that
the whole pattern of thought associated with the Realism of the post-World War II period
represents, at best, a dangerous anachronism in the era that has seen AIDS, global
warming, and international drug cartels force their way on to the global agenda,
alongside the cultural, ecological, and gendered challenges to a reality that for so
long has defined order, security, and the common good in International Relations .
Hoffmanns concern, simply put, is that
The scope and nature of this problem might be further appreciated in its relation to another dimension of the
It
concerns the broader issue of analytical and policy paralysis associated with the
post-Cold War period, acknowledged by Gaddis and Hoffmann and given a generalized articulation by Lewis
Lapham 9 This paralysis has manifested itself in a variety of ways. Recent U.S. foreign policy
perspectives, for example, have been likened to the gibbering of apes in their
remoteness from the everyday situations of people around the globe in the 1990s. A more
specific claim is that the mainstream U.S. International Relations community is
floundering, primarily because nobody knows the language in which to ask or answer the questions presented
by the absence of the Soviet empire.10 Rather, it is suggested, the remaining superpower continues
to formulate its images of the world in terms consistent with the struggle for Cold
War hegemony. Consequently, in the 1990s, while acknowledging at one level the difficulties associated
with the updated task of world policeman, the United States continues, nevertheless, to articulate
its hegemonic ambitions in terms of it retaining the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively
debate over the failure of orthodox International Relations theory as practice to address this expanded agenda.
those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously
This, for Lapham represents not just the delusions of grandeur

of a U.S. society seeking to buttress a threatened identity in the post-Cold War void.
Rather, and more seriously, it represents the continuance of a grotesque general
theory of International Relations that comprehends global life from within a Traditional doctrine of
unsettle international relations.11
hierarchical conflict, characterized by fear and denial of change and the infantile wish for omnipotence.12
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
77
AT Democracy Solves
Democracies inclusion relies on violent exclusion of others in
the form of colonialism
Gordon 10 (Neve, professor of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University
of the Negev, who writes on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and
human rights, 2010, Democracy and Colonialism, Project Muse,
https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/summary/v013/13.2.gordon.html)
For some time now I have been pondering the closely knit relationship between democracy and colonialism.
Notwithstanding the widespread conception among democracy theorists that there is a contradiction between the
colonialism has served as a crucial component in the

historical processes through which modern democracies were created and
sustained.3 Focusing on the production of the peoplenamely, those who are
acknowledged as citizens and consequently have been granted the right to
participate in political decisionsI maintain that colonialism has been deployed by
democracy as a force that unifies, limits, and stabilizes the people within the
metropole by employing violent forms of exclusion . And yet, unlike other forms of exclusion
two,2 in this paper I contend that
which have been deemed accidents or aberrations and regarded as symptoms of democracys evolutionary
development,4 political scientists have often assumed that colonialism is totally alien to democracy and indeed
antithetical to the two basic democratic principles: sovereignty of the people and equality. I, by contrast, follow
colonialism is a strategy employed by democracies (and,

of course, other regimes) as a way of achieving not only geopolitical and economic
goals, but also as a way of accomplishing social and political objectives within the
metropole.5 Colonialism, in other words, also has a strategic role at home and the
different forms of power that manifest themselves in the colony can be readily
traced back to the democratic metropole. Moreover, the series of exclusions that
colonialism produces are, I claim, part of democracys very logic and can operate in
tandem with democracys basic principles. Insofar as this is the case, the
democracy/colonial relationship can teach us something important about
democracy for it reveals, using Michael Manns phrase, one of the dark sides of the
so-called best possible regime. It underscores, for example, how democracys
universalist and inclusionary claims are always bound up in colonial exclusionary
practices that are implemented through the deployment of violence . My objective in this
post-colonial theorists to argue that
paper, however, is to further complicate this relationship by suggesting that the colonial practices and mechanisms
deployed by democracies to limit and stabilize the people tend to return to haunt the democratic colonizers.
Colonialism ends up engendering processes that destabilize the notion of the people and, consequently, produces a
double movement that both contracts and extends democracy. What begins as a project of subjugation, may, at
times, acquire an unexpected edge of inclusion.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
78
AT Democracy Solves US Specific

The United States democracy is a racist and imperialist one
Stanley and Weaver 14 (Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale
University, is the author of Knowledge and Practical Interests, Language in
Context and Know How. He is working on a book on the threat propaganda poses
to democracy, and Vesla Weaver, assistant professor of political science and AfricanAmerican studies at Yale University, is a co-author of Creating a New Racial Order:
How Immigration, Multiracialism, Genomics, and the Young Can Remake Race in
America and a co-author of the forthcoming book Arresting Citizenship: The
Democratic Consequences of American Crime Control., January 12, 2014, Is the
United States a Racial Democracy?, The New York Times Opinionator,
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/is-the-united-states-a-racialdemocracy/?_r=0)
Starting in the 1970s, the United States has witnessed a drastic increase in the rate
of black imprisonment, both absolutely and relative to whites. Just from 1980 to
2006, the black rate of incarceration (jail and prison) increased four times as much
as the increase in the white rate. The increase in black prison admissions from 1960 to 1997 is 517
percent. In 1968, 15 percent of black adult males had been convicted of a felony and 7 percent had been to prison;
by 2004, the numbers had risen to 33 percent and 17 percent, respectively. About 9 percent of the worlds prison
If the system of justice in the United

States were fair, and if the 38 million black Americans were as prone to crime as the
average ethnic group in the world (where an ethnic group is, for example, the 61
million Italians, or the 45 million Hindu Gujarati), you would expect that black
Americans would also be about 9 percent of the 2013 estimated world population of
7.135 billion people. There would then be well over 600 million black Americans in
the world. If you think that black Americans are like anybody else, then the nation of
black America should be the third largest nation on earth, twice as large as the
United States. You can of course still think, in the face of these facts, that the United
States prison laws are fairly applied and colorblind. But if you do, you almost
certainly must accept that black Americans are among the most dangerous groups
in the multithousand year history of human civilization . The best way to judge a culture, John
population is black American (combining these two studies).
Dewey said, is to see what kind of people are in the jails. The Columbia professor Herbert Schneider told the
following story about John Dewey. One day, in an ethics course, Dewey was trying to develop a theme about the
criteria by which you should judge a culture. After having some trouble saying what he was trying to say, he
stopped, looked out the window, paused for a long time and then said, What I mean to say is that the best way to
judge a culture is to see what kind of people are in the jails. Suppose you were a citizen of another country, looking
from the outside at the composition of the United States prison population. Would you think that the formerly
enslaved population of the United States was one of the most dangerous groups in history? Or would you rather
the system that has emerged in

the United States over the past few decades is a racial democracy. It is widely
thought that the civil rights movement in the 1960s at last realized the remarkable
political ideals of the United States Constitution. If political ideals have the tendency
to mask the reality of their violation, it will be especially difficult for our fellow
American citizens to acknowledge that we are correct . More argument is required, which we
suspect that tendrils of past mind-sets still remain? Our view is that
supply in making the case for the following two claims. First, encountering the police or the courts causes people to
lose their status as participants in the political process, either officially, by incarceration and its consequences, or
unofficially, via the strong correlation that exists between such encounters and withdrawal from political life.
Secondly, blacks are unfairly and disproportionately the targets of the police and the courts. We briefly summarize
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
79
5.85
million people cannot vote because they are in prison or jail, currently under
supervision (probation, for example), or live in one of the two states, Virginia and
Kentucky, with lifetime bans on voting for those with felony convictions (nonviolent first
time drug offenders are no longer disenfranchised for life in the former). Yet the effects also extend to
the large and growing ranks of the nations citizens who experience involuntary
contact with police regardless of whether their right to vote is formally eliminated . As
part of the case for these claims here; they are substantiated at length elsewhere. In the United States,
one of us has helped document in a forthcoming book, punishment and surveillance by itself causes people to
the effect
on political participation of having been in jail or prison dwarfs other known factors
affecting political participation, such as the impact of having a college-educated
parent, being in the military or being in poverty. In a large survey of mostly marginal
men in American cities, the probability of voting declined by 8 percent for those who
had been stopped and questioned by the police; by 16 percent for those who had
experienced arrest; by 18 percent for those with a conviction; by 22 percent for
those serving time in jail or prison; and, if this prison sentence was a year or more
in duration, the probability of voting declined by an overwhelming 26 percent, even
after accounting for race, socioeconomic position, self-reported engagement in
criminal behavior and other factors. Citizens who have been subject to prison, jail or
merely police surveillance not only withdrew but actively avoided dealings with
government, preferring instead to stay below the radar. As subjects, they learned
that government was something to be avoided, not participated in. Fearful
avoidance is not the mark of a democratic citizen . Man is by nature a political animal, declares
withdraw from political participation acts of engagement like voting or political activism. In fact,
Aristotle in the first book of his Politics. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only
animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient
and the inexpedient, and therefore likewise the just and the unjust. Aristotle here means that humans fully realize
their nature in political participation, in the form of discussions and decision making with their fellow citizens about
the affairs of state. To be barred from political participation is, for Aristotle, the most grievous possible affront to
In the United States, blacks are by far the most likely to experience
punishment and surveillance and thus are most likely to be prevented from realizing
human dignity. One in 9 young black American men experienced the historic 2008
election from their prison and jail cells; 13 percent of black adult men could not cast
a vote in the election because of a felony conviction. And among blacks lacking a
high school degree, only one-fifth voted in that election because of incarceration ,
human dignity.
according to research conducted by Becky Pettit, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington. We do
not know how many others did not get involved because they were trying to keep a low profile where matters of
If the American criminal justice system were colorblind, we

would expect a tight link between committing crime and encountering the police.
Yet most people stopped by police are not arrested, and most of those who are
arrested are not found guilty; of those who are convicted, felons are the smallest
group; and of those, many are nonserious offenders . Thus a large proportion of those who
government are concerned.
involuntarily encounter criminal justice indeed, the majority of this group have never been found guilty of a
An involuntary encounter with the police by itself

leads to withdrawal from political participation. If one group has an unjustifiably
large rate of involuntary encounters, that group can be fairly regarded as being
targeted for removal from the political process. Evidence suggests that minorities
experience contact with the police at rates that far outstrip their share of crime . One
serious crime (or any crime) in a court of law.
study found that the probability that a black male 18 or 19 years of age will be stopped by police in New York City at
least once during 2006 is 92 percent. The probability for a Latino male of the same age group is 50 percent. For a
young white man, it is 20 percent. In 90 percent of the stops of young minorities in 2011, there wasnt evidence of
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
80
In over half of the stops of minorities, the reason

given for the stop was that the person made furtive movements. In 60 percent of
the stops, an additional reason listed for the stop was that the person was in a high
crime area. Blacks are not necessarily having these encounters at greater rates than their white counterparts
because they are more criminal. National surveys show that, with the exception of crack cocaine, blacks
consistently report using drugs at lower levels than whites. Some studies also
suggest that blacks are engaged in drug trafficking at lower levels. Yet once we
account for their share of the population, blacks are 10 times as likely to spend time
in prison for offenses related to drugs. Fairness would also lead to the expectation
that once arrested, blacks would be equally likely to be convicted and sentenced as
whites. But again, the evidence shows that black incarceration is out of step with
black offending. Most of the large racial differences in sentencing for drugs and assault remain unexplained
wrongdoing, and no arrest or citation occurred.
even once we take into account the black arrest rates for those crimes. The founding political ideals of our country
are, as ideals, some of the most admirable in history. They set a high moral standard, one that in the past we have
failed even to approximate. We must not let their majestic glow blind us to the possibility that now is not so
different from then. The gap between American ideals and American reality may remain just as cavernous as our
nations troubled history suggests.
American democracy was built on racism and slavery

Morgan 72 (Edmund, eminent authority on early American history, was Emeritus
Professor of History at Yale University, where he taught from 1955 to 1986. He
specialized in American colonial history, with some attention to English history, and
was noted for his incisive writing style. He covered many topics, including
Puritanism, politics, slavery, historiography and family life, 1972, Slavery and
Freedom: The American Paradox, The Journal of American History,
http://www.humanities.uci.edu/history/ucihp/tah/UnderstandingAmericanCitizenship/
American%20Paradox.pdf)
American historians interested in tracing the rise of liberty, democracy, and the common man have been
challenged in the past two decades by other historians concerned with tracing the history of oppression,
exploitation, and racism. The challenge made us examine more directly than historians hitherto have been willing to
Colonial historians, in particular, when writing about

the origin and development of American institutions have found it possible until
recently to deal with slavery as an exception to everything they had to say. We owe a debt of
do, the role of slavery in our early history.
gratitude to those who have insisted that slavery was something more than an exception, that one-fifth of the
American population at the time of the Revolution is too many people to be treated as an exception. We shall not
have met the challenge simply by studying the history of that one-fifth, fruitful as such studies may be, urgent as
they may be. Nor shall we have met the challenge if we merely execute the familiar maneuver of turning our old
interpretations on their heads. The temptation is already apparent to argue that slavery and oppression were the
dominant features of American history and that efforts to advance liberty and equality were the exception, indeed
no more than a device to divert the masses while their chains were being fastened. To dismiss the rise of liberty and
equality in American history as a mere sham is not only to ignore hard facts, it is also to evade the problem
The rise of liberty and equality in this country was accompanied

by the rise of slavery. That two such contradictory developments were taking place
simultaneously over a long period of history, from the seventeenth century to the
nineteenth, is the central paradox of American history. The challenge, for a colonial historian at
least, is to explain how a people could have developed the dedication to human
liberty and dignity exhibited by the leaders of the American Revolution and at the
same time have developed and maintained a system of labor that denied human
liberty and dignity every hour of the day. It has been tempting to dismiss Jefferson and the whole
presented by those facts.
Virginia dynasty as hypocrites. But to do so is to deprive the term "hypocrisy" of useful meaning. If hypocrisy
means, as I think it does, deliberately to affirm a principle without believing it, then hypocrisy requires a rare quality
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
81
of mind combined with an unscrupulous intention to deceive. To attribute such an intention, even to attribute such
clarity of mind in the matter, to Jefferson, Madison, or Washington is to once again evade the challenge. What we
need to explain is how such men could have arrived at beliefs and actions so full of contradiction. Put the challenge
how did England, a country priding itself on the liberty of its citizens,
produce colonies where most of the inhabitants enjoyed still greater liberty, greater
opportunities, greater control over their own lives than most men in the mother
country, while the remainder, one-fifth of the total, were deprived of virtually all
liberty, all opportunities, all control over their own lives? We may admit that the
Englishmen who colonized America and their revolutionary descendants were
racists, that consciously or unconsciously they believed liberties and rights should
be confined to persons of light complexion . When we have said as much, even when we have
another way:
probed the depths of racial prejudice, we will not have fully accounted for the paradox. Racism was certainly an
essential element in it, but I should like to suggest another element, that I believe to have influenced the
One
development was crucial, and that was the appearance in Virginia of a growing
number of freemen who had served their terms but who were now unable to afford
land of their own except on the frontiers. By 1676 it was estimated that one-fourth
of Virginia's freemen were without land of their own. The presence of this growing
class of poverty-stricken Virginians was not a little frightening to the planters who
had made it to the top. They wanted the [indentured servant] immigrants who kept
pouring in every year. Indeed, they needed them . . . but as more [indentured
servants] turned free every year Virginia seemed to have inherited the problem that
she was helping England to solve. Virginia, complained [the] secretary of the colony, was "a sinke to
drayen England of her filth and scum." The men who worried the upper-crust looked even more
dangerous in Virginia than they had in England. They were, to begin with, young,
and the young have always seemed impatient of control by their elders and
superiors, if not downright rebellious. They were also predominantly single men . . .
Finally, what made these wild young men particularly dangerous was that they were
armed and had to be armed. Virginia's poor had reason to be envious and angry and
against the men who owned the land and imported the servants and ran the
government. The nervousness of those who had property worth plundering continued throughout the century.
development of both slavery and freedom as we have known them in the United States. . . .
[One solution] was to extend the terms of service for servants entering the colony but [as] the ranks of freedmen
grew, so did poverty and discontent. [But there was a] solution which allowed Virginia's magnates to keep their
The rights of
Englishmen were preserved by destroying the rights of Africans. Slaves could be
deprived of the opportunity for association and rebellion. They could be kept
unarmed and unorganized. And since color disclosed their probable status, the rest
of society could keep close watch on them. . . . [The freedman] was no longer a man
to be feared. This fact, together with the presence of a growing mass of alien slaves,
tended to draw the white settlers closer together and to reduce the importance of
class difference between yeoman farmer and large plantation owner.
lands, yet arrested the discontent and the repression of other Englishmen [living in Virginia].
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
82
AT World State
The world state is not inevitable. Your securitization just
boosts the legitimacy of the existing system. Your world state
teleology marginalizes otherness.
Hartzog 5 Mar 31, 2005 Paul B. Hartzog Masters in
Globalization and Environmental Politics from the University of
Utah, and a Masters in Political Theory from the University of
Michigan. Panarchy Is What We Make of It: Why a World State
Is Not Inevitable
http://www.academia.edu/2409728/Panarchy_Is_What_We_Make
_of_It_Why_a_World_State_Is_Not_Inevitable
The truth embedded in Wendts rhetoric contradicts his own conclusions.
For example,
he states that it seems hard to argue that a world in whichrecognition is unequal would be normatively superior
to one in whichrecognition is equal, (Wendt, 2003: 529) a statement which is not onlyundeniably true, but is the
very reason state-based recognition is neither sufficient nor sustainable. At the very least, Wendt insists that a
the state
reproduces its identity whether it is just or not. The status quo comes to berepresented as good
and is henceforth the very measure of justice. Herein lies the real danger of the world state. The
legitimation of power has two aspects: universality and naturalism. The first
presents itself when a distinctly limited good is taken as if it were a universal
good, i.e. when thestates interests are taken as being in the interests of
everyone. The second is revealed when a distinctly particular way of being is taken
as more advancedt han other ways of being. Thus, by being seen as natural, or along a
developmental progression, some ways of being are marginalized as emulationreinforces the
naturalistic fallacy. As both of these aspects have been present inthe international system, so too would they
be enacted by a world state (Taylor,1996). It is in so doing that the state proves itself a totality and not
world-state is necessary to meet the minimum condition for a just world order. Unfortunately,
an adaptive system.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
83
Aff Answers
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
84
Borders/State Inevitable
Alt fails - borders are inevitable because of cultural and
psychological barriers recent EUs integration efforts prove
Striiver 2005 [Anke, Anke Striiver is a PhD student in the Department of Human
Geography, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Bordering Space, Chapter
13 Bordering Stories: Spaces of Absence along the Dutch-German Border, pp 207]
For now, I will leave this idea circulating somewhere in the back of your mind, reduce it to the simple statement
`there
is no such. thing as infinite space' and will draw the attention to a situation
where infiniteness, or rather `borderlessness' is proposed. Of course, not a `real'
borderlessness - for, as we all know, `wherever there are people, there are borders'.
But yet, the European Union proposes borderlessness, by pulling down the internal
borders between its member states. One of those internal borders is the one between Germany and
the Netherlands: a border that is 536 km long and 0 cm high. But for most of the people who live in
the Dutch-German borderland, it is not the border's total length that is of any
significance, but its level. Level, however, is not meant in terms of `height', rather in the sense of
èxperiencing' the border as obstacle - an obstacle that is at work within processes of socio-cultural relations and
within the popular imagination. This level is related to perceptions of the border, its cognitive and affective
meanings, which shape people's lives and forms of socio-spatial identification and can be circumscribed as the
in spite of progressing European integration and the

formal removal of the EU's internal borders, the barriers in people's minds
persist to act as thresholds in people's everyday practices . These thresholds
refer to imaginative borders that let everyday practices of borderlanders ènd' at
the border and demarcate the `bordered spheres' of people's lives.
`border in people's minds'. For,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
85
Alternative fails borders and the state are inevitable and are
at the center of IR
Paasi 2005 [Anssi, Anssi Paasi is Professor and Head of the Department of
Geography, University of Oulu, Finland. Bordering Space, Chapter 1: The Changing
Discourses on Political Boundaries Mapping the Backgrounds, Contexts and
Contents, pp 26]
As far as the disappearance of the state is concerned, the continually
increasing number of states and boundaries in the actual world suggests
quite the opposite tendency. Blake (2000), in fact, argues that there has probably never
been a time when so many borderland regions worldwide have become such
difficult or dangerous places to live in, and the current world still harbours some 50
unresolved boundary disputes. This `stress' on borderlands may be partly based on the effects of
globalization and the opening (and closing) of borders with regard to flows of capital/finance, goods, ideas and
people, which have cast doubt on the concepts of sovereignty, identity and governance. It may also be based on
a
`stress-free' borderland requires at least the following: 1) political goodwill, 2) the
settling of territorial questions, 3) straightforward transboundary interaction within
the law, 4) a sense of security provided by the border, 5) rational resource
exploitation, and 6) coordination of local administration . This simply means that a contextdependent and sensitive approach to boundaries is needed instead of crude generalizations. It also means
that many scholars during the early 1990s perhaps underestimated the importance of
boundaries when the idea of exclusive spaces and fixed concepts of identity were
challenged by the collapse of the ideological divide between East and West, the accelerating processes of
historically contingent meanings emerging from the political relations between neighbours. Blake suggests that
globalization, the belief in the `world of flows', annihilation of space, re-scaling of governance and the emergence of
The roles of boundaries have again been

reflected in the aftermath of 11th September, when the traditional `fronts' between
states seemed to turn into asymmetric networks (Anderson, 2002). It was not long
before the state, strategic alliances (military, economic) between states and
nationalistically toned assumptions of natural links between the state, the nation
and its territory seemed to emerge again at the centre of international relations .
cosmopolitan and supra/post-national thinking.
These processes have been most visible in the conflicts between Pakistan and India and between Israel and
Palestine, and most recently in the conflict between the US and Iraq.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
86
Borders Good Ethnic War

Borders are good solves ethnic civil wars
Downes 06 [Alexander B, Asst. Professor of Political Science at
Duke University, 2006 More Borders, Less Conflict? Partition
as a Solution to Ethnic Civil Wars SAIS Review, p. 49-50
http://home.gwu.edu/~downes/26.1downes.pdf]
The conventional wisdom regarding borders in political science and the policy community is that we already have
Scholars and policymakers alike tend to oppose the creation of

new states, especially as a means to end civil conflict . They argue that secession and
plenty and do not need any more.
partition generate more problems than they solve and lead to new conflicts. The preferred solutions to these
conflicts take the existing borders as given and concentrate on fostering negotiated settlements that arrange
power internally through such mechanisms as power-sharing, regional autonomy, or federalism. As Ted Robert Gurr
has written, threats
to divide a country should be managed by the devolution of state

power and . . . communal fighting about access to the states power and resources
should be restrained by recognizing group rights and sharing power. 1 Other
researchers agree, maintaining that the key factor in sustaining negotiated settlements to ethnic conflicts is the
degree to which the agreement institutionalizes power-sharing or regional autonomy.2 Recently, however,
scholars have begun to challenge this single-statesolution orthodoxy, arguing

instead that dividing states and creating new borders may be a way to
promote peace after ethnic civil wars. One view, Alexander B. Downes (Ph.D., University of
Chicago, 2004) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Duke University. He is the author of
two previous articles on partition that appeared in Security Studies. He has an article forthcoming in International
Security on the causes of civilian victimization in war. 50 SAIS Review WinterSpring 2006 represented by Chaim
ethnic civil wars cannot end until contending groups are

separated into homogeneous ethnic enclaves. When groups are intermingled, each
side has an incentive to attack and cleanse the other. Once separation is achieved,
these incentives disappear. With the necessary condition for peace in place, political arrangements
become secondary. Unless ethnic separation occurs, Kaufmann argues, all other solutions are
fruitless because ethnic intermingling is what fuels conflict.3 A second approach recognizes
Kaufmann, stresses that
the importance of demography but focuses on intentions. This view contends that ethnic wars have features that
undermine the viability of negotiated settlements based on power-sharing or autonomy within a single state.
Fighting a civil war undermines each sides ability to trust that its recent enemy
now has benign intentions and that those intentions will not change in the future.
Civil war belligerents do not have the luxury of retreating behind borders and
maintaining their own military forces as states do after interstate conflicts . To end a
civil war, combatants must disarm and combine their army with that of their former adversary, forfeiting their
Fear of betrayal
makes groups loath to disarm after the war, and mistrust hinders the functioning
of power-sharing institutions. In fact, negotiated settlements of ethnic civil
wars fail to prevent another conflict at least half of the time. Third-party
interventionoften recommended as a means to reassure and protect the
parties in the transition periodis inevitably temporary, which causes actors to worry how their
ability to protect themselves as well as their ability to enforce compliance by the other side.
former adversary will behave after the intervener departs. Moreover, third parties often intercede in conflicts to
impose agreements that do not match what one or both of the belligerents wants or believes it can achieve by
fighting, and thus intervention may contain the seeds of further conflict. In this article, I argue that partition
separation of contending ethnic groups and the creation of independent

statesshould be considered as an alternative to power-sharing and regional autonomy
defined as
as a means to end civil wars. Partition does not require groups to disarm and make themselves vulnerable to
devastating betrayal. Nor do formerly warring groups have to cooperate and share power in joint institutions.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
87
Partition also satisfies nationalist desires for statehood and fills the need for security. In cases of severe ethnic
conflict, when perceptions of the adversarys malign intentions are so entrenched as to impede any agreement
based on a single-state solution, partition is the preferred solution. In the remainder of this paper, I will elaborate
further on this argument and apply it to the case of Kosovo, demonstrating why autonomy for Kosovo within
Serbia is impossible. Following an evaluation of the various options being considered for Kosovos independence, I
will argue for a In cases of severe ethnic conflict, partition is the preferred solution. More Borders, Less Conflict?
51 partition of Kosovo along the Ibar River accompanied by the return of the Serbian population to Serbia. Finally,
I argue that like it or not, partition is probably in Iraqs future.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
88
Borders Good Economic Equality

Borders are key to solving poverty and providing equality this
form of social solidarity only exists in national borders
borders serve political identity is a broadly social democratic emphasis on how
social solidarity within national borders furthers goals such as diminished poverty,
increased equality of opportunity, and given the absence of effective global-level
institutions, macroeconomic regulation and stabilization . To Paul Hirst, for example, as
sources of power are increasingly pluralistic , the state becomes even more
important in providing a locus for political solidarity .28 In particular, he writes,
Macroeconomic policy continues to be crucial in promoting prosperity, at the
international level by ensuring stability, and at the national and regional levels by balancing cooperation and competition. Governments are not just municipalities in a global marketplace. 29
A second theme in how
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
89
Alt Fails - Borders

Alt doesnt solve opening borders doesnt solve the existing
ethnic conflicts and divides
Newman, 06 [David, Department of Politics and Government, Ben Gurion
University, Beer Sheba, Israel, The lines that continue to separate us: borders in
our 'borderless' world, vol. 30, no. 2, p. 147,
http://iner.udea.edu.co/grupos/GET/Seminario_Geografia_Perla_Zusman/2newman.pdf]
borders reflect the nature of power relations and the ability of one
group to determine, superimpose and perpetuate lines of separation, or to remove
them, contingent upon the political environment at any given time (Ganster and Lorey,
For political scientists,
2005). For sociologists and anthropologists, borders are indicative of the binary distinctions (us/them; here/there;
inside/outside) between groups at a variety of scales, from the national down to the personal spaces and
territories of the individual. For international lawyers, borders reflect the changing nature of sovereignty and the
rights of States to intervene in the affairs of neighbouring politico-legal entities (Ratner, 1996; Lalonde, 2002;
borders determine the nature of group (in some

belonging, affiliation and membership, and the way in which
the processes of inclusion and exclusion are institutionalized. It is at the border crossing
Castellino and Allen, 2003). For all disciplines,
cases defined territorially)
point between disciplines that abstract and non-spatial notions of border are introduced to the discourse. The
idea that cyberspace, itself used as the ultimate proof (sic) of the borderless and deterritorialized world, is full of
communities and affiliations for whom access is determined by strict border demarcation characteristics (such as
access to a computer, knowledge of basic computer skills) is, for some geographers, hard to comprehend. But
borders they are and, as in the case of interstate boundaries, they assist in the reordering of global society into
neat compartments and categories, distinguishing between those who belong and those who do not. In all these
borders reflect existing difference, while in some cases their construction

serves to create a new set of 'others' which had not previously existed, thus
perpetuating, rather than removing, the sense of 'otherness' (van Houtum and van
cases,
Naerssen, 2002). Another major focus of border studies during the past decade is the relationship between
borders and identity formation (Leimgruber, 1991; Falah and Newman, 1995; Paasi, 1995; 1996; 1999a; Berdahl,
1997; Ackleson, 1999; Wilson and Donnan, 1998; Donnan and Wilson, 1999; Knippenberg and Markus se, 1999;
Klemencic, 2 0 0 0; Albert et a., 2001; Brown, 2001; Agnew, 2002; Kaplan and Hakli, 2002; Meinhof, 2002;
The opening of borders does not, automatically, result in the

hybridization of ethnic and national identity. Separate identities are
dependent on the existence of group categorization, be they religious, cultural,
economic, social or ethnic. Ethnicity remains a key determinant of group affiliation,
inclusion and exclusion, while the removal, or opening, ofthe borders does not
necessarily or automatically transform a member of a national State into a European,
or global, citizen. Even if we have become more mobile and find it easier to cross the boundaries that
previously hindered our movement, most of us retain strong ethnic or national affiliations
and loyalties, be they territorial-focused or group affiliations (Sigurdson, 2000). The global
Migdal, 2002).
access to cyberspace and the unhindered spatial dissemination of information and knowledge has, paradoxically,
engendered a national identity among diaspora populations which have previously been remote and dislocated
from their places (or parents' places) of origin, but who are now possessed with more information, and greater
ease of access, to the ancestral (sic) homelands, and identify with the causes and struggles of the ethnic or
national groups in faraway places. Language remains the one great boundary which, for so many of us, remains
difficult Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by Perla Zusman on August 17, 2011 148 The lines that continue to
separate us to cross, in the absence of a single, global,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
90
State Good
The state is key refusal to participate in the state causes
violent backlash and genocide
Shaw 1 [Martin, Professor of International Relations at Sussex University, The
unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics of international
relations, http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~hafa3/unfinished.pdf]
Since worldwide, international and global are often held to mean the same thing, let me propose ways of
distinguishing them. Worldwide relations connect people around the world: they cross boundaries but do not
necessarily negate them.13 International relations are between national units of state and society. Global relations,
in contrast, are based on the consciousness of living in a common social sphere. Their first form is the
understanding that we share a common natural environment.The second is that we live in a highly interconnected
world.14The third is that we share basic common values.Much argument fails to move beyond the first and
especially the second of these meanings. However only with the recognition of all three elements has globality
arrived at its fullest meaning, of human commonality.15 The roots of globality lie, therefore, in increasingly common
Globality is not, as commonly suggested, about how we all consume

the same dross of worldwide commerce, Cokes and Big Macs. It is fundamentally about how
experiences like world wars, the Holocaust and the threat of nuclear annihilation have
made us aware of the common fragility of human existence. It is about how
standards of democratic accountability and human rights are coming to be
seen not as exclusive preserves of rich Westerners, but entitlements of all .
world experiences.
Out of these concerns has come a more concrete reinforcement of the universalistic tendency of modern thought,
The growing
sense of common values has informed global consciousness and institutions ever since
hitherto fundamentally compromised by the national rivalries of racially based Western empires.
the last major turning point in 1945, but it has been deformed up till now by the rivalries of Cold War blocs. It took
the overthrow of the Cold War order, therefore, to turn this consciousness from an abstract into a more practical
the democratic revolution is now becoming global . Where

people seek democratic change, they appeal in an increasingly concrete way to
common standards and institutions. Many (if not all) who fight for accountability and
freedoms at a national level now locate these ends within a global context : universal
values and world political and legal institutions. Globality does not make the national or international
redundant: indeed the nation, and its place in international order, remains one of
the universals to which marginalized groups appeal . However our understandings of
form. It is in this sense that
the nation and international relations are beginning to be transformed by seeing them in a global context.
International links and cosmopolitan nations16can then be seen as building blocks of globality. Some reject the
idea of common global values because their expressions are mostly Western in origin. However, all world religions
contain recognitions of human commonality. The attempt to assert that there is a clash of civilizations17, stronger
than those things pulling us together, is not supported by worldwide evidence. Go to Teheran, first centre of the
Islamic revolution: our counterparts in universities there are trying to connect to global, even Western, politics and
culture. Go to Beijing, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur or Rangoon, and see whether students and academics will give up
ideals of democracy and human rights for the Asian values proclaimed by their rulers. Of course, people interpret
common values in the contexts of nationality and religion, and they often have justified suspicions of Western
leaders and world institutions. But none of this negates the strong drive towards commonality, which means that
These points are not merely of abstract

importance. They have a life-or-death meaning for many people in non-Western
regions. If you are Timorese and have endured a quarter of a century of oppression, your national aspirations
and global values are not divisible. The people who will tell you about national as opposed to
Western values are those who will burn down your village, kill members of your
family, and disregard your vote. The same is true, of course, for the Kosovo Albanians or the Iraqi Kurds.
we can talk of the wave of global- democratic revolution.
For the most oppressed peoples, like the student campaigners in the capital cities, the democratic revolution is
framed within a global commonality of values.18 continued ...
The new politics of international

relations require us, therefore, to go beyond the anti-imperialism of the intellectual le ft
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
as well as of the semi-anarchist traditions of the academic discipline.
91
We need to recognize three
fundamental truths. First, in the twenty-first century people struggling for democratic liberties across the
non- Western world are likely to make constant demands on our solidarity. Courageous academics, students and
other intellectuals will be in the forefront of these movements.They deserve the unstinting support of intellectuals
in the West.Second, the old international thinking in which democratic movements are seen as purely internal to
states no longer carries convictiondespite the lingering nostalgia for it on both the American right and the anti-
The idea that global principles can and should be enforced worldwide is
firmly established in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. This consciousness will become a powerful
force in the coming decades. Third, global state-formation is a fact. International
institutions are being extended, and (like it or not) they have a symbiotic relation
with the major centre of state power, the increasingly internationalized
Western conglomerate. The success of the global democratic revolutionary
wave depends first on how well it is consolidated in each national context
but second, on how thoroughly it is embedded in international networks
of power, at the centre of which, inescapably, is the West. From these political fundamentals, strategic
American left.
propositions can be derived. First, democratic movements cannot regard non-governmental organizations and civil
society as ends in themselves. They must aim to civilize local states, rendering them open, accountable and
pluralistic, and curtail the arbitrary and violent exercise of power. Second, democratizing local states is not a
separate task from integrating them into global and often Western-centred networks. Reproducing isolated local
centres of power carries with it classic dangers of states as centres of war.84 Embedding global norms and
integrating new state centres with global institutional frameworks are essential to the control of violence. (To put
this another way: the proliferation of purely national democracies is not a recipe for peace.) Third, while
the
global revolution cannot do without the West and the UN, neither can it rely on them
unconditionally. We need these power networks, but we need to tame them too, to make their messy
bureaucracies enormously more accountable and sensitive to the needs of society worldwide. This will involve the
kind of cosmopolitan democracyargued for by David Held.85It will also require us to advance a global socialdemocratic agenda, to address the literally catastrophic scale of world social inequalities. This is not a separate
problem: social and economic reform is an essential ingredient of alternatives to warlike and genocidal power; these
if we need the global-Western

state, if we want to democratize it and make its institutions friendlier to global peace
and justice, we cannot be indifferent to its strategic debates. It matters to develop
international political interventions, legal institutions and robust peacekeeping as
feed off and reinforce corrupt and criminal political economies. Fourth,
strategic alternatives to bombing our way through zones of crisis. It matters that international intervention supports
pluralist structures, rather than ratifying Bosnia-style apartheid.86 As political intellectuals in the West, we need to
have our eyes on the ball at our feet, but we also need to raise them to the horizon. We need to grasp the historic
drama that is transforming worldwide relationships between people and state,as well as between state and state.
We need to think about how the turbulence of the global revolution can be consolidated in democratic, pluralist,
international networks of both social relations and state authority. We cannot be simply optimistic about this
prospect. Sadly, it will require repeated violent political crises to push Western and other governments towards the
the alternative
is to see the global revolution splutter into partial defeat, or degenerate
into new genocidal warsperhaps even nuclear conflicts. The practical challenge for
required restructuring of world institutions.87What I have outlined is a huge challenge; but
all concerned citizens, and the theoretical and analytical challenges for students of international relations and
politics, are intertwined.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
92
Realism Good
Only realism explains nearly 1000 years of history. Replacing it
leads to fascist violence.
Mearsheimer 95 John J. Mearscheimer; John J. Mearsheimer is an American
professor of political science at the University of Chicago. He is an international
relations theorist; The False Promise of International Institutions;
http://goo.gl/Jeb3do
Although critical theorists
hope to replace realism with a discourse that emphasizes harmony and peace,
critical theory per se emphasizes that it is impossible to know the future . Critical
theory, according to its own logic, can be used to undermine realism and produce change,
but it cannot serve as the basis for predicting which discourse will replace
realism, because the theory says little about the direction change takes . In fact, Cox
argues that although "utopian expectations may be an element in stimulating people to
act such expectations are almost never realized in practice ." Thus, in a sense, the
communitarian discourse championed by critical theorists is wishful thinking, not an
outcome linked to the theory itself. Indeed, critical theory cannot guarantee that
the new discourse will not be more malignant than the discourse it
replaces. Nothing in the theory guarantees, for example, that a fascist
discourse far more violent than realism will not emerge as the new
hegemonic discourse. problems with the empirical record. Critical theorists have offered
little empirical support for their theory. It is still possible to sketch the broad outlines of their account of the
past. They appear to concede that realism was the dominant discourse from about
the start of the late medieval period in 1300 to at least 1989, and that states and
other political entities behaved according to realist dictates during these seven
centuries. However, some critical theorists suggest that both the discourse and practice of international politics during the
There is another problem with the application of critical theory to international relations.
preceding five centuries of the feudal era or central medieval period (800-1300) was not dominated by realism and, therefore,
cannot be explained by it. They believe that European political units of the feudal era did not think and therefore did not act in the
exclusive and selfish manner assumed by realism, but instead adopted a more communitarian discourse, which guided their actions.
Power politics, so the argument goes, had little relevance in these five hundred years.
Empirics prove realism

Murray 98 Alastair J. H. Murray; Professor of Political Theory at the University of
Edinburgh; Reconstructing Realism: Between Power Politics and Cosmopolitan
Ethics; http://goo.gl/W0Vkro
Realism does not cease to consider the empirical; rather, its continued analysis of it
is vital to its identification of the appropriate mode of practice and to its continued
defense of it. Consequently, we arrive back at our starting point with a viable external standard against which
the continued appropriateness of the balance of power as a practical scheme can be assessed. If realism does
contain the potential to address changes in base conditions, the central argument with which Ashley is left is that it
actively seeks to avoid doing so. He suggests that, because the balance of power scheme involves what is
effectively an acceptance of the traditional rules of the game, it actively reproduces, by its very success, the
traditional statist terms of the game, such that realism becomes complicit in a conservative perpetuation of an
iniquitous statist order by its endorsement of it.46 Ashley would, of course, like to treat this as design, and end the
matter there. Yet this is to equate implication with purpose. If the balance of power scheme implies the reproduction
of the state, this does not prove its dedication to this objective .
Realism advocated a scheme for an

interstate balance of power not because of any concern to reproduce the state, but
because its analysis of contemporary empirical conditions indicated that such a
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
93
strategy offered the best available fulfilment of moral principles: if states represent
the principal receptacles of power in the modern environment, the best level of
justice can be achieved by establishing some equilibrium of power between
states.47 Consequently, its position not only moves beyond the state, de-privileges it,
and demands its compliance in principles which privilege the individual, but,
furthermore, this position is open to the possibility of progress beyond it towards
some more universal order. If the state must be employed as the principal agent of international justice
and international change, it is only because of its current centrality to international politics.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
94
Perm Realism
Multiple major IR theories help explain intelligence practices.
We should combine approaches.
Wethered, PHD in Politics and international studies at University of Warwick,
2014 (Marcus, Does Realism Best Explain Intelligence Cooperation Between
States? 8/8/2014, http://www.e-ir.info/2014/08/08/does-realism-best-explainintelligence-cooperation-between-states/) CQF
there are some examples of intelligence cooperation that can only
be explained by Realism, to extend that understanding into the claim that Realism accounts for all
intelligence cooperation is a leap of logic. Liberal-Institutionalist theories can provide an
explanation for times when states have put humanitarian interests over selfinterest.[46] Constructivism is also able to provide a convincing account of how
identity, trust, structure, and agency can constructs a states interest in sharing
intelligence. With the increased application of alternative theories to the literature, we can come to understand
that there has been an unspoken Realist monopoly on IS theory which needs challenging. Considering that
there are different examples of intelligence cooperation that can be explained by all
three of the theories assessed, it therefore seems that a combination of theories best
explains the multifaceted reasons why states cooperate over intelligence.
Although
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
95
Democracy Solves
Democracy solves oppression because it puts the power in the
hands of the masses. Other forms of government crush
opposition, turns the K
Rawat 14 (Deeksha, contributor to multiple websites and long time author,
September 24, 2014, 10 Reasons why Democracy is Best for any Country, List
Crux, http://listcrux.com/10-reasons-why-democracy-is-best-for-any-country/)
For most people on this planet, there comes a day when they analyse different political ideologies and wonder what
an ideal government should be like. Totalitarian, anarchy, monarchy, theocracy, aristocracy, autocracy, military
takeover, democracy and dictatorship are various forms of government that have successfully been implemented in
various parts of the world. Only a critical evaluation can bring us to conclude which of the mentioned government
structures works best for us. For years political thinkers worldwide have accused democracy of instability,
corruption, chaos, slow decisions and power play. However when I hear of all those exploitative and brutal policies
of authoritative regimes that still exist in todays world, I grow affinity towards the very concept of democracy. And
not just this, there are many other things we take for granted and fail to appreciate about democracy. Respecting
and supporting the thoughts of democrats and constitution makers over the world, I believe democracy is the best
political solution for every country. The top 10 arguments in favor of democracy are as follows: 10. Democracy
Democracy introduces self-government at the

grass root level The essence of democracy is self-government. Democracy
distributes administrative power to lower levels up to the very grass root level of
villages. Within a country, smaller administrative boundaries are drawn which are
further divided among different blocks, each having its own self-government
system. Though the smaller governments are subordinate to the national
government, they provide enough exposure, administrative power and participation
opportunity to people, increasing efficiency and in turn making the government
more accountable. 9. It provides space for fair and healthy competition: It provides space for fair and healthy
competition Democracy is built on the very pillar of fairness which gives it clear
advantage over alternative forms of government. In democracy, every citizen has a
fair chance to come to power. Every individual has one vote and every vote has
equal value. The say of a slum dweller in deciding the political future of the country is the same as that of a
introduces self-government at the grass root level:
millionaire industrialist. Free and fair elections are held from time to time under the supervision of an independent
The
option for justified protest is open to all : Students protest in central London on 21 November 2012.
This is one of the biggest marked differences between democracy and other forms
of governments. Authoritative regimes do not allow the masses to protest against
the decisions made by those in power. The people have to quietly bear the burden
of the exploitative rules of the powerful . If a revolutionary spark is noticed, it is brutally suppressed.
However, in democracy, people have the right to protest and express their views
against the government decisions publicly, as far as the law and order is
maintained. A democratic government can be pressurized by organizing people and
putting forward protests and any unjustified or cruel repression is legally dealt with .
body. A true democracy is a platform of healthy competition, not subjected to muscle might or power play. 8.
7. Because it can deal with conflicts in the most peaceful manner: Because it can deal with conflicts in the most
peaceful manner All large societies witness differences of interests as well as opinions among the different sections
of people comprising them. E.g. if we consider India, we may easily find sharp differences between people
belonging to different regions/ castes/ religions or speaking different languages. The conflicting preferences of
people may often lead to clashes which are best solved in a democratic setup. No one emerges as a permanent
winner or loser and people learn to live peacefully with each other. In administrative structures other than
democracy, it will become a matter of power play where the more powerful group shall dictate its terms to the less
powerful one, leading to resentment and unhappiness. 6. In democracy, decision making is improvised: in
democracy-decision-making-is-improvise Democracy requires election of a legislative body whose members come
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
96
from different regions and communities belonging to the country. The number of members may vary according to
proportional representation of the countrys population. Any decision, before being taken, is discussed among these
the decision making process

is subjected to widespread consultation within a democracy. This is unlike other
government frameworks where lesser number of people are consulted or a mere
arbitrary decision is made. When more number of people put their heads together,
loopholes are easy to discover, solutions are varying in nature and the quality of
decision is better. 5. It provides scope to correct ones mistake: It provides scope to correct ones mistake
members and suggestions come from different sections of the society. Thus
Though in a democracy, people take their own decisions by electing their own representatives, there is no
guarantee that decisions taken by the general public at the time of elections prove to be right for the years to
come. Sometimes, people may later realize that they made a wrong choice. The best part of democracy is that such
When the representatives we

elect turn out to be corrupt or insensitive towards public sentiments, we can always
vote for better alternatives in the next general elections. If the rulers do not change
their decisions, we can change them . This is not possible in any other form of government. 4.
mistakes cannot stay hidden for long and there is room for correction.
Representatives are accountable to the general public: Representatives are accountable to the general public
Democracy can be called the best form of government for any country as no other
form of government can respond to the needs of the masses better than democracy .
Non-democratic governments also respond to people but a major influence on the nature and spontaneity of this
democratic government always has

to consider public demand and welfare above its own ideology. At all times, the
government is accountable to people and bound to explain its decisions in favor of
public interests. 3. Rule of law prevails: rule of law prevails Where democracy is the rule of the
land, rule of law lingers in the air. In democracy, the law is supreme and all the
citizens are subjected to that law. Rich or poor are like and so are mighty and weak.
The decision given by the interpreters of law i.e. the courts is binding on all the
subjects, which includes the government. The amount of chaos and arbitrariness are
reduced in a lawful scenario. This is a result of a chief feature of democracy that establishes independent
response is exerted by the wishes of the ruler. On the other hand,
institutions of judiciary, executive and legislation. Other government statures may not have an independent
judiciary or the legal framework may not be equally imposed over all the citizens. 2. The real power is vested in the
The real power is vested in the hands of the masses. Unlike a

dictatorship/authoritarian regime where all power is concentrated in the hands of
the arbitrary ruler, democracy is one form of government that truly empowers the
masses. This is because, not someone else, but the masses govern themselves.
While many say, democracy provides the right to vote, I say it provides millions of
citizens the POWER TO VOTE. This is why the why the word people becomes so
important in Abraham Lincolns famous description of democracy as a government
by the PEOPLE, of the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE. Often, people who enjoy it give
little thought to it, but the people who do not have any say in how they wish to be
governed realize its real worth. 1. Democracy enhances dignity of citizens: Democracy enhances
dignity of citizens The political scene of a country largely determines the quality of
social life of its citizens. This is where democracy rushes quite ahead of alternative
forms of government. The strongest argument in favor of democracy does not relate
to what democracy does to the government but to what democracy does to its
citizens. Even if democracy leads to instability, even if it may not bring better
decisions and even if it does not stay accountable to people, it still remains the best
because it enhances the dignity of citizens. With democracy, come rights and
freedoms, equality and justice. Each individual, rich or poor has the same political
status. There are no restrictions on thoughts, beliefs, religious practices and
hands of the masses:
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
97
expression. Democracy is where every individual walks dignified and fearless with
the head held high.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
98
Democracy Solves - Peace

Democracy is the most effective form of government to
promote peace, equality, and human rights.
Gyatso 8 (Tenzin, 14th Dalai Lama, His Holiness began his monastic education at
the age of six. The curriculum consisted of five major and five minor subjects. The
major subjects were logic, Tibetan art and culture, Sanskrit, medicine, and Buddhist
philosophy which was further divided into a further five categories: Prajnaparimita,
the perfection of wisdom; Madhyamika, the philosophy of the middle Way; Vinaya,
the canon of monastic discipline; Abidharma, metaphysics; and Pramana, logic and
epistemology. The five minor subjects were poetry, music and drama, astrology,
composition and phrasing, and synonyms. At 23, His Holiness sat for his final
examination in Lhasas Jokhang Temple, during the annual Monlam (prayer) Festival
in 1959. He passed with honors and was awarded the Geshe Lharampa degree, the
highest-level degree, equivalent to a doctorate of Buddhist philosophy, 2008,
Human Rights, Democracy and Freedom, Dalai Lama,
http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/human-rights-democracy-andfreedom)
Today, the values of democracy, open society, respect for human rights, and
equality are becoming recognized all over the world as universal values. To my mind
there is an intimate connection between democratic values and the fundamental
values of human goodness. Where there is democracy there is a greater possibility
for the citizens of the country to express their basic human qualities, and where
these basic human qualities prevail, there is also a greater scope for strengthening
democracy. Most importantly, democracy is also the most effective basis for
ensuring world peace. However, responsibility for working for peace lies not only
with our leaders, but also with each of us individually. Peace starts within each one
of us. When we have inner peace, we can be at peace with those around us. When our community is in a state of
peace, it can share that peace with neighbouring communities and so on. When we feel love and kindness toward
others, it not only makes others feel loved and cared for, but it helps us also to develop inner happiness and peace.
We can work consciously to develop feelings of love and kindness. For some of us, the most effective way to do so
What is important is that we

each make a sincere effort to take seriously our responsibility for each other and the
world in which we live.
is through religious practice. For others it may be non-religious practices.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
99
Democracy Solves Minority Rights

Democracy is the best way to protect the rights of minorities
Patrick 6 (John, Professor Emeritus, Indiana University; he retired in 2004. He
graduated from Dartmouth College (A.B., 1957) and Indiana University (ED.D.,
1969). From 1958-1965, Patrick taught courses in history, civics, and government,
Understanding Democracy, Oxford University Press,
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/term/majority-rule-and-minority-rights)
The essence of democracy is majority rule, the making of binding decisions by a vote of more than one-half of all
constitutional democracy in our time requires

majority rule with minority rights. Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, expressed this
persons who participate in an election. However,
concept of democracy in 1801 in his First Inaugural Address. He said, All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle,
though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful
must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law
must protect and to violate would be oppression. In every genuine democracy
today, majority rule is both endorsed and limited by the supreme law of the
constitution, which protects the rights of individuals. Tyranny by minority over the
majority is barred, but so is tyranny of the majority against minorities. This
fundamental principle of constitutional democracy, majority rule coupled with the
protection of minority rights, is embedded in the constitutions of all genuine
democracies today. The 1992 constitution of the Czech Republic, for example, recognizes the concepts of
that
majority rule and minority rights. Article VI says, "Political decisions shall stem from the will of the majority,
expressed by means of a free vote. The majoritys decisions must heed the protection of the minorities." The Czech
constitution is filled with statements of guaranteed civil liberties, which the constitutional government must not
Majority rule is limited in order to protect minority

rights, because if it were unchecked it probably would be used to oppress persons
holding unpopular views. Unlimited majority rule in a democracy is potentially just
as despotic as the unchecked rule of an autocrat or an elitist minority political party.
violate and which it is empowered to protect.
In every constitutional democracy, there is ongoing tension between the contradictory factors of majority rule and
minority rights. Therefore, public officials in the institutions of representative government must make authoritative
decisions about two questions. When, and under what conditions, should the rule of the majority be curtailed in
order to protect the rights of the minority? And, conversely, when, and under what conditions, must the rights of the
minority be restrained in order to prevent the subversion of majority rule? These questions are answered on a caseby-case basis in every constitutional democracy in such a way that neither majority rule nor minority rights suffer
permanent or irreparable damage. Both majority rule and minority rights must be safeguarded to sustain justice in
a constitutional democracy.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
100
AT Realism = Western Discourse

Not realisms but its alternatives are products of American
culture.
Mearsheimer 95 John J. Mearscheimer; John J. Mearsheimer is an American
professor of political science at the University of Chicago. He is an international
relations theorist; The False Promise of International Institutions;
http://goo.gl/Jeb3do
The attraction of institutionalist theories for both policymakers and scholars is explained, I believe,
not by their intrinsic value, but by their relationship to realism , and especially to core
elements of American political ideology. Realism has long been and continues to be an
influential theory in the United States. Leading realist thinkers such as George Kennan and Henry
Kissinger, for example, occupied key policymaking positions during the Cold War. The impact of realism in
the academic world is amply demonstrated in the institutionalist literature, where
discussions of realism are pervasive. Yet despite its influence, Americans who think
seriously about foreign policy issues tend to dislike realism intensely, mainly
because it clashes with their basic values. The theory stands opposed to how most
Americans prefer to think about themselves and the wider world. There are four
principal reasons why American elites, as well as the American public, tend to
regard realism with hostility. First, realism is a pessimistic theory. It depicts a world of stark
and harsh competition, and it holds out little promise of making that world more benign. Realists, as Hans
Morgenthau wrote, are resigned to the fact that "there is no escape from the evil of power, regardless of what one
pessimism, of course, runs up against the deep-seated American belief

that with time and effort, reasonable individuals can solve important social
problems. Americans regard progress as both desirable and possible in politics, and
they are therefore uncomfortable with realism's claim that security competition and
war will persist despite our best efforts to eliminate them . Second, realism treats
war as an inevitable, and indeed sometimes necessary, form of state activity. For realists, war is an
does." Such
extension of politics by other means. Realists are very cautious in their prescriptions about the use of force: wars
Most Americans,
however, tend to think of war as a hideous enterprise that should ultimately be
abolished. For the time being, however, it can only justifiably be used for lofty moral goals, like "making the
should not be fought for idealistic purposes, but instead for balance-of-power reasons.
world safe for democracy"; it is morally incorrect to fight wars to change or preserve the balance of power. This
Third, as an analytical matter,

realism does not distinguish between "good" states and "bad" states, but essentially
treats them like billiard balls of varying size . In realist theory, all states are forced to seek the same
makes the realist conception of warfare anathema to many Americans.
goal: maximum relative power. A purely realist interpretation of the Cold War, for example, allows for no meaningful
difference in the motives behind American and Soviet behavior during that conflict. According to the theory, both
sides must have been driven by concerns about the balance of power, and must have done what was necessary to
Most Americans would recoil at such a description of the

Cold War, because they believe the United States was motivated by good intentions
while the Soviet Union was not. Fourth, America has a rich history of thumbing its
nose at realism. For its first 140 years of existence, geography and the British navy allowed the United States
try to achieve a favorable balance.
to avoid serious involvement in the power politics of Europe. America had an isolationist foreign policy for most of
Even
as the United States finally entered its first European war in 1917, Woodrow Wilson
railed against realist thinking. America has a long tradition of anti-realist rhetoric,
which continues to influence us today. Given that realism is largely alien to
this period, and its rhetoric explicitly emphasized the evils of entangling alliances and balancing behavior.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
101
American culture, there is a powerful demand in the United States for alternative
ways of looking at the world, and especially for theories that square with basic
American values. Institutionalist theories nicely meet these requirements , and that is
the main source of their appeal to policymakers and scholars. Whatever else one might say about
these theories, they have one undeniable advantage in the eyes of their supporters:
they are not realism. Not only do institutionalist theories offer an alternative to
realism, but they explicitly seek to undermine it. Moreover, institutionalists offer arguments that
reflect basic American values. For example, they are optimistic about the possibility of greatly reducing, if not
They certainly do not

accept the realist stricture that war is politics by other means. Institutionalists, in
short, purvey a message that Americans long to hear.
eliminating, security competition among states and creating a more peaceful world.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
102
World State Solves

A world state that solves all your offence is the inevitable
outcome of our security politics.
International Relations and security network 12 [ISN, 24 December 2012,
The Future of the State: Is a World State Inevitable? http://www.isn.ethz.ch/DigitalLibrary/Articles/Special-Feature/Detail/?
lng=en&id=135754&contextid774=135754&contextid775=135753&tabid=145156
1442]
Over the course of this week, one of the questions we have tried to answer is why the nation-states once lofty
status as the dominant form of political organization in the world is under siege. Because of the growth of the
it now
appears to be an open question whether the relative power of states is withering
away, simply changing with the times, or remains as vibrant as ever. But whereas some of us might
see things this way, others do not share such Hamlet-like doubts. Consider, for example,
Alexander Wendts controversial Why a World State is Inevitable. Wendts belief in the inevitability
of a world state has its roots in the classic Hobbesian distinction between individuals who exist in a state of
nature and states that operate in an international system. The light and airy Hobbes (irony intended) argued
that while nature and the international system both feature wars of all against all,
individuals in a state of nature are far more vulnerable to violence from others than
states are from other states. Famously, Hobbes argued that in a state of nature even the weakest man
had enough power to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others. This
primordial (and yet unacceptable) situation necessitated a common power the Leviathan to
settle disputes and circumscribe violent behavior , primarily by magnifying peoples
fear of death and keep[ing] them all in awe. In contrast, because states in the international system were
not as vulnerable to predation as individuals in a state of nature, no common power was
necessary to oversee international politics. According to Wendt, however, what applied to the past
international law movement and the rise of normative cosmopolitanism to cite just two examples,
does not necessarily apply to the future, particularly because of a key variable technological advancement. The
enormous increase in the destructiveness of warfare in the several hundred years since Hobbes posited his
Leviathan means that today even the weakest states (not to mention non-state actors) have the potential to wreak
havoc with stronger ones. (Although the North Korean regime, for example, can hardly feed its population, its jerryrigged nuclear weapons represent an existential threat to the otherwise much stronger South Korea and Japan.)
And because technological development is endogenous to the security dilemma i.e., because mistrust of other
states leads to the development of new and more powerful weapons, in addition to the amassing of existing ones
an internationally anarchic system generates a tendency for technology and war to become more destructive over
All this suggests, or so Wendt argues, that 1) the international system today would
benefit from the kind of Hobbesian Leviathan that already brings about existing
domestic orders, and 2) that the case for such a Leviathan will only get stronger with
time, as the destructive power of our weaponry only grows. Notice though that Wendts
argument is that a world state is inevitable not merely that it would be an improvement over the
time.
present state of affairs. Even if a world state would be collectively rational, that does not automatically mean that it
International anarchy (or

combined with increasingly destructive technology
might justify a world state as a theoretical destination point but, without some animating force
moving the system in that direction, we may never get there. To Wendt, this animating force is the
would be individually rational for great powers to surrender their sovereignty to it.
at least semi-anarchy in the case of Europe)
Hegelian struggle for recognition and the transformational effect it can have on collective identity. All individuals,
Hegel argued, desire recognition, which essentially involves the acceptance by others that one is a subject rather
than an object i.e., an adult or a free human being, for example, rather than a child or a slave. Moreover, the only
social orders that are stable in the long run are those in which recognition is symmetrical; that is to say, in which
everyone is recognized equally as all adults, or all free men or women, or all children, or all slaves. And because all
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
103
international systems made up of more than one state necessary involve asymmetric recognition (because different
states have different fortunes) all such systems are ultimately unstable in the long-run. When all is said and done,
only a single world

state is ultimately stable. Together, these two conditions the advance of technology
due to international anarchy and the Hegelian struggle towards symmetrical
recognition make a world state inevitable, according to Wendt. From the top down,
Hobbesian anarchy will continue to lead states to develop increasingly destructive
weapons, which will make a world-state increasingly appealing . From the bottom up, the
only a single world state can provide symmetrical recognition to all and so therefore
struggle for recognition will ultimately tear apart every international order except for a world state, thereby driving
history ineluctably in that direction. It may be an exercise in understatement to call Wendts argument ambitious
here. Social scientists are usually loath to suggest that the events of the past were inevitable, to say nothing of
those of the future. In Wendts defense, he admits he cannot say more precisely when he expects a world state to
come about than sometime in the next one or two hundred years. But, if Wendt is correct, the policy implications for
us all are obviously profound. As he suggests in his conclusion, if a world state is inevitable states should try to
get the best deal they can in the emerging global constitution, which counsels acceptance of international law and
participation in multilateral institutions. Ironically, if a world state is inevitable, states that pursue such policies will
do better for themselves in the long run than those that take a Realist view. In short, [its] better to get with the
program than wait till it gets you.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
104
U.S. Off The Planet
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
105
1NC
From the creation of the panopticon to drones, colonialism
motivates and determines surveillance practices. The
affirmative erases this history and naturalizes the colonialism
at the heart of surveillance.
Zureik 13 (Elia Zureik, Colonial Oversight, Fall 2013, pgs. 46-49.
http://www.sscqueens.org/sites/default/files/Zureik%20Colonial%20oversight
%20essay%20Red%20Pepper%20octnov13-1-1.pdf. KLB)
Students of surveillance usually pay homage to Jeremy Benthams 18th-century panopticon prison design, which
features cells arranged around a single watchtower. Made famous by Michel Foucault as a metaphor for institutional
power, it has become a standard trope in commentaries on present day surveillance, even though Benthams
proposed prison architecture did not materialise originally in Britain and remained relegated to the drawing board.
When it did become a reality, it did so first in 19th-century British colonies such as India. In Colonising Egypt,
the focus
has tended to obscure the colonising nature of disciplinary power. Yet the
panopticon, the model institution whose geometric order and generalised
surveillance serve as a motif for this kind of power, was a colonial
invention. The panoptic principle was devised on Europes colonial frontier with the Ottoman empire, and
Timothy Mitchell remarks: Foucaults analyses are focused on France and northern Europe. Perhaps
examples of the panopticon were built for the most part not in northern Europe, but in places like colonial India.
Benthams project was motivated not by moral concerns for the welfare of
prisoners and their rehabilitation, but rather by a utilitarian desire to reap
economic returns from the inmates unfree labour . Because the hypothetical
prisoners in his design would never know when they were being watched, Bentham
speculated that they would police themselves, thus increasing productivity. Indeed
Bentham, who played a direct role in advising Britain in its colonial undertakings in India, envisaged the applicability
of his surveillance design to the factory, which prompted other writers, primarily Foucault, to conclude that the
prison, factory, hospital and school became susceptible to similar disciplinary practices in the modern era.
Surveillance strategy. 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
and territory. This occurred in the quotidian everyday context of people watching people. It 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 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,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
106
and subsequently modified and implemented by the British for the purpose of ruling and taxation. From the mid18th 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 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 India, Panopticon in Poona: An Essay on Foucault and
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. Contact zone
Surveillance is not a one-way activity. In Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation, Mary
Louise Pratt takes into account the co-presence of the coloniser and the colonised in a dialectical fashion in the
context of the contact zone, which she defines as the space of colonial
encounters, the space in which peoples geographically and historically separated
come into contact with each other and establish ongoing relations, usually involving
conditions of coercion, radical inequality, and intractable conflict. Pratt argues for
the need to understand how the coloniser and colonised are co-constituted through
these encounters. This has direct relevance to understanding contemporary
meetings between agents of the state (soldiers, police, security agencies and
bureaucrats) and the colonised, whether at the checkpoint, airport terminal or in
routine contact with the elaborate bureaucratic and security apparatuses of the
colonial state. Both parties shape the encounter and affect each other, albeit in a
situation of asymmetrical power relations. Although colonising states resort to hegemonic forms of
Colonialism, Martha Kaplan remarks: Clearly,
indoctrinating their soldiers, the case of Vietnam and more recently Israel show that the system of control
eventually breaks down and soldiers begin to question publicly the rationale and moral basis of the colonial edifice.
Breaking the Silence, an Israeli organisation that works with conscientious objectors, regularly publishes testimonies
of ex-Israeli soldiers who discuss the personal and social cost of occupation in the Palestinian territories. Colonial
laboratories. As declassified official documents become available to researchers, it is possible to piece together the
surveillance methods used by colonial regimes in ruling over the colonies, as demonstrated in two recent works.
Martin Thomas Empires of Intelligence: Security and Colonial Disorder after 1914 looks at Britain and France as
they embarked on expanding their colonial domains in North Africa and the Middle East between the two world
wars, while Alfred McCoys in-depth historic analysis, Policing Americas Empire: The United States, the Philippines,
and the Rise of the Surveillance State, focuses on the development of the surveillance state in the Philippines
following its occupation by the US in 1898. The historical studies of surveillance in colonial societies demonstrate
the eventual spillover, or boomerang effect (to quote Foucault), of such practices and their deployment in the
The colony becomes a laboratory for

developing and testing surveillance technologies for home use and marketing
purposes. This is clearly the case with Israel whose military officials and technologists do not miss an
opportunity to tout for export surveillance and control technologies that are used against Palestinians. It is
significant that the basic tools of surveillance as we know them today
(fingerprinting, census taking, map-making and profiling including the forerunners
of present day biometrics) were refined and implemented in colonial settings ,
notably by the Dutch in Southeast Asia, the French in Africa, and the British in India and North America. In
home countries, as shown in McCoys work.
Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification, Simon Cole explains that for the British,
fingerprinting was viewed as a tool for colonial governance . Proponents of

fingerprinting as a method of surveillance and sorting of the population
into deviants and normal groups were led in the 19th century by British eugenicist Francis Galton.
It is no coincidence that the impetus for the British to further develop a scientific method of population classification
occurred in the wake of the 1858 Sepoy mutiny, in which Hindu and Muslim conscripts rebelled against the British
Methods of surveillance and control are

transferred from one colonial setting to another and from the colony to
the home country. Taking their cues from the experience in India, the British introduced ID cards in
East India Company. Policing Palestine.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
107
Palestine during the Arab revolt in 1936-39 as part of their campaign to stave off Palestinian opposition to colonial
rule and illegal Zionist immigration. With focus on Palestine, Laleh Khalili has explored the horizontal circuits
through which colonial policing or security practices have been transmitted across time or from one location to
another, with Palestine as either a point of origin or an intermediary node of transmission. In a more recent work,
Time in the Shadows: Confinement in Counterinsurgencies, Khalili examines the development of counterinsurgency
Central to these
measures and their refinement by Israel is the expropriation of land, application of
curfews, restrictions on mobility through the deployment of permit regimes and
checkpoints, expulsion and collective punishment.
measures by the British in Mandatory Palestine and their subsequent adaptation by Israel.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
108
You retrench the foreign/domestic distinction that excludes

indigenous peoples who cannot claim legal status as either
foreign or domestic.
Bruyneel 07 Kevin Bruyneel; Kevin Bruyneel is Associate Professor of Politics at
Babson College; The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of U.S.
Indigenous Relations; https://goo.gl/DJmA7I
Lone Wolf not only judicially constructed and affirmed
Congresss power to abrogate treaties and control (lease, sell, or allot) tribal
property, but, just as important, exempted this nearly absolute congressional power
from judicial review at the very time when the original constitutional justification for
juridical abstentionthe foreign policy character of federal Indian policyhad been
explicitly abandoned. This original constitutional justification stemmed from an
interpretation of the Commerce Clause as declaring that tribes were more like
foreign nations than the domestically located several States. By the time of the Lone Wolf
As Shattuck and Norgren assert,
decision, this vision of the U.S.-indigenous relationship was understood by the court to have come to a formal halt
The result of all this for indigenous tribes was that they were left with, in
neither external nor domestic remedies against
congressional abuses of the treaty power.42 They were not external
enough as sovereign nations to compel compliance or renegotiation of
treaty terms, and they were not domestic enough as citizens to have
rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to due
process.43 In the end, this meant that Lone Wolf positioned indigenous tribal sovereignty and
citizenship just enough within the sphere of the American political system to deny
indigenous people the power of political agency as cither foreign or domestic
political actors. This paradoxical status drew its legal and political strength from the courts reading of the
colonial imposition made by the 1871 treaty rider, from which it determined that since 1871 indigenous
peoples political life had been neither fully assimilated to nor excluded from the
American polity, neither fully colonized nor fully decolonized.
in 1871.
the words of Shattuck and Norgren,
Rather than domestic surveillance natives were

domesticated by a genocidal surveillance regime including
blood quantum tests, boarding schools, and reservations.
Churchill 96 Ward Churchill coordinator of American Indian
Studies with the Center for Studies of Ethnicity and Race in
America at the University of Colorado/Boulder From a Native
Son: Selected Essays on Indigenism 1985-1995
To cast a veneer of legality over his government's conduct,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John
Marshall penned a series of high court opinions during the 1 820s and '30s, based in large part upon the
medieval Doctrine of Discovery. He remained on firm juridical ground long enough to contend that the doctrine
imparted a right to the United States to acquire Indian territory by treaty, a matter which led to ratification of at
least 371 such nation-to-nation agreements over the next four decades. In a bizarre departure from established
argued that the United States possessed an

inherently" higher" sovereignty than the nations with which it was treating: Indians
held no right not to sell their land to the United States , in his view, at whatever price the United
States cared to offer. Within this formulation, any resistance by "the savages" to the taking
principles of international law, however, Marshall also
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
109
of their territories could thus be cast as an "act of war" theoretically"

justifying" a U.S." response" predicated in armed force. 18 By 1903 the" Marshall Doctrine"
had evolved-and the indigenous ability to offer physical resistance had been sufficiently crushed-to the point that
the Supreme Court was confident in asserting an "intrinsic" federal "plenary" (full)
power over all Indians within its borders, releasing the United States from any
treaty obligations it found inconvenient while leaving the land title it purported to have gained
through the various treaty instruments intact. In conjunction with this novel notion of international jurisprudence,
the high court simultaneously expressed the view that the government enjoyed" natural" and permanent" trust"
prerogatives over all residual native property.19 Meanwhile, having consolidated its grip on the eastern portion of
its claimed territoriality during the 1 840s-and having militarily seized "rights" to the northern half of Mexico as wellthe United States proclaimed itself to be imbued with a "Manifest Destiny" to expand westward to the Pacific?O
a rhetoric of
outright extermination was quickly adopted both by federal policymakers and by a
sizable segment of the public at large?l These sentiments led unerringly to a lengthy
chain of large-scale massacres of Indians in the Great Plains and Basin regions by U.S. troops. Among
There being essentially no land available within this conception for Indian use and occupancy,
the worst were the slaughters perpetrated at the Blue River (Nebraska, 1854), Bear River (Idaho, 1863), Sand Creek
(Colorado, 1864), Washita River (Oklahoma, 1868), Sappa Creek (Kansas, 1875), Camp Robinson (Nebraska, 1878),
In 1894, the U.S. Census Bureau observed that the

United States had waged "more than 40" separate wars against native people in
barely a century, inflicting some number of fatalities "very much greater" than its
minimum estimate of 30,000 in the process.23 The indigenous death toll generated by
"private actions" during U.S. continental expansion was also, the Census Bureau
admitted, "quite substantial." In all probability, it was far higher than that stemming
from formal military involvement, given that the native population of the state of
California alone was reduced from approximately 300,000 in 1800 to fewer than
20,000 in 1890, "chiefly [because of] the cruelties and wholesale massacres
perpetrated by . . . miners and the early settlers . ,,24 In Texas, to take another prominent
and Wounded Knee (South Dakota, 1890).22
example, a bounty was placed upon the scalp of any Indian brought to a government office, no questions asked:
"The facts of history are plain. Most Texas Indians [once the most diverse population in North America] were
exterminated or brought to the brink of extinction by [Euroamerican civilians] who often had no more regard for the
life of an Indian than they had for that of a dog, sometimes less." 25 The story in other sectors of the western
United States, while sometimes less spectacular, reveals very much the same pattern. As the indigenous population
was liquidated-along with the buffalo and other animal species consciously exterminated in order to deny Indians a
"commissary" once their agricultural economies had been obliterated by the invaders-white settlers replaced them
By 1890, fewer than 250,000 Indians remained alive within

the United States, a degree of decimation extending into the upper ninetieth
percentile.27 The survivors were lodged on a patchwork of "reservations" even then
being dismantled through application of what was called the "General Allotment Act.
,, 28 Under provision of this statute, effected in 1887, a formal eugenics code was
utilized to define who was (and who was not) "Indian" by U.S. "standards. ,, 29
Those who could, or were willing to, prove to federal satisfaction that they were " of
one-half or more degree of Indian blood," and to accept U.S. citizenship into the
bargain, received a deed to an individual land parcel , typically of 1 60 acres or less.3o Once
each person with sufficient "blood quantum" had received his or her allotment of
land, the remaining reservation land was declared "surplus" and opened up to nonIndian homesteading, corporate acquisition, or conversion into national parks and forests . Through this
on the vast bulk of their land.26
mechanIsm, the best IOU million acres of the reserved native land base were stripped away by 1 930, the Indians
ever more concentrated within the 50 million arid or semi-arid acres-about 2.5 percent of their original holdings-left
to them.31 The model was later borrowed by the apartheid government of South Africa in developing its "racial
homeland" system of territorial apportionment. The Contemporary Era Culmination of this trajectory in U.s. colonial
administration of Indian Country occurred during the mid-1950s, with the enactment of a series of "termination"
statutes by which the federal government unilaterally dissolved more than a hundred indigenous nations and their
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
110
legislation was effected to "encourage" the relocation of

large numbers of Indians from the remaining reservations to selected urban centers,
a strategy designed to preclude reemergence of social cohesion within most landbased native communities.34 Although it . was suspended in the late 1 9 70s, the federal relocation
reservation areas.33 Concomitantly,
program had by 1 990 fostered a native diaspora which found more than half of all indigenous people in the United
States, a total of about 880,000 persons, scattered in the ghettos of cities .35 The government's termination and
relocation policies coupled quite well with other techniques employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to
undermine the sociocultural integrity of native existence. Salient in this regard is a generations-long program of
"blind adoptions " in which Indian babies are placed for adoption with non-Indian families, their birth records
beginning in the 1870s and

continuing into the present moment, the BIA administered a system of boarding
schools to which indigenous children were sent, often for a decade or more without
being allowed to return home, speak their native languages, practice their religions,
or otherwise manifest their identity as Indians. Encompassed under the benign sounding rubric of
permanently sealed so they can never know their true heritage.36 Similarly,
"assimilation," both youth-oriented undertakings are blatant violations of the provision of the 1948 Convention on
Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide which makes it a crime against humanity for a government to
engage in the systematic forced transfer of the children of a targeted racial or ethnic group to another group.38
Contemporary violation of another provision of the Genocide Convention may be found in a program of involuntary
sterilization imposed by the BIA's "Indian Health Service" upon approximately 40 percent of the female population
of childbearing age during the 1970s?9 Ironically, the final and complete dissolution of Native North America seems
to have been averted mainly by the fact that the barren areas left to native habitation after allotment turned out to
be inordinately rich in mineral resources. Current estimates suggest that about two-thirds of all U.S. domestic
uranium deposits, a quarter of the readily accessible low sulphur coal, a fifth of the oil and natural gas, and
substantial deposits of copper and other ores lie within reservation boundaries.4o By 1920 government planners
discovered certain advantages in terms of their ability to control the pace and nature of resource extraction, royalty
rates, and the like, through exercise of federal "trust responsibilities" over indigenous assets.41 The same principle
was seen to pertain to manipulations of water policy throughout the arid WestY Such options being unavailable to
them should Indian Country as a whole be converted into private property under state and local jurisdiction,
it
was found to be in the United States's interest that the majority of

reservations be maintained as discrete internal colonies. To this end, the
Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was passed in 1 934 to create a federally designed
regulatory or "governing" body on most reservations. 43 Although the IRA boards were and are
composed exclusively of native people, their authority stems from-and thus their primary allegiance adheres to-the
United States rather than their ostensible indigenous constituents; their major function during the half-century of
their existence has been to sow confusion, providing an illusion of Indian consent to the systematic Euroamerican
expropriation of native resources, and to vociferously denounce any Indian audacious enough to object to the theft.
They serve, in effect, as American Indian Movement (AIM) leader Russell Means once put it, as "Vichy Indians. ,,44
their position in Indian Country has been steadily reinforced over the
years by passage of additional federal statutes, among them the Indian Civil Rights
Act of 1968 and the Indian "Self-Determination" and Educational Assistance Act of
1975.45
For this reason,
The Alt is to kick the U.S. off the planet.

Prioritization is key. It is a matter of sequencing.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
111
The question which inevitably arises with regard to indigenous land claims,
especially in the United States, is whether they are "realistic." The answer, of
course, is, "No, they aren't." Further, no form of decolonization has ever been
realistic when viewed within the construct of a colonialist paradigm . It wasn't realistic
at the time to expect George Washington's rag-tag militia to defeat the British military during the American
Revolution. Just ask the British. It wasn't realistic, as the French could tell you, that
the Vietnamese should be
able to defeat U.S.-backed France in 1954, or that the Algerians would shortly be able to follow in their
footsteps. Surely, it wasn't reasonable to predict that Fidel Castro's pitiful handful of guerrillas would overcome
the Sandinistas, to
be sure, had no prayer of attaining victory over Somoza 20 years later. Henry Kissinger, among
others, knew that for a fact. The point is that in each case, in order to begin their struggles at
all, anti-colonial fighters around the world have had to abandon orthodox realism
in favor of what they knew (and their opponents knew) to be right. To paraphrase Daniel CohnBatista's regime in Cuba, another U.S. client, after only a few years in the mountains. And
Bendit, they accepted as their agenda-the goals, objectives, and demands which guided them-a redefinition of
And, in each
case, they succeeded in their immediate quest for liberation.202 The fact that all but one (Cuba) of the
reality in terms deemed quite impossible within the conventional wisdom of their oppressors.
examples used subsequently turned out to hold colonizing pretensions of its own does not alter the truth of this-or
alter the appropriateness of their efforts to decolonize themselves-in the least. It simply means that decolonization
has yet to run its course, that much remains to be done. The battles waged by native nations in North America to
free themselves, and the lands upon which they depend for ongoing existence as discernible peoples, from the grip
Given that their very

survival depends upon their perseverance in the face of all apparent odds, American
Indians have no real alternative but to carry on. They must struggle, and where there is struggle
there is always hope. Moreover, the unrealistic or "romantic" dimensions of our aspiration
to quite literally dismantle the territorial corpus of the U.S. state begin to
erode when one considers that federal domination of Native North
America is utterly contingent upon maintenance of a perceived confluence
of interests between prevailing governmental/ corporate elites and
common non-Indian citizens. Herein lies the prospect of long-term success. It is entirely possible
that the consensus of opinion concerning non-Indian "rights" to exploit the land and
resources of indigenous nations can be eroded, and that large numbers of nonIndians will join in the struggle to decolonize Native North America. Few non-Indians wish to identify with
of U.S. (and Canadian) internal colonialism are plainly part of this process of liberation.
or defend the naziesque characteristics of US. history. To the contrary, most seek to deny it in rather vociferous
fashion. All things being equal, they are uncomfortable with many of the resulting attributes of federal posture andin substantial numbers-actively oppose one or more of these, so long as such politics do not intrude into a certain
range of closely guarded self-interests. This is where the crunch comes in the realm of Indian rights issues. Most
non-Indians (of all races and ethnicities, and both genders) have been indoctrinated to believe the
officially contrived notion that, in the event "the Indians get their land back," or even if the
extent of present federal domination is relaxed, native people will do unto their occupiers exactly
as has been done to them; mass dispossession and eviction of non-Indians, especially Euroamericans, is
expected to ensue. Hence, even those progressives who are most eloquently inclined to
condemn U.s. imperialism abroad and/ or the functions of racism and sexism at home tend to
deliver a blank stare or profess open "disinterest" when indigenous land rights are
mentioned. Instead of attempting to come to grips with this most
fundamental of all issues on the continent upon which they reside, the
more sophisticated among them seek to divert discussion into "higher
priority" or "more important" topics like "issues of class and gender
equity" in which "justice" becomes synonymous with a redistribution of
power and loot deriving from the occupation of Native North America even
while the occupation continues (presumably permanently) . Sometimes, Indians are even slated to receive "their
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
112
Always, such things are

couched-and typically seen-in terms of some "greater good" than decolonizing the .
6 percent of the U.S. population which is indigenous. 203 Some marxist and environmentalist
fair share" in the division of spoils accruing from expropriation of their resources.
groups have taken the argument so far as to deny that Indians possess any rights distinguishable from those of
their conquerors.204 AIM leader Russell Means snapped the picture into sharp focus when he observed in 1987
that: So-called progressives in the United States claiming that Indians are obligated to give up their rights because
a much larger group of non-Indians "need" their resources is exactly the same as Ronald Reagan and Elliot Abrams
asserting that the rights of 250 million North Americans ol l twpieh thp rieht" of ;! ("o"plp milli on Ni(";!r;!g> l ;!n
rnlonialist attitudes are colonialist attitudes, and it doesn't make one damn bit of difference whether they come
from the left or the right.205 Leaving aside the pronounced and pervasive hypocrisy permeating these positions,
the
specter driving even most radical non-Indians into lockstep with the federal
government on questions of native land rights is largely illusory. The alternative reality
posed by native liberation struggles is actually much different: While government propagandists are
wont to trumpet-as they did during the Maine and Black Hills land disputes of the 1970s-that an Indian win
would mean individual non-Indian property owners losing everything, the native
position has always been the exact opposite. Overwhelmingly, the lands sought for
actual recovery have been governmentally and corporately held. Eviction of small land
which add up to a phenomenon elsewhere described as "settler state colonialisffi,,,206 the fact is that
owners has been pursued only in instances where they have banded together-as they have during certain of the
Iroquois claims casesto prevent Indians from recovering any land at all, and to otherwise deny native rights. Official
sources contend this is inconsistent with the fact that all non-Indian title to any portion of North America could be
called into question. Once "the dike is breached," they argue, it's just a matter of time before "everybody has to
start swimming back to Europe, or Africa, or wherever." 207 Although there i s considerable technical accuracy to
admissions that all non-Indian title to North America is illegitimate, Indians have by and large indicated they would
be content to honor the cession agreements entered into by their ancestors, even though the United States has
long since defaulted. This would leave somewhere close to two-thirds of the continental United States in non-Indian
hands, with the real rather than pretended consent of native people. The remaining one-third, the areas delineated
in Map II to which the United States never acquired title at all, would be recovered by its rightful owners. The
government holds that, even at that, there is no longer sufficient land available for unceded lands, or their
the government itself still directly controls more than

onethird of the total U.5. land area, about 770 million acres. Each of the states also "owns" large
equivalent, to be returned. In fact,
tracts, totalling about 78 million acres. It is thus quite possible-and always has been-for all native claims to be met
in full without the loss to non-Indians of a single acre of privately held land. When it is considered that 250 millionodd acres of the "privately" held total are now in the hands of major corporate entities, the real dimension of the
"threat" to small land holders (or, more accurately, lack of it) stands revealed?08 Government spokespersons
have pointed out that the disposition of public lands does not always conform to treaty areas. While this is true, it in
no way precludes some process of negotiated land exchange wherein the boundaries of indigenous nations are
redrawn by mutual consent to an exact, or at least a much closer conformity. All that is needed is an honest, open,
and binding forum-such as a new bilateral treaty process--with which to proceed. In fact, numerous native peoples
have, for a long time, repeatedly and in a variety of ways, expressed a desire to participate in just such a process.
Nonetheless, it is argued, there will still be at least some non-Indians "trapped"

within such restored areas. Actually, they would not be trapped at all The federally
imposed genetic criteria of "Indian-ness" discussed elsewhere in this book notwithstanding, indigenous
nations have the same rights as any other to define citizenry by allegiance
(naturalization) rather than by race. Non-Indians could apply for citizenship, or for some form of
landed alien status which would allow them to retain their property until they die. In the event they could not
reconcile themselves to living under any jurisdiction other than that of the United States, they would obviously have
the right to leave, and they should have the right to compensation from their own government (which got them into
the mess in the first place).209 Finally, and one suspects this is the real crux of things from the government/
any such restoration of land and attendant sovereign prerogatives

to native nations would result in a truly massive loss of "domestic" resources to the
United States, thereby impairing the country's economic and military capacities (see
corporate perspective,
"Radioactive Colonialism" essay for details). For everyone who queued up to wave flags and tie on yellow ribbons
during the United States' recent imperial adventure in the Persian Gulf, this prospect may induce a certain psychic
trauma. But, for progressives at least, it should be precisely the point. When you think about
these issues in this way, the great mass of non-Indians in North America really have much to gain, and almost
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
113
The
tangible diminishment of U.S. material power which is integral to our victories in this
sphere stands to pave the way for realization of most other agendas -from antiimperialism to environmentalism, from African-American liberation to
feminism, from gay rights to the ending of class privilege pursued by progressives
on this continent. Conversely, succeeding with any or even all these other
agendas would still represent an inherently oppressive situation if their
realization is contingent upon an ongoing occupation of Native North
America without the consent of Indian people. Any North American revolution which
failed to free indigenous territory from non-Indian domination would be
simply a continuation of colonialism in another form. Regardless of the angle from
nothing to lost.:, from tilt.: success of native people in struggles to reclaim the land which is rightfully ours.
which you view the matter, the liberation of Native North America, liberation of the land first and foremost, is the
The
question has always been, of course, which "thing" is to be first in the
sequence. A preliminary formulation for those serious about achieving (rather than
merely theorizing and endlessly debating) radical change in the United States might be "First
Priority to First Americans." Put another way, this would mean, "U.S. Out of Indian
Country. " Inevitably, the logic leads to what we've all been so desperately seeking: the United
States-at least as we've come to know it-out of North America altogether. From there, it can be
permanently banished from the planet. In its stead, surely we can join hands to create
key to fundamental and positive social changes of many other sorts. One thing, as they say, leads to another.
something new and infinitely better. That's our vision of "impossible realism." Isn't it time we all went to work on
attaining it?
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
114
Links
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
115
Ex Colonization As First Surveillance

Colonization was the first act of surveillance and the root
cause of surveillance practices today. Reform is only a
rationalization for colonialisms continuation.
Kundnani and Kumar 15. (Arun Kundnani teaches at New York University. Deepa Kumar is an
associate professor of Media Studies and Middle East Studies at Rutgers University. Race, surveillance, and empire.
Spring 2015. http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire. MMG)
National security surveillance is as old as the bourgeois nation state , which from its
very inception sets out to define the people associated with a particular territory,
and by extension the non-peoples, i.e., populations to be excluded from that territory and seen
as threats to the nation. Race, in modern times, becomes the main way that such threatsboth internal and
This is
particularly true of settler-colonial projects, such as the United States, in which the
goal was to territorially dispossess Indigenous nations and pacify the resistance that
externalare mediated; modern mechanisms of racial oppression and the modern state are born together.
inevitably sprang up. In this section, we describe how the drive for territorial expansion and the formation of the
early American state depended on an effective ideological erasure of those who peopled the land .
Elaborate
racial profiles, based on empirical observationthe precursor to more
sophisticated surveillance mechanismswere thus devised to justify the
dispossession of native peoples and the obliteration of those who resisted. The idea of the
American nation as the land of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants enabled and justified the colonial-settler mission.5
white supremacy was codified in

the Constitution; the logical outcome of earlier settler-colonial systems of racial
discrimination against African slaves and Indigenous populations .6 But the leaders of
the newly formed state were not satisfied with the thirteen original colonies and set their sights on
Thus, when the US state was formed after the Revolutionary War,
further expansion. In 1811, John Quincy Adams gave expression to this goal in the following way: The whole
continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one
language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor
of social usages and customs.7 This doctrine, which would later come to be known as manifest
destiny
animated the project of establishing the American nation across the continent .
European settlers were the chosen people who would bring development through scientific knowledge, including
state-organized ethnographic knowledge of the very people they were colonizing.8 John Comaroffs description of
this process in southern Africa serves equally to summarize the colonial states of North America: The
discovery of dark, unknown lands, which were conceptually emptied of their

peoples and cultures so that their wilderness might be brought properly to order
i.e., fixed and named and mappedby an officializing white gaze .9 Through, for example,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the United States sought to develop methods of identification,
categorization, and enumeration that made the Indigenous population visible to the
surveillance gaze as racial others. Surveillance that defined and demarcated
according to officially constructed racial typologies enabled the colonial state to sort
tribes according to whether they accepted the priorities of the settler-colonial mission (the good
Indians) or resisted it (the bad Indians).10 In turn, an idea of the US nation itself was
produced as a homeland of white, propertied men to be secured against racial
others. No wonder, then, that the founding texts of the modern state invoke the Indigenous populations of
America as bearers of the state of nature, to which the modern state is counterposedwitness Hobbess
references to the the Savage people of America.11 The earliest process of gathering systematic knowledge about
the other by colonizers often began with trade and religious missionary work. In the early seventeenth century,
trade in furs with the Native population of Quebec was accompanied by the missionary project. Jesuit Paul Le Jeune
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
116
worked extensively with the Montagnais-Naskapi and maintained a detailed record of the people he hoped to
By studying and documenting where and how the savages

lived, the nature of their relationships, their child-rearing habits, and the like, Le
Juene derived a four-point program to change the behaviors of the Naskapi in order to
convert and civilize.12
bring them into line with French Jesuit morality. In addition to sedentarization, the establishment of chiefly authority,
and the training and punishment of children, Le Juene sought to curtail the independence of Naskapi women and to
The net result of

such missionary work was to pave the way for the racial projects of colonization
and/or integration into a colonial settler nation. By the nineteenth century, such informal techniques of
surveillance began to be absorbed into government bureaucracy . In 1824, Secretary of War
impose a European family structure based on male authority and female subservience.13
John C. Calhoun established the Office of Indian Affairs (later Bureau), which had as one of its tasks the mapping
The key security question was whether to forcibly displace

Native Americans beyond the colonial territory or incorporate them as colonized
subjects; the former policy was implemented in 1830 when Congress passed the Indian Removal Act and
President Jackson began to drive Indians to the west of the Mississippi River. Systematic surveillance
became even more important after 1848, when Indian Affairs responsibility
transferred from the Department of War to the Department of the Interior, and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs sought to comprehensively map the Indigenous population
as part of a civilizing project to change the savage into a civilized man , as a
and counting of Native Americans.
congressional committee put it. By the 1870s, Indians were the quantified objects of governmental intervention;
resistance was subdued as much through rational techniques of

racialized surveillance and a professional bureaucracy as through war.14
The assimilation of Indians became a comprehensive policy through the Code of Indian
Offenses, which included bans on Indigenous cultural practices that had earlier been catalogued by ethnographic
surveillance. Tim Rowse writes that For the U.S. government to extinguish Indian sovereignty, it had to be confident
in its own. There is no doubting the strength of the sense of manifest destiny in the United States during the
nineteenth-century, but as the new nation conquered and purchased, and filled the new territories with colonists, it
U.S. sovereign
power was not just a legal doctrine and a popular conviction; it was an
administrative challenge and achievement that included acquiring , by the 1870s, the
ability to conceive and measure an object called the Indian population .15 The use of
had also to develop its administrative capacity to govern the added territories and peoples.
surveillance to produce a census of a colonized population was the first step to controlling it. Mahmood Mamdani
before managing a heterogeneous

population, a colonial power must first set about defining it; to do so, the colonial
state wielded the census not only as a way of acknowledging difference but also as
a way of shaping, sometimes even creating, difference .16 The ethnic mapping and
demographics unit programs practiced by US law enforcement agencies today in
the name of counterterrorism are the inheritors of these colonial practices . Both then
refers to this as define and rule, a process in which,
and now, state agencies use of demographic information to identify concentrations of ethnically defined
populations in order to target surveillance resources and to identify kinship networks can be utilized for the
todays principles of counterinsurgency warfare

winning hearts and minds by dividing the insurgent from the nonresistantecho
similar techniques applied in the nineteenth century at the settler frontier.
purposes of political policing. Likewise,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
117
Ex Domestication by Surveillance
Surveillance lead to the domestication and reduction of native
peoples to bare life. Failure to acknowledge the different
mechanisms of power that lie in the interplay of surveillance
allows for unfettered colonialism.
Margolis 2004 [Eric, 2004, Visual Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2004, Looking at discipline, looking at labour:
photographic representations of Indian boarding schools]-DD
Indian Boarding schools performed the weak function of reproducing those

elements of discipline associated with modernity; Indian schooling was in this way
not much different from the disciplinary regime for American youth in general. Many
public school students wore uniforms, learned to march, established quasi-military hierarchies, acted out patriotic
rituals, were subjected to different curricula based on gender, and so on. Sports and regimented band practice was
likewise part of the disciplinary regime for American youth in general. Literally thousands of photographs testify to
The bargain of modernity is to exchange submission to an

organization for increased knowledge and skill leading to upward mobility
for the individual and stability for the social order. In Foucaults analysis,
schooling habituated students to the little technologies of discipline and
surveillance. However, Foucaults thesis on the positive diffusion of power is weakened when we examine
these practices.
cases of conquest and colonialism. In the American West during the 19th and early 20th century the regimes of
Although in European
history this might have been domestication of the self, in the colonial atmosphere of
Manifest Destiny it was the domestication of the other. Pratt and those who
followed in his footsteps meant to modernize Native Americans in a single
generation by using schools to replicate the process of punishment, supervision,
and constraint (Foucault 1995: 29) that developed over 300 years of Western history. Photographs and
other texts depicting the Indian schools provide abundant evidence of strong,
discriminatory socialization as well. In the most obvious contradiction , and despite Pratts
discipline identified by Foucault were quickly imposed on conquered native peoples.
original plan, Indian students were segregated in special boarding schools where they were unlikely to come into
contact with Anglos except for those in positions of authority. The possibility that such closed total institutions would
produce assimilation was slim to none. The litany of discriminatory socialization practices included: symbolic
violence visible in the before and after shots; the harsh punishment displayed in jails, matrons and Indian
disciplinarians; the hard reproductive labour Indian children were forced to perform at school; industrial training that
prepared children only for low- wage jobs in agriculture and domestic service, and the outing system that, instead
of integration, (re)produced the racialized caste structure of American society. Particular contradictions included
industrial training for jobs that did not exist in Indian country industrial laundry, or tin manufacture for instance
and the capitalist production of needs that could not be satisfied on the reservation .
Boarding schools
were clearly more effective at imposing discipline and (re)producing social exclusion
than at guiding students into the mainstream of American life. No matter how
acculturated, Indians were not generally accepted by American society, and after
the schools were through with the children they did not fit into their home culture
either. The students were thus doubly stigmatized as persons marked by their colour in a racist society, and as
persons mis-educated for their home culture where in many cases they could no longer even speak the language.
These strong elements of socialization continued to reproduce Native Americans as second-class citizens well into
the second half of the 20th century.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
118
The domestication of indigenous peoples is a key project of

settler colonialism.
from the passage of U.S.
federal Indian crime legislation in the 1880s to the American states repression of
indigenous political activism in the 1960s and 1970s indicated that in less than a century,
Native peoples were transformed in the eyes of the United States from
foreign soldiers to domestic traitors.1 While MeSloys time frame is valid, if a little late in
starting, one does not need almost a century of time to trace this shift in the U.S.indigenous political relationship. During the Civil War and the postCivil War period,
the issue of whether indigenous political communities should be seen as
foreign or domestic to the United States was a pressing question , and the
American governments actions, argument, and policies offered a clear answer to this question. During this
period the American settler-state sought to domesticate indigenous people .
In an article on Native American sovereignty, Steven MeSloy argues that the time
If, as political historian Richard Bcnscl argues, the Civil War represents the true foundational moment in American
political development, the Civil War and postCivil War period should also be seen as a re-foundational moment in
American
political actors sought to articulate westward the energies of the reunified nation
and state with an eye to domesticating indigenous political identity and territory as
U.S. boundaries expanded. In response, indigenous nations such as the Cherokee
sought to secure their identity and autonomy as an independent people via the post
Civil War treaty-making process with the federal government. This effort to resist domestication to
the American polity compelled Cherokee leaders to battle among themselves over
how to secure their peoples status and sovereignty in postwar treaty negotiations .
U.S.-indigenous relations, and thus as a pivotal time for indigenous peoples politics.2 During this time,
The political actions and experiences of the Cherokee nation during this period do not represent the experiences of
all indigenous tribes and nations, but they do illustrate and portend the changing terms of U.S.-indigenous relations
during the late nineteenth century. While my assessment of the direction and effect of U.S. policies draws from
material concerned with indigenous people generally, the fate of the Indian Territory and the Cherokee nation arc
the focal points, because this region and nation exemplified the complicated boundary politics confronting
indigenous people at this time. In the American proposals, debates, and policies over the future of the Indian
Territory and in the negotiations and final terms of the 1866 U.S.-Cherokee treaty, one can find evidence of both the
emerging shift in U.S. Indian policy and the effort of indigenous political leaders to carve out their nations
this period witnessed the

repositioning of indigenous people into more of a domcstic concern than a foreign
one, more inside than outside American political boundaries .
autonomy by constructing an embryonic third space of sovereignty. Overall,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
119
Ex Foreign/Domestic Link
Legal manipulation of the foreign/domestic distinction was
used to justify land theft and infinite war against the
indigenous population of America. This distinction serves as
the basis for modern law.
both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United
States contain clauses reserving interactions with Indian peoples, as recognized
"foreign powers," to the federal government. The United States also officially renounced, in the
Consequently,
1789 Northwest Ordinance and elsewhere, any aggressive intent vis-a-vis these nations, especially with regard to
their land base. As it was put in the Ordinance: The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indian;
their land property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty,
they shall never be invaded or disturbed ... but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be
made, for wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them. Such lofty-sounding (and
As the first Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, pointed out rather early on, almost
every white-held land title in "our whole country"-New England, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and parts of the Carolinas-would have been clouded
had the standards of international law truly been applied Y More, title to the pre-revolutionary
legally correct) rhetoric was, of course, belied by the actualities of U.S. performance.
acquisitions made west of the 1763 demarcation line by the new North American politico-economic elite would have
been negated, along with all the thousands of grants of land in that region bestowed by Congress upon those who'd
fought against the Crown. Not coincidental to Marshall's concern in the matter was the fact that he and his father
a country
which had been founded largely on the basis of a lust to possess native lands was
not about to relinquish its pretensions to "ownership" of them, no matter what the
law said. Moreover, the balance of military power between Indians and whites east of the Mississippi River began
had each received 1O,OOO-acre grants of such land in what is now West Virginia.13 Obviously,
to change rapidly in favor of the latter during the post-revolutionary period. It was becoming technically possible for
Still, the requirements of international

diplomacy dictated that things seem otherwise. Marshall's singular task, then, was
to forge a juridical doctrine which preserved the image of enlightened U.S.
furtherance of accepted international legality in its relations with Indians,
on the one hand, while accommodating a pattern of illegally aggressive
federal expropriations of Indian land on the other. This he did in opinions rendered in a
the United States to simply seize native lands at willy
series of cases, beginning with Fletcher v. Peck (1810) and extending through Johnson v. McIntosh (1822) to
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832).15 By the end of this sequence of decisions,
Marshall had completely inverted international law, custom, and convention, finding that the Doctrine of Discovery
imparted "preeminent title" over North America to Europeans, the mantle of which implicitly passed to the United
States when England quit-claimed its 13 dissident Atlantic colonies, mainly because Indian-held lands were
The Chief Justice was forced to coin a whole

new politico-legal expression-that of "domestic, dependent nations" -to
encompass the unprecedented status, neither fish nor fowl, he needed native people to occupy.16
effectively "vacant" when Europeans "found" them.
Within this convoluted and falsely premised reasoning, Indian nations were entitled to keep their land, but only so
Indians could legally

be construed as committing " aggression" whenever they resisted invasion by the
United States, a matter which rendered literally any military action the United
long as the intrinsically superior U.S. sovereignty agreed to their doing so. Given this,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
120
States chose to pursue against native people, no matter how unprovoked, a

"Just War." With all this worked out, Marshall argued that the United States should nonetheless follow
accepted European practice wherever possible, obtaining by formal treaty negotiations involving purchase and
other considerations native "consent" to land cessions. This, he felt, would complete the veneer of "reason and
moderation" attending internatio.nal perceptions of federal expropriations of Indian land. Ultimately, Marshall's
position reduces to the notion that indigenous nations inherently possess sufficient sovereign rights" for purposes of
treating" to hand over legal title to their territories, but never enough to retain any tract of land the United States
The carefully balanced logical contradictions imbedded in the

"Marshall Doctrine," which allowed the United States to pursue one course of action
with regard to Indian land while purporting to do the exact opposite, formed the
theoretical basis for the entire statutory body of what is now called "Indian Law"
in this country. Through a lengthy series of subsequent "interpretive" decisions-especially Ex Parte Crow Dog
wants as its own.
(1883), U.S. v. Kagama (1886), Lonewolf v. Hitchcock (1903), Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States (1955), and Dann v. United
States (1985)-the
Supreme Court extended Marshall's unfounded concept of native

nations occupying a status of subordinate or "limited" sovereignty to include the
idea that the United States enjoyed an inherent "plenary" (full and absolute) power
over them in such crucial domains as governance and jurisdiction. 17 An aspect of this selfassigned power, articulated most clearly in Lonewolf, is that Congress has the prerogative to unilaterally abrogate
aspects of U.S. treaties with Indian nations which it finds inconvenient or burdensome while continuing to hold the
Indians to those provisions of the treaties by which they agreed to cede land,.
You reify the foreign/domestic boundary that absorbs and

erases indigenous life.
For Lane, the utterly disorganized Indian Territory was a threat to the boundaries
of Kansas, and thus by extension to those of the United States as well. In his words,
the people of the Indian Territory do not simply sit outside the states southern
boundary, but rather they lie on our border and bound upon our State. These two
images, the first of indigenous people overlapping (lying on) the states boundaries and the second of them
springing aggressively toward (bounding upon) the Kansas citizenry, place Lanes concerns within the wider colonial
discourse in which the unsettled standing of indigenous people raises questions and invites answers that will be
productiveproductive of an emergent post-Civil War U.S. state sovereigntyin terms of the U.S. effort to impose
Lanes language of
disorganization was a polite, seemingly value-free way to refer to indigenous
nations and tribes as less civilized than the American nation and to demand that the
federal government work to further construct the civilized standing of America
through the demarcation and surveillance of its post-Civil War boundaries . To be clear,
the aim of Lane, Harlan, and the rest of this bills supporters was not to firm up the boundary
between the United States and indigenous politics in order to ward off the seeming
threat of savage disorganization. Rather, it was to place U.S. boundaries
around these indigenous nations and tribes so as to eliminate the
complicated political situation in which indigenous communities straddled
the boundary distinguishing the American domestic realm from that which
was foreign to it. If passage of this bill could render these indigenous nations and
tribes no longer foreign to the American polity, they could no longer carry out the
raids to which Lanes constituents had apparently been subjected. They could not
and clarify the political boundaries of its modern settler-state. Moreover,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
121
do so because raids, by definition, are attacks from the outside, and thus any such
actions would henceforth be crimes subject to domestic penalty; they would be
domestic concerns. Thus, to many American political actors of this era, such as Senators Lane and
Harlan, the imposition of clearly defined U.S. boundaries around Indian
Territory was a way to absorb and erase the foreignness of indigenous
political status by domesticating indigenous political life. It was also a way
to further construct American sovereignty and deconstruct that of indigenous tribes .
This interpretation is not simply a matter of historical retrospect and 20/20 hindsight, but was in fact apparent to
those who opposed the bill at the time. Officials at the time, even while the policies pursued by these officials
seemed to be seeking to undermine this very nation-to-nation premise. In other words, the modern shift in U.S.indigenous relations had yet to be made formally, but the harbingers of this shift can be discerned in the debate
over S 459. Rosss protest and arguments were echoed by sympathetic senators who raised serious questions about
the issue of indigenous consent and the future of indigenous nations and tribes as autonomous politics. In their
resistance to this bill, these senators exemplified the institutional and cultural dynamics of American colonial
ambivalence. Among the most vocal senators arguing and eventually voting against Harlans bill was Lafayette
Foster of Connecticut, who made a distinct effort to connect the issue of the consent of indigenous tribes to their
shifting status in relation to the American political system. Referring to the idea of indigenous consent as a mere
farce in the wake of the Civil War and in light of Americas expansionist desires, Foster pointed to the boundary
politics and colonial implications of this bill and to its implications for the standing of indigenous tribes as
autonomous politics: How would it be if we had a treaty like this with any foreign Power that has sufficient strength
to avenge an insult of this sort? If we had made this treaty with such a nation, and then undertook to extend
jurisdiction over it, provided we could get their consent after we had thus exerted our authority and created a
Territory, what would be the result? He went on to say that, of course, if such a policy was directed against, say,
France, it would mean war, certainly and speedily. While Foster knew full well that the Cherokee and French
nations were not perfect equivalents, he was making the analogy to underscore a prevailing principle that the U.S.
to that point in the U.S.-indigenous

relationship, indigenous tribes had been dealt with more as independent nations
than as domesic concerns. However, here Congress proposed to envelop these
independent nations through a colonial imposition that superseded the treatydefined standing and autonomy of indigenous tribes . To the Connecticut senator, this affront
to indigenous autonomy was particularly galling with regard to the Cherokee nation,
which had sent two regiments into [the Union] Army, a greater number of men in
proportion to the number of fighting men belonging to the tribe than has gone from
any State in this Union32
government was threatening to violate with this bill. Namely,
The foreign/domestic divide excludes indigenous peoples who

can gain political agency from neither status.
the court constructed the 1871 rider as a turning point in U.S.-indigenous
relations, the moment when Congress extended its power over indigenous tribes
and nations in a manner that co-constitutivcly generated the legal and political
image of indigenous people as decreasingly able to self-govern . As Petra Shattuck and Jill
In Kaganut
Norgren note, Millers opinion declared that with the end of the treaty-making era (1871), Congress had gained
The plenary power doctrine denoted, in this ease, the

ultimate power of Congress over indigenous peoples affairs .25 the rise of
congressional power in this way served to draw indigenous tribes and nations
further within the domestic realm of the American political system, further
constructing the expanding purview of American sovereignty as it hailed the decline
of indigenous sovereignty. The compatibility between the colonialist and liberal democratic principles of
plenary power over Indian tribes.24
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
122
this decision were clear in the opinions closing passages, where Miller asserted that Congresss extended powers
arc not only legitimate, but just and humane: The power of the General Government over these remnants of a race
once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers, is necessary for their protection, as well as to the safety of
(1) the boundaries of the

United States were ineluctably expanding and solidifying as the American nation
and state rapidly modernized, and (2) indigenous tribes and nations were not only
weak and diminished but, even worse, incapable of meeting the challenges of
self-government necessary to survive in the face of all that was seemingly
becoming modern around them. This dynamic of claiming to both dominate political space and protect
those among whom they dwell.26 The message of this ease was twofold:
indigenous tribes exemplified the imposition of colonial rule for the sake of the development of the modern
The American state imposed colonial

rule in the name of saving indigenous people from their own weakness and
backwardness, that is, savagery . According to the Supreme Courts 1886 decision, the historical
touchstone for this shift in the U.S.-indigenous relationship was Congresss action in 1871. In 1903, the
congressional treaty-making rider of 1871 again became a key constituent of a very
important Indian law ease, this time in a Supreme Court decision so injurious to the political status of
indigenous tribes that it has been referred to as the Indians Dred Scon decision.27 The ease was Lone Wolf v.
Hitchcock, in which the courts decision further diminished the political status of
indigenous tribes by affirming Congresss power to abrogate treaty provisions and
placing congressional plenary power beyond the purview of judicial review . This case
firmly placed indigenous tribes in a struggle for status in postcolonial time and
space because, according to the courts logic, from that time forward indigenous tribes
had neither the foreign nor the domestic status to exert meaningful
political agency in American politics.
American settler-state, justified according to liberal principles.
Domestic is not a neutral legal category but has historically

aided the domination of indigenous peoples.
Byrd 2011 [Jodi Associate Professor of English, American Indian Studies, and
Gender and Womens Studies at U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The Transit of
Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions
Indigenous)]-DD
the Marshall Trilogy
sets into motion the transformation of indigenous sovereign nations into
domestic dependent nations where, according to Joanne Barker , the erasure of
the sovereign is the racialization of the Indian. 13 In order to pry apart the
now ascendant though contradictory paradigms of liberalism invested in
transformative multiculturalism and postracial politics, my book considers the
entanglement of colonization and racialization. These two processes of
domination have often been conflated (making racism colonialism and vice
versa) within the critiques of empire by U.S. postcolonial, comparative
area, and queer studies and for good reason. Racialization and
colonization have worked simultaneously to other and abject entire
peoples so they can be enslaved, excluded, removed, and killed in the
name of progress and capitalism. These historical and political processes have
secured white property, citizenship, and privilege, creating a racial contract, as
In setting a precedent for U.S. empire through evocations of the doctrine of discovery,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
123
Charles W. Mills argues, that orders a world which has been foundationally shaped
for the past five hundred years by the realities of European domination and the
gradual consolidation of global white supremacy . 14 Racialization and
colonization should thus be understood as concomitant global systems
that secure white dominance through time, property, and notions of self.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
124
Distinctions between domestic and international surveillance

are bad because they allow counterintelligence groups such as
COINTELPRO to inflect violence upon populations rendering
them disposable. Resistance is the only way to solve this
systematic oppression
Churchill 90 (Ward Churchill., professor of ethnic studies at the University of
Colorado at Boulder from 1990 to 2007., To Disrupt, Discredit and Destroy: The
FBIs Secret War Against the Black Panther Party pgs 4-9)KM
The initial COINTELPRO, aimed at the Communist Party, USA, was ordered on August 28,
1956. Al- though this was the first instance in which the Internal Security Branch was
instructed to employ the full range of extralegal techniques developed by the
Bureaus counterintelligence specialists against a do mestic target in a centrallycoordinated and programmatic way, the FBI had resumed such operations against the CP and to a
lesser extent the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) on a more ad hoc basis at least as early as 1941. Instructively,
Hoover began at the same time to include a section on Negro Organiza- tions in reports otherwise dedicated to
Both surveillance of and

counterintelligence directed against subversives had become standard FBI
procedure by the end of World War II, and were increasingly regularized and refined
during the ensuing spy cases and show trials attending the Second Red Scare of
1946-1954. In this, the Bureau was helped along immensely by passage of the Smith Act, a statute making
Communist Organizations and Axis Fifth Columnists.
sedition a peacetime as well as a wartime offense, in 1940. This was followed, in 1950, by the McCarran Internal
Security Act, requiring all members of the CP and other designated groups to register with a federal Subversive
Activities Control Board and authorizing their roundup and mass internment in the event of an insurrection or war
with the Soviet Union. In 1954, there was also the Communist Control Act, a statute outlawing the CP and prohibiting its members from holding certain types of employment. Viewed against this backdrop, it has become a
commonplace that, however misguided, COINTELPRO- CPUSA, as the 1956 initiative was captioned, was in some
ways well-intended, undertaken out of a genuine concern that the CP was engaged in spying for the Soviet Union.
Declassified FBI documents, however, reveal quite the opposite. While espionage and sabotage potentials are
mentioned almost as afterthoughts in the predicating memoranda, unabashedly political motives take center stage.
The objective of the COINTELPRO was, as Internal Security Branch chief Alan
Belmont put it at the time, to block the CPs penetration of specific channels of
American life where public opinion is molded and to prevent thereby its attaining
influence over the masses. Expanded in March 1960, and again in October 1963
to include non-party members considered sympathetic to the CP, the COINTELPRO
served as a sort of laboratory in which the Bureaus communications, logistics and
internal procedures were worked out and agents perfected the skills necessary to
conducting a quietly comprehensive program of domestic repression. From the outset,
considerable emphasis was placed on intensifying the Bureaus longstanding campaign to promote factional
disputes within the Party. To this end, the CP was infiltrated more heavily than ever beforeit has been estimated
that by 1965 approximately one-third of the CPs nominal membership consisted of FBI infiltrators and paid informantswhile bona fide activists were systematically bad-jacketed (that is, set up by infiltrators to make it appear
A formal Mass Media Program was also created wherein derogatory information on prominent radicals was leaked to the news
media. Still more ominously, beginning in 1966, an effort dubbed Operation Hoodwink was begun in which
that they themselves were government operatives).
un- dercover agents were used to convince the leadership of New Yorks five Mafia families that CP organizing
activities on the citys waterfront constituted a threat to the profits deriving from their union racketeering,
smuggling and related enterprises. Although it never materialized, the intended result was the murder of key
Thus, under COINTELPRO, not only the methods but

the objectives of operations directed against U.S. citizens were rendered
organizers by the mobs contract killers.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
125
indistinguishable from those involving foreign agents. All pretense that
those targeted possessed constitutional or even human rights was simply
abandoned. As one anonymous but veteran COINTELPRO operative reflected in 1974, You dont measure
success in this area by apprehensions, but in terms of neutralization. Meanwhile, on August 4, 1960, a second
COINTELPRO was unleashed to disrupt the activities of organizations... seeking independence for Puerto Rico. On
October 12, 1961, a third disruption program was launched against the SWP. This was followed, on September 2,
1964, by a hard-hitting, closely supervised, coordinated counterintelligence program to expose, disrupt and
On April 23, 1965,

Hoover ordered the beginnings of what would become, in May 1968, COINTELPRONew Left, an operation intended to destroy the effectiveness of predominately-white
leftist organizations like Students for a Democratic Society and the Student
Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam.Then, on August 25, 1967, twenty-three field
offices were instructed to commence another hard-hitting and imaginative
program, this one to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize
the activities of [civil rights and black liberation organizations], their leadership,
spokesmen, membership, and supporters. On March 4, 1968, COINTELPRO-Black
Nationalist Hate Groups, was expanded to include all 41 FBI field offices. Specifically
otherwise neutralize the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and specified other [white] hate groups.
targeted were the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee (SNCC), the Philadelphia-based Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM) and the Nation of Islam (NoI). As
has been noted, SCLCs Martin Luther King, Jr., SNCCs Stokely Carmichael, and NoI head Elija Muhammed were
targeted by name. Scores, perhaps hundreds, of individuals were shortly added to the various lists of those
selected for personal neutralization, as were organizations like the Republic of New Africa (RNA) and Los
Angeles-centered United Slaves (US). During
the spate of post-Watergate congressional

hearings on domestic intelligence operations, the FBI eventually acknowledged
having conducted 2,218 separate COINTELPRO actions from mid-1956 through mid1971. These, the Bureau conceded, were undertaken in conjunction with other significant illegalities: 2,305
warrantless telephone taps, 697 buggings, and the opening of 57, 846 pieces of mail. This itemization, although an
The counterintelligence
campaign against the Puerto Rican independence movement was not mentioned at
all, while whole categories of operational techniqueassassinations, for example, and obtaining false convictions
against key activistswere not divulged with respect to the rest. There is solid evidence that the
other sorts of illegality were downplayed as well. All of this, supposedly, occurred without the
indicator of the magnitude and extent of FBI criminality, was far from incomplete.
knowledge of anyone outside the FBI. The fact is, however, that high government officials were repeatedly
informed, beginning with identical letters written by Hoover on May 8, 1958, to Attorney General William Rogers
and Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, advising them that the Bureau had initiated
a program designed to promote disruption within the ranks of the Communist Party. This was followed on
November 8 with Hoovers personal briefing of Eisenhowers entire Cabinet on the nature of COINTELPRO-CPUSA.
On January 10, 1961, another set of identical letters was dispatched, this time notifying Attorney General-designate
Rob- ert F. Kennedy, Deputy Attorney General-designate Byron White, and Secretary of State-designate Dean Rusk
of what he called our counterattack on the CPUSA. The FBI director also conducted personal briefings on special
projects for Attorneys General Nicholas Katzenbach (1965), Ramsey Clark (1967) and John Mitchell (1969), as well
as Marvin Johnson, an aide to President Lyndon Johnson (1965). It is true that Hoover was less than detailed in
these and other reports. It is equally true, however, that he was never asked to provide further information. His
superiors were told more than enough to know that there was much more to be learned about the FBIs domestic
counterintelligence program. Indeed, they were sufficiently apprised to know that it smacked of political policing in
its most illegitimate form. That none of them ever inquired further is indicative only of their mutual desire to retain
a veneer of plausible deniability against their own potential incrimination if the program were ever to be exposed.
And, since none of them elected to avoid jeopardy by simply ordering a halt to such
operations, we can only assume they viewed COINTELPRO as a useful and
acceptable expedient to maintaining the status quo. The late 1960s were a period of
unparalleled flux in the twentieth century United States. In the process of losing a major neocolonial war in
Southeast Asia and faced with a rising tide of guerrilla insurgencies throughout the Third World,U.S. lites were
beset by a substantial lack of consensus among themselves about how best to restore global order.
Simultaneously, they were confronted with the emergence of a highly dynamic New Left opposition, not only on
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
126
the home front but in western Europe. By May of 1968, they had witnessed the near overthrow of the Gaullist
government in France, and a huge student movement was offering something of the same prospect in West
Germany. Even within the So- viet Bloc, a massive antiauthoritarian revolt had also challenged prevailing structures
Within the U.S. itself,

the liberal, equalitarian civil rights movement of the early-60s had been
transcended in mid-decade by a far more demanding movement for the attainment
of Black Power.102 By 1967, this had evolved into an effort to secure the outright
liberation of African Americans from what was quite accurately described as the
system of internal colonial oppression.These shifts were marked by an increasing
willingness on the part of black activists to engage in armed self-defense against
the various forms of state repression and to develop a capacity to pursue the
liberatory struggle by force, if necessary.104 Shortly, groups emerging within other
communities of colorthe Puerto Rican Young Lords Or- ganization (YLO), for
example, as well as the Chicano Brown Berets and the American Indian Movement
(AIM)had entered into more-or-less the same trajectory . A fresh generation of white
in Czechoslovakia, further threatening the balance of Cold War business as usual.
radicals had simultaneously developed their own movement and, for a while, their own agenda. Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS), probably the preeminent organization of Eu- roamerican new leftists in the United States
during the sixties, had been founded early in the decade to pursue visions of participatory democracy among the
poor and disenfranchised. With the 1965 buildup of U.S. troop strength in Vietnam, however, it adopted an
increasingly pronounced anti-imperialist outlook. By mid-1968, SDS could claim 80,000 members and was in the
process of birthing an armed component of its own. A year later, in combination with a broad array of other activist
groups, it was able to bring approximately one million people to the streets of Washington, D.C., to protest the war
in South- east Asia. Even combat veterans showed up in force. Added to this potentially volatile stew was a
burgeoning counterculture composed primarily of white youth, including a not insignificant segment drawn from
the countrys more privileged circles. Not especially politicized in a conventional sense,they nonetheless
manifested a marked disinclination to participate in the functioning of American society as they encountered it,
and were to some extent seriously engaged in attempting to fashion an alternative lifestyle predicated in the
professed values of peace, love and cooperation. All told, from lite and dissident perspectives alike, the
appearance was that America was on the verge of coming apart at the seams.
For a number of
reasons, in 1967 it began to appear as if the Black Panther Party , a smallish but rapidly
growing organization founded by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale in Oakland a year earlier, might hold the
key to forging a relatively unified movement from the New Lefts many disparate
elements. In part, this was because of the centrality the black liberation struggle
already occupied in the radical American consciousness. In part, it was likely because the
Panthers, almost alone among organizations of color, had from the outset advanced a concrete program and were
pursuing it with considerable discipline. It was also undoubtedly due in no small measure to the obvious courage
with which theyd faced off against the armed forces of the state, a matter personified by Party Defense Minister
Newtons dubious conviction in the killing of a white cop, and the skill with which Minister of Information Eldridge
Cleaver was able to publi- cize it. In
any event, by 1968-69 the Panthers were considered by

many to be the exemplary revolutionary organization in the country and the one
most explicitly identified with anti-imperialism and international- ism. As such, the Party
had become far and away the most influential such group in the U.S., an assessment confirmed by J. Edgar
Hoover, when, in September 1969, he publicly declared the Panthers to be the
greatest threat to internal security of the country. Meanwhile, on November 25, 1968,
he had ordered the initiation of imaginative and hard-hitting [counter]intelligence
measures designed to cripple the BPP and, on January 30, 1969, a considerable
expansion and intensification of the effort to destroy what the BPP stands for .
Hoovers agents obliged. Although every dissident group in the United States were targeted by COIN- TELPRO
. Of the 295 counterintelligence operations the Bureau has admitted conducting against black
activists and organizations during the period, a staggering 233, the majority of them
during the late-60s, the Black Panther Party was literally sledgehammered
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
127
in 1969, were aimed at the Panthers. And this was by no means all. Counterintelligence
was far more pervasive than the readily available record indicates, one
researcher has observed. It is impossible to say how many COINTELPRO actions the
FBI implemented against the Panthers and other targets simply by counting the
incidents listed in the COIN- TELPRO-Black Hate Group file. The Bureau recorded
COINTELPRO-type actions in thousands of other files. Several of the operations targeting other African American
organizationsSNCC, for examplewere explicitly designed to impair the Panthers ability to develop coalitions.
COINTELPRO actions recorded as

having been carried against SDS and other white New Left organizations from May
1968 through May 1971,126 and at least some of those conducted against Latino
groups like the Young Lords and the Brown Berets served the same purpose. Then there
The same can be said with respect to approximately half the 290
were the myriad operations meant to neutralize specific individuals, and another hostthe number is of course
undeterminedwhich have never been admitted at all. What
Party founder Huey P. Newton aptly

described as the war against the Panthers entailed every known variant of
counterintelligence activity on the part of the FBI and collaborating police
departments, and thus constitutes a sort of textbook model of modern political
repression. It will therefore be useful to examine each of the often overlapping operational vectors of
COINTELPRO-BPP in order to better understand the whole.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
128
U.S. dominance makes so-called domestic repression

inevitable.
Churchill 90(Ward Churchill., professor of ethnic studies at the University of
FBIs Secret War Against the Black Panther Party pgs 11- )KM
In retrospect, it seems both fair and accurate to observe that the Black Panther
Party never had a chance. Both the relative inexperience of its leadership, and the obvious youthfulness
of the great majority of its members, served to prevent the Party from offering anything resembling a mature
response to the situation it confronted. The scale and intensity of the repression to which it was subjected,
moreover, especially when taken in combination with the sheer speed with which the onslaught materialized and
the manner in which it was not only sustained but intensified from 1968-1971, make it quite doubtful that even
the most seasoned group of activists would have done better. Certainly, the repression which destroyed the far
larger, older and mostly white IWW a half-century earlier was no more concentrated or vicious than that suffered by
627
the BPP.
Given the level of sophistication, unlimited man-power and resources available to the FBI and its
local police collaborators it should come as no surprise that the Panthers were destroyed. Instead, as imprisoned
628
BLA soldier Herman Bell has observed, we should find it remarkable...that the Party lasted as long as it did.
And, as Dhoruba Bin Wahad has pointed out, Whats most amazing is how much was accomplished in so short a
time. The growth of the Party, its programs and resiliency, the support it was able to command from the
community, all that was put together in just two years, really.
Had it not been for COIN- TELPRO, one

629
can readily imagine what might have been achieved.

Both Bell and Bin Wahad believe
there are important lessons to be learned from the experience of the BPP. One of the most important of
these must be that, despite the highly publicized conclusions of the Church
Committee and other official bodies during the mid-1970s that COINTELPRO was an
630
inherently criminal enterprise,

and despite a raft of more localized findings over
the years that the criminality at issue extended even to murder,631 not one cop or
agent has spent so much as a minute of time in prison as a result . The fact is that
although two of the only four FBI men ever charged with COINTELPRO-related offenses were duly convicted in 1980, President Ronald Reagan pardoned them before
setting foot inside a cell.
632
With all due sanctimony, Reagan intoned that the pardons were necessary
and appropriate because the early-80s were a time to put all this behind us and begin a long overdue process of
633
national healing and reconciliation.
Such remarkably forgiving views towards official
perpetrators of COINTELPRO-era offenses did not, of course, extend to their

victims. Former Panthers like Bin Wahad and Geronimo ji Jaga (Pratt), continued to
languish in prison without so much as a sidelong glance from the President, no
matter how blatantly fraudulent the charges which landed them there . Nor does the
fact that the convictions of Bin Wahad and ji Jaga were eventually overturned prove
the old saw that in the end, whatever its deficiencies, the system works.634 To
quote ji Jaga, If the system worked the way theyd have you believe, Id never have
gone to prison in the first place, much less spent 27 years there. Dhoruba wouldnt
have gone to prison for nineteen years. Rice and Poindexter would not still be sitting
in prison out in Nebraska, and Mumia wouldnt be on death row. If the system
worked the way they say it does, the agents and the cops and the prosecutors who
perjured themselves and fabricated evidence when they framed us would
themselves be in prison, right alongside those who murdered Fred Hampton, Mark
635
Clark and Bunchy Carter. And those things didnt happen, did they?
To the contrary, many
of those involved in making COINTELPRO a success tangibly benefited by their
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
129
activities. A prime example is that of Richard Wallace Held, arguably the agent most
responsible for fabri- cating the case against ji Jaga himself.636 So valuable to the
FBI were his peculiar skills that, in 1975, he was detached from his slot in Los
Angeles and sent to South Dakota, where he assisted in assembling an equally
fraudulent case against American Indian Movement leader Leonard Peltier.
637
Then, in
1981, while still a relatively junior agent, he was promoted to the position of SAC, San Juan. In this role, he presided
over a plethora of legally-dubious operations against the Puerto Rican independence movement, including a series
638
island-wide raids conducted on August 30, 1985.
For this coup, he was rewarded again, this time by being
promoted to the more prestigious position of SAC, San Francisco. There, his major achievement appears to have
been the attempted neutralization by car bombing of Earth First! activist Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney on May 24,
639
1990.
Still more to the point is the fact that the Reagan administrations response
to the idea that FBI officials might be held to some extent accountable for their
more egregious violation of civil and human rights, was simply to legalize much of
640
what had been deemed criminal about COINTELPRO only a few years earlier.
This
was undertaken through a series of congressional hearings designed to
demonstrate the need for the Bureau to combat terrorism, including the
flexibility to neutralize organizations and individuals that cannot be shown to be
controlled by a foreign power, and have not yet committed a terrorist act but which
nonetheless may represent a substantial threat...to the security of our
country.Although legislation affording specific statutory authorization for the
Bureau to engage in COINTELPRO- style activities has accrued piecemeal during the
years since 1985, and is still in some respects being formulated, Reagan cut to the
chase on December 4, 1981, by signing Executive Order 12333, for the first time
openly authorizing the CIA to conduct domestic counterintelligence operations. On
May 7, 1983, Attorney General William French Smith confirmed the obvious by announcing a new set of FBI
guidelines allowing agents to resume full-scale investigative activity vis--vis any individual or organization they
wished to designate, on whatever basis, as advocat[ing] criminal activity or indicat[ing] an apparent intent to
One clear indication of what this meant will be found in the so-called
CISPES terrorism investigation of the late 1980s, during which the FBI used the
pretext that the Committee in Support of the People of El Salvador maintained
relationships with several Latin American guerrilla organizations to surveille,
infiltrate and disrupt not only the Committee itself, but hundreds of other dissident
groups in the U.S.645 Finding out the true extent of this sustained and altogether
COINTELPRO-like operation has proven impossible, given Reagans Executive Order
12356 of April 9, 1983, greatly expanding the authority of U.S. intelligence
agencies to withhold on grounds of National Security documents they would
otherwise have been legally required to divulge under the Freedom of Information
Act. At the local level, the proportionate deployment of police, both in terms of personnel and as measured by
engage in crime.
budget the budget allocations necessary to acquire more sophisticated weaponry, computerization, etc., has
swelled by approximately 500 percent since 1970. Simultaneously, there has been a distinct militarization of law
enforcement, a matter evidenced most readily in the proliferation of SWAT units across the country. First created by
the LAPD for purposes of assaulting Panther offices in 1969, by 1990 every police department worth its salary had
a SWAT team, a special weapons and tactics squad. Every one. Since 1980, the entire apparatus has been
increasingly tied together in a manner exceeding even the JTTF configuration.In large part, this was accomplished
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), headed during the early Reagan years by California-based
This corresponded with consolidation of the FBI

database, inaugurated by J. Edgar Hoover during World War I and expanded steadily
counterinsurgency specialist Louis O. Giuffrida.
651
thereafter, in a form including files on virtually every American citizen.

During
Giuffridas tenure, FEMA ran a series of exercisesdubbed Proud Saber/Rex 82,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
130
Rex 84/Nighttrain, and so onby which the procedures through which rapid
deployments of federal, state and local police could be integrated with those of the
national guard, military and selected civilian organizations in times of civil unrest.
All told, such scenarios resemble nothing so much as a refined and expanded version of the BoI/police/APL
653
amalgam evident from 1917 through 1920.
Although there have been several major exceptionsthe
653
Philadelphia police bombing of MOVE headquarters in 1985,
for example, as well as the CISPES investigation
654
and operations against several right- wing organizations
the still evolving U.S.
police/intelligence/military complex does not appear to have been devoted

extensively to the business of direct political repression. Rather, its purpose to date
seems primarily to have been to intensify the condition of pacification to which
oppressed communities, especially communities of color, had been reduced by
COINTELPRO by the early-70s. Most prominently, this has taken the form of a so-called War on Drugs,
declared by the Reagan Admini- stration during the mid-80s and continued by both Republican and Democratic
655
successors through the present date.
Leaving aside the facts that U.S. intelligence agencies have been heavily
656
involved in the importation of heroin and cocaine since at least as early as the late 1960s
and that if the
the FBI would have assisted

rather than destroyed the BPPs antidrug programs and attempts to politicize
street gangs like the P. Stone Na- tion657the war has been used as a pretext by
which to criminalize virtually the entire male population of young African Americans
government were really averse to narcotics distribution in the inner cities,
658
and Latinos.
The United States had by 1990 imprisoned a greater proportion of
its population than any country on the planet.659 One in three men of color
between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five is, has been or will shortly be
incarcerated, a rate making an American black four times as likely to do prison time
as was his South African counterpart during the height of apartheid.
660
Physically, the
U.S. penal system has expanded by more than 300 percent since 1969 to absorb this vast influx of fresh meat,
an expense which, like spiraling police appropriations, has been underwritten with tax dollars once allocated to
661
education and social services.
Even at that, the construction of private prisons has become one of the fastest
662
growing sectors of the U.S. economy,
while the approximately two million prisoners have themselves been
increasingly integrated into the system as a ready source of veritable slave labor fueling transnational corporate
663
profits.
In states like Alabama and Arizona, the 90s have even witnessed the reappearance of 1930s-style
664
665
chain gangs.
While the crime of black imprisonment has reached epidemic proportions,
the situation of
the Afro- American community has, according to every statistical indicator, steadily deteriorated. By the early-80s,
the repression of the black liberation movement could already be correlated to a decline in living standards to a
666
level below that evident in 1959, a trend which has since been continued without interruption.
In many
ways, such circumstances can be tied not only to resurgent racism but to the
increasing marginalization of the American workforce as a whole, a matter
associated more with the station of genuine world dominance presently
enjoyed by the U.S. and consequent policies of economic globalization
pursued by its corporate lites than by domestic policies per se .
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
131
Neutral Spaces Link

Your neutral portrayal of domestic space is the narrative of the
occupier and is complicit with genocide.
Michel Foucault put the matter of geographic partisanship succinctly when he noted that " territory
is no
doubt a geographical notion, but it is first of all a juridico-political one: the area
controlled by a certain kind of power ."41 Now that global geographies are in flux, as political
boundaries become increasingly ambiguous and contested, the questions of power and right are
more in evidence with respect to the formerly pacified spaces of nation-states. The
"pacification" was violent, but the violent aspects have been suppressed
because the narratives and conceptualizations of familiar political science
discourses of comparative politics and international relations, which have been
aphasic with respect to indigenous peoples, have been complicit with the
destruction of indigenous peoples and their practices . While these discourses now
appear increasingly inadequate, it is less the case that they have been made invalid by changes in the terrains to
relative geopolitical stability

during the cold war discouraged reflection on the spatial predicates of their
intelligibility. Statecentric academic, official, and media political discourses
approached adequacy only in their role of legitimating the authority of nation-states .
which they were thought to refer than it is that the extended period of
Helping to contain ethical and political conversations within the problematics that served the centralizing
authorities of states and the state system, they were complicit in reproducing modernity's dominant, territorial
imaginary. To recognize that the dominant geopolitical map has been imposed on the world by power rather than
simply emerging as an evolutionary historical inevitablity, as the dominant consensual narratives would have it, one
needs to achieve an effective conceptual distance, to think outside of the state system's mode of global
comprehension, outside of the spatial predicates of its structures of power, authority, and recognition. 42 As Henri
Lefebvre has noted,
space, especially for those occupying it, tends to have an air

of neutrality, to appear empty of normative imposition, as "the epitome of rational
abstraction . . . because it has already been occupied and used , and has already been the
focus of past processes whose traces are not always evident in the landscape."43 To the extent that the
nation-state geography remains descriptive (what some call "realistic") and
ahistorical, the ethics and politics of space remain unavailable to political
contention. More specifically, this resistance to the geographic imaginary's
contribution to ethical assumptions makes it difficult to challenge the prevailing
political and ethical discourses of rights, obligations, and proprieties that constitute
the normativity of the state. Nevertheless, the spatial practices of the stateits
divisions into official versus unofficial space, local versus national space, industrial
versus leisure spaceare commitments that are as normative as the spatiality of
the Christian imaginary, which divided the world into sacred and profane spaces .
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
132
Spatiality Link
Eurocentric representations of space sustain colonialism.
Quijano 2000 [Anibal, Sociologist, 2000, Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism,
and Latin America, http://www.unc.edu/~aescobar/wan/wanquijano.pdf, Accessed
7-7-2015]-DD
Parallel to the historical relations between capital and precapital, a similar set of
ideas was elaborated around the spatial relations between Europe and non-Europe.
As I have already mentioned, the foundational myth of the Eurocentric version of
modernity is the idea of the state of nature as the point of departure for the civilized
course of history whose culmination is European or Western civilization. From this
myth originated the specifically Eurocentric evolutionist perspective of linear and
unidirectional movement and changes in human history. Interestingly enough, this
myth was associated with the racial and spatial classification of the
worlds population. This association produced the paradoxical amalgam of evolution and dualism, a
vision that becomes meaningful only as an expression of the exacerbated ethnocentrism of the recently constituted
Europe; by its central and dominant place in global, colonial/modern capitalism; by the new validity of the mystified
ideas of humanity and progress, dear products of the Enlightenment; and by the validity of the idea of race as the
basic criterion for a universal social classification of the worlds population. The historical process is, however, very
different. To start with, in the moment that the Iberians conquered, named, and colonized America (whose northern
region, North America, would be colonized by the British a century later), they found a great number of different
peoples, each with its own history, language, discoveries and cultural products, memory and identity. The most
Aztecs, Mayas, Chimus, Aymaras, Incas, Chibchas,

and so on. Three hundred years later, all of them had become merged into a single
identity: Indians. This new identity was racial, colonial, and negative. The same
happened with the peoples forcefully brought from Africa as slaves: Ashantis,
Yorubas, (End Page 551) Zulus, Congos, Bacongos, and others. In the span of three
hundred years, all of them were Negroes or blacks. This resultant from the
history of colonial power had, in terms of the colonial perception, two
decisive implications. The first is obvious: peoples were dispossessed of
their own and singular historical identities. The second is perhaps less
obvious, but no less decisive: their new racial identity, colonial and
negative, involved the plundering of their place in the history of the
cultural production of humanity. From then on, there were inferior races,
capable only of producing inferior cultures. The new identity also involved their
relocation in the historical time constituted with America first and with Europe later:
from then on they were the past. In other words, the model of power based on
coloniality also involved a cognitive model, a new perspective of knowledge within
which non-Europe was the past, and because of that inferior, if not always primitive.
developed and sophisticated of them were the
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
133
Citizenship Link
Indigenous peoples must commit cultural suicide to access
citizenship.
Grande 4 (Sandy, Ph.D. Kent State University, Associate Professor of Education at
Connecticut College, Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought,
January 1st 2004, Pages 42-43 ). KM
Arguably more devastating than the direct implications of allotment was the
ensuing conflation of dispossession with citizenship. The decimation of collective
land holdings and renouncement of tribal membership were explicit preconditions
for citizenship. Indeed, at the zenith of allotment, naturalization ceremonies involving the
explicit repudiation of tribal ways and acceptance of the "civilized" life were
commonplace. For example, some ceremonies required the Indian-citizen-to-be to take
a final symbolic shot of his bow and arrow and to then place his hands on a farmer's
plow.23 Such ceremonies clearly linked the act of becoming a citizen to the
performance of cultural suicide, requiring Indians to demonstrate proper submission to the superior norms of patriarchy, husbandry, private property, and the
nuclear family. Rather than improving status, citizenship merely conscripted Indians to
(whitestream) civil, criminal, and inheritance laws, without extending the same
civil rights of other citizens. The process of imposed democracy was thus manifold with the denigration
and dismantling of both Indian cultural and economic systems. Specifically, it was believed that only after the
In other
words, after assimilated Indians were effectively -placed under the jurisdiction of
the state, so too could their lands and resources. the sweeping intentions of the Dawes
Act contributed as much to its own downfall as it did to that of tribal rights . As Vine
cultural difference of tribalism was erased could the economic project of assimilation succeed.
Deloria Jr. and Clifford M. Lytle (1983, 10) observe, "difficulties in interpretation arose .. . so that by the first decade
of the [twentieth] century it no longer resembled a national policy but an ad hoc arrangement [due to] the
incoherent method of implementation weakened the overall impact and, as a result, the Dawes Act never
became the panacea or final solution to the "Indian problem" that the government
anticipated. In 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act was passed as a "clean-up measure"
to the Dawes Act, imposing U.S. citizenship on all Amer- ican Indians not previously
naturalized. The unilateral imposition of citizenship (re)incited both collective and
individual resistance among Native peoples. For instance, the entire Grand Council of the Six
numerous exceptions and exemptions that had been attached to it." The
Nations (Iroquois Confederacy) declined U.S. citizenship, stating in a letter to the president that "they were not
Though Indians
gained some measure of protection from citizenship status, it ultimately forced
greater incorporation, providing the rationale for even more pernicious attacks on
tribalism such as the Indian Reorganization and Termination Acts. While the Indian
then, had never been, and did not intend to become American citizens"(Deloria 1985, 18).
Reorganiza- tion Act (IRA) put an end to allotment policies (providing for the purchase of new lands and the
restoration of some unallotted lands), virtually all provisions were contingent upon a tribe's pledge to
"reorganize"to adopt Western- style constitutions, to form and elect tribal councils, and to implement a variety of
economic development plans (e.g., Western conservation measures, community and educational loan programs).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
134
Subversion Link
The belief that the government can restrain itself comes from
a white view of history. The U.S. Government will
systematically subvert the plan. Only the alt solves.
Glick 90 Brian Glick lawyer, teacher, writer and activist who founded the Law
Schools Community Economic Development Clinic at Fordham University Preface
in The COINTELPRO Papers Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Domestic
Dissent W. Churchill and J. Wall eds.
whitewash should not be allowed to obscure the reality of continuing
COINTELPRO-type attacks on progressive activists. Ongoing domestic covert action is more than
amply documented by The COINTELPRO Papers, Agents of Repression and War at Home. The targets are not
limited to the opponents of U.S. intervention in Central America. They include virtually all who fight for
peace and social justice in the United States - from AIM, Puerto Rican independentistas
and the Coalition for a New South, to environmentalists, pacifists, trade unionists,
homeless and seniors, feminists, gay and lesbian activists, radical clergy and
teachers, publishers of dissident literature, prison reformers, progressive attorneys,
civil rights and anti-poverty workers, and on and on. Consider the following examples drawn
Such a
from 1989 alone: national leaders of Earth First! imprisoned on the word of an FBI infiltrator, Mike Tait"the
coordinator of the National Lawyers Guild's anti-repression task force, active in the defense of Puerto Rican
independentistas, subpoenaed at the FBI's instigation before a gratuitous, punitive grand jury and faced with jail for
refusing to testify against a former client" more than 200 African-American elected officials in Alabama, Georgia
and North Carolina victimized by FBI smear campaigns, false criminal charges and elaborate "sting" operations."
These can be no more than the tip of the iceberg, given that the great bulk of
COINTELPRO-type operations remain secret until long after their damage has been
done. By all indications, domestic covert operations have become a permanent
feature of U.S. politics. The implications of this are truly alarming: in the name of protecting our
fundamental freedoms, the FBI and police systematically subvert them. They
routinely take the law into their own hands to punish dissident speech and
association without the least semblance of due process of law. Those who manage
to organize for social justice in the United States, despite the many obstacles in their path, face country-wide covert
The documents
U.S. political reality which is the antithesis of
campaigns to discredit and disrupt their constitutionally protected political activity.
reproduced in this book reveal a

democracy. They also suggest an alternative reading of recent U.S. history. Memoirs and commentaries on
"The Sixties" have recently become quite popular. COINTELPRO, however, receives little attention in these accounts.
Otherwise
responsible historians describe a systematic campaign to covertly discredit
progressive movements without so much as considering the possibility that their
own perceptions might be distorted as a result of that campaign. Take, for instance, Todd
It is rarely mentioned, and even then it seems somehow not to affect the rest of the story.
Gitlin's often insightful and eloquent account of his experience in the 1960s. A sophisticated participant-observer
and early president of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Gitlin is well aware of COINTELPRO. Yet, at least one
pivotal incident reported matter-of-factly in his book turns out to have been an FBI covert operation. Recalling a
1969 telephone threat which helped split the emerging women's movement from SDS, Gitlin repeats a widely
accepted account attributing the call to Cathy Wilkerson, a late-SDS and future Weather Underground militant. Gitlin
was shocked to learn, at an SDS reunion in 1988, that neither Wilkerson nor any other SDS woman had made such a
call. Who knows how many other incidents represented as historical fact by Gitlin (let alone in the writings of those
lacking his integrity) are actually COINTELPRO fiction?" COINTELPRO has been especially effective in distorting the
public image of the Black Panther Party (BPP). The BPP was the most prominent African-American political force in
the U.S. during the late '60s, with chapters all across the country. Working from a 10 point socialist program for
black self-determination, it formed (legal) armed street patrols to deter KKK and police brutality, gave out free food
andhealth care, and fought against hard drugs. The BPP was instrumental in forging a broad-based "rainbow
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
135
coalition" against U.S. intervention abroad and for community control of the police, schools and other key
The Black Panther, brought a radical anti-imperialist

perspective on national and international developments to over 100,000 readers. These achievements
have by and large been ignored by white historians, who present instead only
the FBI's view of the BPP. Even books about COINTELPRO tend to regurgitate as scholarship the very lies and
institutions at home. Its weekly newspaper,
racist caricatures which the Bureau promoted through COINTELPRO. At best, such studies equate the government's
violence with the BPP's, overlooking the fact that the FBI and police harassed, vandalized, beat, framed and
murdered Panthers for years before finally provoking the party's retaliation. A prime example is Kenneth O'Reilly's
Racial Matters: The FBI's Secret File on Black America, 1960-1972. Here we find the BPP identified as a gang of
"preening ghetto generals spouting off-the-pig rhetoric and sporting black leathers, Cuban shades, and unkempt
Afros." They were "peripheral characters...who never attained mass support." In a portrayal laced with the FBI's
racist epithets - "monsters," "cold-blooded killers," "nihilistic terror" - O'Reilly argues that "the Black Panther Party
invited the sort of FBI repression that typified Lyndon Johnson's last two years in the White House and Richard
Nixon's first four." One such "invitation" consisted, we are told, of a "coloring book depicting Black children
challenging white law and order in the ghetto." Only the most careful reader will discover, some 21 pages later, that
this "outrageous Panther provocation" was actually a COINTELPRO forgery published by the FBI to discredit the
BPP." Clearly, COINTELPRO and similar operations under other names work to distort academic and popular
perceptions of recent U.S. history. They violate our basic democratic rights and undermine our ability to alter
government policy and structure. They have done enormous damage to the struggle for peace and social justice.
Though formidable and dangerous, such domestic covert action is not

insurmountable. It can be overcome through a combination of militant
public protest (as in recent "FBI Off Campus" campaigns) and careful internal education
and preparation within progressive movements. The greatest gift of The COINTELPRO
Papers is its potential for helping present and future activists grasp the methodology of this form of repression in
order to defeat it. Read these documents with that in mind, and use them well!
The entire legal system of the U.S. has always engaged in

illegal activities and covered it up.
Churchill and Wall 90 Ward Churchill coordinator of American
Indian Studies with the Center for Studies of Ethnicity and
Race in America at the University of Colorado/Boulder and Jim
Vander Wall active supporter of the struggles of Native
Peoples for sovereignty since 1974 and has written several
articles on FBI counterintelligence Operations The COINTELPRO
Papers Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against
Domestic Dissent
In Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement
the Bureau has since its

inception acted not as the country's foremost crime-fighting agency an image it
has always actively promoted in collaboration with a vast array of "friendly' media
representatives and "scholars" but as America's political police engaged in all
manner of extralegality and illegality as expedients to containing and
controlling political diversity within the United States. In essence, we argued that the FBI's
raison d'tre is and always has been the implementation of what the Bureau formally
designated from the mid-1950s through the early '70s as "COINTELPROs" (COunterINTELligence PR Ograms)
designed to "disrupt and destabilize," "cripple," "destroy" or otherwise "neutralize" dissident
individuals and political groupings in the United States, a process denounced by congressional
(South End Press, 1988), we endeavored to prove among other things that
investigators as being "a sophisticated vigilante operation."' Our case, it seemed to us, was rather plainly made.
Such clarity is, predictably enough, anathema to the Bureau and the more conscious apologists it has cultivated,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
136
For the FBI, as well as the

broader politico-legalistic structure of which it is an integral part, there
are matters of policy and outright criminal culpability to be covered up
through systematic denial of truth and the extension of certain countervailing
mythologies. Many apologists have based their careers and professional reputations on shielding the Bureau
both of whom wish to deny the realities we have sought to expose.
from exposure while assisting in the perfection and perpetuation of its preferred myths.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
137
Reform Link
Strategies for curtailing/modifying surveillance fail to question
the state itself, this allows the state to continue violent
surveillance techniques that render certain populations
manageable and expendable
Smith 15 (Andrea Smith NOT-SEEING: State Surveillance, Settler Colonialism,
and Gender Violence, Dubrofsky, Rachel E. Feminist Surveillance Studies. N.p.:
Duke UP, 2015. Pgs 21-38. KLB)
The focus of surveillance studies has generally been on the modern, bureaucratic state. And yet, as David
Stannard's (1992) account of the sexual surveillance of indigenous peoples within the Spanish mission system in
the Americas demonstrates, the history of patriarchal and colonialist surveillance in this continent is much longer.
The traditional account of surveillance studies tends to occlude the

manner in which the settler state is foundationally built on surveillance.
Because surveillance studies focuses on the modern, bureaucratic state, it has
failed to account for the gendered colonial history of surveillance .
Consequently, the strategies for addressing surveillance do not question the
state itself, but rather seek to modify the extent to which and the manner
in which the state surveils. As Mark Rifkin (2011) and Scott Morgensen (2011) additionally
demonstrate, the sexual surveillance of native peoples was a key strategy by
which native peoples were rendered manageable populations within the
colonial state. One would think that an anticolonial feminist analysis would be central to the field of
surveillance studies. Yet, ironically, it is this focus on the modern state that often
obfuscates the settler colonialist underpinning of technologies of
surveillance. I explore how a feminist surveillance-studies focus on gendered colonial violence reshapes the
field by bringing into view that which cannot be seen: the surveillance strategies that have
effected indigenous disappearance in order to establish the settler state itself. In
particular, a focus on gendered settler colonialism foregrounds how
surveillance is not simply about "seeing" but about "not-seeing" the
settler state.
Your presentation that US surveillance systems are merely in

need to reform pacifies opposition and allows the conversion
of excesses into legal activity.
Domestic Dissent
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
138
a government wide effort was

undertaken to convince the citizenry that its institutions were fundamentally
sound, albeit in need of "fine-tuning" and a bit of "housecleaning." It was immediately
announced that U.S. ground forces would be withdrawn from Vietnam as rapidly as possible. Televised
congressional hearings were staged to "get to the bottom of Watergate," a spectacle
In this peculiar and potentially volatile set of circumstances,
which soon led to the resignations of a number of Nixon officials, the brief imprisonment of a few of them, and the
Another form assumed by this highlevel exercise in

(re)establishing a national consensus favoring faith-in-government was the
conducting of a series of well-publicized and tightly-scripted show-trial type
hearings with regard to the various police and intelligence agencies which had been
exposed as complicit in the Vietnam and Watergate "messes." For its part, the FBI was cast as
an agency which had "in the past" (no matter how recent) and "temporarily" (no matter
how long the duration) "gotten out of control," thus "aberrantly" but busily trampling upon citizens'
eventual resignation of the president himself.
civil and constitutional rights in the name of social and political orthodoxy. To add just the right touch of melodrama
the Bureau was made to "confess" to a certain range of its already

completed COINTELPRO operations - such as the not-directly-lethal dimensions of its anti-Panther
activities - and to provide extensive portions of its internal documentation of these misdeeds. As a finale, Bureau
officials were made to appear properly contrite while promising never to engage in
such naughty things again. The FBI's quid pro quo for cooperating in this charade
seems to have been that none of its agents would actually see the inside of a prison
as a result of the "excesses" thereby revealed. The object of all this illusory
congressional muscle-flexing was, of course, to instill in the public a perception
that congress had finally gotten tough, placing itself in a position to
administer "appropriate oversight" of the FBI. It followed that citizens had no
further reason to worry over what the Bureau was doing at that very moment, or what it might do in
the future. This, in turn, would allow the status quo sufficient breathing room to pass
laws and executive orders gradually converting the FBI's COINTELPRO-style
illegalities into legal, or at least protected, spheres of endeavor.1 The selling of this
to the whole affair,
bill of goods was apparently deemed so important that congress was willing go to to extreme lengths in achieving
success.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
139
Silence Link
Your silence on the question of land rights ensures that your
reforms only retrench the legitimacy of the state. Prioritization
of land rights is key.
I'll debunk some of this nonsense in a moment, but first I want to take up the posture of self-proclaimed leftist
radicals in the same connection. And I'll do so on the basis of principle, because justice is supposed to matter more
the pervasive and near-total silence

of the Left in this connection has been quite illuminating. Non-Indian activists , with only a
to progressives than to right-wing hacks. Let me say that
handful of exceptions, persistently plead that they can't really take a coherent position on the matter of Indian land
rights because, "unfortunately," they're "not really conversant with the issues" (as if these were tremendously
do virtually nothing, generation after generation, to inform

themselves on the topic of who actually owns the ground they're standing on.
complex) . Meanwhile, they
The record can be played only so many times before it wears out and becomes just another variation of "hear no
evil, see no evil." At this point, it doesn't take Albert Einstein to figure out that the Left doesn't know much about
such things because it's never wanted to know, Or that this is so because it's always had its own plans for utilizing
The usual technique for

explaining this away has always been a sort of pro forma acknowledgment that
Indian land rights are of course "really important stuff" (yawn), but that one "really
doesn't have a lot of time" to get into it (I'll buy your book, though, and keep it on my shelf, even if I
never read it) . Reason? Well, one is just "overwhelmingly preoccupied" with working on
"other important issues" (meaning, what they consider to be more important issues) . Typically
enumerated are sexism, racism, homophobia, class inequities, militarism, the
environment, or some combination of these. It's a pretty good evasion, all in all. Certainly, there's
no denying any of these issues their due; they are all important, obviously so. But more important
than the question of land rights? There are some serious problems of primacy and
priority imbedded in the orthodox script. To frame things clearly in this regard, let's
hypothesize for a moment that all of the various non-Indian movements
concentrating on each of these issues were suddenly successful in
land it has no more right to than does the status quo it claims to oppose.
accomplishing their objectives. Let's imagine that the United States as a whole were somehow transformed into an
entity defined by the parity of its race, class, and gender relations, its embrace of unrestricted sexual preference, its
rejection of militarism in all forms, and its abiding concern with environmental protection (I know, I know, this is a
When all is said and done, the society resulting

from this scenario is still, first and foremost, a colonialist society, an
imperialist society in the most fundamental sense possible and with all that this
implies. This is true because the scenario does nothing at all to address the fact that
whatever is happening happens on someone else's land, not only without their
consent, but through an adamant disregard for their rights to the land. Hence, all it means is that the immigrant
sheer impossibility, but that's my point) .
or invading population has rearranged its affairs in such a way as to make itself more comfortable at the continuing
The colonial equation remains intact and may even be

reinforced by a greater degree of participation and vested interest in maintenance
of the colonial order among the settler population at large. 37 The dynamic here is not very
expense of indigenous people.
different from that evident in the American Revolution of the late 1 8th century, is it? And we all know very well
where that led, don't we? Should we therefore begin to refer to socialist imperialism, feminist imperialism, gay and
lesbian imperialism, environmentalist imperialism, African American, and la Raza imperialism? I would hope not.38 I
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
140
would hope this is all just a matter of confusion, of muddled priorities among people who really do mean well and
who'd like to do better. If so, then all that is necessary to correct the situation is a basic rethinking of what must be
the land rights of "First

Americans" should serve as a first priority for everyone seriously
committed to accomplishing positive change in North America. But before I
done, and in what order. Here, I'd advance the straightforward premise that
suggest everyone jump up and adopt this priority, I suppose it's only fair that I interrogate the converse of the
proposition: if making things like class inequity and sexism the preeminent focus of progressive action in North
America inevitably perpetuates the internal colonial structure of the United States, does the reverse hold true? I'll
state unequivocally that it does not. There is no indication whatsoever that a restoration of indigenous sovereignty
in Indian Country would foster class stratification anywhere, least of all in Indian Country. In fact, all indications are
that when left to their own devices, indigenous peoples have consistently organized their societies in the most
class-free manners. Look to the example of the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) . Look to the
Muscogee (Creek) Confederacy. Look to the confederations of the Yaqui and the Lakota, and those pursued and
nearly perfected by Pontiac and Tecumseh. They represent the very essence of enlightened egalitarianism and
democracy. Every imagined example to the contrary brought forth by even the most arcane anthropologist can be
readily offset by a couple of dozen other illustrations along the lines of those I just mentioned.39 Would sexism be
perpetuated? Ask one of the Haudenosaunee clan mothers, who continue to assert political leadership in their
societies through the present day. Ask Wilma Mankiller, current head of the Cherokee nation, a people that
traditionally led by what were called "Beloved Women." Ask a Lakota woman-or man, for that matter-about who it
was that owned all real property in traditional society, and what that meant in terms of parity in gender relations.
Ask a traditional Navajo grandmother about her social and political role among her people. Women in most
traditional native societies not only enjoyed political, social, and economic parity with men, they often held a
preponderance of power in one or more of these spheres. Homophobia? Homosexuals of both genders were (and in
many settings still are) deeply revered as special or extraordinary, and therefore spiritually significant, within most
indigenous North American cultures. The extent to which these realities do not now pertain in native societies is
exactly the extent to which Indians have been subordinated to the mores of the invading, dominating culture.
Insofar as restoration of Indian land rights is tied directly to reconstitution of traditional indigenous social, political,
and economic modes, you can see where this leads: the relations of sex and sexuality accord rather well with the
aspirations of feminist and gay rights activism .4o How about a restoration of native land rights precipitating some
sort of "environmental holocaust"? Let's get at least a little bit real here. If you're not addicted to the fabrications of
Smithsonian anthropologists about how Indians lived/l or George Weurthner 's Eurosupremacist Earth First! fantasies
about how we beat all the wooly mammoths and mastodons and saber-toothed cats to death with sticks,42 then
this question isn't even on the board. I know it's become fashionable among Washington Post editorialists to make
snide references to native people "strewing refuse in their wake" as they "wandered nomadically" about the
"prehistoric" North American landscape. 43 What is that supposed to imply? That we, who were mostly " sedentary
agriculturalists" in any event, were dropping plastic and aluminum cans as we went? Like I said, let's get real. Read
the accounts of early European invaders about what they encountered: North America was invariably described as
being a "pristine wilderness" at the point of European arrival, despite the fact that it had been occupied by 15 or 20
million people enjoying a remarkably high standard of living for nobody knows how long: 40,000 years? 50,000
years? longer?44 Now contrast that reality to what's been done to this continent over the past couple of hundred
years by the culture Weurthner, the Smithsonian, and the Post represent, and you tell me about environmental
devastation.45 That leaves militarism and racism. Taking the last first, there really is no indication of racism in
traditional Indian societies. To the contrary, the record reveals that Indians habitually intermarried between groups,
and frequently adopted both children and adults from other groups. This occurred in pre-contact times between
Indians, and the practice was broadened to include those of both African and European origin-and ultimately Asian
origin as well-once contact occurred. Those who were naturalized by marriage or adoption were considered
members of the group, pure and simple. This was always the Indian view.46 The Europeans and subsequent
Euroamerican settlers viewed things rather differently, however, and foisted off the notion that Indian identity
should be determined primarily by "blood quantum," an outright eugenics code similar to those developed in places
like Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Now, that's a racist construction if there ever was one. Unfortunately,
a lot of Indians have been conned into buying into this anti-Indian absurdity, and that's something to be overcome.
But there's also solid indication that quite a number of native people continue to strongly resist such things as the
quantum system.47 As to militarism, no one will deny that Indians fought wars among themselves both before and
after the European invasion began. Probably half of all indigenous peoples in North America maintained permanent
warrior societies. This could perhaps be reasonably construed as "militarism," but not, I think, with the sense the
term conveys within the European/ Euroamerican tradition. There were never, so far as anyone can demonstrate,
wars of annihilation fought in this hemisphere prior to the Columbian arrival. None. In fact, it seems that it was a
more or less firm principle of indigenous warfare not to kill, the object being to demonstrate personal bravery,
something that could be done only against a live opponent. There's no honor to be had in killing another person,
because a dead person can't hurt you. There's no risk. This is not to say that nobody ever died or was seriously
injured in the fighting. They were, just as they are in full contact contemporary sports like football and boxing.
Actually, these kinds of Euroamerican games are what I would take to be the closest modern parallels to traditional
inter-Indian warfare. For Indians, it was a way of burning excess testosterone out of young males, and not much
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
141
more. So, militarism in the way the term is used today is as alien to native tradition as smallpox and atomic
Not only is it perfectly reasonable to assert that a restoration of Indian

control over unceded lands within the United States would do nothing to perpetuate
such problems as sexism and classism, but the reconstitution of indigenous
societies this would entail stands to free the affected portions of North America from
such maladies altogether. Moreover, it can be said that the process should have a
tangible impact in terms of diminishing such oppressions elsewhere. The principle is this:
sexism, racism, and all the rest arose here as a concomitant to the emergence and
consolidation of the Eurocentric nation-state form of sociopolitical and economic
organization. Everything the state does, everything it can do, is entirely contingent
on its maintaining its internal cohesion, a cohesion signified above all by its
pretended territorial integrity, its ongoing domination of Indian Country. Given this, it
seems obvious that the literal dismemberment of the nationstate inherent to
Indian land recovery correspondingly reduces the ability of the state to
sustain the imposition of objectionable relations within itself. It follows
that realization of indigenous land rights serves to undermine or destroy
the ability of the status quo to continue imposing a racist, sexist, classist,
homophobic, militaristic order on non-Indians.
bombs.48
Native peoples were mercilessly assimilated at the hands of

our government. However, a major part of this process was the
BIAs surveillance, which was used to portray re-education
camps as successful, whenever in reality they were places of
cultural genocide. Surveillance was an inherent part of life for
them, and their failure to acknowledge this replicates
colonialism.
The mission of schooling Indians was given to the BIA, and conflicts arose between
Bureau personnel and Pratt. Pratts views on assimilation were not universal (at the
time, most Americans could not imagine racial integration), and he opposed making
Indian schooling part of civil service. Moreover, he campaigned against both on-reservation and missionary
schools. His philosophy was increasingly out of step and in 1904 Pratt was dismissed (Adams 1995: 321323). Indian 80 E. Margolis
education increased under the BIA and photography continued. While the Carlisle photographs are somewhat well-documented and
The vast Internet

repositories were largely composed of gifts, and collections from various BIA offices,
poorly documented, frequently with uncertain dates and locations . Often the only
thing reliable is the image itself, as with Figure 6 for instance, where the number of
stars on the flag invalidates the date assigned by one curator. Nonetheless, these
collections offer rich and varied views of Indian schools, and can fruitfully be
studied.8 Examine the closed faces of the Indian children and their teachers in
Figures 1, 3, 6 and 11. Like mug shots and rogues galleries they suggest the
facial expressions of those who have no ability to resist the gaze of the
lens or the power of the photographer to take a picture. In examining the
photographs one can also discern a number of covert institutional
have been systematically studied and written about, the bulk of Indian school photographs have not.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
142
agendas including power, propaganda and the surveillance to which

teachers and students alike were subjected. Photographs such as Figures6 and 11 demonstrated to
administrators of the BIA, not only the students state of socialization, but the teachers ability to establish discipline and order. As
disciplinary institutions, schools were part of the panoptic development that employed the techniques of power outlined by Foucault:
buildings and grounds were designed as FIGURE 11. Class of younger boys in uniform at the Albuquerque Indian School, ca. 1900.
machines creating functional sites

through enclosure and partitioning of space. Gender, age, performance and
deportment were used to rank and assign a unique class position to every student.
Timetables were imposed and enforced with whistles and bells to build cycles of
repetition. Exercises were utilized to impose graduated tasks increasing in complexity. Examinations took place at each step in
the process. Surveillance was inscribed at the heart of the practice of teaching,
not as an additional or adjacent part, but as a mechanism that is inherent
to it and which increases its efficiency (Foucault 1995: 176). The BIA adopted
photography, which as Tagg (1988: 87) contended, was both part of the
machinery of surveillance, and a metaphor for its operation. What is
interesting in Figure12 is not so much the familiar image of discipline, order and
civilization conveyed by the formal clothes, posture and conventions of middle-class
portraiture, but the caption explaining what happened to the students after
graduation. The follow-up information confirms both Foucault and Tagg in their analysis of the centrality of surveillance and
National Archives and Record Service (BIA), NRG-75-AISP-8. pedagogical
the uses of photography. Thus, photography played two roles in the project to develop total institutions to de-Indianize young Native
Americans: the photographic image system was both a record and a functional element of the project itself.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
143
The routinized lifestyle put upon Natives was necessarily tied

to surveillance. However, our belief that the data we received
was true necessarily replicated colonialism if not actively
masking it as well- they replicate this.
Following Foucaults (1995: 141) suggestion to cultivate a political awareness of ...

small things, for the control and use of men, the study of Indian school photographs
pays attention to such observable structures as: buildings and grounds, dress,
hierarchy and rank, structures of time, work, exercise, punishment, and
surveillance. Figures 36, for example, offer visual evidence of how teacher, school and photographer
collaborated to force childrens bodies to emit signs of assimilation,
Americanization, rank, discipline, symmetry and order. The freezing of these
postures into photographs was intended to convey to others, Indian and Anglo alike,
the presumed changes in the soul . Interestingly, far from emphasizing competitive individualism the photographs
suggest the replacement Looking at discipline, looking at labour 75 76 E. Margolis FIGURE 4. Male Native American students in
physical education class, Carlisle Indian School, Carlisle, Pennsylvania between ca. 1900 and 1903. Frances Benjamin Johnston
Collection, Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-120988. FIGURE 5. Laundry class, Carlisle Indian School, Carlisle, Pennsylvania between
Looking at discipline,
looking at labour 77 of the tribal we, with a quasi-military we. It is important also
to consider what was not photographed. There are large numbers of photographs
similar to Figure 11 showing orderly groups of Indian students dressed in uniform, I
found no photographs celebrating individual accomplishment, for example the
winner of the spelling bee, or the champion athlete. The essence of the new
identity was adherence to an acceptable social group, one that clearly emphasized
the disciplines of the modern self: following abstract rules, obedience to authority
and an appreciation for rank. Photography also constructed images to demonstrate exercises imposing repetitive
ca. 1900 and 1903. Frances Benjamin Johnston Collection, Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-26788.
tasks on the body, and the performance of ceremonies of power. The camera and the presence of adult teachers and matrons testify
to conditions of nearly constant surveillance. Re-socialization of Native Americans was to be accomplished by total institutions, the
hallmarks of which were what Erving Goffman (1961) termed mortifications of the self: removal of personal possessions, loss of
control over your schedule, uniforms, hair-cuts, and the inability to escape from organizational rules and procedures .
The
institutional goal is to recreate the individual to fit the demands of the organization.
Indian boarding schools closely fit Goffmans model, which included prisons,
monasteries and residential medical facilities. In the case at hand, mortification of
the self also included punishment for FIGURE 6. Very early class of young boys with
flags at the Albuquerque Indian School. Production Date ca.1895 [sic.]. Note: it is highly likely that this
photograph was actually made in 1912, perhaps in June when New Mexico and Arizona were admitted to statehood and President
Taft established the 48-star flag with six horizontal rows of eight. National Archives and Record Center (BIA) NRG-75-AISP-10.
speaking ones mother tongue, required Christian training that disparaged faith in kachina gods, medicine bundles, and spirit
guides, and ceremonial enactments of the American myths including the principle of Manifest Destiny (Adams 1995: 2324). There
were many rituals, some of which were photographed, designed to degrade the status of Indian students. Degradation ceremonies
included such practices as cleaning the school grounds on hands and knees (see Figure 28) (Garfinkel 1956).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
144
Security Link
Increasing security is justification for colonialism and native
domination
Saito 03 (teaches public international law and international human rights;
seminars in race and the law, federal Indian law, and indigenous rights; and
professional responsibility at college of law, Whose Liberty? Whose Security? The
USA PATRIOT Act in the Context of COINTELPRO and the Unlawful Repression of
Political Dissent,
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/4616/81_Or_L_Rev_1
051.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
With rationalizations remarkably similar to those being used by Israel today in defending Jewish settlements in
the United States consistently invoked the security of the

nation, and of Euroamerican settlers in particular, to engage in Indian wars,
a term which disguised the fact that the military was being used to crush the efforts
of American Indian nations to enforce existing treaties and protect their national security. 55 The U.S. governments own Indian Claims Commission, established in 1946
to quiet title to lands expropriated from Indian nations, reluctantly concluded in
the 1970s that the United States still does not have good title to at least one-third
of what it claims as its territory. 56 This acknowledgment should serve to make us much more critical of
Palestinian territories, 54
the governments attempts to justify the Indian wars and its use of force to suppress contemporary struggles
for the recognition of American Indian sovereignty. It should also make us question attempts to automatically
If lives are lost as a result of

illegitimate governmental activity, it is the governments actions rather than the
loss of life, tragic though it may be, which should be seen as threatening the
nations security. A consistently emerging theme in the suppression of political dissent is that those who
correlate the loss of American life with a threat to the national security.
disagree with government policy are labeled un-American and, whenever possible, portrayed as agents of
foreign powers. The Federalists who enacted the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts 57 claimed the acts were necessary
They accused the Jeffersonians of being agents

of France who were trying to bring the French Revolutions Reign of Terror to the
United States. 58 As it turned out, only Republicans were prosecuted under the
Sedition Act, and they were clearly prosecuted for po- liticalnot securityreasons .
because of the increase in U.S.-French hostility.
For example, Congressman Mat- thew Lyon received a four month prison sentence for describing President John
Adams as swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice. 59 As noted below, in attacking movements for social justice, the government has often
justified its actions on the ground that these were actually movements for anarchy or communism, alien
Not surprisingly, the linking of political protest to

sedition has been most common in attempts to suppress antiwar activists. 61 Some
ideologies promoted by foreign powers. 60
interesting parallels to the impending war in Iraq, which the Bush administration insists the United States must
pursue to protect its national interest, can be seen in the United States efforts to conquer the Philippines.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
145
The affs call for action in the name of national

security/terrorism is a guise to continue unregulated
surveillance tactics. The aff is a distraction from the larger
system of surveillance.
Zureik 13 (Elia Zureik, Colonial Oversight, Fall 2013, pg 49.
In the 21st century, issues of state and corporate surveillance
have become paramount. Recent revelations have highlighted the use of snooping
tactics by the Obama administration. In search of terrorists, the US is prepared
to bypass warrants and court procedures, casting its surveillance web to
include people within the US and overseas. The collection of personal data by
the corporate sector and their willingness to share such data with the Obama
administration has added to the fears expressed by human rights groups. The past
two decades have seen an accelerated expansion of overt surveillance
practices in warfare. The use of drones in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other
parts of the Middle East such as Yemen is now acknowledged as a form of
targeted assassination through remote control. With the push of a button,
soldiers sitting behind desks thousands of miles away from the conflict zone can
wreak havoc on unsuspecting communities through so-called collateral damage. An
Surveillance expansion.
old hand in the business of surveillance, Israel uses its military power to market its military hardware, drones in
particular, as field-tested technology. Palestinians in the occupied territories constitute a laboratory for drone
Like the US, Israel is immune from international

legal sanctions against the use of such lethal weapons. Surveillance
technologies of one kind or another are a constant factor that highlights
the workings of colonialism, whether in the 16th or 21st century. Resistance to
surveillance is gaining ground. National security arguments are being subjected to
scrutiny, and there is more awareness of the role of surveillance in
violating human rights. It is accurate to say that such awareness is more evident in the so-called
testing that Israel touts in its sales pitch.
advanced countries, the originators of colonialism. Whether resistance to surveillance will be manifest in the third
world remains to be seen.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
146
Nonstructural Accounts of Racism Link

Your representation of racism as the product of groups of
white bigots distorting otherwise egalitarian institutions
rationalizes structural racism.
Feagin '04 (Joe Feagin, U.S. sociologist and social theorist who has
conducted extensive research on racial and gender issues, especially in
regard to the United States, "The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity",
2004)
Although these are often useful frameworks, each has its own problems. Those who use a
racial-formation approach place too much emphasis on the ideological construction of racial
meanings and identities. Whether in the past or the present, racism is not just about
the construction of images and identities; it is centrally about the creation,

development, and maintenance of white privilege, material wealth, and
institutional power at the expense of racialized others. In U.S. history,
systemic racism has emerged out of the material exploitation of particular
groups, such as the theft of Native American lands and African American labor by
generations of European Americans. Today systemic racism significantly shapes
which socioracial groups have the best income, the best educational and
economic opportunities, the best health, and even the longest lives. Not only
has racism stereotyped people and created racial identities, but most significantly, it has
damaged many lives and killed many people (see Feagin 2000; Feagin and McKinney 2003).
Major theories of assimilation (for example, Gordon 1964), as well as other
mainstream scholarship on race and ethnicity, often view the racial or ethnic
problem as less than fundamental to the historical development and

current condition of U.S. society. From such perspectives, the problem is, to
use a common metaphor, a temporary disease in an otherwise healthy
society. One variant of this assimilation perspective portrays the U.S. racialethnic problem as one of groups of white bigots betraying fundamentally
egalitarian institutions the theme developed well by Gunnar Myrdal (1944/1964) and
his many contemporary followers. A related approach speaks of vague race relations,
with whites seen as just one racial-ethnic group among many such groups
contending for critical socioeconomic positions. Indeed, phrases like race relations
and ethnic relations are sometimes used euphemistically by social analysts who
prefer to view all racial groups as more or less responsible for the U.S. race
problem (for examples, see McKee 1993). The underlying metaphor for many such
analysts seems to be one of a roughly level playing field on which all racial-ethnic groups
jockey for status or power (see Sollors 1989). Others use the metaphor of a social organism
whose diseased parts are not functioning well, but which over time can be made to function
properly because the organism itself is healthy. The impersonal terminology associated
with these metaphors allows the spotlight to be taken off the many white actors,
especially powerful white men, who have created and maintained the system of
white racism and its long-term wealth-generating features, which still privilege most
whites. These impersonal metaphors for social realitythe playing field, a diseased
body, the functioning organism, geological strataare much more than figures of
speech. Powerful metaphors often hide critical social realities and
constrain peoples understandings, and thus peoples lives. Commonplace
metaphors like the playing field, the organism, or the free market are commonly
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
147
used to rationalize oppressive socioeconomic systems. Such metaphorical images
frequently collude in human oppression by papering over oppressive

underlying realities. Moreover, these traditional metaphors are generally
inappropriate for describing the racist realities of U.S. society. From the
1600s to the 2000s this countrys major institutions have been racially
hierarchical, white-supremacist, and inegalitarian. A better metaphor is a
hierarchical ladder of exploitation and oppression. Also suggestive and powerful is the
vampire metaphor. Analyzing class exploitation in capitalist economic systems, Karl Marx
(1867/1977, 342) used the metaphor of the blood-sucking vampire: Capital is dead labor
which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it
sucks. More recently, Eduardo Galeano (1973/1997, 2) has used a variant of this metaphor
in assessing Latin Americas relationship to outsiders: Latin America is the region of
open veins. Everything, from the discovery until our times, has always been
transmuted into Europeanor later United Statescapital, and as such has
accumulated in distant centers of power. Everything: the soil, its fruits and its
mineral-rich depths, the people and their capacity to work and to consume, natural
resources and human resources. Similarly, the open veins of Native Americans,
African Americans, and Mexican Americans, among other non-European groups, have been
intensively exploited by European Americans for nearly four centuries. The
metaphor of vampires sucking blood from many victims, while rather harsh, does strongly
suggest the continuing process of extraction of resources from one group to the great
benefit of another.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
148
Fluidity/Border Crossing Link

Fluid borders and distinctions between domestic and
international are used to dismantle indigenous tribes and
culture a static understanding of border is key to native
resistance
January 1st 2004, Pages 112-113)
Whether it is land, spiritual practice, or genetic material that is being mined, appropriated, and sold, the logic of
domination remains the same- in the eyes of U.S. law and policy the collective rights and concerns of indigenous
the extension of marketplace logic to

the realms of cultural and intellectual property not only extends the power of the
whitestream but also diminishes the power of indigenous communities, continuing
the project of cultural imperialism that began over five hundred years ago. In view of
the above, it is clear to see how postmodernism - the notion of fluid boundaries,
the relativizing of difference and negation of grand narratives-primarily serves
whitestream America. The multiphrenia of postmodern plurality, its "world of simulation" and obliteration of
peoples are considered subordinate to individual rights. Thus,
any sense of objective reality, has given rise to a frenetic search for the "authentic" led by culture vultures and
In response, American Indian

communities have restricted access to the discursive spaces of American
Indian culture and identity and the nondiscursive borders of American
Indian communities. In short, the notion of fluidity has never worked to the
advantage of indigenous peoples. Federal agencies have invoked the language
of fluid or unstable identities as the rationale for dismantling the
structures of tribal life. Whitestream America has seized upon the message of
relativism to declare open season on Indians, and whitestream academics have
employed the language of signification and simulation to transmute centuries of war
between indigenous peoples and their respective nation-states into a "genetic and
cultural dialogue" (Valle and Torres 1995, 141). Thus, in spite of its "democratic" promise,
postmodernism and its ludic theories of identity fail to provide indigenous
communities the theoretical grounding for asserting their claims as colonized
peoples, and, more important, impede construction of transcendent emancipatory
theories. Despite the pressures of cultural encroachment and cultural imperialism,
however, indigenous communities continue to evolve as sites of political
contestation and cultural empowerment. They manage to survive the dangers of
colonialist forces by employing proactive strategies, which emphasize education,
empowerment, and self-determination, and defensive tactics that protect against
unfettered economic and political encroachment. Thus, whatever else the
borders of indigenous communities may or may not demarcate, they
continue to serve as potent geographic filters of all that is non-Indian
dividing between the real and metaphoric spaces that differentiate Indian
country from the rest of whitestream America.
capitalist bandits fraught with "imperialist nostalgia."25
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
149
Claiming there is no border ignores colonial violence and

ignores the potential for liberation
Grande 04 (Sandy Grande, Associate Professor of Education Director of the
Center for the Comparative Study of Race and Ethnicity at Connecticut college, Red
Pedagogy, https://academictrap.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/sandy-grande-redpedagogy-native-american-social-and-political-thought.pdf)
Indigenous communities preceded the nation-state . 7 Indeed, the borders of empire
were drawn around, through, and over their lands and peoples. In- digenous peoples
were, thus, the first "border crossers." However, contrary to whitestream theories that
construct "border crossing" as an insurgent "choice" of liberated subjectivities,
indigenous peoples did not "choose" to ignore, resist, transcend, and/or transgress
the borders of empire. They were, rather, forced into a struggle for their own
survival. Thus, indigenous resistance to the grammar of empiremixed-blood/fullblood, legal/illegal, alien/resident, immigrant/citizen, tribal/detribalizedmust be
examined in terms of the racist, nationalist, and colonialist frameworks from which
it emerged. Nonetheless, indigenous peoples continue to be classified along nationalist
lines, casting the shadow of "legitimacy" not on the imagined borders of the
conqueror but on the indigenous bodies that "cross" them. The forces of imperialism
ensure that the current system of nation-states will remain the organizing
framework by which capital is globally laundered . Thus, at the same time indigenous peoples
resist its dictates, they must also ensure their own participation. Recognizing the power of the game, the indigenous diaspora 8 formally entered the international arena in 1940 with the
founding of the Interamerican Institute. Among other purposes, the institute was created
to assist coordination of all indigenous affairs and policies among the member
states . 9 North American Indians more publicly entered the international arena
when a delegation of Hopi peoples appeared before the United Nations in 1959,
proclaiming their sovereignty and denouncing the legacy of colonialism. Both events
galvanized indigenous peoples across national borders, igniting a burgeoning spirit
of solidarity.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
150
Privacy/Welfare Link
The right to privacy is not afforded to all people- the aff does
not prevent the surveillance of people of color but additionally
ensures that violence in the private sphere continues and
absolves the government of responsibility for private sphere
violence
One of the reasons for the antiviolence movement's investment in the state derives from its concerns with the
much of the focus of surveillance studies is on "privacy"-how

the state monitors the individual lives of peoples .3 Of course, as feminist scholars argue, the
assumption that the protection of privacy is an unmediated good is
problematic, since the private sphere is where women are generally
subjected to violence.4 And, as feminists of color in particular have noted,
not all women are equally entitled to privacy. Saidiya Hartman points out
that, on the one hand, the abuse and enslavement of African Americans
was often marked as taking place in the private sphere and hence beyond
the reach of the state to correct. And yet, paradoxically, the private space
of black families was seen as an extension of the workplace and hence
subject to police power (Hartman 1997, 160, 173). Anannya Bhattacharjee similarly recounts an
private sphere. As Lyon notes,
incident in which a domestic worker complained to her social-justice organization that she was being abused by her
white employer.5 When Bhattacharjee on behalf of the organization contacted the police to report the incident, she
was told that "if her organization tried to intervene by rescuing this person, that would be trespassing: In this case,
the privacy of these wealthy employers' home was held to be inviolate, while the plight of an immigrant worker
being held in a condition of involuntary servitude was not serious enough to merit police action ....
The
supposed privacy and sanctity of the home is a relative concept, whose application
is heavily conditioned by racial and economic status " (Bhattacharjee 2000, 29). As Patricia
Allard notes, women of color who receive public assistance are not generally
deemed worthy of privacy- they are subjected to the constant surveillance
of the state. Of course, all women seeking public services can be
surveilled, but welfare is generally racialized in the public imaginary
through the figure of the "welfare queen." Andrea Ritchie (2006), Anannya Bhattacharjee
(2001), and other scholars document how women of color, particularly those who are
non-gender conforming, who seek police intervention in cases of domestic violence
often find themselves subject to sexual assault, murder, and other forms of policeinflicted brutality.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
151
Welfare Link
The affs reforms fall under the umbrella of social justice
their critical consciousness forecloses the ability to center land
reclamation as the core of decolonization resulting in moves to
innocence
Tuck & Yang 12 (Eve Tuck is an assistant professor of educational foundations
at the State University of New York at New Paltz, K. Wayne Yang is an assistant
professor at UC San Diego. Ph.D., 2004, Social and Cultural Studies, University of
California, Berkeley, Decolonization is not a metaphor, Decolonization:
Indigeneity, Education & Society, January 1st 2012, Pages 1-40,
http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/view/18630/15554)
Freires philosophies have encouraged educators to use colonization as a metaphor for oppression. In such a
paradigm, internal colonization reduces to mental colonization, logically leading to the solution of decolonizing
ones mind and the rest will follow. Such philosophy conveniently sidesteps the most unsettling of questions: The
essential thing is to see clearly, to think clearly - that is, dangerously and to answer clearly the innocent first
question: what, fundamentally, is colonization? (Cesaire, 2000, p. 32) Because colonialism is comprised of global
and historical relations, Cesaires question must be considered globally and historically. However, it cannot be
reduced to a global answer, nor a historical answer. To do so is to use colonization metaphorically. What
is
colonization? must be answered specifically, with attention to the colonial
apparatus that is assembled to order the relationships between particular peoples, lands, the natural world,
and civilization. Colonialism is marked by its specializations. In North America and other settings, settler
sovereignty imposes sexuality, legality, raciality, language, religion and property in specific ways. Decolonization
likewise must be thought through in these particularities. To agree on what [decolonization] is not: neither
evangelization, nor a philanthropic enterprise, nor a desire to push back the frontiers of ignorance, disease, and
decolonization
is not. It is not converting Indigenous politics to a Western doctrine of
liberation; it is not a philanthropic process of helping the at-risk and
alleviating suffering; it is not a generic term for struggle against oppressive
conditions and outcomes. The broad umbrella of social justice may have room
underneath for all of these efforts. By contrast, decolonization specifically requires
the repatriation of Indigenous land and life . Decolonization is not a metonym
for social justice. We dont intend to discourage those who have dedicated careers
and lives to teaching themselves and others to be critically conscious of racism,
sexism, homophobia, classism, xenophobia, and settler colonialism. We are asking
them/you to consider how the pursuit of critical consciousness, the pursuit of social
justice through a critical enlightenment, can also be settler moves to innocence diversions, distractions, which relieve the settler of feelings of guilt or responsibility,
and conceal the need to give up land or power or privilege.
tyranny... (Cesaire, 2000, p. 32) We deliberately extend Cesaires words above to assert what
The marginalized population of the U.S. is structurally denied

access to the comfort zone of welfare. You reform can never
resist state violence.
Churchill 7 (Ward, American author and political activist. He was a professor of
ethnic studies at the University of Colorado Boulder from 1990 to 2007. The primary
focus of his work is on the historical treatment of political dissenters and Native
Americans by the United States government, 2007,Pacifism as Pathology: Notes on
an American Psuedopraxis, AK Press, pgs 71-73)
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
152
Viewed in this light, a great many things make sense. For instance, the persistent use of the term "responsible
leadership" in describing the normative nonviolent sector of North American dissent-always somewhat mysterious
when applied to sup posed radicals (or German Jews)-is clarified as signifying nothing substantially different from
The "rules of the game"

have long been established and tacitly agreed to by both sides of the ostensible
"oppositional equation" : demonstrations of "resistance" to state policies will be
allowed so long as they do nothing to materially interfere with the implementation
of those policies.89 The responsibility of the oppositional leadership in such a trade-off is to ensure that state
the accommodation of the status quo it implies in more conventional settings.88
processes are not threatened by substantial physical disruption; the reciprocal responsibility of the government is to
guarantee the general safety of those who play according to the rules.90 This comfortable scenario is enhanced by
the mutual understanding that certain levels of "appropriate" (symbolic) protest of given policies will result in the
"oppositional victory" of their modification (i.e., really a "tuning" of policy by which it may be rendered more
functional and efficient, never an abandonment of fundamental policy thrusts), while efforts to move beyond this
metaphorical medium of dis sent will be squelched "by any means necessary" and by a U parties concerned.91
Meanwhile, the entire unspoken arrangement is larded with a layer of stridently abusive rhetoric directed by each
We are left with a husk of opposition, a ritual form capable of

affording a sentimentalistic ''I'm OK, you're OK" satisfaction to its subscribers at a
psychic level but utterly useless in terms of transforming the power relations
perpetuating systemic global violence. Such a defect can, however, be readily sublimated within the
aggregate comfort zone produced by the continuation of North American business as usual; those who
remain within the parameters of nondisruptive dissent allowed by the state, their
symbolic duty to the victims of US policy done (and with the bases of state power
wholly unchallenged), can devote themselves to the prefiguration of the
revolutionary future society with which they proclaim they will replace the present
social order (having, no doubt, persuaded the state to overthrow itself through the
moral force of their arguments).92 Here, concrete activities such as sex ual experimentation, refinement
side against the other.
of musical/artistic tastes, development of various meat-free diets, getting in touch with one's "id" through
meditation and ingestion of hallucinogens, altera tion of sex-based distribution of household chores, and waging
campaigns against such "bourgeois vices" as smoking tobacco become the signifiers of "correct politics" or even
Small
wonder that North America's ghetto, barrio, and reservation populations,
along with the bulk of the white working class people who are by and
large structurally denied access to the comfort zone (both in material terms
and in a corresponding inability to avoid the imposition of a relatively high degree of
systemic violence)-tend either to stand aside in bemused incomprehension of such
politics or to react with outright hostility. Their apprehension of the need for
revolutionary change and their conception of revolutionary dynamics are
necessarily at radical odds with this notion of "struggle ."94 The American non violent
movement, which has labored so long and so hard to isolate all divergent
oppositional tendencies, is in the end isolating itself, becoming ever more
demographically white, middle-class, and "respectable." Eventually, unless there is
a marked change in its obstinate insistence that it holds a "moral right" to absolute
tactical monopoly, American pacifism will be left to "feel good about itself"
while the revolution goes on without it.95.
"revolutionary practice." This is as opposed to the active and effective confrontation of state power.93
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
153
Courts Link
Affs use of the court system is colonialist the court
historically disregards native sovereignty and land claims
their reform arguments are empirically denied
Williams 96 (Robert A., American lawyer who is a notable author and legal
scholar in the field of federal Indian law, international law, indigenous peoples'
rights, critical race and post-colonial theory Teaches at the University of Arizona's
James E. Rogers College of Law, serving as the E. Thomas Sullivan Professor of Law
and American Indian Studies and Director of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy
Program, The People of the States Where They Are Found Are Often Their Deadliest
Enemies: The Indian Side of the Story of Indian Rights and Federalism, 38 Ariz. L.
Rev. 981, 1996)
After the dramatic opening scenes provided by the Cherokee Cases, the traditional story told by
Indian law scholars proceeds to chronicle over time the failures of the federal
government in protecting Indian rights according to these Marshallian principles. For example,
consider the standard recitation of what happened to the Cherokees after John
Marshall so boldly declared their rights in the Cherokee Cases. Despite Marshall's
classical rendering of the core protective principles of our Indian law in those cases,
the Cherokees, and many other tribes, were forcibly removed from their treaty guaranteed homelands by Andrew Jackson and the United States Congress. This was a time, the traditional scholars
the Federal Government failed to live up to its Marshallian-constructed trust

responsibility to protect tribes from the people of the states. The story of Indian
rights and federalism told by Federal Indian Law scholars continues on this
contrapuntal line, following the rise and fall of the Cherokee Nation's legal fortunes in the early nineteenth
tell us, that
century. Indian law, as countless law review articles, books, and casebooks tell us, is punctuated by "good" and
The period identified with the

landmark Allotment Act of 1887,11 for example, was a "bad" period for Indian law,
according to the literature. During this half-century-long time span, running into the early
decades of the twentieth century, the western frontier states pressured Congress for
much freer access to Indian-held lands. Congress' Allotment Act policy resulted, in
large part, directly from these pressures. It divided the tribal lands of Indian
reservations into severalty to individual tribal members. The Act also ordered the
huge amounts of "surplus lands" left over after Indian allotments to be made
available to whites. Federal Indian Law scholars are the first to admit that the Supreme Court didn't
help matters much by generating so much "bad" case law during this period. In its 1902
decision in Lonewolf v. Hitchcock,12 for example, the Court immunized congressional
treaty breaches from judicial review under a novel theory of congressional plenary
power in Indian affairs. Lonewolf is a particularly egregious example of "bad" Indian
law in the traditional scholars' story of Indian rights. It allowed the white people of
the states surrounding Indian reserved territories to seize tens of millions of acres of
prime Indian agricultural homesteading lands. Lonewolf shows us what happens,
these scholars tell us, when the White Man's Indian Law fails to abide by the
protective principles laid down by Chief Justice Marshall on Indian rights in our
federal system of government. The White Man's Indian Law There is a fundamental problem
with the way that Federal Indian Law scholars tell their side of the story of Indian rights in our federal
"bad" periods, and Marshallian "correct" and "incorrect" lines of cases.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
154
system of government. As my co-panelist and former Indian Studies colleague at the University of Arizona, Vine
there are never any

Indians in the story of Indian rights these traditional scholars tell. 13 That is because the
emphasis of most scholars who have written on Federal Indian Law
focuses exclusively on the story of the "White Man's Indian Law." As told by
these scholars, in the history of the White Man's Indian Law, the great struggles for
Indian survival that finally culminate in a United States Supreme Court opinion or
congressionally enacted statute were fought only by groups of non-Indian judges,
lawyers and advocates in the white man's courtrooms and legislatures . The
traditional story of the White Man's Indian Law focuses , almost incessantly, on one
dominant theme: the legal rules and principles adhered to in the course of
this country's historical dealings with Indian peoples are the exclusive byproducts of the Western legal tradition brought to America by the white
man. These by-products, so the familiar story goes, were developed here by the courts and policy-making
Deloria, Jr., used to tell me in his smoke-filled office on the other side of campus,
institutions established by the dominant white European-derived society into a redemptive force for perpetuating
American Indian tribalism's survival. Without the European Law of Nations and its traditions of treaty diplomacy,
without the English common law's recognition of fiduciary duties arising from a guardian-ward relationship, without
the elasticity of feudalistic property law concepts to recognize and protect lesser rights of aboriginal occupancy on
the land, without the precedent of the King's sovereign prerogatives of centralized control over colonial affairs, and
so on; that is, without the White Man's Indian Law-as these scholars tell it-the Indian would no longer be among us.
The Same Old Story The way in which the story of the White Man's Indian Law deals with the federal
government's duty of protection owed to Indian tribes from the people of the states is a classic illustration of what's
neglects the Indian's role as an

active agent in the development of the rules and principles of our Federal Indian
Law which determine the rights of tribes in relation to the federal government and
to the states. The story of Indian rights during the allotment and assimilation era, for example, generally
completely wrong with most Federal Indian Law scholarship. It
bemoans the decline of Marshallian classicism in our Federal Indian Law. But, the traditional scholars note in
relieved tones, the legislation, court decisions, and executive policy initiatives of that "dark age" for Indian law
In the White Man's Indian Law, little, if any,

reflection is devoted to the question of just why the reformers failed. The
luckily failed to totally destroy tribalism.
academic chroniclers of the shifting cycles of Indian law simply move on, to consider the next period of Federal
Indian Law history, the "good" period of Indian revitalization ushered in by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.14
In the cyclic history of Indian rights in this country, no period has witnessed such a radical "change in direction" as
in Indian law and policy. This radical change "was due," so the writings of the leading scholars in the field tell us, "to
the efforts of a new generation" of white men, 15 people like John Collier, the researchers of the 1928 Meriam
Report on "The Problem of Indian Administration,"16 and the great white creators of the seminal treatise on Federal
Indian Law, Nathan Margold and Felix Cohen. 7 The story of the White Man's Indian Law as the salvation of the
Indian in North America has exercised an unshakable hold on the legal imagination of generations of Indian law
scholars. They have told and retold its various chapters in their committed and important efforts to understand and
perpetuate tribalism's survival in the United States. Given the hero worship of the great white saviors of Indian law,
it is not surprising to find a law review article that was published recently in the Georgetown Law Journal entitled in
part "What Would John Marshall Say?"' 8 That John Marshall's posthumous declarations on our modem day Indian
law still matter so much to the traditional story of Indian rights told by the White Man's Indian law is a testament to
why multiculturalists like myself dread the power still exercised by famous dead white males in a western settler
state like the United States. It will always be a White Man's Indian Law that these scholars write about, and it will
The fact that the current Supreme

Court pays virtually no attention to these scholars serves to remind us how
unreliable the White Man's Indian Law has been in protecting Indian rights throughout history.
The idea that the White Man's Indian Law has served over time as a positive,
purposive force in tribalism's persistence in this country makes a fine story, but
unfortunately it's never been true, and it's not true today . The scholars' own concessions to a
cyclic theory of "good" and "bad" periods for Indian law, and their decrying of the
present Supreme Court's inability to grasp the elegance of the Marshallian paradigm
always only tell one side of the whole story. The Master's House
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
155
of Indian rights, demonstrates that the story is full of holes in a number of ways .
When we closely examine this provocative story of the White Man's Indian Law
serving as a positive, purposive force in tribalism's persistence in this country,
we immediately confront a most difficult complication in the plot line. It is the
unresolvable complication that inevitably arises from the very nature of the colonial
situation and the relations of power between the colonizer and colonized. We are
talking, remember, about the legal system of one of the modem world's most
efficient colonizing powers. The United States began as a loose and disorganized confederation of
thirteen Atlantic seaboard British colonies, expanding its federated sovereignty over the vast, prime midsection of
North America in less than a century of frontier conquest. In the process, the United States basically eliminated
Indian tribalism as a potent political or cultural force on the continent. Given its history, how does this system of
colonizing law so potently imposed on the Indian by the United States- the
White Man's Indian Lawmanage to transcend the genocidal and ethnocidal threat it has
historically posed to the perpetuation of Indian cultural identity,
existence, and sovereignty in this country? How can such a unilaterally-imposed
system of colonizing law and power ever manage to assist Indian peoples
in their struggles for cultural survival and achieve justice ? We may never be able to
develop satisfactory answers to these problematic, perplexing questions by focusing solely on the onanistically-told
story of the White Man's Indian law. For there is something vital missing in this tired old story. As the African-
the Master's tools have not been designed

to dismantle the Master's house. 19 A deeper, more complex understanding of the
protective principles which have enabled tribalism to survive under our federal
system of government in the United States will begin to emerge only when we begin
to listen seriously to the Indian side of the story of Indian rights and federalism.
American poet Audre Lord has tried to teach us,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
156
Neutrality/Equality Link
Claims of neutral or benign surveillance strategies ignore the
history of strategic surveillance ignore the violence inherent in
the most basic surveillance techniques. The classification
criteria of land, population and other forms of record keeping
has serious implications for governing and dispossessing
indigenous populations
Zureik 13 (Elia Zureik, Colonial Oversight, Fall 2013, pgs. 48-49.
Ruling by records. Keeping records, or ruling by records as its called by Richard Samaurez Smith, an anthropology
professor at the American University in Beirut, is a cornerstone of colonialism, as it is for any modern administrative
The important distinction in the case of colonialism is that the

classification criteria of land, population and other forms of record
keeping has serious implications for governing and dispossessing
indigenous populations. This point is demonstrated by Arjun Appadurai in his discussion of the
body.
difference between the British census in India and the one used in the home country (Number in the Colonial
Imagination). First, the stress on race and ethnicity characterised the British efforts in India, in contrast to the
British home census, which in its early days emphasised the geographical distribution of the population and social
class. Second, unlike in India, the British home census was tied to citizenship, electoral politics and representation.
while the British home census sought to identify marginal and problematic
groups (poor people, criminals and so on) in society, the Indian census made no
such distinction. It blanketed the entire population for the purpose of
control as if it was wholly problematic and deviant. Thus, from the perspective
of surveillance as well as administration, counting people is not an objective,
neutral exercise that leaves things unchanged. The way people are
counted and their identity categorised in censuses has behavioural
ramifications for biopolitics and governance. Anne Stoler remarks that the power of
categories rests in their capacity to impose the realities they ostensibly only describe. Classification here
is not a benign cultural act but a potent political one . In The Census, Social Structure
Third,
and Objectification in South Asia, Bernard Cohn goes over the processes of British census construction in India as a
choices of categories were heavily influenced by

pre-existing ideas about Indias class structure, and by western notions about the
separateness or purity of races. This in effect imposed a racial hierarchy on the
caste system that had much to do with western biases. It is important to note, however, that
means of implementing imperial policy. The
local and communal pre-colonial conditions played an important role in maintaining traditional values. As Samit
Guha writes, Community structures of feeling and communication survived into the colonial era, and used the
colonial public sphere to assert their claims. Darker side of statistics. When ethical rules governing modern
governments may target

specific vulnerable groups, usually on the basis of race and ethnicity, for
close observation and monitoring, resulting in human rights abuses. The
Nazi regime, with the aid of the IBM corporation, performed targeted
enumeration to identify Jewish German citizens for the purpose of locating
and eventually exterminating the group. But population targeting is only
one side of a sinister coin. Reverse targeting is another possibility. Since in
modern nation states, censuses are associated with citizenship rights, the
exclusion of certain groups from enumeration has negative consequences,
censuses are violated, statistics have their darker side. For example,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
157
resulting in the denial of citizenship rights and associated social benefits .

As demonstrated by Anat Liebler in the case of the first Israeli census, calculated plans to exclude some of the
remaining Palestinian citizens from being counted in 1948 had serious ramifications, since these peoples
citizenship, homes and property were never documented. To this day they are referred to as the present absentees
(present in the country but absent for census purposes) and their descendants continue to reside in unrecognised
localities with no access to their original homes. Significantly, the snap census Israel carried out after it occupied
the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 was a repeat of 1948: undercounting the resident population of the occupied
territories and denying the right of return to Palestinians who were temporarily absent for study, work, travel or
other reasons. A 2012 report by Human Rights Watch estimates that between 270,000 and 300,000 Palestinians
were displaced from the occupied territories and were not allowed to return to their homes.
Although surveillance is seemingly evenly applied, this is not

the case, certain populations are deemed as deviant and are
therefore subject to constant surveillance, a premature
death in order to preserve the body of the whole
The field of surveillance studies is important, Lyon argues, because of the "rapidly increasing influence of
The growth in
surveillance is often tied to Foucauldian notions of the rise of the disciplinary society
and the ascendancy of biopolitics in which peoples become populations to be
counted, measured, and regulated in order to promote the life of the normalizing
state. Because certain populations are deemed threats to the normalizing
state, they must be constantly monitored, and thus are subject to what Ruth
Wilson Gilmore (2007) defines as "premature death" in order to preserve the body of
the whole. And yet Foucault notes that, ironically, these biopolitical moves were first practiced on the
bourgeoisie themselves. Through the disciplining of the bourgeois body, the
"nonnal" body is defined as the measure by which all other bodies are
marked as "deviant" (Foucault 1980, 123). Logics of normalization must have some
pretense to universality even as these normalizing strategies are not evenly
applied. Thus, it is no surprise that these disciplinary techniques come to be used
broadly, not just on those populations deemed to be threats.
surveillance in our daily lives and in the operation of very large-scale operations" (ibid., 9).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
158
Economic Autonomy Link (Bitcoin)

The 1ACs desire for economic autonomy stimulates a colonial
history of economic and political assimilation of indigenous
peoples within a frame of sovereign citizenship.
Catellino 10. (Jessica R. Catellino, Professor of Anthropology, UCLA. The Double-Bind of American Indian Need-Based
Sovereignty. Cuan 16.4. March 5, 2010. http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10524/23603/cuan_1058.pdf?
sequence=1. MMG)
economic power undermined indigenous governance in the termination era ,

they understood wealth to be
the foundation of, and evidence for, individualized economic and political assimilation that
would reorient individuals relation to the settler state. Termination shifted the terrain from
sovereigntypolity to citizenshipindividual, with citizenship figured not in relation to
the indigenous nation but, rather, to the settler state . With passage of the Indian Citizenship Act
If collective
it also was unrecognizable in many termination advocates eyes because
of 1924, all American Indians were granted nonexclusive U.S. citizenship, whether or not they wanted it, and
The termination of indigenous sovereignty via the

dismantling of tribal governments was inextricably intertwined with a focus on
economic contribution as the measure of individual (U.S.) citizenship . The citizenship
despite efforts by some to refuse it.17
status of indigenous individuals in liberal settler states poses a fundamental dilemma: how can nation-states that
commit to equality among the citizenry take account of the differential political status of indigenous peoples as
citizens both of indigenous polities (e.g., the Seminole Tribe of Florida) and of settler states (e.g., the United
States)? Scholars have examined this dilemma with regard to political rights and legal claims (Kymlicka 1995;
Maaka and Fleras 2005; Paine 1999; Peterson and Sanders 1998; Povinelli 2002), and Thomas Biolsi (2005), among
the economic
dimensions of citizenshipor what T. H. Marshall (1992) famously named social citizenship
for indigenous people. Those who have done so usually note that indigenous citizenship in
settler states often is organized by need. Jeremy Beckett (1988) and Robert Paine (1977, 1984),
among others, have developed the concept of welfare colonialism to characterize
the ways in which aboriginal citizens are addressed as needing service provision
and thereby occupy subordinate positions in settler states.18 Taken together, American Indians
others, has analyzed the hybrid political space of dual citizenship. Fewer have explored
remain the poorest ethnicracial group in the United States, despite recent gains from gaming profits (Taylor and
Kalt 2005), and the bureaucratic production, assessment, and meeting of need have been occasions for many
some termination supporters,

including a few Indian advocacy groups, took the governmental relationship to be
one not of sovereign recognition but, rather, of destructive paternalism (embodied by
supervisory reservation-based Indian agents).19 The absence of need, however, has the
potential to render indigenous polities unrecognizable to the state . One example of this
indigenous individuals to encounter the state. This helps to explain why
double bind was the federal determination of Indian eligibility for U.S. citizenship based on economic competence
(often but not only coded by categories like mixed blood) during the implementation of the General Allotment Act
(Dawes Act) of 1887. Tellingly, the Dawes Act stipulated that the acceptance of U.S. citizenship, with allegiance
sometimes ritually sworn on a plow handle, required severing political allegiance to tribal governments. Teddy
Roosevelt famously promoted allotment as a mighty pulverizing engine, to break up the tribal mass (Wilkinson
2005:43). Today, Seminoles live at civic boundaries when they decide whether or not to vote in tribal and extratribal
elections, when they cheer on Florida college football teams, and when they honor U.S. military veterans.20 Less
obviously, they also do so when they decide whether or not to hang Seminole Indian license plates on their
vehicles and risk them being keyed in parking lots, when Seminole women decide whether to take husbands
surnames, when non-Seminoles ask how they can sign up for tribal membership on learning of gaming-generated
benefits, when Seminole leaders serve on regional tourism boards and other governing bodies, and when all
Seminoles answer for the millionth time whether they pay taxes (yes) or just how much they receive in gamingbased per capita payments from the tribal government (the number is rarely disclosed).21 During the termination
evidence of Seminoles economic capacity and market integration coded

them as (productive) U.S. citizens, ready for termination and equal status with
hearings,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
159
non-Indians, while glaring economic need was cited by termination opponents as justification for ongoing tribal
governance. The focus on civic egalitarianism was not unique to the Seminole hearings;
indeed, the termination bills stated goal was: to make the Indians within the
territorial limits of the United States subject to the same laws and entitled to the
same privileges and responsibilities as are applicable to other citizens of the United
States, to end their status as wards of the United States, and to grant them all of the rights and prerogatives
pertaining to American citizenship ([H. Con. Res. 108] 67 Stat. B122).22 Becoming full citizens (recall that
American Indians already were citizens under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) entailed no longer being wards,a
term that referred to the Marshall U.S. Supreme Court opinions of the 1830s categorizing Indian tribes as domestic
dependent nations, in a state of pupilage wherein their relation to the U.S. resembles that of a ward to his
Foremost among the

responsibilities that Indians would assume with termination was to contribute as
proper economic actors. American Indian individuals were encouraged to take up
new economic lives, and collective lands would convert to individual property ownership; some tribes were
guardian (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 1831, 30 U.S. [5 Pet.], 1617).
targeted for relocation to join the urban industrial labor force. There was some ambiguity about Seminole
individualization when lawmakers suggested that Seminoles could create a posttermination private corporation to
hold their lands. Officials insisted, however, that Seminoles henceforth would be treated as individual citizens, not a
governmental entity, regardless of whether they formed a corporation, and they understood that collective assets
a
modernist rhetoric of Indian progress that hinged economic participation to U.S.
citizenship. For example, a local non-Indian advocacy group, The Friends of the Seminoles (whose leadership
would be sold off (U.S. Congress 1954:1058).23 Questions and testimony on both sides were shot through with
included prominent Fort Lauderdale store owners who traded with Seminoles), issued the following statement
endorsing Seminoles request to delay termination for 25 years: This time is necessary for the education and
experience of the youth of the Seminole Nation so that they may learn the English language and the white mans
ways, and be fitted to take their rightful place in our American way of life and as useful citizens of Florida (U.S.
citizenship entailed assimilation to the white mans ways,

implicitly through economic contributions (useful citizens), but this required interim federal
Congress 1955:12). Here,
support. A local Congressman, who supported Seminole resistance to termination, took the position that full U.S.
citizenship would have to be put on hold: I know that the Seminoles themselves do not want the responsibilities of
citizenship thrust upon them at this time (U.S. Congress 1954:1132). He worried that Seminoles were not ready to
manage property because of ignorance of ownership of real estate and taxes, because they were not equipped to
To be a fully progressed
U.S. citizen, agreed many termination advocates and opponents alike, required
entering the white economy. Indigenous economic success was a mode and sign
of whitening. One corollary was that citizenship in an indigenous polity was to be surpassed; another was that
take jobs in the white economy, and because they were not literate or educated.
real Indians remained poor.24
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
160
Equality Link
There is no such thing as equality, and their attempt to frame
surveillance as equally harming everyone simply perfects a
system of violence.
Farley 05 [Anthony, Professor of Law at Boston College,
Perfecting Slavery, 1-27-2005,
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1028&context=lsfp]-DD
(
The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in
prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power. So, I doubt not, it
will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage, and holds fast
to the principles of constitutional liberty. People will be able to liberate themselves
only after the legal superstructure itself has begun to wither away. And when we
begin to overcome and to do without these [juridical] concepts in reality, rather
than merely in declarations, that will be the surest sign that the narrow horizon of
bourgeois law is finally opening up before us. Slavery is with us still. We are haunted
by slavery. We are animated by slavery. White-over-black is slavery and segregation
and neosegregation and every situation in which the distribution of material or
spiritual goods follows the colorline. The movement from slavery to segregation to
neosegregation to whatever form of white-over-black it is that may come with postmodernity or after is not toward freedom. The movement from slavery to
segregation to neosegregation is the movement of slavery perfecting itself. Whiteover-black is neosegregation. White-over-black is segregation. White-over-black is
slavery. All of it is white-over-black, only white-over-black, and that continually. The
story of progress up from slavery is a lie, the longest lie. The story of progress up
from slavery is told juridically in the form of the rule of law. Slavery is the rule of
law. And slavery is death. The slave perfects itself as a slave when it bows down
before its master of its own free will. That is the moment in which the slave
accomplishes the impossible reconciliation of its freedom with its unfreedom by
willing itself unfree. When exactly does this perfection of slavery take place? The
slave bows down before its master when it prays for legal relief, when it prays for
equal rights, and while it cultivates the field of law hoping for an answer. The slaves
free choice, the slaves leap of faith, can only be taken under conditions of legal
equality. Only after emancipation and legal equality, only after rights, can the slave perfect itself as a slave. Bourgeois legality is the condition
wherein equals are said to enter the commons of reason or the kingdom of ends or the New England town meeting of the soul to discuss universalizable
Commons,
kingdom, town meeting, there are many mansions in the house of law, but the law
does not forget its father, as Maria Grahn-Farley observes: The law of slavery has
not been forgotten by the law of segregation; the law of segregation has not been
forgotten by the law of neosegregation. The law guarding the gates of slavery,
segregation, and neosegregation has not forgotten its origin; it remembers its father
and its grandfather before that. It knows what master it serves; it knows what color
to count. room,7 every great house, every plantation, all of it, everything. Requests
for equality and freedom will always fail. Why? Because the fact of need itself means
principles, to discuss equality and freedom. Much is made of these meetings, these struggles for law, these festivals of the universal.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
161
that the request will fail. The request for equality and freedom, for rights, will fail
whether the request is granted or denied. The request is produced through an injury.8 The initial injury is the marking of
bodies for lessless respect, less land, less freedom, less education, less. The mark must be made on the flesh
because that is where we start from. Childhood is where we begin and, under conditions of hierarchy, that
childhood is already marked. The mark organizes, orients, and differentiates our otherwise common flesh. The mark is race, the
mark is gender, the mark is class, the mark is. The mark is all there is to the reality
of those essencesrace, gender, class, and so onthat are said to precede
existence. The mark is a system.9 Property and law follow the mark. And so it goes.
There is a pleasure in hierarchy. We begin with an education in our hierarchies. We begin
with childhood and childhood begins with education. To be exact, education begins our childhood. We are called by race, by gender, by class, and so on.
Our education cultivates our desire in the direction of our hierarchies. If we are successful, we acquire an orientation that enables us to locate ourselves
We follow the call and move in the

generally expected way. White-overblack is an orientation, a pleasure, a desire that
enables us to find our place, and therefore our way, in our institutional spaces. This
is why no one ever need ask for equality and freedom. This is why the fact of need means that the request
will fail. The request for rightsfor equalitywill always fail because there are always
ambiguities. To be marked for less, to be marked as less than zero, to be marked as
a negative attractor, is to be in the situation of the slave. The slave is not called.
The slave is not free. The slave is called to follow the calling that is not a calling. The
and our bodies vis--vis all the other bodies that inhabit our institutional spaces.
slave is trained to be an object; the slave is trained, in other words, to not be. The slave is death. Death is the end of ambiguity. To be in the situation of
the slave is to have all the ambiguities organized against you. But there are always ambiguities, one is always free. How, then, are the ambiguities
organized? How is freedom ended? The slave must choose the end of ambiguity, the end of freedom, objecthood. The slave must freely choose death. This
the slave can only do under conditions of freedom that present it with a choice. The perfect slave gives up the ghost and commends its everlasting spirit
The texts of law, like the manifest

content of a dream, perhaps of wolves, may tell a certain story or an uncertain
story. The certainty or uncertainty of the story is of absolutely no consequence. The
story, the law, the wolves table manners, do not matter. The story, the law, the story of law, the dream
of wolves, however, represents a diuised or latent wish that does matter. The wish is a matter of life or death. We are strangers to ourselves. The
dream of equality, of rights, is the diuised wish for hierarchy. The prayer for equal
rights is the diuised desire for slavery. Slavery is death. The prayer for equal rights,
then, is the diuise of the deathwish. The prayer for equal rights is the slaves perfect moment. The slaves perfect prayer,
to its master. The slaves final and perfect prayer is a legal prayer for equal rights.
the prayer of the perfect slave, is always answered. The slave, however, knows not what it does when it prays for rights, for the slave is estranged from
itself. Of its own inner strivings it knows not. The slave strives to be property, but since property cannot own property the slave cannot own its inner
strivings. The slave strives to produce the final commodity law. In other words, the slave produces itself as a slave through law. The slave produces itself
as a slave (as a commodity) through its own prayer for equal rights. And that prayer is all there is to law. The slave bows down before the law and prays
The slave bows down before the law and then there is law. There is no law
before the slave bows down. The slaves fidelity becomes the law, and the law is
perfected through the slaves struggle for the universal, through the slaves struggle
for equality of right. The slave prays for equality of right. Rights cannot be equal. Its
perfect prayer is answered; the laws ambiguities open, like the gates of heaven,
just above its head. And all of the white-over-black accumulated within the endless
ambiguities of law rains down. Whiteoverblack is slavery and slavery is death. Death is the end of forever. The end of forever is
for equal rights.
perfection and perfection, for us, seems divine, beyond the veil, beyond death; hence, the end of forever. There is a pleasure in this death. It is the
If there is hierarchy, white-over-black, for example, there is an

experience of pleasure in it. Bodies are marked white-over-black. This is a pleasure
and a desire. Property is marked white-over-black. This too is a pleasure and a
desire. Law, following the system of marks and the system of property, is whiteover-black, and a pleasure and a desire. There are always ambiguities. The ambiguities are vessels of our desires. Our
pleasure of hierarchy.
pleasures and desires follow the colorline. In a colorlined order, all institutions are ordered by the colorline. A white-over-black orientation is required to
navigate the institutions that order life. In other words, a white-over-black orientation is required to follow the colorline, and one must follow the colorline
or lose ones way. The ambiguities, then, are always white-over-black. White-over-black is the North Star. Every correct legal answer is white-over-black.
There is a pleasure and a desire in moving to the correct answer. The pleasure and desire of moving to the correct answer is experienced as the sublime
pleasure of the legal method, as the sovereignty of death. The commodity reaches its apogee in the black.11 There is no black, save for white-over-black.
White-over-black is slavery. Slavery is death. Death is the end of it all. Death is the complete end. Death, then, is perfection, the end of all things. The
slave perfects itself as a slave when it prays for slavery. The slave, being perfect in that moment of prayer, is one with that before which it bows down in
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
162
prayer. The slave prays to itself for itself to be transformed into itself and so its perfect prayer is always already granted. The slave prays for equal rights.
Rights cannot be equal. If the slave were not hated, lessened, then it would never experience itself as lessthan. Without the experience of being less-than,
the idea of equal-to could not arise. To be a slave is to become what one becomes through the experience of less-than. The less-than experience may be
expressed as white-over-black. White-over-black is an identity and an orientation. White-over-black is a form of training. Our institutions, under the
Our institutions, under the colorline, are

forms of training in white-over-black. The sum of our institutions is the sum of our
training. The fact of white-over-black means that white-over-black has become the
form of our institutions and the orientation required to move through them. Whiteover-black as fact means that ambiguities are resolved into white-over-black. The
fact that the slave is hated means that hating the slave has become a habit and a
pleasure and a desire and a system of training (a system of providing pleasure and
cultivating desire).
colorline, are forms of white-over-black. Every institution is a form of training.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
163
Black/White Binary Link

The black/white binary erases indigenous peoples and destroys
their culture.
Welburn 3/21/15 Ron Welburn, who earned a PhD in American Studies from
NYU and is an associate professor in Native American Indian Studies at the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst; Hartford's Ann Plato and the Native
Borders of Identity; http://goo.gl/pRkCSu
Comments by Garnet and other African Americans who supported the dying Native thesis serve colonialism and
assimilation and assert colonial division-and-conquest strategy, as well as its land acquisition imperatives in North
Black historiographys fixation on the black/white racial paradigm

misses how many African American social advancements came at the
expense of Native American cultural erosion and pressures to assimilate
into cither black or white America. For this discussion, the examination Chickasaw scholar Jodi
A. Byrd presents about internal colonialism in North America illuminates this Hartford
Native context. Examining the thinking of several non-Native scholars with a penetrating gaze, Byrd argues
the following: "Internal colonialism then, in the U.S. context, refers primarily and
originally to African American oppression that then over the course of time serves
to erase indigenous peoples altogether as it is thought to account for the
indigenous within the racial paradigms it critiques .7* The subtext of Garnets haughty
America.
inscription of the vanishing Native agenda lies both in his picking order oppression of Natives, to the point of
absorbing them into the Africans new world, and in the fact that people having Indian blood went along with the
Byrd also applies Kevin Bruyneels postbellum third space

of sovereignty" to the antebellum period, within which she views Natives residing in
a liminal position "in the border neither inside nor outside the United States. "" This
idea before and after his pronouncement.
leverages an epistemology that can he used in theorizing how Native identity in Missinnuok during the century up
Those Natives who

belonged to and were acknowledged as citizens by particular tribes seem to have
fared best through a homeland orientation that encouraged their cohesion as a
community of families and clans sharing kindred identity and retaining ceremonial
practices. The Western Nchantics present another example: their reservation at Black Point near Old Snybrook
to the Civil War survived for some and why and how others lost touch with it.
dwindled, yet they managed to persist, although they were not obvious to Connecticut's general population. Those
Natives who, on the other hand, opted for Hartford anti New Haven, had ties, although they may have been remote,
to tribal bases and identities. We are talking about the early nineteenth century here, when attitudes about
intermarriage with "negroes, mulattocs and strange Natives" were much more rigid, compelling mixed-ancestry
Natives to relocate to cities and towns. What then happened to them gives historiography another layer for the
epistemology? To reiterate Barbara Beechings report. Natives in Hartford were enumerated as Natives until their
identities were enfolded into the black population. The surname Apcs/Apcss proves the oversight in colored and
African American reckonings.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
164
White Feminism Link

Your feminist ideals exclude the Native American women and
perpetuate white privilege.
Grade 04 (Sandy Grade, Associate Professor of Education Director of the Center
for the Comparative Study of Race and Ethnicity at Connecticut college, Red
I feel compelled to begin by stating: I am not a feminist. Rather, I am indigena.' While, like other indigenous women,
I recognize the invaluable contributions that feminists have made to both critical theory and praxis in education, I
the well-documented failure of whitestream feminists to engage race and

acknowledge the complicity of white women in the history of domination positions it
alongside other colonialist discourses. Indeed the colonialist project could not have
ourished without the active participation of white women ; therefore, as Annette M. Jaimes
notes (1992, 311-344), some American Indian women continue to hold white women in
disdain as they are first and foremost perceived as constituents of the same white
supremacy and colonialism that oppresses all Indians. Thus, in contrast to dominant
modes of feminist critique that locate women's oppression in the structures of
patriarchy, this analysis is premised on the understanding that the collective
oppression of indigenous women is primarily an effect of colonialism-a
multidimensional force underwritten by Western Christianity, defined by white
supremacy, and fueled by global capitalism. To begin. it is necessary to map the complex and
also believe
contradictory terrain of both feminist theory and indigenous women. Just as the political space of feminism is
multifarious, so is the sociocultural space occupied by women who identify as "American Indian." As Devon
Amer- ican Indian women differ in everything from blood-quantum

to skin color, and from religious affiliation to "opinions about what it means to be
Indian." Interfaced with such diversity, however, Indian women share commonalities
that extend beyond their gender-most significantly, the struggles against genocide.
cultural imperialism. and assimilation. While these common experiences do not
constitute a shared American In- dian history or contemporary reality, nor does the
heterogeneity of experience preclude the power and existence of grand narratives
Mihesuah (1998) notes,
(e.g.. colonization, capitalism, the Enlightenment). Critical scholar Henry Giroux (1997) maintains that "grand
narratives" interface with the heterogeneity of experience, providing for the historical and relational placement of
different groups within some "common project." in other words, while indigenous women may indeed differ in
everything "from blood-quantum to skin color," their shared experience as "conquered peoples" historically and
relationally places them within the "common project" of colonization (Mihesuah 1998, 38). Further- more. it is this
placement that connects the lives and experiences of indigenous women (the colonized) to each other while it
distinguishes them from white women (the colonizers). Generally speaking, such "binaries" (colonizer/colonized) are
anathema to "mainstream" feminism. dismissed as everything from essentialist and universalizing to masculinist
and coercive (Lather 1998). Insofar as this dismissal erases their lived experience. indigenous women view it as a
rhetorical device that not only relativizes difference but also conveniently allows white women to deny their
complicity in the colonialist project. Indeed, "mainstream" feminists have been widely critiqued for failing to
acknowledge their privilege and the historical significance of racial and class differences among women.
Women of color, in particular. have taken issue with their presumptions of a

universal "sisterhood" and unproblematized patriarchy. On this point, bell hooks (1989, 1920) is worth quoting at length: ideologically, thinking in this direction enables Western
women. especially privileged white women. to suggest that racism and class
exploitation are merely an offspring of the parent system: patriarchy. Within the
feminist movement in the West, this has led to the assumption of resisting
patriarchal domination as a more legitimate feminist action than resisting racism
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
165
and other forms of domination. Such thinking prevails despite radical critiques
made by black women and women of color who question this proposition . To speculate
that an oppositional division between men and women existed in early human communities is to impose on the
past, on these non-white groups, a worldview that fits all too neatly within contemporary feminist paradigms that
name man as the enemy and woman as the victim. hooks's critique resonates deeply for indigenous women who
continue to assert the histon'cal-material "difference" of their experiences. Indeed ,
this analysis joins the

voices of indigenous with African-American and other "labeled women" working to
create awareness of the interlocking systems of domination. particularly those
forces that have empowered white women "to act as exploiters and oppressors"
(hooks 1989. 603). The historical divide between white and subaltem women suggests
that what has long passed as "mainstream" feminism is actually whitestream
feminism? that is, a feminist discourse that is not only dominated by white women
but also principally structured on the basis of white, middle-class experience,
serving their ethnopolitical interests and capital investments. Currently. however, the critique
of feminism as a whitestream discourse is viewed as "pass," a "well-rehearsed argument" that no longer holds
validity.3 While women of color and other marginalized women have long critiqued the racist underpinnings of
whitestream feminism, I am not convinced that the discourse has fundamentally changed. Thus, on some level.
this analysis serves as a test of my own doubts about this supposed trans-formation.
Moral reformists, in the attempt to further feminism,

assimilated Native Americans to even more patriarchal roles
then they originally possessed.
The women known as "moral reformers" were the poster women of the nineteenthcentury "true woman"-an iconic figure that exemplified the qualities of Christian
piety, sexual purity, submissiveness. and domesticity (Welter 1966)? Emboldened
by the superiority of their "civilized" ways. moral reformists banded together to
pressure the U.S. government to modify its program of cultural genocide against
American Indians, advocating instead an assimilationist agenda that featured the
total overhaul of tribal gender relations as its centerpiece (Jacobs 1999) . Thus, while it is
often discussed as a repressive discourse. the notion of "true womanhood" enabled white
women to promote their class interests and standards of morality on American
lndian women. Specifically, reformists worked together with the BIA to enact a social reform program that
identified the American Indian family as ground zero in the cold war against "Indian savagery." In these efforts,
reformists served as the principal agents in the reeducation of American Indian women. Viewed through their
ethnocentric and racist lenses, refonnists perceived these women as "victims of paganism, immorality, [and] forced
subservience" (Ja- cobs l999, 1). As such, they fixated on the "plight" of American Indian women, committing to
"uplift" them to the standards of "true womanhood." Large troops of white women answered this call to duty,
mobilizing to the southwest to serve the cause in a variety of capacities: as BIA schoolteachers, field matrons- and
missionaries. In their role as schoolteachers, reformists not only taught academic subjects but also provided
Protestant religious instruction and "morality" lessons on the superiority of white middle-class standards of conduct
between men and women. In so doing. they wittingly reenacted and enforced the existing gendered divisions of
labor and power in oolonialist society. Thus, as Ameri- can Indian boys were schooled for public life and self-
Indian girls were schooled for domesticity. This "educati0n" transcended the
walls of the school building, extending into the field through work-study programs
also known as "outing systems." Specifically, American Indian students were placed
in Euro-American homes for the summer under the rationale that a change in
sufficiency.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
166
environment would provide white women the optimal setting to "school" Indian
girls in the finer points of "ladylike behavior" (Almeida 1997). In addition to these cultural
ex- changes, field matrons visited American Indian women in their homes, providing instruction in the proper deportment of cleanliness and hygiene. the essential duties of food preparation. and the daily chores of housekeeping. In so doing.
they endeavored to do for American Indian women "what farmers and mechanics
[were] supposed to do for Indian men"-that is. institutionalize "women's work for
women," and thereby ease their assimilation to white society (Jacobs I999, 26). Finally,
reformists served as missionaries, performing their duty to "inval- idate the totality of Indian life and replace it with
Christian values." transforming their "pagan households" into good Protestant homes (Deloria 1999, 23 ).
Refonnists were particularly concerned with the perceived lack of sexual morality
and blatant "sacrilege" of American Indian religious and ceremonial practices,
condemning Pueblo traditional dances as public demonstrations of "gross
obscenity and debauchery" and traditional healing practices as "witchcraft." They
faulted these and other traditional practices as impediments to Indian "Dro2ress" {Jacobs 1992. 30). All told,
moral reformists enacted a full-scale program of colonization. As BIA schoolteachers they asserted the superiority of
Western knowledge: as missionaries they proselytized the virtues of Christianity and monotheistic patriarchy; and
as proprietors of white middle-class households. they reaped thebenefits of Indian women's labor and servitude.
Remarkably, despite their efforts, the project of moral reform failed. Though there are multiple reasons for this
"failure," one of the primary causes was their inability to see beyond themselves. especially their belief in the
existence of a universal patriarchy. Their myopia rendered them blind to the matrilineal structures of Pueblo society. causing them to grossly misread Pueblo sexual relations. gendered divisions of labor, and religious practices
as degrading and disempowering to American Indian women. Reformists correlated the matrilineal organization of
Pueblo society with the sexual domination of American Indian women. Their logic reected the prevailing racist
notion that "savages" only determined descent through the mother because of an inability to determine paternity.
linking matrilineality with sexual promiscuity and immorality (Jacobs I999, 12). While nforrnists wholly adopted this
notion, they incorporated their own feminist riff, explaining the "free sexuality" of American Indian women by
implicating Pueblo men "as sexual predators" who forced themselves on "vulnerable In- dian women" (Jacobs 1999.
13). Reformists. thus. vehemently worked to dis- abuse Pueblo women of the practice of matrilineality. preaching
instead the patriarchal family as a more "civilized" form of male-fema1e relations. The sexual division of labor
among the Pueblos also incurred the ire of the moral reformers. Specifically. they interpreted these divisions as
expressions of male dominance and female subordination. failing to consider that outside patriarchal rule such
divisions might not indicate imbalances in power. In- deed, as several scholars note. such "imbalances" often
worked to enhance rather than diminish American Indian women's status, positioning men and women in different
but equally powerful and complementary roles' (Jacobs 1999). Lastly, reformists indicted traditional Pueblo religious
practices as one of the key components in the oppression of American Indian womert In keeping with the
imperialistic logic of the time, they dismissed the religious beliefs of Indians as everything from "utterly inane" to
they were so
dumbfounded by the expressed resistance of Pueblo women to Christian conversion that they imagined it must be some implicit effect of patriarchy. Specifically,
they speculated that since the adoption of white medicine and spirituality meant a
loss of control and economic power for tribal medicine men. that Pueblo resistance
was more about male greed than their religious convictions (Jacobs I999). Ultimately.
the reformist's failure to perceive American Indian women as respected and
"empowered" members of their own communities exposes their project as one
shaped more by racism than by their feminist ideals. in contrast. American Indian
women were well aware of racial power structure. In Culti- vating the Rosebuds: The Education of
Women at the Cherokee Female Semi- nary (1851-1909), Devon Mihesuah notes that Cherokee women
were very conscious of the fact that they could not "realistically aspire to the ideal
of 'true womanhood' because [it] could only be attained by white women and those
Indian women who looked white" (Mihesuah 1994. 37-40). Their awareness of the
prevailing racial order indicates that American Indian women not only resisted
assimilation from a purely "cu|tural" standpoint but also from a recognition that the
"devil worship," viewing Indi- ans' religious beliefs. in any form, as inconsequential. indeed.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
167
racial divide was intractable. Indeed, many Indian women found that their training not only failed to
"assimilate" them into whitcstream culture but also prepared them for little else beyond a life of domestic servi-
the
miseducation of Ameri- can Indian women at the hands of white women inflicted
serious damage. not only devastating individual women but also their families and
tribal communities. The physical removal of women from their homes was
especially disruptive as it prevented women from serving their traditional roles: as
warriors, tribal leaders. cultural proprietors, and clan mothers. In addition, many
women found that they had to work hard to regain the trust of tribal members who
had grown skeptical of returning "students" as the new oppressors (Almeida 1997).
tude in white women's homes (Lomawaima I994, 81). Though the project of "moral reform" failed.
Overall. the extreme isolating effects of removal and assimilation forced once autonomous Indian women into
increasingly dependent relationships. particularly with the U.S. govemment-the impact of which is still being felt
today (Jaimes I992).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
168
White Feminism Link Savior

Native American women are viewed as needing liberation from
whitestream feminist movements.
While both American Indian men and women have been subjected to the misapprehensions and objectifications of whitestream history, indigenous women have
endured a double erasure-first. as indigenous peoples and. secondly. as women .
Feminist scholars (Jacobs 1999; Fiske 2000; Katz 1995; Klein and Ackennan I995; Shoemaker 1995) have called
attention to this erasure, holding white European and Euro-American men responsible. In their analyses they
consuuct the white European and Euro-American man as both the colonizer of indigenous peoples and the
oppressor of American Indian women. For instance, Deirdre Almeida (1997, 757) notes, "in their roles as missionaries, Indian agents, folklorists, and ethnographers" white men were the ones to collect and interpret American
Indian narratives, establishing themselves as the "leading experts" on everything Indian. including Indian women.
Un- doubtedly. intellectual imperialism was an important factor in the colonialist project, especially as it impacted
American Indian women. Indeed, prior to the mid-eighteenth century, American Indian women were virtually
ignored as viable subjects (objects) of study. excluded from historical texts and documentation as a means of
what little has been

documented in terms of indigenous women's history was written from the
standpoint of the colonizer, reective of their prevailing racist and patriarchal
views. As a result. a variety of erroneous and degrading portrayals of American
Indian women proliferated. As Katz (I995. 5) notes: "[M]isperceptions of Indian women
were rampant because they were held up to the patriarchal model. Eu- roarnericans
expected men to be the providers and defenders of the family while women were
supposed to be adjuncts to their husbands, dependent and frail." Nancy Shoemaker (1995.
3) similarly asserts that "from Columbus's initial descriptions of 'India' up through the twentieth century. most of
the available written records . . . produced by Euro-American men" depicted Indian
women as either "squaw dnidges . . . bowed down with overwork and spousal
oppression, or 'Indian Princesses,' voluptuous and promiscuous objects of white and
Indian men's sexual desire." While the racism and sexism inherent in such images is
self-evident-reecting both the Eurocentric view of Indians as subhuman and the
phallocentric view of women as subservient to men--they have remained the
dominant image of American Indian women (Albers and Medicine 1983; Almeida I997; Fiske 2000;
Green 1983; Jaimes 1992; Klein and Ackerrnan 1995). The feminist analysis of the treatment of
American Indian women as "sexist" serves as the basis of their perceived
solidarity. Moreover, at the same time white men are implicated as the colonizers of American Indian women,
disempowering them vis-a-vis their structural invisibility (Almeida l997). In addition,
white feminists tend to uphold themselves as primary agents in their "liberation." Shoemaker (1995, 3), for
example. credits feminist anthropologists with bringing the "woman question" to the forefront of research on
American Indians, contending that their "early ethnographic studies (and) feminist me- ories of anthropology in the
1970's . . . established the parameters of the debate on gender in Indian cultures and posed many of the
questions that still concern us today.""
While feminist analyses of white male dominance are

in- disputable, the implicit denial of white women's participation in the colonialist
project warrants further examination.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
169
Third Wave Feminism Links

3 wave feminism is still built upon racist ideals
rd
Whitestream feminists provide various rationales for privileging the personal world of text over the so-called
patriarchal world of social transformation. They claim that writing in an intimate voice, about local knowledges,
and with partial understanding, is an act of resistance against the "masculinist voice" of universalization and truth
from the vantage point of colonized

women, their rejection of "totalizing" narratives serves the whitestream quest for
absolution and desire more than it serves the projects of emancipation or
decolonization. In- deed, feminist pedagogies that merely assert the equality of
female power and desire function as accomplices to the colonialist project . Thus, while
third-wave feminism may provide a much-needed corrective to the aporias of
second-wave feminism, the issues of white women's racial privilege and complicity
in the colonialist project remain unaddressed . In- deed, rather than respond to the critique that
that depicts oppression in "essentialist" terms. However,
feminism remained too exclusive, too white, and too middle class by interrogating the subjectivities of white
it appears that whitestream feminists have chosen to: (1) decenter the
subject entirely (conveniently blurring the boundaries between margin/center,
oppressor/oppressed); and (2) remove feminism from the political project,
rearticulating it as a struggle over language and representation. Though such
discursive tactics were perhaps intended to be liberatory and progressive, women of
color and other critical scholars remain skeptical, questioning them as convenient
devices by which oppression can be rela- tivized and the ubiquity of the colonialist
project diminished. In recent years, much has been made of the so-called identity crisis within feminist
women,
theory and the discord between and among various schools of feminist thought. Indeed, the debate itself has
incited dramatic pronouncements that we may have entered a "post-feminist" age (Alice 1995; Brooks 1997; Faludi
1992). As such, I fully expected to find, in my own mapping of the third-wave terrain, a hopelessly fractured
feminism, one so disparate and dif- fuse that its once clear (albeit exclusive) political project would be virtually
incoherent. On the contrary, I found that, despite the rhetoric ,
the feminist geography remains

relatively stable: still dominated by white, middle-class women, whitestream
perspectives, and the notion of patriarchy as the universal oppression. While some
white scholarsLyn Brown, Michelle Fine, Ruth Frankenberg, Margaret Jacobs, Jane Kenway, Peggy McIntosh,
Mab Segrest, Valerie Walkerdine, Kathleen Weilerhave integrated theories of whiteness and
antiracism into their work, such women represent the exception and not the rule in
academic feminism. 9 In contrast, whitestream feminists such as Ju- dith Butler,
Patricia Carter, Drucilla Cornell, Elizabeth Ellsworth, Rita Felski, Nancy Fraser, Jane
Gallop, Jennifer Gore, Elizabeth Grosz, Patti Lather, Car- Whitestream Feminism and
the Colonialist Project 139 men Luke, Frances Maher, Linda Nicholson, and Janie
Ward continue to define the public face of feminism, committing the same aporias
as their feminist foremothers. This is especially true in terms of their treatment of
Ameri- can Indian women, as their voices and experiences remain either glaringly
absent or relegated to realms of "women's history."
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
170
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
171
Post-Structuralism Link
Poststructural theories and political strategies are founded on
the prior colonization of indigenous peoples.
Indigenous)]-DD
The Indian as a threshold of past and future, regimes of signs, alea, becoming,
and death combats mechanisms of interpretation through an asignifying
disruption that stops, alters, and redirects flow. This stopping of the world of
signification is the same as Derridas tattooed savage at the beginning of
deconstruction. The Indian sign is the field through which poststructuralism makes
its intervention, and as a result, this paradigmatic and pathological Indianness
cannot be circumvented as a colonialist trace. In fact, this colonialist trace is
exactly why the Indian is so disruptive to flow and to experimentation. Every
time flow or a line of flight approaches, touches, or encounters Indianness,
it also confronts the colonialist project that has made that flow possible.
The choice is to either confront that colonialism or to deflect it. And not
being prepared to disrupt the logics of settler colonialism necessary for
the terra nullius through which to wander, the entire system either freezes
or reboots.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
172
Foucault/Agamben Link
Foucault/Agambens theory of biopower naturalizes settler
colonialism. Settler colonialism is the root cause and must
come first.
Morgensen 13 (Scott Lauria Morgensen, ethnographer and historian of social
movements queens university, The Biopolitics of Settler Colonialism: Right Here,
Right Now, Settler Colonial Studies, 2/28/13)
Settler colonialism is exemplary of the processes of biopower theorised by Giorgio
Agamben and Michel Foucault. However, settler colonialism remains
naturalised within theories of biopower and theories of its relation to
coloniality. White supremacist settler colonisation produces specific modes of biopolitics
that sustain not only in settler states but also in regimes of global governance that
inherit, extend, and naturalise their power. I extend Patrick Wolfes theory that a logic of
elimination constitutes settler colonialism in the genocide and amalgamation of
Indigenous peoples, by indicating that this also indigenises and naturalises white settler
nations as projections of the West. Agambens work illuminates how Indigenous peoples are eliminated
in a state of exception to Western law, which by functioning to erase consanguinity as the patriarch in Roman law
eliminates the defiant son explains Indigenous peoples seemingly contradictory incorporation within and excision
This biopolitical process specific to settler colonialism

also structures the manner in which white settler societies demonstrably
universalize Western law, both within their bounds and in global arenas. My call to denaturalise
settler colonialism in social theory is but a first step towards broader study of how
the biopolitics of settler colonialism structure current modes of biopower
from the body of white settler nations.
and require concerted critique at the intersections of Indigenous and settler colonial studies. If, following Patrick
settler colonialism produces settler societies by pursuing the elimination of

Indigenous peoples via amalgamation and replacement, then it is exemplary of
biopower. Adapting Giorgio Agamben, we find that Europeans establish Western law and a new People on settled
Wolfe,
land by practicing an exception to the law that permits eliminating Indigenous peoples while defining settlers as
Settler colonialism performs biopower in deeply historical and fully

contemporary ways. As scholars increasingly theorise biopower as definitive of our times, with many
those who replace.1
insisting that this quality of biopower is colonial, we must confront our inheritance of settler colonialism as a
The work of Michael Foucault and

Agamben and of their interlocutors must be resituated within a new genealogy of
settler colonialism that can shift interpretations of biopower today
primary condition of biopower in the contemporary world.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
173
Foucault Link
Your Foucauldian analysis of surveillance excludes the
indigenous other.
Indian Boarding schools performed the weak function of reproducing those

elements of discipline associated with modernity; Indian schooling was in this way
not much different from the disciplinary regime for American youth in general. Many
public school students wore uniforms, learned to march, established quasi-military hierarchies, acted out patriotic
rituals, were subjected to different curricula based on gender, and so on. Sports and regimented band practice was
likewise part of the disciplinary regime for American youth in general. Literally thousands of photographs testify to
The bargain of modernity is to exchange submission to an organization

for increased knowledge and skill leading to upward mobility for the individual and
stability for the social order. In Foucaults analysis, schooling habituated
students to the little technologies of discipline and surveillance. However,
Foucaults thesis on the positive diffusion of power is weakened when we
examine cases of conquest and colonialism. In the American West during the
19th and early 20th century the regimes of discipline identified by Foucault were
quickly imposed on conquered native peoples. Although in European history this
might have been domestication of the self, in the colonial atmosphere of Manifest
Destiny it was the domestication of the other. Pratt and those who followed in
his footsteps meant to modernize Native Americans in a single generation by using
schools to replicate the process of punishment, supervision, and constraint (Foucault
1995: 29) that developed over 300 years of Western history. Photographs and other texts depicting
the Indian schools provide abundant evidence of strong, discriminatory
socialization as well. In the most obvious contradiction , and despite Pratts original plan, Indian
these practices.
students were segregated in special boarding schools where they were unlikely to come into contact with Anglos
except for those in positions of authority. The possibility that such closed total institutions would produce
assimilation was slim to none. The litany of discriminatory socialization practices included: symbolic violence visible
in the before and after shots; the harsh punishment displayed in jails, matrons and Indian disciplinarians; the hard
reproductive labour Indian children were forced to perform at school; industrial training that prepared children only
for low- wage jobs in agriculture and domestic service, and the outing system that, instead of integration,
(re)produced the racialized caste structure of American society. Particular contradictions included industrial training
for jobs that did not exist in Indian country industrial laundry, or tin manufacture for instance and the capitalist
production of needs that could not be satisfied on the reservation .
Boarding schools were clearly

more effective at imposing discipline and (re)producing social exclusion than at
guiding students into the mainstream of American life. No matter how
acculturated, Indians were not generally accepted by American society, and after
the schools were through with the children they did not fit into their home culture
either. The students were thus doubly stigmatized as persons marked by their colour in a racist society, and as
persons mis-educated for their home culture where in many cases they could no longer even speak the language.
These strong elements of socialization continued to reproduce Native Americans as second-class citizens well into
the second half of the 20th century.
Foucaults analysis of biopolitics papers over particular forms

of racism.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
174
the
manner in which Foucauldian analyses of the state tend to temporally
situate biopower during the era of the modern state disappears the
biopolitics of settler colonialism and transatlantic slavery .1 Alexander
Weheliye (2014) points out that Foucault's conception of a complicated biopower is
juxtaposed against a simpler "ordinary racism" (Foucault 1997, 128). As Foucault asserts, "I am
The Temporality of Settler Colonial Biopolitics. As noted by many critical-race- and ethnic-studies scholars,
certainly not saying that racism was invented at this time. It had already been in existence for a very long time. But
Relegated to both a theoretical and geotemporal

"elsewhere," Foucault then provides no elaboration on the nature of this "other"
racism." As Weheliye (2014) argues, when biopower is rendered as the real
racism, whose apex can be found in Nazi Germany, indigenous genocide,
slavery, and colonialism disappear into given forms of simple racism that
require no account of their logics. Similarly, Achille Mbembe argues that the mechanics of Nazi
I think it functioned elsewhere" (ibid., 254).
Germany are not fundamentally different from the "necropolitics" of the colony or the plantation in which "'peace' is
more likely to take on the face of a 'war without end'" (2003, 23). Denise Ferreira da Silva's germinal text, Toward a
these forms of racism precede the

modern state as Western epistemology is itself fundamentally a racial
project. A focus on biopolitical racism as it is tied to the modern state thus
often occludes analysis of the racial logics of settler colonialism and
plantation slavery.
Global Idea of Race (2007), also demonstrates that
Foucaults theories are Eurocentric and purposefully did not

include indigenous people into the analysis of biopolitics.
Young 95 (Robert JC Young, British postcolonial theorist, Foucault on Race and
Colonialism, 1995)
One clue comes at the end of The Order of Things, in the section entitled 'Psychoanalysis and Ethnology', where
Foucault considers the development of ethnology at the tum of the nineteenth

century. Given that ethnology means 'the science of human races, their
characteristics, and their relations to one another', it is here if anywhere that you
might expect Foucault to discuss questions of race and colonialism, of the
increasing emphasis that was being placed at the close of the eighteenth century on the character of non-European
peoples and their imagined intrinsic difference from Europeans .
Foucault, however, no doubt thinking of

considers
ethnology only as a synonym for anthropology, that is the science of man and
the comparative analytic study of cultures. In producing a general model of how
cultures organize and define themselves, ethnology for Foucault is not about the particular
Kant's Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1800) which he translated in I964 ,
differences of other cultures, but about how such differences conform to an underlying theoretical pattern
This means that ethnology avoids the

representations that men in any civilization may give of themselves, of their life, of
their needs, of the significations laid down in the language; and it sees emerging
behind those representations the norms by which men perform the functions of life
the rules through which they experience and maintain their needs, the systems
against the background of which all signification is given to them . " Ethnology corresponds
formulated according to the protocols of European thought.
at the social level to psychoanalysis at the individual level; it produces what Foucault calls the 'historical a priori of
The special
privilege of ethnology and psychoanalysis is therefore that they are 'sciences of the
unconscious'-not because they analyse something that is below consciousness, but rather 'because they
all the sciences of man', that is, that which makes objective knowledge of man possible.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
175
are directed towards that which, outside man, makes it possible to know, with a
positive knowledge, that which is given to or eludes his consciousness ' (378).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
176
Heidegger Link
The affs method is inaccessible for colonized peoplesthe
colonized Being resides outside of the Oneself and Theyself for
racialized subjects are always already in an encounter with
Death; Heidegger eschews the modernity Beings colonial
aspects and sustains the color-lineHeideggers Being is
fundamentally Eurocentric
*also makes claim that heideggers embracing of death naturalizes war as a way to
achieve authenticity
Maldono-Torres 7
(Nelson Maldonado-Torres, Associate Professor and Department Chair, Joint

appointment with Comparative Literature, Ph.D. 2002, Brown University, Religious Studies, with a Certificate for
Outstanding Work in Africana Studies, ON THE COLONIALITY OF BEING, Cultural Studies, 21:2-3, 240-270,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162548 ) l.gong
Heideggers first reflection about Dasein is that it ek-sist, which means that it is projected to the future.43 But
Dasein is also thrown there. Dasein ek-sist in a context which is defined by a history and where there are laws and
established conceptions about social interaction, subjectivity, the world, and so on. Now, through the analysis of
Dasein, Heidegger discovers that for the most time its subjectivity takes the shape of a collective anonymous
figure: the One or the They. The They could be compared to what Nietzsche referred to as the herd or the mass of
people.44Once Heidegger has elaborated his view of the They the rest of part I of Being and Time takes on the
question of how can Dasein relate authentically to itself by projecting its ownmost possibilities -- not those defined
by the They. Heideggers response is that authenticity can only be achieved by resoluteness, and that resoluteness
can only emerge in an encounter with the possibility which is inescapably ones own, that is, death. In death one is
fully irreplaceable: no one can die for one, or one for another. Death is a singular individualizing factor. The
anticipation of the death and the accompanying anxiety allow the subject to detach herself from the They, to
While the
anticipation of death provides the means for the achievement of authenticity at an
individual level, a Fuhrer or leader became for Heidegger the means to achieve
authenticity at a collective level. Resoluteness at a collective level could only emerge by virtue of a
leader. From here that Heidegger came to praise Hitlers role in Germany and became an
enthusiastic participant in the Nazi administration. War in some way provided a way to connect
these two ideas: the wars of the volk (people) in the name of their leader provide the
context for a confrontation with death , and thus, to individual authenticity. The
possibility of dying for the country in a war becomes a means for individual and
collective authenticity.46 This picture, to be sure, seems to reflect more the point of view of the victor in
war, than that of the vanquished. But it could be said that the vanquished can also achieve
authenticity through the confrontation with death in wa r. Anybody can. Yet, the
missing factor here is the following: if the previous account of coloniality in relation
to the nonethics of war is plausible then it must be admitted that the encounter with
death is no extra-ordinary affair, but a constitutive feature of the reality of colonized
and racialized subjects. The colonized is thus not ordinary Dasein , and the encounter
with the possibility of death does not have the same impact or results than for
someone whose mode of alienation is that of depersonalization by the One or They .
Racialized subjects are constituted in different ways than those that form selves,
others, and peoples. Death is not so much an individualizing factor as a constitituve
feature of their reality. It is the encounter with daily forms of death, not the They,
which afflicts them. The encounter with death always comes too late , as it were, since
death is already beside them. For this reason, decolonization, deracialization, and
determine her ownmost possibilities, and to resolutely define her own project of ek-sistence.45
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
177
des-generaccion (in sum, decoloniality) emerge not through an encounter with

ones own mortality, but from a desire to evade death, ones own but even more
fundamentally that of others. In short, while a vanquished people in war could achieve authenticity,
for subjects who are not considered to be part of the people the situation is
different. For some subjects modernity changed the way of achieving authenticity :
they already live with death and are not even people . What Heidegger forgot is
that in modernity Being has a colonial side, and that this has far-reaching
consequences. The colonial aspect of Being, that is, its tendency to submit everything
to the light of understanding and signification, reaches an extreme pathological
point in war and its naturalization through the idea of race in modernity . The
colonial side of Being sustains the color-line. Heidegger, however, looses from
view the particular predicament of subjects in the darker side of this line and the
significance of their lived experience for theorization of Being and the
pathologies of modernity. Ironically, Heidegger recognizes the existence of what
he calls primitive Dasein, but in no way he connected it with colonized Dasein .47
Instead, he took European Man as his model of Dasein , and thus the colonized
appeared as a primitive. He forgot that if the concept of Man is a problem , is not
only because it is metaphysical, but also because it does away with the idea that, in modernity, what
one finds is not a single model of human being, but relations of power that create a
world with masters and slaves. He needed to break with the idea of Europe and the
European as models, in order to uncover the complex dynamics of Dasein in the
modern period -- both of European and colonized Dasein , to which we will refer here as the
damne. But we are already in the territory of discourse on the coloniality of being.
Heideggers idea of Being and Dasein is Eurocentric Native

Americans are seen as material objects devoid of Being and
humanity under this paradigm
Dussel and Mendieta 2003 (Enrique and Mendieta, Enrique Dussel is an
Argentine-Mexican philosopher Taught at Harvard, Duke, Loyola, Vanderbuilt etc.
Eduardo Mendieta is a professor of philosophy at Stony Brook University, Beyond
Philosophy: Ethics, History, Marxism, and Liberation Theology, October 14 th 2003,
Page 220)
Edmundo OGorman
presented the thesis which became the title of his famous book La invention de Amrica (The Invention of
America).3 Inspired by Heidegger , his thesis is a masterly ontological analysis which far exceeds the
limits of perfunctory anecdotal material. Taking as a point of departure the European concept
of "being in the world of the likes of Columbus or of Amerigo Vespucio, then the notional
"American being" is generated from the idea of "Asian being since the islands of
the Caribbean were understood to be properly situated in the great ocean adjacent
to the continent of Asia, just like the archipelagos of Japan or of the Philippines. As far as Europe
was concerned, there only existed Africa to the south and Asia to the east. America
simply was not there. "When it is claimed writes OGorman, "that America was invented,
we are dealing with an attempt to explain a being (Dasein) whose
existence depends on the way that it is understood by Western culture.
The coming into being of America is an event that depends on the form of its
appearance. Accordingly Western culture has the "creative capacity of giving its own
Incredible as it may seem, it is now more than 30 years since the historian
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
178
existence to a being which that culture understands to be different and alien .5 This
vision which to a certain extent is creative ex nihilo of being or of the meaning of
entity is the way in which many historians conceive what is essentially South American; this also applies to
Church history. The native American was seen as a mere material being, devoid
of feeling, of history, and of humanity-even his name , "Indian," was of Asian
origin since it was believed that he was a Hindu from India; he was merely a
potential recipient of evangelisation who could not and was not expected to make
any contribution of any kind-an invented non-being. This is an extreme, Eurocentric point of view which has, nevertheless, been postulated by a South American
historian-an extraordinarily absurd piece of self-deception!
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
179
Heidegger Link Throwness

Heideggers theory of thrownness ignores the totalizing nature
of colonialism that prevents the colonized from defining their
subjectivity.
Winnubst 8 (SHANNON WINNUBST Department of Religion and Philosophy
Southwestern University, Symposia on Gender, Race and Philosophy, Winter 2008)
the totalizing logic of colonialism that may undergird Olivers
analysis. While I agree that the deepest damages wrought by colonialism occur through
the social identification of the colonized with the colonizer , I also want to follow post-colonial
First of all, I wonder about
theorists work on challenging the totality of this reduction of the social field to the colonizers terms. A long section
Sexism, racism, and homophobia are

covered over and denied within dominant culture through the double movement of
the colonization of psychic space, which operates first as a form of social abjection
and exclusion and second as a form of silencing. Both operations undermine the
ability of those othered to create their own meaning, especially that of their own
bodies and experiences. As Fanon says, they arrive too late into a world that already has
constructed their meaning as abject and debased . They are doubly alienated and doubly
from Oliver will help to refine my question. She writes,
excluded through the absences of supportive social space within mainstream culture to express painful and angry
this belatedness of the colonizeda subject that

she problematically aligns with the dynamics of sexism, racism, and homophobia here is the primary
obstacle to full inclusion within the social codes of meaning. As she writes in a
Heideggerian vein elsewhere, while all humans may experience the problematic
dynamic of being thrown into a world of meaning not of their making, the colonized
are thrown there as those incapable of making meaning, as those whose meaning
has already been defined as abject and less than fully human (26). The temporality of
affects. (Oliver 2004, 88, my emphasis) For Oliver,
belatedness connotes, for Oliver, the condition of foreclosure into the social field of meaning and it is from this
condition that the colonized must struggle to resignify the social fielda field of meaning that has been saturated
by the colonial systems. To make this argument, Oliver must assume that the processes of colonization are always
completethat is, that any social field of meaning preceding the advent of colonization is utterly wiped-out by the
Colonialism becomes a kind of ex nihilo origin here,

erasing any temporality of before colonialism. Moreover, as such pure origins
often do, colonialism also becomes a totalizing logic, disallowing any fractures or
slippages within its mechanisms. While Oliver must account for some kind of slippage in the semiotic
oppressive dynamics of colonialism.
field that allows for the re-idealization that leads to her Kristevan intimate revolt,2 that slippage only occurs
after colonialism as a kind of working out of the paradoxical and often contradictory logic endemic to it.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
180
Heidegger Link Being

Heidegger builds the idea of a disposable colonized other into
his conception of being.
Maldono-Torres 7 (Nelson Maldonado-Torres, Associate Professor and Department Chair, Joint
The concept of the coloniality of Being is best understood in light of the discussion of the ego conquiro and
Manichean misanthropic skepticism in the first section. I argued that the ego conquiro and misanthropic skepticism
remained unquestioned by Descartess formulation of the ego cogito and his methodic doubt. He could imagine an
evil demon who deceives people about their apparent certainties, but could not observe an ego conquiro at work in
the consciousness of the European (and, if we follow Dussel and Quijano, in his own presuppositions as well) and
how it made everyone to take for granted the inhumanity of colonized peoples. How does this relate to ontology
Heideggers critical response to the subjective and epistemological turn of

modern philosophy achieved by Descartes consisted in pointing out an alleged
forgetfulness in Descartess thought. Heidegger correctly suggests that Descartes
and basically all of modern philosophy after him focused rather exclusively on the
question of the ego cogito. Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am, however, introduced, what
was for Heidegger a more fundamental notion than the cogito itself: the very
concept of Being. I THINK, therefore I am turned for him into I think, therefore I AM.
The question of Being appears in the second part of the Cartesian formulation -- the
I AM.48 Focusing on the second part of the expression, Heidegger wanted to oppose the modern
tradition of philosophy as epistemology with his own fundamental ontolo gy. Now, in light
and Being?
of what has been said about the ego conquiro and the misanthropic doubt that remains unquestioned in Descartess
it is possible to point out what both Descartes and Heidegger missed in

their philosophical views. If the ego cogito was built upon the foundations of the ego
conquiro, the I think, therefore I am presupposes two unacknowledged dimensions.
Beneath the I think we can read others do not think, and behind the I am it is
possible to locate the philosophical justification for the idea that others are not or
do not have being. In this way we are led to uncover the complexity of the Cartesian formulation. From I
think, therefore I am we are led to the more complex and both philosophically and
historically accurate expression: I think (others do not think, or do not think
properly), therefore I am (others are-not, lack being, should not exist or
are dispensable). The Cartesian formulation privileges epistemology, which
simultaneously hides both what could be regarded as the coloniality of knowledge (others do
not think) and the coloniality of Being (others are not). Heideggers ontological turn missed these
two unacknowledged components of Descartess formulation . Cartesian
epistemology and Heideggerian ontology presuppose the coloniality of
knowledge and the coloniality of Being. In what was unmentioned and presupposed in
formulation,
Descartess formulation we find thus the fundamental link between the colonialidad del saber (coloniality of
knowledge) and the colonialidad del ser (coloniality of being). The absent of rationality is articulated in modernity
Misanthropic skepticism and racism work

together with ontological exclusion. It is in this way that we better understand Frantz
Fanons idea that in a colonial anti-black world the Black does not have
ontological resistance or ontological weight in the eyes of the white. 49 He
also says that when the black person is going to speak with whites, reason flees
away and irrationality imposes the terms of the conversation .50 The lack of
ontological resistance is linked with the absence of rationality and viceversa.
with the idea of the absence of Being in others.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
181
Heidegger Starting Point Link

Wrong starting point: the problem isnt the selfs Being, but
the suppression of the Others. You make colonialism
inevitable.
For Fanon, the black is not a being or simply nothingness. The Black is something
else. The enigma of blackness appears as the very radical starting point to think
about the coloniality of Being. While Heideggers focus on Being required reflection on
Daseins comportment and existentialia, reflection on the coloniality of Being
requires elucidation of the fundamental existential traits of the black and the
colonized. In this way, from Descartess Meditations we move to the territory of Fanonian meditations.51 The
Black, people of color, and the colonized become the radical points of departure for
any reflection on the coloniality of Being. Following Fanon, I will use a concept that refers
to the colonial subject, equivalent in some way to Dasein but marking the aspects of the coloniality of
Being: the damne or condemned of the earth . The damne is for the coloniality of
Being what Dasein is for fundamental ontology, but, as it were, in reverse . The
Damne is for European Dasein the being who is not there. I want to argue that they are
not independent of each other but that, without awareness of coloniality , reflection
on Dasein and Being involve the erasure of the damne and the coloniality of Being .
If there has been a problem in modern Western civilization it has not been
so much forgetfulness of Being, as Heidegger believed, but suppression of
the understanding of coloniality in all its aspects and lack of recognition of
the efforts by the damnes to overcome the imposed limits by the cruel
reality of damnation or the naturalization of war. This is part of what a project of
Fanonian meditations would aim to elucidate. Fanonian meditations would articulate new categories for
philosophical disquisition. For the purpose of clarity and consistency, I will only introduce and briefly discuss some
of the elements that stand as parallels to Heideggers efforts
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
182
Derrida Link
Derridean conceptions of logocentrism frame natives as an
ancillary presence to be coopted and used as tools of
Westernized philosophy
Indigenous)]-DD
But what of the tattooed savages that both Flaubert and Derrida announce but who remain unacknowledged
throughout the rest of the text? How might we approach the present absence, the supplemental gap, of their
Derridas body of work questions how Western thought and philosophy

have privileged logocentrism and speech as the foundational principles of meaning
it is a system that, according to Derrida, has depended upon the assumption that
logos is linear, stable, and reliant upon a master-signifier to order meaning.
Derridas critique of logocentrism at the heart of deconstruction opens for literary
scholars instability, movement, doubling, and tension as it looks to how writing
depends upon repression of that which threatens presence and the mastering of
absence. 25 The verb to be as the presence of the present within Western
philosophy gestures, Derrida suggests, toward something else, something Byrd, Jodi A.
signification?
(2011-09-06). The Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous)
prior to the act of enunciation. That prior calls

into tension the non-presence of that present and the absent Other, past and future,
against whom the present aligns itself to come into Being. And it raises concerns
about the stakes of all presence that depends always already upon that which is
absent. The tattooed savages function as a prior to Writing and Difference, as an
ancillary presence that is necessary to make Western philosophy a possible
category of consideration. While tattooed savages may evoke and remain as the
trace of Claude Lvi-Strausss work that Derrida discusses later in the essay
Structure, Sign, and Play , as Gerald Vizenor observes, the Indian, here in the
guise of the tattooed savages, is a mundane romance, the advertisement of the
other in narratives. 26 As presence and absence, tattooed savages play on the
edges of Derridas text as signs of raw, primal irrationality, primitivism, and myths
of dominance. Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06). The Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism (First
(p. 8). University of Minnesota Press. Kindle Edition.
Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (p. 8). University of Minnesota Press. Kindle Edition.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
183
Deleuze Link
Deleuze assumes the position of the colonizer in his totalistic
representations of indigenous peoples.
Indigenous)]-DD
Miller has criticized Deleuze and Guattari for their ethnographic and
representational authority here that allows them to speak as and for the Hopi
as if they either were in total control of Hopi thought or were Hopi
themselves. Through the power of anthropological borrowing, the authors have achieved a mind-meld with
Christopher L.
an alien people. 56 The Hopi (who became the site of a national affective investment in multicultural liberal
democracy as the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign circulated the faux-Hopi prophecy We are the ones weve been
waiting for) are transformed into the logocentric imperial order that cannot tolerate any systemic line of flight. 57
As the logocentric regime, the Hopi can only exclude, scapegoat, curse, or put to
flight that which threatens their structures. 58 In other words, the Hopi in this plane
become the colonizing, imperial regime that sacrifices and expels. Your only
choice in this system, according to Deleuze and Guattari, will be between a goats
ass and the face of the god, between sorcerers and priests . 59 Much can be made here of
the ironies of the jumping Hopi who is made to serve in Deleuzian thought as the example of the imperial,
colonial panoptic order that is abjected back onto the Hopi in order for Deleuze and
Guattari to provide a critique of Freud and the psychoanalytic mode of interpretation. Perversely,
however, Deleuze and Guattari, in their suspect choice to frame the Hopi as an
example of the imperial regime of signs, acknowledge something that the colonizing
United States has not, in spite Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06). The Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of
Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (pp. 15-16). University of Minnesota Press. Kindle Edition. of
the treaties and land holdings the Hopi have made and retained they see the Hopi
as a State. And certainly, Deleuze and Guattaris delineation here could be deployed
to demonstrate the degree to which indigenous nationalisms depend upon
signifying regimes, normativities, and assertions of sovereignty grounded in the
ability to include/ exclude that is found in the executive and juridical pronunciations
of the state of emergency that Giorgio Agamben discusses in Homo Sacer. 60 But
that is not the function of their Hopi example. Rather, the turn to the Hopi
serves a structuralist move that stands in the breach of the real of their
own colonialist discursive evocation. Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06). The Transit of Empire:
Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (p. 16). University of Minnesota Press.
Kindle Edition.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
184
Incorporation/Welfare Link
The affs focus on racialization within the welfare system reinscribes the original colonial injury also dissolves native
claims of sovereignty and self-determination as simply a
question of inclusion/exclusion
Byrd 11 (Jodi A., Ph.D. University of Iowa Associate Professor of English and
American Indian Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, The
Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism, 2011, Pages xxiii-xxiv)
racialization in the United States now
often evokes colonization as a metonym, such discursive elisions obfuscate
the distinctions between the two systems of dominance and the coerced
complicities amid both.15 The generally accepted theorizations of racialization in the
United States have, in the pursuit of equal rights and enfranchisements, tended to be sited along
the axis of inclusion/exclusion as the affective critique of the larger project of liberal
multiculturalism. When the remediation of the colonization of American
Indians is framed through discourses of racialization that can be redressed
by further inclusion into the nation-state, there is a significant failure to
grapple with the fact that such discourses further reinscribe the original
colonial injury.16 As Kanaka Maoli scholar J. KehaulaniKauanui, White Earth Ojibwe scholar Jean M. O'Brien,
and other indigenous scholars have noted, the conflation of racialization into colonization and
indigeneity into racial categories dependent upon blood logics underwrites the
institutions of settler colonialism when they proffer assimilation into the colonizing
nation as reparation for genocide and theft of lands and nations . 17 But the larger
concern is that this conflation masks the territoriality of conquest by
assigning colonization to the racialized body, which is then policed in its
degrees from whiteness. Under this paradigm, American Indian national
assertions of sovereignty, self-determination, and land rights disappear
into U.S. terrioriality as indigenous identity becomes a racial identity and
citizens of colonized indigenous nations become internal ethnic minorities within the
colonizing nation-state.
When these two historical processes are so enmeshed that
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
185
Nonviolence Link Surveillance Specific

Nonviolence is complicit in settler colonial surveillance and is
part of a genocidal elimination of alternative forms of
resistance.
Dubrofsky 15 Rachel E. Dubrofsky; Dubrofsky is an associate professor in
Humanities and Cultural Studies; Feminist Surveillance Studies;
https://goo.gl/7eFkrU
the apparatus of settler colonial surveillance does not impact
only native peoples. The normalizing society must necessarily inflict the logics of
normalization on all peoples, not just on those who are oppressed. If it were only the
oppressed who were subjected to normalizing logics, the logics would not seem
normal. This is why the intent of genocide is not just to destroy native
peoples, but to eliminate alternatives to the settler state for nonnative peoples.
If alternatives to the white supremacist, capitalist, heteropatriarchal settler state were to persist, the
settler states status as the prototype for normal would be at risk . Settler logics inform both
It is important to note that
how violence against native women is addressed, as well as how gender violence in general is addressed.
the mainstream antiviolence movement relies on a settler

framework for combating violence in ways that make it complicit in the
states surveillance strategies. These strategies then inform how the
mainstream movement manages and sees gender violence, while
simultaneously preventing it from seeing other approaches to ending
violence. For example, at an antiviolence conference I attended, the participants supported the war in
Furthermore,
Afghanistan because they believed it would liberate women from the violence of the Taliban; their reliance on statedriven surveillance strategies for addressing violence through the military and criminal-justice systems prevented
them from seeing that militarism itself perpetuates violence against women.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
186
Nonviolence Link
Pacifism is racist and a long term barrier to real change.
In displacing massive state violence onto people of color both outside and
inside the mother country, rather than absorbing any real measure of it
themselves (even when their physical intervention might undercut the state's ability to inflict violence on
nonwhites) , pacifists can only be viewed as being objectively racist . Racism itself
has been accurately defined as a pathology.136 Within the context of pacifism, the basic strain must be considered
as complicated by an extremely convoluted process of victim-blaming under the guise of "antiracism" (a matter
both
displacement of violence and victim-blaming intertwine in their establishment of a
comfort zone for whites who utilize it (perhaps entirely subconsciously) as a basis
for "prefiguring" a complex of future "revolutionary" social relations which could
serve to largely replicate the present privileged social position of whites , vis-a-vis
linking back to the above-mentioned delusional characteristics of the pathology of pacifism). Finally,
nonwhite, as a cultural/ intellectual "elite."137 The duster of subparts encompassed by this overall aspect of the
pacifist pathology is usually marked by a pronounced tendency on the part of those suffering the illness to react
emotionally and with considerable defensiveness to any discussion (in some cases, mere mention) of the nature of
racist behaviors. The behavior is typically manifested in agitated assertions-usually with no accusatory finger
having been pointed-to the effect that "I have nothing to be ashamed of" or "J have no reason to feel guilty." As with
any pathology, this is the proverbial telltale clue indicating she is subliminally aware that s/he has much to be
ashamed of and is experiencing considerable guilt as a result. Such avoidance may, in extreme cases, merge once
In its core impulse to

prostrate itself before the obvious reality of the violence inherent in state power,
pacifism not only inverts Emiliano Zapata's famous dictum that "It is better to die on one's feet than to live on
one's knees;" it actually posits the proposition that is it best to die on one's knees and
seeks to achieve this result as a matter of principle . Pacifist Eros is thus transmuted into
Thanatos.139 While it seems certain that at least a portion of pacifism's propensity
toward suicide is born of the earlier-mentioned delusion that it can impel
nonviolence on the part of the state (and is therefore simply erroneous), there is a
likelihood that one of two other factors is at work in many cases: 1. A sublimated
death wish manifesting itself in a rather commonly remarked "gambler's neurosis "
(i.e., "Can I risk every thing and win?"). 2. A desublimated death wish manifesting itself in a
"political" equivalent of walking out in front of a bus ("Will it hit me or not?"). In any event, this
again with delusional characteristics of the pathology.138 PACIFISM IS SUICIDAL.
suicidal pathology may be assumed to follow the contours of other such impulses, centering on repressed guilt
neuroses and associated feelings of personal inadequacy (in all probability linked to the above-mentioned
subliminal racism) and severely complicated by a delusional insistence that the death wish itself constitutes a "prolife" impetus. It is interesting o note that the latter claim has been advanced relative to Euro pean Jews during the
it is easy enough to discern that pacifism-far from

being a praxis adequate to impel revolutionary change-assumes the configuration of
a pathological illness when advanced as a political methodology. Given its deep
seated, superficially self-serving, and socially approved nature, it is likely to be an
exceedingly difficult pathology to treat and a long-term barrier to the formation
of revolutionary consciousness/action in the North America. Yet it is a barrier that must be
1940s.140 From even this scanty profile,
overcome if revolutionary .change is to occur, and for this reason, we turn to the questions of the nature of the role
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
187
of nonviolent political action within a viable American transformative praxis, as well as preliminary formulation of a
therapeutic approach to the pathology of pacifism.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
188
Nonviolence strangles the revolution

an American Psuedopraxis, AK Press, pg 57)
Jackson's exceedingly honest, ifmore than passingly cynical, outlook was tacitly shared by King. 45
The essential
contradiction inherent to pacifist praxis is that, for survival itself, any nonviolent
confrontation of state power must ultimately depend either on the state refraining
from unleashing some real measure of its potential violence, or the active presence
of some counterbalancing violence of precisely the sort pacifism professes to reject
as a political option. Absurdity clearly abounds when suggesting that the state will
refrain from using all necessary physical force to protect against undesired forms of
change and threats to its safety. Non violent tacticians imply (perhaps unwittingly)
that the "immoral state" which they seek to transform will somehow exhibit exactly
the same sort of superior morality they claim for themselves (Le., at least a relative degree
ofnonviolence). The fallacy ofsuch a proposition is best demonstrated by the nazi state's removal of its "Jewish threat."46 Violent
intervention by others divides itselfnaturally into the two parts represented by Gandhi's unsolicited "windfall" ofmas sive violence
directed against his opponents and King's rather more conscious and deliberate utilization of incipient antistate violence as a means
of advancing his own pacifist agenda. His tory is replete with variations on these two subthemes, but varia: tions do little to alter the
crux of the situation: there simply has never been a revolution, or even a substantial social reorganiza tion, brought into being on
In every instance, violence has been an integral

requirement of the process of transforming the state. Pacifist praxis (or, more
appropriately, pseudo-praxis), if fol lowed to its logical conclusions, leaves its adherents with but two
possible outcomes to their line of action: 1 . To render themselves perpetually
ineffectual (and consequently unthreatening) in the face of state power, in which
case they will likely be largely ignored by the status quo and self-eliminating in
terms of revolutionary potential; or, 2. To make themselves a clear and apparent
danger to the state, in which case they are subject to physical liquidation by the
status quo and are self-eliminating in terms of revolutionary potential . In
either event-mere ineffectuality or suicide-the objective conditions leading to the necessity for
social revolution re main unlikely to be altered by purely pacifist strategies. As these
conditions typically include war, the induced starvation of whole populations, and
the like, pacifism and its attendant sacrifice of life cannot even be rightly said to
have substantially impacted the level of evident societal violence. The mass
suffering that revolution is intended to alleviate will continue as the
revolution strangles itself on the altar of "nonviolence ."
the basis of the principles of paci fism.47
Nonviolent politics excludes violence resistance, which is the

only way to confront the oppressive apparatus.
FBIs Secret War Against the Black Panther Party pgs 15-16 ) KM
For much too long, the history of the Party has been the preserve of poseurs and
opportunists, deployed mainly as a moral lesson on why the ideals of liberation
are inherently unrealistic, the consequences of serious struggle towards such
goals much too severe to be undertaken by reasonable people.668 The latter,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
189
such purveyors of political pragmatism habitually insist, are devoted exclusively

to modes of activism centering in a nonviolent and an at best
incrementally progressive vision rather than one of revolutionary
transformation, their strategies devoted exclusively to situational renegotiations
of the social contract through such state-sanctioned tactical expedients as voting,
669
lobbying and litigation, boycotts and more symbolic protest.

Nowhere in such
alternative prescriptions is there a place for development of the popular
capacity to physically confront, much less defeat, the increasingly vast
repressive apparatus with which the status quo has elected to defend itself
against precisely the sorts of meaningful socioeconomic and political change
progressivism purports to pursue. Indeed, anyone suggesting that such
concepts as armed self-defense are both useful and appropriate tools
within the present context is automatically, and usually vituperatively,
consigned ipso facto to the realm of counterproductivity.670 It is high
time such postulations were interrogated, challenged, and discarded.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
190
Nonviolent resistance only gets activists killed. Only violent

resistance can succeed against the U.S.
FBIs Secret War Against the Black Panther Party pgs 15-16 ) KM
The legacy of the Panthers must be mined not for its supposed negative lessons but
for the positive values, ideals, and analyses which propelled the BPP so rapidly to a
position of prominence, and which lent its members their astonishing valor and
tenacity. To excavate the understandings embodied in the Partys programmatic
successes, no matter how abbreviated the interval in which these were evident, is
to reclaim the potentials which attended them.671 Such a project is worthy if for no
other reason than that nobody, of any oppositional orientation, has been able to
equal the Partys record and appeal in the post-Panther context. Only in this way,
moreover, can we arrive at a proper apprehension of the Partys
theoretical/organizational defects, to appreciate and correct them in their own
terms, and thus avoid replication of the epic contradictions which beset the BPP in
its original form. For instance, such investigations should offer insights as to how groups might best retain
internal discipline without being afflicted with the sort of despotism and stratification exemplified by Huey Newtons
672
personality cult.
Other questions demanding clarification concern the proportionate blend of lumpen and
673
nonlumpen members best suited to organizational functioning under particular circumstances,
the most
appropriate balance to be drawn between overt service/survival programs and

often covert armed components, the manner and extent to which these should be
rendered interactive, and the relative degree of emphasis/pace of development
most productively accorded to each under given conditions or phases of struggle .
In many ways the most important lesson to be gleaned from the Panther experience
has to do with the nature of the enemy with which all domestic oppositionists,
regardless of the ideological and other distinctions that divide us, are mutually
faced. No lite willing to assemble an apparatus of repression comparable
to that evident in the U.S., or to wield it with the savagery evident in the
Panther example, displays the least likelihood of being susceptible to the
powers of logic, moral suasion or other such nonviolent manifestations of
675
popular will.
On the contrary, to the extent that these approaches might
at some point demonstrate a capacity to compel fundamental alterations
in the bedrock of social order, they will be suppressed with essentially
the same systematic and sustained resort to lethal force that was once
676
visited upon the BPP.

Those committed to achieving fundamental change rather
than cosmetic tweakings of the existing system are thus left with no viable
alternative but to include the realities of state violence as an integral part of our
677
political calculus.
We are in a war, whether we wish to be or not, the only
question before us being how to go about winning it. Here too, the legacy
bequeathed by the Black Panther Party provides invaluable lessons . By studying the
techniques with which the counterinsurgency war against the Party was waged, we can, collectively, begin to devise
678
the ways and means by which to counter them, offsetting and eventually neutralizing their effectiveness.
The
current prospects for liberatory struggle in the United States are exceedingly harsh, even more than was the case a
generation ago. Far harsher, however, is the prospect that the presently ascendant system of lite predation might
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
191
be allowed to perpetuate itself indefinitely into the future, exploiting and op- pressing the preponderance of the
population in the midst of every moment along the way. We owe it to ourselves to abolish the predators, here and
now, or as rapidly as possible, enduring whatever shortrun sacrifice is required to get the job done, reaping the
We owe it to those who sacrificed before us to fulfill the

destiny they embraced. Most of all, we owe it to our coming generations to free
them from that against which we must struggle. Thankfully, the fallen warriors of
the Black Panther Party have left us many tools with which we may at last complete
their task.
longer term rewards of our success.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
192
Nonviolence Link Liberal Accommodation

The affirmative leads to liberal accommodation
Mead 98 (Ed, activist, member of George Jackson Brigade, a violent revolutionary
group with branches in the West Coast, political prisoner, 1998, Pacifism as
Pathology: Notes on an American Psuedopraxis, Preface, AK Press, pgs 33-34)
I served nearly two decades behind bars as a result of armed actions conducted by the George Jackson Brigade.
During those years, I studied and restudied the mechanics and applicability of both violence and nonviolence to
political struggle. I've had plenty of time to learn how to step back and take a look at the larger picture. And,
Pacifism as a
strategy of achieving social, political, and economic change can only lead
to the dead end of liberalism. Those who denounce the use of political violence
as a matter of principle, who advocate nonviolence as a strategy for progress, are
wrong. Nonviolence is a tactical question, not a strategic one. The most vicious and
violent ruling class in the history of humankind will not give up without a physical
fight. Nonviolence as a strategy thus amounts to a form of liberal
accommodation and is bound to fail. The question is not whether to use
violence in the global class struggle to end the rule of international imperialism but
only when to use it. . By writing in a way that is supportive of the use of revolutionary violence, I want to
make it clear that I am not talking about self-destructive avenues like political adventurism. Instead, I am merely
objecting to the privileges that pacifists are often able to enjoy at the expense of
the global class struggle (one does not see too many pacifists of color these days).
however badly I may represent that picture today, I still find one conclusion inescapable:
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
193
Emerging Markets Link

Your claim that emerging markets need U.S. reform is part of a
long history of racist and colonial policies.
Street 04 (Paul Street, 04/11/04, taught various aspects of U.S. history at a large
number of Chicago-area colleges and universities and was the Director of Research
at The Chicago Urban League (from 2000 through 2005), where he published two
major grant-funded studies, Those who deny Crimes of the Past,
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/those-who-deny-the-crimes-of-the-past-by-paul-street)
1898-1905: The U.S. Army, frequently led by old Indian fighters, seizes the
Philippines from its prior colonial master (Spain) crushes a Filipino independence
movement, killing as many as 600,000 natives of the newly US-acquired Philippine
islands. Few prisoners are taken and the Red Cross reports an extremely high ratio of dead to
wounded, indicating U.S. determination to kill every native in sight. Throughout the
barbarian U.S. pacification of the Philippines, American forces refer to the Filipinos as niggers, barbarians, and
Americas racist and Social-Darwinist President (1901-08) Theodore

Roosevelt calls resisting Filipinos as Apaches. The phrase gook makes its first
appearance as a U.S. military term to describe angy and frightened Asians who
inhabit lands invaded by freedom-loving Americans . Custers legendary U.S.
Seventh Cavalry arrives to help in the suppression of gook Apaches in 1905. The
U.S. butchery receives indirect racist approval from leading U.S. financial authority and Wall Street
savages.
journalist Charles A. Conant, who anticipates certain aspects of J.A. Hobson and V.I. Lenins celebrated theories of
imperialism (see Carl Parrini and Martin Sklar, New Thinking About the Market: Some American Economists on
Investment and the Theory of Surplus Capital, Journal of Economic History [September 1983], pp. 559-578) in an
essay titled The Economic Basis of Imperialism.
Beyond his argument that surplus domestic

capital in core industrial states provides the taproot for modern U.S. and European
imperialism, Conant also claims that the US is entering a path of global expansion
that is marked out for them as children of the Anglo Saxon race. The new
movement towards overseas imperialism is the result, Conant argues, of
natural laws of economic and race development. The great civilized
people have today at their command the means of developing the
decadent nations of the world, who require benevolent Anglo-Saxon
intervention because they are on the wrong side of the law of the
survival of the fittest (Charles A. Conant, The United States in the Orient, New York, NY, 1900, p. 2)
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
194
Internal Colonialism Link

Theories of internal colonialism erect the U.S. as master and
erase indigenous sovereignty.
Indigenous)]-DD
am particularly interested in how the idea of internal as modifier to
colonialism has emerged as a critical race and postcolonial theoretical category
through which to engage U.S. systems of disenfranchisement on the North
American continent. Taking the Cherokee Nation of Oklahomas 2007 popular vote to disenfranchise
In this chapter, I
descendants of Cherokee slaves some who and some who do not have Cherokee blood as my occasion to
elucidate the dialectics of race and colonialism still at play in the United States, I hope to begin to provide a means
through which the radical inclusion of the Cherokee Freedmen in the Cherokee Nation does not have to result in the
radical exclusion of the Cherokee Nation from itself .
The problem is that, as the concept of

internal colonialism to discuss race in the United States continues to
circulate, the distinctions between indigenous political sovereignty
recognized by treaties and the individual sovereignty that forms the basis
for inclusive personhood within U.S. multicultural democracy collapse as
the United States is cathected as master. 21 Thus, when colonialism is used to
describe indigenous peoples experiences of land loss and genocide, often the
internal is layered as supplement onto such discussions by a U.S. hegemony that
asserts the internal within the symbolic order of juridical colonization at the expense
of the external real for indigenous nations. Interrogating the emergence of and
limits to internal colonialism, which many scholars acknowledge as a not always
sufficient analogy even for race, may allow a site of intervention through which
scholars might center indigenous experiences of U.S. colonialism as that which
exceeds discussions of race. Doing so may help point the way for more robust intersections between
postcolonial, subaltern, and indigenous worlds. Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06). The Transit of Empire: Indigenous
Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (pp. 124-125). University of Minnesota Press.
Kindle Edition.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
195
Impacts
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
196
First Priority
First Priority: In order to determine what should next take
place in the question of The American Experiment, one must
engage in a critical interrogation, the history and foundations
of the land upon which America is founded.
Churchill 03 [Ward, Coordinator of the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement, former
professor of professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder Acts Of Rebellion: The Ward
Churchill Reader 2003 pg. xiv-xv] JCS
The question arises of how best to approach the mass of information upon which
any radical (re)interpretation of The American Experiment must proceed .50 The sheer
volume of what has been shunted aside in canonical recountings threatens to overpower the most intrepid of counternarratives, dissolving into a fine mist of contrarian detail.
How then to give shape to the whole, ordering and arranging its contents in
ways that explicate rather than equivocating or obscuring their
implications, making the conclusions to be drawn not just obvious but
unavoidable? How, in other words, to forge an historical understanding which in itself amounts to an open demand for the sorts of popular action precipitating
constructive social change?51 There are several methodological contenders in this connection, beginning with Howard Zinns commendable effort in A Peoples History of the United
States to more or less straightforwardly rewrite Samuel Eliot Morisons Oxford History of the American People in reverse polarity, effigizing rather than celebrating the status quo.52
Historical materialism,53 functionalism,54 structuralism,55 hermeneutics,56 and even some of the less tedious variants of postmodernism offer themselves as alternatives (usually as
the alternative).57 So, too, do subgenres of postcolonialism like subaltern studies.58 Each of these visions of history, at least in some of their aspects, are of utility to the
development of a bona fide U.S. historical praxis.59 At face value, however, none are able to avoid the fate of either descending into a state of hopeless atomization,60 or,
the surest route

to avoiding these mirrored pitfalls will be found in the Nietzschean method of
historical genealogy evolved by Michel Foucault in works such as The Archaeology of Knowledge.62 This is a highly
politicized endeavor in which the analyst, responding to circumstances s/he finds
objectionable in the present, traces its lineage back in time until a fundamental
difference is discerned (this historical discontinuity is invariably marked by an epistemological disjuncture). Having thus situated
the source of the problem in its emergence from a moment of historical transition,
the analyst can proceed to retrace the unfolding of the specific history at issue
forward in time, with an eye toward what would need to be undone and howif the
future is to be rendered more palatable than the current state of affairs. In this, whatever set of
alternately, overreaching themselves to the point of producing one or another form of re-ductionist metahistorical construction.61 Perhaps
circumstances prevailed prior to the discontinuity is mined for its potentially corrective features.63 Instead of condemning the barbarism of pre-modern society, its inhumanity,
injustice, and irrationality, Foucault presents the difference of the pre-modern system by demonstrating that, on its own terms, it makes sense and is coherent. The reason for doing
so, let it be noted, is not to present a revised picture of the past, nostalgically to glorify [its] charmsbut underline the transitory nature of the present system and therefore remove
the pretense of legitimacy it holds by dint of a nave, rationalist contrast with the past.64 Although firmly grounded in Nietzsche, Foucaults model also incorporates a
poststructuralist strategy of detotalization oriented to the particularity of the phenomena studied, and a structuralist strategy oriented to remove the analysis from the register of
subjectivist humanism.65 To this might be added occasional forays into a strategy of immanent critique in which the contemporary order is held strictly accountable to the standards
Overall, the object is to reveal in all their

squalor the pretensions of modern mors and institutions, undermining the
[illusion of] natu-ralness in which they seek to cloak themselves, and to make
explicit thereby both the necessity and tangible possibility of their being dismantled
or transcended.67 This book follows Foucauldian procedure. In the U.S., irrespective of which among the
earlier-sketched grotesqueries is emphasized be it Americas voracious greed and genocidal disregard for the wellbeing of
and ideals it typically claims as being descriptive of its own composition and character.66
others, the concomitants of militarism and virulent racism, or the weird psychic stew in which imperial/racial arrogance has been blended in equal part with the most sanctimonious
its lineage traces to precisely the same source: the invasion(s) of

Native North America by Europeans during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.68 Absent that profound and violently imposed rupture in
historical continuity, nothing else that is objectionable in American
historyslavery, for instanceor in contemporary American life globalization, to name a salient examplewould have been
materially possible (or, in the main, conceivable). The relationship between Euroamericans and
American Indians is therefore the most fundamental of any on the continent. It is
the bedrock upon which all else is built, the wellspring from whence all else flows .69
professions of peaceful innocence
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
197
in tracing the course and temper of Indian-white relations, a considerable light is shed
upon the relationship of the U.S. mainstream population and virtually every other people it has encountered
Hence,
over the past two and a quarter centuries, both domestically and abroad. It might indeed be argued that Euroamericas attitude towards and treatment of the peoples indigenous to
the homeland it has seized for itself has been in many respects definitive of those it has accorded all Others, including not leastand in some cases increasinglycertain sectors of
The postinvasion history of Native America thus

provides the lens through which all of American history must be examined
if it is to be in any sense genuinely understood. To put it more personally, it is essential, if
one is to truly appreciate the implications of ones own place in American
society, that one read them in terms of U.S./Indian relations. 71 It follows that correction
its own nominal racial/ethnic constituency.70
of the socioeconomic, political, and other repugnancies marking modern American life is, in the final analysis, entirely contingent upon rectification of nonindian Americas
So long as Native North

America remains internally colonized, subject to racial codes, unindemnified for the
genocide and massive expropriations weve sufferedand continue to suffergenocide, colonialism, racism, and wholesale theft will remain the signal attributes of
American mentality and behavior.72 Insofar as this is so, the U.S. will undoubtedly continue to comport itself in the world as it has in the past.
abecedarian relationship to American Indians. Here, history provides the agenda concerning what must be done.
And this, in turn, will inevitably result in responses far more substantial than that made on 911.
First priority all positive poltical projects will fail without an

indigenist view of history
I have identified myself as being "indigenist" in outlook.
By this, I mean that I am one who not only takes the rights of indigenous peoples as
the highest priority of my political life, but who draws on the traditions-the bodies of
knowledge and corresponding codes of value-evolved over many thousands of years
by native peoples the world over. This is the basis on which I not only advance
critiques of, but conceptualize alternatives to, the present social, political,
economic, and philosophical status quo. In tum, this gives shape not only to the sorts of goals and
Very often in my writings and lectures,
objectives I pursue, but the kinds of strategy and tactics I advocate, the variety of struggles I tend to support, the
nature of the alliances I'm inclined to enter into, and so on. Let me say, before I go any further, that I am hardly
unique or alone in adopting this perspective. It is a complex of ideas, sentiments, and understandings that
motivates the whole of the American Indian Movement, broadly defined, in North America. This is true whether you
call it AIM, Indians of All Tribes (as was done during the 1969 occupation of Alcatraz), the Warrior Society (as was
the case with the Mohawk rebellion at Oka in 1990), Women of All Red Nations, or whatever.1 It is the spirit of
resistance which shapes the struggles of traditional Indian people on the land, whether the struggle is down at Big
Mountain, in the Black Hills , up at James Bay, in the Nevada desert, or out along the Columbia River in what is now
In the sense that I use the term, indigenism is also, I think, the
outlook that guided our great leaders of the past : King Philip and Pontiac, Tecumseh and Creek
called Wash-ington State. 2
Mary and Osceola, Black Hawk, Nancy Ward and Satanta, Lone Wolf and Red Cloud, Satank and Quannah Parker,
Left Hand and Crazy Horse, Dull Knife and Chief Joseph, Sitting Bull, Roman Nose and Captain Jack, Louis Riel and
In my view, thoseIndian and non-Indian alike-who do not recognize these names and what they
represent have no sense of the true history, the reality, of North America. They have
no sense of where they've come from or where they are, and thus can have no
genuine sense of who or what they are. By not looking at where they've come from,
they cannot know where they're going, or where it is they should go. It follows that
they cannot understand what it is they are to do, how to do it, or why. In their confusion,
they identify with the wrong people, the wrong things, the wrong tradition. They therefore inevitably
Poundmaker and Geronimo, Cochise and Mangus, Victorio, Chief Seattle, and so on.3
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
198
pursue the wrong goals and objectives, putting last things first and often
forgetting the first things altogether, perpetuating the very structures of
oppression and degradation they think they oppose. Obviously, if things
are to be changed for the better in this world, then this particular problem
must itself be changed as a matter of first priority.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
199
Impact Framing
Traditional cost-benefit analysis makes it impossible for
indigenous death to supercede settler interests because the
full impact of structural genocide is unwritten and
unspeakable
Mignolo 7 (Walter, argentinian semiotician and prof at Duke, The De-Colonial
Option and the Meaning of Identity in Politics online)
The rhetoric of modernity (from the Christian mission since the sixteenth century, to the secular Civilizing
mission, to development and modernization after WWII) occludedunder its triumphant rhetoric of
salvation and the good life for allthe perpetuation of the logic of coloniality , that is, of
massive appropriation of land (and today of natural resources), massive exploitation of labor
(from open slavery from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, to disguised slavery, up to the twenty first
and the dispensability of human lives from the massive killing of people in
the Inca and Aztec domains to the twenty million plus people from Saint Petersburg
to the Ukraine during WWII killed in the so called Eastern Front.4 Unfortunately, not all the
massive killings have been recorded with the same value and the same visibility .
The unspoken criteria for the value of human lives is an obvious sign (from a de-colonial
interpretation) of the hidden imperial identity politics : that is, the value of human lives to
which the life of the enunciator belongs becomes the measuring stick to evaluate
other human lives who do not have the intellectual option and institutional power to
tell the story and to classify events according to a ranking of human lives; that is,
according to a racist classification.5
century),
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
200
Ongoing Colonization
Settler colonialism occurs everywhere and anywhere. Hidden
from sight yet inadvertently propagated by us all, it acts to
eliminate and all that are deemed as threats to the space.
Barker 12 (Adam J Barker studies Geography, Anarchism, and Social Activism
and settler colonialism, Locating Settler Colonialism, winter 2012)
One of the undeniable characteristics is that of elimination . This is key to understanding
where settler colonisation is located. Veracini's theoretical overview suggests that settler colonisation is
fundamentally premised on the "elimination" of Indigenous peoples from the land .49
This is in stark contrast to the forms of imperialism practiced by European powers in
Butlin's work, or contemporary neo-imperialism premised on deterritorialised biopower
and microcontrol of ethnically denuded populations. Settler colonialism is instead
premised on what Veracini calls a "founding violence" of displacement that is total
rather than conditional.50 As settler colonial populations increase, there is less space
for Indigenous bodies in the workforce, in social spaces and even in the
geographical imagination of settler colonisers. As settler colonial spaces spread they have
become imbricated with many other kinds of space, intersecting with the dynamics
of modernity, urbanisation and globalising capital. These spaces are normalised by
their association with tropes of development and urbanisation: Toronto and New York are
world cities; the Australian outback like the Canadian north is pristine wilderness; and so on. In many functional
ways, a settler colonial urban centre or rural territory is likely to be similar to an urban centre or pastoral zone
The hidden, persistent wart of settler colonialism, however, is

that these spatialities are only for the occupation and consumption by settler
colonisers and the exogenous others whom they admit to their spaces . For Indigenous
anywhere else, warts and all.
peoples, settler colonial spaces are largely synonymous with the spaces of urbanisation and modernity, and
consequently Indigenous people have no place in the settler colonial world . This brings
us to the fundamental crux of the problem of locating settler colonialism. Settler colonisation tends to disappear
into common, widespread phenomena, often involving globally connected populations, and providing clear benefits
for a surprising number of people. So who is responsible? Where does the power lie that transforms space so
radically? Who imagines settler colonial geography with the clarity, impetus and capacity to make it real? The
everyone. Settler colonialism is not a process driven merely by elites;

nor does settler colonisation occur exclusively in and between spaces of strategic
importance. Settler colonialism occurs everywhere that there are settler collectives,
and it occurs constantly
undeniable answer:
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
201
Genocide
Settler colonial surveillance is used to commit genocide.
Genocide is used to not only destroy native peoples, but to
eliminate alternatives to the settler state for nonnative people
It is important to note that the apparatus of settler colonial surveillance does
not impact only native peoples. The "normalizing" society must
necessarily inflict the logics of normalization on all peoples, not just on
those who are "oppressed." If it were only the oppressed who were subjected to
normalizing logics, the logics would not seem "normal." This is why the intent of
genocide is not just to destroy native peoples, but to eliminate
alternatives to the settler state for nonnative peoples. If alternatives to the
white supremacist, capitalist, heteropatriarchal settler state were to persist, the
settler state's status as the prototype for normal would be at risk. Settler logics
inform both how violence against native women is addressed, as well as how gender
violence in general is addressed. Furthermore, the mainstream antiviolence
movement relies on a settler framework for combating violence in ways
that make it complicit in the state's surveillance strategies. These
strategies then inform how the mainstream movement manages and
"sees" gender violence, while simultaneously preventing it from seeing
other approaches to ending violence. For example, at an antiviolence
conference I attended, the participants supported the war in Afghanistan because
they believed it would liberate women from the violence of the Taliban; their
reliance on statedriven surveillance strategies for addressing violence through the
military and criminal-justice systems prevented them from seeing that militarism
itself perpetuates violence against women.
Settler colonialism is a structural antagonism that requires the

continual disappearance of the indigenous peoples on whose
land the settler state is situated- surveillance is a tool to
target and eliminate populations.
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
As Patrick Wolfe (1999) notes,
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
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
previously described presumed sexual perversity.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
202
sexual boundaries of the nation-state by purifying it of imagined racialized and gendered 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 Josefina Saldana-Portillo (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
surveillance is structured 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 heteropatriarchal state, we may then reformulate our
analysis of surveillance. In particular, I would like to foreground the focus of the field of surveillance studies on
have "decolonized" perpetuate the same surveillance strategies, because
"seeing." According to Lyon, "Surveillance studies is about seeing things and, more particularly, about seeing people" (2007, 1). The
A focus on
gendered settler colonialism would instead foreground how surveillance is
about a simultaneous seeing and not-seeing. That is, the purposeful gaze
of the state on some things and peoples serves the purpose of
simultaneously making some hypervisible through surveillance while
making others invisible. The colonial gaze that surveils native
communities to monitor, measure, and account for their "dysfunctional"
behaviors conceals from view the settler colonial state that creates these
conditions in the first place. A feminist surveillance studies focus on gendered
colonial violence highlights that which cannot be seen-indigenous disappearance.
"watchful gaze," as Lyon labels it, is what gives surveillance its "quintessential characteristic" (2007, 1).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
203
Root of Surveillance
Colonialism is the root cause of surveilance
Zureik, professor of sociology at Queens University, CA, 2013 (Elia Zureik,
Colonial Oversight, Oct/Nov 2013,
%20essay%20Red%20Pepper%20octnov13-1-1.pdf)CQF
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
and territory. This occurred in the quotidian everyday context of people watching people. It 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 discursive forms of
surveillance. To divide, deploy,s 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 domestic 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 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 India, Panopticon in Poona: An Essay on Foucault and Colonialism, Martha
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.
Kaplan remarks: Clearly,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
204
Root of Surveillance White Supremacy

White supremacy is the root cause of surveillance.
Torres 14 (Joseph, advocates in Washington to ensure that our nations media
policies serve the public interest and builds coalitions to broaden the media reform
movement's base. Joseph writes frequently on media and Internet issues and is the
co-author of the New York Times bestseller News for All the People: The Epic Story of
Race and the American Media. Joseph also serves on the board of directors of the
Center for Media Justice and the National Association of Latino Independent
Producers. Before joining Free Press, Joseph worked as deputy director of the
National Association of Hispanic Journalists and was a journalist for several years.
He earned a degree in communications from the College of Staten Island, June 25,
2014, Surveillance Lessons from 1971 Still Resonate Today, Free Press,
http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/06/25/surveillance-lessons-1971-still-resonatetoday)
Our nation has long used surveillance to control marginalized and dissident voices .
Its an issue my colleagues and I recently learned a great deal about from activists who exposed our nations
its an issue thats relevant today given the

surveillance states targeting of communities of color . Last week, we had the honor of
shameful surveillance operations 40 years ago. And
escorting two longtime activists John and Bonnie Raines (pictured above) to Capitol Hill to discuss the heroic
efforts of a group of anti-war activists who uncovered J. Edgar Hoovers illegal spying operations in 1971. If youve
never heard of this married couple before, youre not alone. Theres a good reason for that. In 1971, the Raines
were two of eight members comprising the Citizens' Commission, which set out to investigate the FBI. The
Commission wanted to prove the government was spying on anti-war and civil rights activists and broke into the FBI
field office in Media, Pa., to search for evidence. The files they removed from the FBI office confirmed their fears.
They mailed copies of the documents they lifted to Washington Post reporter Betty Medsger, who broke the story.
NBC News reporter Carl Stern later uncovered the FBIs illegal Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which
sought to destroy, discredit and harass civil rights and anti-war groups and activists. The scandal made nationwide
news and resulted in the formation of the Church Committee, marking the first time Congress investigated U.S.
intelligence agencies. The Church Committees findings led to the creation of safeguards to curb the power of
domestic intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, those protections have eroded since Sept. 11, 2001. The eight
burglars who broke into the FBI office in 1971 were never captured and for decades their identities were kept
secret. But last January, Medsger released a book The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoovers Secret FBI
that identified five of the eight burglars, including the Raines. The story is also captured in a new documentary,
1971, that screened last week in Washington, D.C., and brought the Raines to town. My colleagues and I
accompanied the Raines and Johanna Hamilton, the director of the film, to several Senate offices to discuss their
stories and how their efforts to expose the FBI 40 years ago are pertinent today in light of the NSAs surveillance
The governments failure to rein in the abuses of J. Edgar Hoover was a

major reason why the activists broke into the FBI office. And its why the NSA spying
scandal troubles them. Government surveillance, they argue, has a chilling effect on
the public. Many communities of color have felt that impact, a topic that was
addressed last week at a network gathering on racial justice and surveillance at the
annual Allied Media Conference in Detroit. Free Press, May First/People Link, and the
Center for Media Justice organized the gathering to examine the relationship
between race and surveillance and to understand what happens when communities
of color are the targets of government surveillance. More than 50 groups and
individuals took part, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National
Economic and Social Rights Initiative and the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition. The
participants noted that surveillance of communities of color is rooted in a
desire to maintain social control in the service of white supremacy. Its also
rooted in the economic exploitation of oppressed communities a practice that
operations.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
205
benefits corporations and the wealthy. In activities and small-group discussions, participants
discussed the motives behind surveillance and explored what could be done to eliminate its abuses.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
206
Root of War
Colonialism is the root cause of war.
Street 04 (Paul Street, 04/11/04, taught various aspects of U.S. history at a large
number of Chicago-area colleges and universities and was the Director of Research
at The Chicago Urban League (from 2000 through 2005), where he published two
major grant-funded studies, Those who deny Crimes of the Past,
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/those-who-deny-the-crimes-of-the-past-by-paul-street)
Seen against, and as part of, the vast historical canvass of U.S. racist-imperial slaughter ,
the monumental
US crimes in Southeast Asia that John Kerry hinted at in his 1971 testimony are part
of a larger story that renders self-delusional many Americans notion that their
nation-state is some sort of great exceptional moral and ethical city on the global
hill. 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
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. Its 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
homelands 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
the No Gun Ri massacre is revealing.
that trace back across centuries, oceans, forests and plains to the leveled villages, shattered corpses, and stolen
resources of those who Roosevelt acknowledged as Americas 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 ordinary citizens of what they see
as an American Predator state. This along with much else will help precipitate an inevitable return of US power to
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 Wilsons guns. Or Americans and the world will face the likely
alternative of permanent imperial war and the construction of an ever-more
the grounds of earth and history.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
207
imposing U.S. fortress state, perpetuated by Orwellian denial and savage

intentional 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.
Surveillance techniques developed from colonialism set the

framework for domestic surveillance
McCoy 09 (Alfred W. McCoy, J.R.W. Smail Professor of History at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Policing Americas Empire: The United States, the Philippines,
and the Rise of the Surveillance State)
If imperial rule had such a profound influence on the colonized, we might well ask
whether it had an equally significant impact on the colonizer . Through decades
ofcareful study historians have delineated the transformative impact of U.S. rule on
the Philippines, showing how it created a modern civil service, prosperous middle
class, and mass education system. After a century of this unilateral approach it is time to press this
inquiry further and ask a more elusive question: was the experience of empire mutually transformative, with lasting
consequences for both the postcolonial Philippines and the United States? Such an inquiry demands ifnot
The formation of the U.S. state was, of course,

influenced by its own internal development as well as by multiple processes
ofexpansion: conquest ofthe western frontier, global commercial reach as a secondtier power, and a formal overseas empire. Yet there seems to have been a uniquely
catalytic quality to colonial rule, making it a Promethean fire of institutional change .
circumspection then a modicum ofcaution.
Through conquest and pacification colonialism pushed the capacities of an occupying powers statecraft to
thebreakingpointwhileatthesametimecreatingopportunitiesforexperimenta- tion not possible at homemaking
empire a crucible for forging new state forms and functions. Empire, any empire, makes its metropole more selfconscious, more calculating in the application of power.
Just as war transforms technology and

industry, so colonialism plays a comparable role for government, producing
innovations, particularly in the use of coercive controls, with a profound impact
onitsbureaucraciesbothhomeandabroad .Inanageoflimited,laissez-fairegovernancecirca1898,Americasactivistcolonialstates,fromPuertoRicothrough Panama to the Philippines, conducted bold
experiments whose lessons were later repatriated through policies and personnel.
Focusingoncolonialpolicingrevealshowempiresimultaneouslyformeda modern Philippine polity and transformed the
American state, fostering both a coercivecapacityandtheinclinationtoapplyit.Aboveall,empireempoweredthe
U.S.presidency,investingtheexecutivebranchwithbroadpowersoversubject
territoriesandfosteringanextraordinaryauthorityakintowhatthepresident Capillaries ofEmpire 37 had heretofore
enjoyed only in wartime. At a more mundane level empire formed an extraconstitutional circuit among the
presidentscolonialappointees,corpo- rateallies,andpoliticalcronies.Colonizationexpandedfederalpatronage,linking
RepublicanPartymachinesinpowerfulstatessuchasOhioandMichigantothe colonialcivilservice.80
Morevisibly,colonialexpansioncreatedanewpathtothe
presidencytakenbyTheodoreRooseveltandWilliamH.TaftbutnotbyLeonard Wood, making empire a dominant, even
decisive influence in four presidential campaigns between 1900 and 1912. ColonialrulealsofosteredlongterminstitutionalchangeinWashingtonsna- tionalsecurityapparatus .The
colonial regime in Manila

developed a comprehensive internal security doctrine, drawing information
technologies from the U.S. metropole, merging them with imperial innovations, and
then repatriating these novel procedures, tempered and tested . When high imperial rule
over the Philip- pinesendedin1916,colonialveteranscamehometoplayakeyroleinthedevelop- mentof
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
208
theU.S.ArmysexpandedintelligenceoperationsduringWorldWarI.As
Washingtonmobilizedforwarayearlater,thecontradictionbetweenitsworldwideempireandcoastaldefensessnappedwithavengeance.Aftertwodecades of playing the global game on the cheap,
the United States suddenly found itself caughtupintheclashof empireswithmilitaryforcesthatpaledbeforeGreatBritains navy and Germanys army, a lack of preparedness that produced real concernsinWashingtonandreverberatedasxenophobichysteriaacrossthecountry. In this hour of crisis Washington relied
on its colonial veterans to establish a national security apparatus for both domestic surveillance and foreign
espionage, foundingthearmysMilitaryIntelligenceDivisionandlateritsMilitaryPolice.81 The U.S. Armys overall
commander in Europe, Gen. John Pershing, had built his military career in the Philippines, first as a celebrated
captain fighting Muslim rebels on the southern island ofMindanao and later as military governor ofits Moro Province.
In selecting his senior officers for the European campaign, GeneralPershingdrewonPhilippineveteransforkeystaffandfieldpositions,particularly in less conventional commands. The
former chief of the constabulary, Harry Bandholtz, became Pershings provost marshal general and at the close of
war founded the Military Police (MP) to manage the chaos of occupation and demobilization in Europe. In the lower
echelons ofthis new service, Philippine veterans were also prominent, notably the former chiefofManilas Secret
Service and a former senior officer in the Philippine Scouts, both of whom trained MPs for the postwar occupation
The influence of these imperial veterans was even more marked on the domestic front. As fear of enemy espionage grew in the first months of war, empire
providedWashingtonwiththerequisitesforgreatlyexpandedstatesecurityoper- ations.
Just as repressive colonial sedition and libel laws had silenced Filipino radicals by
1907, so parallel U.S. legislation under the Espionage Act of 1917 allowed thejailingof
antiwardissidentssuchasEugeneV.Debs.83 Lackinganyintelligence 38 Policing Americas Empire
capacity whatsoever at the start of this global war, the U.S. Army relied on Col.
Ralph H. Van Deman, the former chief of army intelligence in the Philippines, to establish its
Military Intelligence Division. Applying colonial lessons from data management to operational doctrines,
ofEurope.82
Van Deman built the MID from a staff of onehimselfinto a division ofseventeen hundred and within weeks
designed a complete intelligence and counterintelligence doctrine.
YeteveninthisdomesticiterationU.S.militaryintelligenceshowedsigns of its imperial origins. Just as colonial security
had relied on hundreds of Fili- pino agents, so Van Deman forged close alliances with American civilian auxil- iaries
for the counterintelligence work that became his divisions main wartime mission. To search for suspected
subversives among German Americans, the
colonelcollaboratedwithanationwidevigilantegroup,theAmericanProtective
League,tolaunchthelargestmasssurveillanceyetconductedbyanymodern state, domestic or otherwise. As an index of
its pervasiveness, the leagues legion of 350,000 citizen-spies used its extralegal powers to amass, with allied
groups, an archive of over a million pages of surveillance reports in just eighteen months of war.84
Lookingbackonthespreadofinternalsecurity,asenioroffi- cial of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called Van
Deman the single most important figure in shaping this civilian mission and consolidating its base, using military
Indeed, Van Deman himselfwas a product

ofempire, transformed by his Philippine experience from a military mediocrity into
the father of U.S. military intelligence. Hardened in this crucible ofcolonial
pacification, he returned home in 1902 to spend the next half century working
tirelessly, obsessively, breaking laws and bending bureaucracies to build almost
singlehandedly an intrusive internal security apparatus.
intelligence . . . to curb movements for change.85
Initial surveillance began with colonial rule over citizens, the

police began to influence politics as they grew in power.
the U.S. regime installed this coercive apparatus
within the Philippine colonial state, making the constabulary central to both its
administration and popular perception. With strong links to the executive and
minimal checks and balances, the police quickly emerged as a major factor in the
After creating a formidable counterinsurgency force,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
209
countrys politics. Moreover, by enacting stringent laws against personal vices such as gambling and drugs, the
colonial government inadvertently amplified the role of police as would-be
guardians of public morality. After Philippine independence in 1946, the national police remained as a key
instrument of both legal and extralegal presidential power. Simultaneously, a symbiosis of police power,
political corruption, and vice prohibition soon met a stasized into
somethingakintoasocialcancerthatpersistedlongaftercolonialrule,fomenting iconic
incidents of abuse and violence. Through corruption and excessive force, the police became the source of the
countrys recurring legitimation crises, from 16 Policing Americas Empire the electoral violence of the early 1950s through the latest
people power uprising of 2001. In a nation with countless sources of social conflict, it seems significant that police scandals, often
the U.S.
colonial regimes reliance on police for pacification and political control embedded
this security apparatus within an emerging Philippine state, contributing ultimately
to an unstable excess of executive power after independence . Not only did colonial policing
petty or even sordid, should raise such profound issues of political legitimacy. Thus a second major conclusion:
influence Philippine state formation, but it also helped transform the U.S. federal government. Indeed, security techniques bred in
the tropical hothouse of colonial governance were not contained at this periphery of American power. Through the invisible
capillaries of empire, these innovations percolated homeward to implant both personnel and policies inside the Federal bureaucracy
a small cadre of
colonial police veterans created a clandestine capacity within the U.S. Army,
establishing Military Police for the occupation of a war-torn Europe as well as Military
Intelligence for both surveillance at home and espionage abroad. Once established under the
for the formation of a new internal security apparatus. During the social crisis surrounding World War I,
pressures of wartime mobilization, this federal surveillance effort persisted in various forms for the next fifty years, as a sub rosa
matrix that honey- combed U.S. society with active informers, secretive civilian organizations, and government counterintelligence
This exploration of colonial policing thus reveals an important facet of state

formation not only in the Philippines but also in the United States. Though generally
ignored by U.S. historians as a regrettable, even forgettable episode in the course of
American progress, when viewed through the prism of policing the conquest of the
Philippines emerges as an event of seminal import . Viewed con- servatively, it was a bellwether, a
significant manifestation of the repressive potential of Americas first information revolution, discussed below.6 Viewed more
boldly, it arguably accelerated these changes, making the Philippine Islands a social
laboratory at a critical juncture in U.S. history and producing a virtual blue- print for
the perfection of American state power. From the time its troops landed at Manila in 1898, the U.S. Army
agencies.
applied the nations advanced information technology for combat operations and colonial pacification, merging Spanish police
structures with its own data management to create powerful new security agencies. Unchecked by constitutional constraints,
American colonials developed innovative counterintelligence techniques that

expanded the states ability to monitor its Filipino subjects. Indeed, the first U.S. federal agency
with a fully developed covert capacity was not the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) but
the Philippines Constabulary (PC).
The colonial origins were a unique mechanism to produce the

security state leaving a necessity for continued surveillance
These colonial origins were no mere catalyst for a process that might have produced
the same preordained outcome; instead, through a congruence of motive and
opportunity, this imperial influence left a distinctive imprint on the Capillaries of
Empire 17 character of Americas domestic security apparatus . These secret service
methods, whether broad information systems or specific interrogation techniques,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
210
have a specific institutional genealogy, a gestational continuity, that requires the

historian to track personnel, policies, and precedents, not assuming that they
somehow arrive axiomatically with the advent of modernity. While Europes highly evolved state
security services, colonial and national, contributed obliquely to the development of U.S. intelligence doctrines, the occupation of
the Philippines provided a particularly favorable environment for cultivating covert techniques, institutional networks, and
systematic surveillance. These security procedures, bred like tropical hybrids, were antithetical to American political traditions. But
innovative
colonial policing in the Philippines influenced the formation of the American state,
contributing to the development of a sophisticated internal security apparatus . The flow
empire provided a vehicle for introducing them into a deeply democratic society. Hence a third conclusion:
of security personnel and practices coursing through these capillaries of empire was neither unilateral nor confined to a particular
period. Once their roots were planted in the first decade of colonial rule, the circulation of ideas would continue unabated for
another century, first westward from Manila to Washington, where they shaped U.S. internal security operations during World War I,
and then eastward back across the Pacific, where they strengthened the repressive capacities of the postcolonial Philippine state.
Whenever the Philippines has been shaken by insurgency in the last sixty years, Washington has intervened to shore up its security
services with an infusion of military aid, first under the Republic (194672), then under President Marcoss martial law regime (1972
these
recurring contacts with U.S. security agencies have made police power a key facet
of the Philippine state. The Philippines has become a major battleground in the war
on terroranother protracted foreign adventure whose security innovations are
slowly migrating homeward silently to spread surveillance and curtail civil liberties
inside the United States. Thus a fourth conclusion: by collaborating in the refinement of
covert techniques for internal security, these two states have forged powerful
instruments to fortify themselves against the processes of political change, slowing
progress toward civil rights in America and social justice in the Philippines.
86), and most recently through President Arroyos role in the global war on terror (20019). Viewed from Manila,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
211
Mass surveillance began to be implemented as a result of

colonial expansion while the police with larger power grew
more corrupt
ButapplicationoftheseinnovationsinsideAmericaitselfwasblockedby astrong tradition ofcivil liberties. From the
perspective ofeven a halfcentury later, Washingtons reach circa 1898 was faint, its grip on citizenslives light, and
its role in crime control still surprisingly limited. Between 1877 and 1900 the United States experienced what
Stephen Skowronek calls a patchworkpattern 24 Policing Americas Empire of state building without anything akin
After 1900, however, urbanization, industrialization,

and overseas expansion raised demands for national governmental capacities that
were foreign to the existing state structure, unleashing a process of bureaucratic
modernization in these imperial decades.29 The twinned forces of centralization and modernization
to a concentrated governing capacity.
also influenced federal crime control and domestic security, topics often overlooked in this burgeoning literature on
U.S. state formation.30 Indeed,
policing exemplifies the processes ofU.S. state formation

through its shift, circa 1900 to 1930, from localized law enforcement, which was
mired in pa- tronage, to a modern, centralized administration. As cities grew beyond
the early citizen watch forces,New York formed the nations first full-time police
force in 1845, and others soon followed. Between 1865 and 1905 metropolitan police
forcesgrewrapidly,withChicagos,forexample,expandingtenfoldto2,196officersbycenturysturn.Cityfathers,determinedtoavoidthemilitarizedEuropean model, compromised by creating
uniformed police forces under local civilian
control.Withthestartofcivilserviceprotectionin1884atBrooklynandMilwau-
kee,policebecamemoreprofessional,butparadoxically,asAmericansdiscovered to their
dismay in the 1890s, they also became more corrupt. For readers of New York
Citys penny press, these problems were personified by Alexander Clubber
Williams, a pathologically violent officer with a thirty-year career (186695) marked
by 350 formal complaints against him in a single year and a tidy $100,000 in graft
from his command of the Tenderloin vice district . There is more law in the end of a policemans
nightstick,he said defiantly, than in a decision of the Supreme Court.Throughout 1894 the New York legislatures
Lexow committee conducted a sensational probe ofthe citys police, showing how officers purchased promotions,
their commanders served as agents of the Democratic machine, and both protected the vice trades. When the
committee pressed police chief Thomas F. Byrnes to explain how his annual salary of $5,000 built a real estate
fortune that included a Fifth Avenue property worth $550,000, he denied any personal corruption but admitted that
his officers took bribes from brothels. The citys subsequent attempt at reform did not last much beyond Theodore
Roosevelts brieftenure as police commissioner, and his most lasting achievement was easing Clubber Williams
Parallel investigations from Baltimore

(1895) to Los Angeles (1900) found the same corrupt alliance between precinct
captains and powerful ward bosses. Fighting against these big city machines for the
next thirty years, middle-class reformers would campaign for centralization under
an empowered police chief and rationalization through modern communications. As a
and ChiefByrnes gently into retirement with full pensions.
counter- weight to these urban problems, states such as Pennsylvania (1902) and New York (1917) established
paramilitary state police. Moreover, the federal role in local law enforcement grew as the Bureau ofInvestigation
formed a Criminal Division (1919), launched the countrys Uniform Crime Reports system (1930), and Capillaries
ofEmpire 25 opened its National Division ofIdentification (1930), which amassed, over the next quarter century, 141
million fingerprints.31
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
212
Colonialism causes indigenous peoples to be posited into a

positionality of social death because they cannot give rise to
ageny- society is a structural antagonism against native
peoples.
Indigenous)]-DD
But what seems to me to be further disavowed, even in Lowes important figuration of the history of labor in the
Asia, Africa, and

Europe 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 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 contradictions through which
Western freedom affirms and resolves itself, and then by collapsing the indigenous
Americas into slavery, the fourth continent of settler colonialism through which such
intimacy is made to labor is not just forgotten or elided; it becomes the very ground
through which the other three continents struggle intimately for freedom, justice,
and equality. Within Lowes 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 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. Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06).
intimacies of four continents, is the settler colonialism that such labor underwrites.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
213
Bare Life
Colonialism creates bare life
Friedberg 2000 (Lilian, Author and political activist Master's degree in the
humanities from the University of Chicago Doctoral candidate in Germanic Studies
at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Dare to Compare: Americanizing the
Holocaust, American Indian Quarterly 24.3, Summer 2000, Pages 353-380)
Giorgio Agamben has argued against the use of the term Holocaust as a descriptor for the Nazi extermination of the
Jews because "Jews were exterminated not in a mad and giant holocaust but exactly as Hitler had announced, 'as
lice,' which is to say as bare life."[43] The notorious California Indian-killer H. L. Hall justified the murder of Native
infants based on the argument that "a nit would make a louse." John Chivington, commanding colonel in the
infamous Sand Creek Massacre, reformulated the sentiment to justify similar actions with the statement "Nits make
Hitler's perception of the Jews as "life unworthy of living," that is,

as "lice" or "bare life," is received with moral outrage in the scholarly community and in public
consciousness in the U.S. and elsewhere. But when Indians are placed on the same level of the
"evolutionary scale" and assigned the same status in the biopolitical order, it becomes a justifiable
sacrifice made in the name of "progress." Hitler's willing executioners and the ordinary men and
lice."[44] Perplexing in this context is that
women of Germany had to be convinced that the Jewish population was not human; they had, after all, for centuries
prior, lived and worked side by side with these people who were systematically exterminated as "like lice." Before
the Final Solution could be implemented, the Jewish population of Europe had to be reduced to the level of "bare
life." But for the American settlers, the notion that the life form to be clear-cut from the vast, "unpopulated"
wilderness in order to make way for their American way of life was somehow not human ranked among those truths
the "execrable race" of red men and women was viewed from the
onset as existing at the level of "bare life." And yet, from a perspective that acknowledges the essential
held to be self-evident;
very
humanity of indigenous populations and the sophistication of the established forms of social organization,
governance, and religious ritual prevailing among the indigenous populations at the time of contact, it becomes
clear that, while the Nazi Holocaust was indeed unique in scope and in kind to the twentieth century, the American
Holocaust was, as Stannard has stated, "far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the
world."[45]Fortunately, Hitler was stopped before he could consummate the Final Solution. But some contend that
Uncle Sam's willing executioners are still today engaged in the effort to eradicate what remains of the indigenous
the loss of Native lives and lifewayscannot be

acknowledged as homicidal, genocidal, or suicidal because the "savage" is not -population in North America. For others,
however ostentatiously liberal-minded individuals and institutions in this country may contend otherwise--
considered fully human: "we" are not related. While a revisionist narrative of the West would attempt
to suffuse its world-view with a politically correct moral underpinning by making superficial linguistic concessions,
no longer applying such terms as "savage" and "primitive" to indigenous peoples, contemporary scholarship still
draws its insights and impulses from the same body of research and the same doctrine of universal superiority it
now seeks to disavow and revile. The appearance of euphemisms such as "ethnocide" and "depopulation" applied
to the genocide committed against Native populations is just one index of the continued resistance to the notion
that this devastation involves a human tragedy.Nominally, indigenous peoples have been grudgingly adopted into
the "family of man" in the prevailing paradigms of Western thought. Phenomenologically, they are still today
perceived not as human others, but in fact as a separate (and inferior) "species." Depending on one's interpretation
of the Latin siluaticus (of the wood; belonging to a wood), from which the term "savage" is derived, one might
in the Westernbiopoliticalorder, the "savage life" acquires the status of one

less than bare life or Homo sacer. If that is the case, then what occurred in this country must be viewed as a
suspect that,
gigantic bonfire in which neither mice, lice, nor men, women or children were sacrificed and burned for the sake of
clear-cutting a space for the master race--what was sacrificed here were merely logs. Driftwood. Dead weight.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
214
Useless waste. In the world of the uniqueness proponents, the "depopulation" of the New World is on a par with
"deforestation."What is perhaps "unique" about the Nazi Holocaust is that it represents the first incidence in history
of genocidal assault directed at an assimilated, "civilized" (and therefore human) population in central Europe.[46]
Katz refers to the phenomenon as one of "Judeocide." It might, however, more accurately be termed fratricide-brothers killing brothers--squabbling sons of the same God in a serial rerun of Cain and Abel. This is not to imply
that fratricide is any less grievous a crime against humanity than genocide, merely to clarify the relationship of
spiritual kinship existing between perpetrators and victims in the Nazi Holocaust and the way this works to
influence our perception of the event's primacy. It could in fact be argued that fratricide is indeed the more heinous
crime since it involves the extermination of life that is dearly defined as "human" in the Judeo-Christian paradigm.
Brothers killing brothers is classified as a mortal sin by the religious doctrines governing moral standards in both
religions, but brothers killing savages is apparently sanctioned by the moral dictates of both these dominant world
religions. If the ideology of Manifest Destiny is, on the other hand, subsumed under the mandate to "be fruitful and
multiply," then the extermination of indigenous populations is indeed ordained by the supreme deity common to the
Christian and the Judaic faiths. From this perspective, mass murder is the implied mandate of Manifest
Destiny.Churchill speaks in terms of the need for a "denazification ... a fundamental alteration in the consciousness
of this country."[47] I would suggest that "demanifestation" is a more apt designation for the paradigmatic shift
requisite for decentering the hegemonistic reign of the "master narratives" of Manifest Destiny and the master race
Thinking in
terms of "de-manifestation" has the advantage of disaggregating the specific
modalities of similar, but not identical, historical phenomena and of dislocating--geographically
and intellectually--the source of the "problem" from the site of European history to that of American
history. What follows is an attendant shift in temporal focus that allows us to properly place the postulates of
that govern our understanding of history as it relates to national identity in the United States.
Manifest Destiny and the master race in historically correct chronological order with relation to the subsequent
emergence of theories of Lebensraumpolitik and the assumed superiority of the Aryan race on the European
continent. Whereas "denazification" clearly connotes a "thing of the past,"
"de-manifestation" implies a
present, "manifest" reality. From this vantage point, the German Sonderweg is rerouted and an already
trammeled trail of rampant plundering, pillage, and mass murder is revealed to have been blazed in the forward
wake of the historical caesura that the Nazi Holocaust represents. HOLOCAUST IN CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT:
COLLECTIVE SUICIDE Most importantly, perhaps, what distinguishes the American Holocaust from the Nazi
Holocaust is what is at stake today. The Nazi Holocaust represents a historical event that threatened the entire
Jewish population of Europe. Relegating this event to the archive of oblivion would involve a fatal miscalculation
resulting in wholesale moral bankruptcy for the entire Western world. But the worldwide Jewish population can
hardly be said to be at risk of extermination today--certainly not in the United States. American Jews stepped up
their efforts to direct attention to the Nazi Holocaust at a time when theywere by far the wealthiest, best-educated,
most influential, in-every-way-most-successful group in American society--a group that, compared to most other
identifiable minority groups, suffered no measurable discrimination and no disadvantages on account of that
minority status.[48]Norman Finkelstein cites the Jewish income in the United States at double that of non-Jews and
points out that sixteen of the forty wealthiest Americans are Jews, as are 40 percent of Nobel prizewinners in
science and economics, 20 percent of professors at major universities and 40 percent of partners in law firms in
New York and Washington.[49]Native Americans, by contrast, have long been subject to the most extreme poverty
of any sector in the present North American population, and still have the highest rate of suicide of any other ethnic
group on the continent.[50] Highschool dropout rates are as high as 70 percent in some communities. As
Anishinabeg activist and Harvard-educated scholar Winona LaDuke notes with regard to the Lakota population in
South Dakota: "Alcoholism, unemployment, suicide, accidental death and homicide rates are still well above the
national average."[51] Alcoholism, intergenerational posttraumatic stress, and a spate of social and economic ills
continue to plague these communities in the aftermath of the American Holocaust.As Peter Novik has made
abundantly clear in his study of the way the Holocaust functions as a sort of"civil religion" and signifier of identity
for American Jews, much of the commemoration rhetoric and practice propagated in this country centers on
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
215
maintaining a consensual symbol of unity for American Jews who thus experience the Holocaust "vicariously." As
Novik states, while most American Jews (and Gentiles) may be saddened, dismayed, or shocked by the Nazi
Holocaust, there is little evidence to suggest that they have actually been traumatized by it.[52] The
Americanization of the Holocaust, according to Novik's analysis, serves a symbolic function for American Jews,
ascribing victim status to a community that demonstrates little sign of actual victimization in a culture where the
victim is victor. Norman Finkelstein, the vociferous Goldhagen critic who lost most of his family in the death camps
and ghettoes of Nazi-occupied Europe, has expressed similar views. His forthcoming publication asserts that the
"Holocaust industry" was born with the Six-Day War in June of 1967. Before that, there was little mention of the
Holocaust in American life.He argues that the development of the "Holocaust industry" in the United States is part
of a strategic campaign to justify American political interests in Israel.[53]This is not to deny or diminish the clear
and present danger in the ominous resurgence of anti-Semitic sentiments reflected in isolated incidences of racial
violence against Jews and Jewish institutions both here and abroad. However, the material realities confronting the
Native American population remain, in many instances, comparable to those prevailing in Third World countries.
The Native American experience of persecution is not a vicarious one. For substantial portions of this population, it
is a lived reality.What is more, an unrelenting sentiment of Indian-hating persists in this country:There is a peculiar
kind of hatred in the northwoods, a hatred born of the guilt of privilege, a hatred born of living with three
generations of complicity in the theft of lives and lands. What is worse is that each day, those who hold this position
of privilege must come face to face with those whom they have dispossessed. To others who rightfully should share
in the complicity and the guilt, Indians are far away and long ago. But in reservation border towns, Indians are ever
present. ... The poverty of dispossession is almost overwhelming. So is the poverty of complicity and guilt. In
America, poverty is relative, but it still causes shame. That shame, combined with guilt and a feeling of
powerlessness, creates an atmosphere in which hatred buds, blossoms, and flourishes. The hatred passes from
father to son and from mother to daughter. Each generation feels the hatred and it penetrates deeper to justify a
myth.[54]Attempts on the part of American Indians to transcend chronic, intergenerational maladies introduced by
the settler population (for example, in the highly contested Casino industry, in the ongoing battles over tribal
sovereignty, and so on) are challenged tooth and nail by the U.S. government and its "ordinary" people. Flexibility in
transcending these conditions has been greatly curtailed by federal policies that have "legally" supplanted our
traditional forms of governance, outlawed our languages and spirituality, manipulated our numbers and identity,
usurped our cultural integrity, viciously repressed the leaders of our efforts to regain self-determination, and
systematically miseducated the bulk of our youth to believe that this is, if not just, at least inevitable."[55] Today's
state of affairs in America, both with regard to public memory and national identity, represents a flawless mirror
image of the situation in Germany vis-hvis Jews and other non-Aryan victims of the Nazi regime.[56]Collective
indifference to these conditions on the part of both white and black America is a poor reflection on the nation's
character. This collective refusal to acknowledge the genocide further exacerbates the aftermath in Native
communities and hinders the recovery process. This, too, sets the American situation apart from the German-Jewish
situation: Holocaust denial is seen by most of the world as an affront to the victims of the Nazi regime. In America,
the situation is the reverse:victims seeking recovery are seen as assaulting American ideals. But what is at stake
today, at the dawn of a new millennium, is not the culture, tradition, and survival of one population on one
continent on either side of the Atlantic. What is at stake is the very future of the human species. LaDuke, in her
most recent work, contextualizes the issues from a contemporary perspective: Our
experience of survival
and resistance is shared with many others. But it is not only about Native people. ... In the
final analysis, the survival of Native America is fundamentally about the collective survival
of all human beings. The question of who gets to determine the destiny of the land, and of the people who live on
it--those with the money or those who pray on the land--is a question that is alive throughout society.[57]"There is,"
as LaDuke reminds us, "a direct relationship between the loss of cultural diversity and the loss of biodiversity.
Wherever Indigenous peoples still remain, there is also a corresponding enclave of biodiversity."[58] But, she
continues, The last 150 years have seen a great holocaust.
There have been more species lost in the
past 150 years than since the Ice Age. (During the same time, Indigenous peoples have been
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
216
Over 2,000 nations of Indigenous peoples have gone

extinct in the western hemisphere and one nation disappears from the Amazon rainforest every year.)[59] It is
not about "us" as indigenous peoples--it is about "us" as a human species. We are
all related. At issue is no longer the "Jewish question" or the "Indian problem." We must speak today in terms of
disappearing from the face of the earth.
the "human problem." And it is this "problem" for which not a "final," but a sustainable, viable solution must be
found--because it is no longer a matter of "serial genocide," it has become one of collective suicide. As Terrence Des
Pres put it, in The Survivor: "At the heart of our problems is that nihilism which was all along the destiny of Western
culture: a nihilism either unacknowledged even as the bombs fell or else, as with Hitler or Stalin, demonically
proclaimed as the new salvation."[60] All of us must now begin thinking and acting in the dimension and in the
interest of the human species--an intellectual domain of vita activa that indigenous people have inhabited since
time immemorial. It is this modality of thought as a process of reflection that the "civilized" nations must learn from
the "savage" ones. Vine Deloria, in "Native American Spirituality," has attempted to clarify this distinction: American
view reality from the perspective of

the one species that has the capability to reflect on the meaning of things . This attitude is
Indians look backwards in time to the creation of the world and
generally misunderstood by non-Indians who act as if reflection and logical thought were synonymous. But
reflection is a special art and requires maturity of personality, certainty of identity, and feelings
of equality with the other life forms of the world. It consists, more precisely, of allowing wisdom to
approach rather than seeking answers to self-generated questions . Such an attitude, then,
stands in a polarized position to the manner in which society today conducts itself.[61] It is not a matter of moral
bookkeeping or of winners and losers in the battle of the most martyred minority.
It is not a matter of
comparative victimology, but one of collective survival . The insistence on incomparability and
"uniqueness" of the Nazi Holocaust is precisely what prohibits our collective comprehension of genocide as a
phenomenon of Western "civilization," not as a reiterative series of historical events, each in its own way "unique."
It is what inhibits our ability to name causes, anticipate outcomes, d, above all to engage in preemptive political
and intellectual action in the face of contemporary exigencies.In Tabori's 1990 production Weisman and Rotgesicht,
the "calculus of calamity" is taken to hilarious heights to reveal the grave truth of the matter. In his 1994 discussion
of "The Contemporary German Fascination for Things Jewish," Jack Zipes states of Weisman und Rotgesicht:The
resolution that Tabori offers, though hilarious, is meant to be taken seriously: a verbal duel so that both sides can
expose themselves and realize how ridiculous it is to quarrel with one another. Hilarity becomes a nomadic means
of questioning majority culture and of reversing identities so that understanding between different groups can be
generated.[62]Ultimately, fostering a "solidarity of memory" that might fundamentally challenge majority culture
must he the aim of any comparison of "minority" situations, but the conclusion Zipes draws from this particular
conflation of identities in conflict is flawed by a misapprehension of the play's historically and culturally specific
geographic setting in the Western wilderness and its relationship to indigenous peoples. As I have argued
elsewhere, while Tabori does not specify the site of the duel in the desert, the play could be interpreted to be set in
what is now the state of Colorado.[63] This is the site of the Sand Creek Massacre--a historical event with culturally
specific meaning to the Native American people. It is at once a site of sanctity, of sacrifice, and of sacrilege. It
represents the rampant desecration that has devastated an entire civilization and its way of life. But according to
Jack Zipes's analysis: "There are many parallels that one can draw with the conflict in this play: Jews and blacks in
the States, or blacks and Koreans; Jews and Turks in Germany; Jews and Arabs in the Middle East."[64] Clearly, other
subaltern Others share similar relationships to other, more distant desert lands and wilderness landscapes, but
Zipes's analogies are flawed on several counts.In the case of the conflicts between the first two groups cited, the
element of violent conquest and the dispossession of lands at the heart of the American Indian-European immigrant
"dispute" is absent: Jews and blacks, like Jews and Koreans, are engaged in a struggle for cultural, racial, economic,
and social equity in territories to which they have been introduced as Others--either as slaves, immigrants, or
refugees. In the German-Turkish situation, the "minority" group is the "alien element" or, as the German euphemism
would have it, "guest workers." None of these struggles involves legal agreements between sovereign nations--that
is to say treaties between sovereign political entities-the terms of which have not been upheld by an outlaw state
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
217
whose legitimacy as a "world power" is nevertheless recognized by the international community.As Seth Wolitz has
stated in this regard, "the text can also be read allegorically as a version of the Israeli-Palestinian encounter
between two subalterns squabbling over land which the 'Gewittergoi', the imperialist powers, can always regain and
control."[65] The problem with this allegory, though, is that the North American territories that function as the
setting and backdrop for the territories at issue in the Indian-immigrant conflict have yet to be manumitted from
colonialist bondage. The lands remain in control of the "imperialist power."Precisely this is central to understanding
the double-edged ironies and conflicts addressed in Weisman und Rotgesicht. The setting involves a geographical
site that is readily associated with the actual site of a massacre and, as such, the site itself is ambiguous: it signifies
both a site of (ongoing) sanctity and one of (ongoing) desecration. If the parallel is to be drawn between the Jewish
and American Indian subaltern situations, the course of history as well as the present state of affairs must be taken
into account: the fact is that Hitler lost the war and the State of Israel was formed as partial reparation for the
losses sustained by the Jewish population as a result. However, the United States government, even as it sought to
help absorb the losses sustained by the Jewish population in Europe not only through its support of Israel, but by
offering refuge to Jewish immigrants in territories seized from the indigenous populations, won its war against the
Indians.[66] The crucial difference between a regime whose demise was rooted in genocide and one for whom
genocide was its foundational principle and the prerequisite to its existence is elided by this analogy.Moreover, at
the level of sheer abstraction, the solidarity between subaltern groups that the Jewish-American tradition of
"spoofing" Jewish-Indian relations seeks to evoke is marred by its unilateral initiative -- emanating from the Jewish
perspective in the context of a Judeo-Christian framework that demonstrates little regard for or knowledge of the
cultural and religious world-views of Native Americans, either as a collective entity or as heterogeneous individual
nations--each with its own relationship to specific geographic sites within the boundaries of occupied territories now
defined as the United States. The land, "the Wilderness" or "the Desert" which has come to signify a "wasteland" in
the symbolic and spiritual orders of other peoples, has never been associated with anything but abundance and
eternal sustenance for indigenous peoples because revelation is rooted in the life of reflection on and with the land,
not in catastrophic upheaval or divine intervention. Vine Deloria explains the "problem" of misconstrued
understandings of this relationship in this way: Almost every tribal religion was based on land. ... Some of the old
chiefs felt that, because generations of their ancestors had been buried on the lands and because the sacred events
of their religion had taken place on the lands, they were obligated to maintain the tribal lands against new kinds of
exploitation. ... Especially among the Pueblos, Hopi, and Navajo, the lands of the creation and emergence traditions
are easily identified and are regarded as places of utmost significance. ...Government officials have ruthlessly
disregarded the Indians' pleas for the restoration of their most sacred lands, and the constant dispute between
Indians and whites centers around this subject.[67] If anything sets the American Indian apart from other victims of
genocide or oppression in this country, it is this: Native Americans are not, in the strictest sense of the word, a
"diasporic" people.[68] While the policies of Indian Removal certainly served to disperse, displace, disparage, and
dislocate Native cultures and identities from coast to coast, imposing upon Native North American peoples
conditions of existence that might be described as "diasporic" in a Judeo-Christian or postcolonialist context, I would
caution against the appropriation of the diasporic metaphor with regard to the state of Native North America. The
traditional Deuteronomic narrative of the Diaspora implies divine punishment in response to a breach of covenant.
In order for a "diasporic" situation to prevail, the peoples of the diaspora must have entered into a contract with the
divinely intervening deity. But indigenous peoples of this country stood in no such relationship to the JudeoChristian God and his sovereign representatives on Earth. The notion of a "Native Diaspora" in the United States
presupposes an adherence to the doctrine of Manifest Destiny as divine intervention on the part of the JudeoChristian God in His effort to create "living space" or Lebensraum for His children--"chosen" and "unchosen" alike.
Even if we were to accept the contemporary permutations of the concept in the post colonialist attempt to subvert
and decenter traditional narratives of nationalism and imperialism as these relate to identity formation and the
location of culture, the diasporic metaphor is inapplicable because the peoples and lands at issue here have yet to
be manumitted from neo-colonialist bondage. Uprootedness, homelessness, exile--these are maladies forced upon
Native North American populations by the invading Europeans. What Simone Weil has written about this affliction in
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
218
reference to Euro-African relations in Africa applies equally to the situation on Turtle Island.[T]he white man carries
[uprootedness] about with him wherever he goes. The disease has even penetrated the heart of the African
continent, which had for thousands of years, nevertheless, been made up of villages. These black people at any
rate, when nobody came to massacre them, torture them, or reduce them to slavery, knew how to live happily on
their land. Contact with us is making them lose the art. That ought to make us wonder whether even the black man,
although the most primitive of all colonized peoples, hadn't after all more to teach us than to learn from us.
[69]Native
Americans have been "extirpated" as "savages" and as "barbarians" on their

own soil. That soil has been contaminated by pestilence, poisons, toxins, oil spills,
nuclear waste dumps and all the other deadly by-products Western "civilization" inevitably
leaves as its legacy. Sacred sites have been effaced; graves have been robbed. Synagogues and churches can be
rebuilt, but Mount Rushmore is not likely to be restored to its original glory by geological cosmetic surgery. Taken
literally, James Young's figurative language in "America's Holocaust: Memory and the Politics of Identity," is laced
with mordant irony: By themselves monuments are of little value, mere stones in the landscape. But as part of a
nation's rites or the objects of a people's national pilgrimage, they are imbued with national soul and memory. For
traditionally the state-sponsored memory of a national past aims to affirm the righteousness of a nation's birth,
even its divine election. The matrix of a nation's monuments emplots the story of ennobling events, of triumphs
over barbarism, and recalls the martyrdom of those who gave their lives in the struggle for national existence--who
in the martyrological refrain, died so that a nation might live. In assuming the idealized forms and meanings
assigned this era by the state, memorials tend to concretize particular historical interpretations. They suggest
themselves in indigenous, even geological outcroppings in a national landscape; in time, such idealized memory
grows as natural to the eye as the landscape in which it stands."[70] [emphasis mine]The irony of his statements is
certainly not lost on Young, who concludes his discussion with a section titled "Against a Culture of Competing
Catastrophes," and states:" In the end we must recognize that memory cannot be divorced from the actions taken
in its behalf, and that memory without consequences may even contain the seeds of its own destruction."[71] The
"national monument" at Mount Rushmore represents the geographic and symbolic site in which the principles of
Manifest Destiny and the master race are literally set in stone.[71]Only when the sanctity in the hearts and minds of
the indigenous population of this "vast, untamed wilderness" itself has been duly acknowledged- when
the
dominant culture finally comes to grips with the fact that the ground they walk upon is not
like a temple to the American Indian--it is the temple-then, and only then, will the nature of the
devastation and desecration be driven home to them. Once that has been established, the essentially
suicidal nature of Western intellectual endeavor will also become apparent. The savage-an entity reduced in the Western scheme of things to the level of "bare (and hence disposable) life" on a par with
the plant--reveals himself, in the Native American world-view, to be precisely that: nothing more and nothing less
than the tree itself--equals in a covenant and an evolutionary chain that does not shackle or bind, but merely bonds.
To the Native American sense and sensibility, the tree represents life itself, and there is no split between the life of
the tree and the life of the human. They are holistically, historically, and happily related in the nexus of mutually
sustainable symbiosis. If, following Agamben, "homo sacer is life that may be killed but not sacrificed ... life that
may be killed by anyone without committing homicide," then no crime has been committed in the American
Holocaust, nor is the dearth of "academic moves," "scholarly turns," and "paradigmatic shifts" toward a
fundamental rethinking and reshaping of American national identity of any consequence in global, local, or national
terms.[73] There has been no "human" sacrifice in the conquest of the West. Nothing but the forest has been lost to
the victor culture. But, if Native theorists, religious leaders, and activists who have survived the holocausts are
correct in asserting, as they do, that the fate of the forest will be that of man, then the master race is, in fact,
engaged in the specter of committing collective suicide--exercising the authority of the sovereign over life and
death on all our behalf.If we are to divert the disaster, Mount Rushmore must be placed on a par with burning
synagogues, whose fires can never be extinguished, and with black churches in the South subjected to racially
motivated acts of arson. If the "Jews are the Indians of Germany," then Mount Rushmore is Bitburg, writ large and
indelible, engraved not only in our collective memory, but spat on the very floor of the temple--a civic memorial to a
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
219
people and a way of life sacrificed to someone else's "God."[74] But it is also here that the master race, ex altera
terra, has signed and sealed its own fate on this continent as that of homo sacer: A life that, excepting itself in
double exclusion from the real context of both the profane and the religious forms of life, is defined solely by virtue
of having entered into an intimate symbiosis with death without, nevertheless, belonging to the world of the
deceased.[75] The stones speak volumes that continue to fall on the deaf ears of an American public more German
than the Germans in its persistent refusal to come to terms with a "little matter of genocide," choosing instead to
adopt as its own the foundling stone of a historical marker--that coveted historical caesura everyone wants to have,
no one wants to own in the "Americanization of the Holocaust." [76] But in the canyons
the three million survivors of the
American Holocaust.
but
of deep memory, the song of the stones still echoes and rings true for
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
220
Root of Borders
The physical existence and normalization of U.S. borders are
founded on the colonization of indigenous peoples.
Indigenous)]-DD
The process through which the borders of the United States become
ineluctable or natural is the same process through which American Indians
become invisibilized and minoritorized within the United States. And this
might, in part, be understood as a process of colonialist expansion
founded upon legal ideologies that continually oscillate between
recognizing and disavowing the presence of the native other internal and
external to the imperial project. As Ann Laura Stoler argues, the politics of comparison, in which
the commonalities particular (racialized) entities were made to share and that made such comparisons pertinent
the
incommensurability of the internal stems in part from the concept of Native
Nation, which directly contradicts nationalist ideals of justice, democracy, and
civilization that are foundational to the image the United States currently has of
itself. Through this assimilationist mode of made to share, U.S. slavery, as a
colonial institution that stripped the bodies of Africans away from themselves to
facilitate European and U.S. colonization of the New World, becomes
commensurable with the loss of lands that stripped native nations away from the
peoples who had lived upon those lands for tens of thousands of years, and in turn,
casts both as equally internal to the United States . Neither balances the other, nor can they
and possible, also risk flattening out historical specificities. 57 One might argue that
account fully for the historical violences embedded within the Cherokees institution of slavery within their own
colonized nation and the Cherokees 2007 decision to disenfranchise the Freedmen and refusal to recognize their
own agency and responsibility in perpetuating racist ideologies. Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06). The Transit of Empire:
Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (pp. 137-138). University of
Minnesota Press. Kindle Edition.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
221
Omnicide
Failure to destroy the state leads to omnicide.
Ryan 7 (Mike, 2007, On Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology:" Toward a
Revolutionary Practice, AK Press, pgs 148-149)
We accept the necessity of armed struggle in the Third World be cause the level of oppression leaves people with no
other reason able option. We recognize that the actions of Third World revolutionaries are not aggressive acts of
violence, but a last line of defense and the only option for liberation in a situation of totally violent oppression.
an examination of the realities con fronting American Indians, New Afrikans,

Puertorriquenos, and MexicanosjChicanos, should, I believe, bring us face to face
with the fact that the same sorts of Third and Fourth World circumstances and
dynamics exist within the contemporary borders of the United States and Canada. Certain
Similarly;
sectors of the peace movement have already begun to recognize this in a rudimentary kind of way. For example,
the following quote comes from an open letter to the peace movement as a whole, by the advisory board of the
the white peace movement must

aggressively seek leadership and direction from blacks, Hispanics, Native
Americans, and other people of color. They must participate in all aspects of
organizational planning, decision-making, and outreach. It is only with this active
involvement that it will be possible to build a truly broad based, multi racial,
multicultural movement capable of winning.40 I would only add that we must also
recognize that the reason such a movement can win is because it has the
capacity to meet the violence of the state with a counter-violence of
sufficient strength to dismember the heartland of the empire , liberating the
oppressed nations within it. Further, we must acknowledge the absolute right of
women to respond to the violence of patriarchy with the force necessary to protect
themselves . In sum, we must recognize the validity of violence as a necessary step
in self defense and toward liberation when the violence of the system leaves the
victim(s) with no other viable option. And it is here the logical inconsistency lies.
We recognize the right of oppressed peoples to respond to their oppression with
violence, but we abstain from engaging in violence ourselves. Thus we recognize
our own participation in the oppression of other peoples while we also attempt to
deny the critical situation in which we ourselves are found today , a circumstance described
United Methodist Voluntary Service: If real peace is to be achieved,
by Rosalie Bertell in an earlier quote. If, as Bertell suggests, we are sitting upon a dying earth, and consequently
dying as a species solely as a result of the nature of our society, if the technology we have developed is indeed
depleting the earth, destroying the air and water, wiping out entire species daily, and steadily weakening us to the
point of extinction, if phenomena such as Chernobyl are not aberrations, but are (as I insist they are) mere
reflections of our daily reality projected at a level where we can at last recognize its true meaning, then is it not
time-long past time-when we should do anything, in deed everything, necessary to put an end to such madness? Is
Our adamant refusal to look reality in its

face, to step outside our white skin privilege long enough to see that it is killing us,
not only tangibly reinforces the oppression of people of color the world over, it may
well be the single most important contributor to an incipient omnicide, the death of
all life as we know it. In this sense, it may well be that our self-imposed inability to
act decisively, far from having anything at all to do with the reduction of violence, is
instead perpetuating the greatest process of violence in history. It might well be that
our moral position is the most mammoth case of moral bankruptcy of all time.
it not in fact an act of unadulterated self-defense to do so?
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
222
Anthropocentrism
Colonialism is the root cause of anthropocentrism. Indigenous
cosmologies solve.
Belcourt 14 ( Billy-Ray-Belcourt., Department of Modern Languages and Cultural
Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Animal Bodies, Colonial Subjects:
(Re)Locating Animality in Decolonial Thought).KM
animal domesticity has been characterized by the coercive confinement, manipulation,
benefit of settlers [14] (p. 73), I contend that contemporary
domesticated animals must first be excised from their colonized
subjectivities to be subsequently re-oriented within ecologies of
decolonial subjecthood and re-signified through Indigenous cosmologies.
Similar to the ways in which Indigenous peoples can undergo a violent process
through which we rid our colonial mentalities, I argue that animals can be
liberated from their colonized subjecthood through an aided process of
desubjectification [7] (p. 456). That is, thinking through animality as an
infrastructure of decolonization re-positions animal bodies as agents of anti-colonial
resurgence. They can consequently engender forms of energy that are capable of engaging the forces that
keep [Indigenous people and animals] are tied to [a] colonial mentality and reality
[23] (p. 179). Settler colonialism has therefore required the normalization of
speciesism within Indigenous communities to obfuscate the radicality of
Indigenous-animal relations. In that sense, recalling the representation of animals in
Indigenous cosmologies/oral traditions and unsettling speciesism as a colonial
mentality must be prioritized in decolonial thought. Here, it is important to note that the
Although
and exploitation of animals for the
animal and the Indigenous subject are not commensurable colonial subjects insofar as their experiences of
I argue that
a decolonial animal ethic must operate through a similar narrative logic by using
Indigenous cosmologies as frameworks for a non-speciesist and anti-colonial
animality.
colonization are differenta decolonial animal ethic must therefore account for these differences.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
223
Prerequisite to Heidegger
K is a prerequisite to the aff kinship structure constitutes
Being their idea that everyone can achieve an authentic way
of Being assumes complete kinship structures which is not
accessible to natives due to genocide, assimilation, and forced
migration
Stevens 1999 (Jacqueline, Professor in the political science department at
Northwestern University, Reproducing the State, August 1 st 1999, Page xiii)
In brief, the laws productive of the Croatian librarys power/knowledge nexus emerge from the form of political
societies themselves, which all entail kinship rules. I want to invoke a critical, neo-Hegelian view of these
kinship rules, to suggest that it is the rules, a matter of law in its various meanings, that
constitute various forms of being, including heterosexual and lesbian, girlfriend and prostitute,
married and single. These kinship laws also constitute nationalities, ethnicities, and race
as forms of being. I use being here and not identity' or subjectivity because the gerund
of to be disrupts the commonplace intuition among non-Hegelians-I have in mind some post-structuralists and all
liberals-that a person might or might not have a particular identity as one might or might not have an overcoat.
My use of being is similar to the use of Dasein (being- there) by Hegel. Dasein connotes the
dialectics of various tensions within the self-consciousness of an age, a political society, or an individual, for
instance. Being as a gerund provides a similar sense of movement, between ones certainty of a thing and its
elusiveness to being named, between self- consciousness as to the ways categories may fail us and the awareness
of them as still useful, and for purposes of this study, between frustrations over certain conventions of naming
affiliations and the idiomatic uses of these conventions nonetheless.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
224
Impact to Heidegger Links

A lack of recognition of the damne leaves to a naturalization of
the non-ethics of warwhere murder and rape are day-to-day
occurrences
Hellish existence in the colonial world carries with it both the racial and the
gendered aspects of the naturalization of the non-ethics of wa r. Indeed, coloniality of
Being primarily refers to the normalization of the extraordinary events that take
place in war. While in war there is murder and rape , in the hell of the colonial world
murder and rape become day to day occurrences and menaces. Killability and
rapeability are inscribed into the images of the colonial bodies . Lacking real authority,
colonized men are permanently feminized. At the same time, men of color represent a
constant threat and any amount of authority, any visible trace of the phallus is
multiplied in a symbolic hysteria that knows no limits.55 Mythical depiction of the black
mans penis is a case in point. The Black man is depicted as an aggressive sexual beast who desires to
rape women, particularly White. The Black woman, in turn, is seeing as always already
sexually available to the raping gaze of the White and as fundamentally
promiscuous. The Black woman is seeing as a highly erotic being whose primary
function is fulfilling sexual desire and reproduction . To be sure, any amount of penis in both
represents a threat. But in its most familiar and typical forms the Black man represents the act of rape -- raping --
Black woman is seeing as the most legitimate victim of rape -- being raped .
Women deserve to be raped and to suffer the consequences -- in terms of lack of protection
from the legal system, further sexual abuse, and lack of financial assistance to sustain
herself and her family -- just as black man deserve to be penalized for raping, even
without committing such an act. Both raping and being raped are attached to
Blackness as if they were part of the essence of Black folk , which is seeing as a
dispensable population. Black bodies are seeing as excessively violent and erotic, as
while the
well as the legitimate recipients of excessive violence, erotic and otherwise. Killability and rapeability are part of
The essence of Blackness in a colonial

anti-black world is part of a larger context of meaning in which the non-ethics of war
gradually becomes a constitutive part of an alleged normal world . In its racial and colonial
their essence -- understood in a phenomenological way.
connotations and uses, Blackness is an invention and a projection of a social body oriented by the non-ethics of war.
The murderous and raping social body projects the features that define it to subOthers, in order to be able to legitimate the same behavior that is allegedly descriptive of them. The same
ideas that inspire perverted acts in war, particularly slavery, murder and rape, are
legitimized in modernity through the idea of race and gradually are seeing as normal
to a great extent thanks to the alleged obviousness and non-problematic character of Black
slavery and anti-Black racism. To be sure those who suffer the consequences of such a system are
primarily Blacks and indigenous peoples, as well as all of those who appear as colored. In short, this system of
symbolic representations, the material conditions that in part produce it and
continue to legitimate it, and the existential dynamics that occur therein, which are
also at the same time derivative and constitutive of such a context, are part of a
process that naturalizes the non-ethics of war. The sub-ontological difference is the
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
225
result of such naturalization. It is legitimized through the idea of race . In such a world,
ontology collapses into a Manicheism, as Fanon suggested.56
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
226
First Priority vs. Heidegger

First priority: colonial difference is the most fundamental
ontological questionthe coloniality of the Being is rendered
to a state of exceptionits a violation of the very meaning of
alterity
Fanon offered the first phenomenology of the Manichean colonial world , understood
properly as a Manichean reality and not solely as ontological.57 In his analysis, he investigated not only
the relation between whites and blacks, but also those between black males and black females. Much can be added
to his discussion, but that is not my purpose here. What I wish is first to provide a way to understand the Fanonian
breakthrough in light of the articulation of sub-ontological difference and the idea of the naturalization of the non-
we can see now that when Fanon called

for a war against colonialism, what he was doing was to politicize social relations
which were already premised on war. Fanon was not only fighting against anti-black
racism in Martinique, or French colonialism in Algeria. He was countering the force and
legitimacy of a historical system (European modernity) which utilized racism and
colonialism to naturalize the non-ethics of war. He was doing a war against war
oriented by love, understood here as the desire to restore ethics and to give it a
proper place to trans-ontological and ontological differences.58 For Fanon, in the
colonial context, ontological colonial difference or subontological difference
profoundly marks the day to day reality. If the most basic ontological question is why
are things rather than nothing, the question that emerges in this context and that
opens up reflection on the coloniality of Being is Why go on? As Lewis Gordon has put it,
ethics of war. This is important because, among other things,
why go on? is a fundamental question in the existential philosophy of the African diaspora and it illuminates the
Why go on? is preceded only by one expression , which

becomes the first instance that revels the coloniality of Being , that is, the cry. 60 The cry, not
a word but an interjection, is a call of attention to ones own existence. The cry is the preplight of the wretched of the earth. 59
theoretical expression of the question -- Why go on? -- which for the most part drives theoretical reflection in the
peoples of the African diaspora.
It is the cry that animates the birth of theory and critical
thought. And the cry points to a peculiar existential condition: that of the condemned. The damne or
condemned is not a being there but a non-being or rather, as Ralph Ellison so eloquently elaborated, a sort of an
What is invisible about the person of color is its very humanity, and
this is in fact what the cry tries to call attention to . Invisibility and dehumanization
are the primary expressions of the coloniality of Being. The coloniality of Being
indicates those aspects that produce exception from the order of Being ; it is as it were,
the product of the excess of Being that in order to maintain its integrity and inhibit
the interruption by what lies beyond Being produces its contrary, not nothing, but a
non-human or rather an inhuman world. The coloniality of Being refers not merely to
the reduction of the particular to the generality of the concept or any given horizon of meaning,
but to the violation of the meaning of human alterity to the point where the alterego becomes a sub-alter. Such a reality, typically approximated very closely in situations of war, is
transformed into an ordinary affair through the idea of race, which serves a crucial role in the
naturalization of the non-ethics of war through the practices of colonialism and (racial) slavery . The coloniality
of Being is not therefore an inevitable moment or natural outcome of the dynamics
invisible entity.61
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
227
of creation of meaning. Although it is always present as a possibility, it shows itself

forth when the preservation of Being (in any of its determinations: national ontologies, identitarian
ontologies, etc.) takes primacy over listening to the cries of those whose humanity is
being denied. The coloniality of Being appears in historical projects and ideas of
civilization which advance colonial projects of various kinds inspired or legitimized
by the idea of race. The coloniality of Being is therefore coextensive with the production of the color-line in
its different expressions and dimensions. It becomes concrete in the appearance of liminal
subjects, which mark, as it were, the limit of Being , that is, the point at which Being distorts
meaning and evidence to the point of dehumanization. The coloniality of Being produces the
ontological colonial difference, deploying a series of fundamental existential
characteristics and symbolic realities. I have sketched out some. An ample discussion will require
another venue. What I would like to do here is to show the relevance of the categories that have been introduced so
far for the project of decolonization, which is, ultimately, the positive dimension that inspires this analysis. Like I did
in this section, let me begin once more with what we have discovered as our radical point of departure: the damne
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
228
Turns Gender Affs

White discourses about sexism exclude the sexual violence
experienced by Indigenous peoples.
Smith and Ross, Andera Smith is a feminist whose work focuses on violence
against women of color and Launa Ross is a Native American sociologist at the
University of Washington, 2004 (Andrea, Launa Introduction: Native Women and
State Violence 2004, https://www.socialjusticejournal.org/SJEdits/98Edit.html)
Native women who are survivors of violence often find themselves forced into
silence around sexual and domestic violence by their communities because their
communities desire to maintain a united front against racism and colonialism. At the
same time, the white-dominated antiviolence movement often pits Native women
against their communities, arguing that they should leave the communities in which
their abusers reside. The reason Native women are constantly marginalized
in male-dominated discourses about racism and colonialism and whitedominated discourses about sexism is the inability of both discourses to
address the inextricable relationship between gender violence and colonialism. That
is, the issue is not simply that violence against women happens during colonization,
but that the colonial process is itself structured by sexual violence . Native nations
cannot decolonize themselves until they address gender violence, because
colonization has succeeded through this kind of violence . In part, this is because the history of
colonization of Native people is interrelated with colonizers assaults upon Indian bodies. It is through the constant
assaults upon our bodies that colonizers have attempted to eradicate our sense of Indian identity. Consequently,
violence against Native women is inextricably linked to the state. As Andrea Smith has argued elsewhere (Smith,
Indian bodies have become marked as inherently dirty through the

colonial process. They are then considered sexually violable and rapeable,
and by extension, Native lands become marked as inherently invadeable . That is, in
patriarchal thinking, only a body that is pure can be violated. The rape of bodies
that are considered inherently impure or dirty does not count. For instance,
prostitutes have an almost impossible time being believed if they are raped because
the dominant society considers the prostitutes body to be undeserving of integrity
and violable at all times. Similarly, the history of mutilation of Indian bodies, both living and dead, makes it
1999),
clear to Indian people that they are not entitled to bodily integrity (Ibid.). In the history of massacres against Indian
people, colonizers attempt not only to defeat Indian people, but also to eradicate their very identity and humanity.
They attempt to transform Indian people from human beings into tobacco pouches, bridle reins, or souvenirs -- an
object for the consumption of white people. However, as Haunani Kay Trasks essay in this issue demonstrates, this
colonized violence continues to manifests itself today in a variety of forms. Trask articulates the relationship
between colonization and violence as a quiet violence. That is, the violence of colonization is evidenced not
merely in the most obvious forms of the history of massacres against indigenous peoples in the Americas, but in the
continuing institutionalized forms of racism, discrimination, and housing that manifest themselves on a daily basis
Through this colonization and abuse of their bodies,

Indian people learn to internalize self-hatred. Body image is integrally related
to self-esteem. When ones body is not respected, one begins to hate oneself . Thus,
it is not a surprise that Indian people who have survived sexual abuse say they do
not want to be Indian (Smith, 1999). Each instance of abuse suffered by Native people is another reminder
in the lives of Native peoples.
that, if you dont make something pretty/ they can hang on their walls or wear around their necks/ you might as
Roxanne Chinook discloses in these

pages her personal experiences of the complexities of violence, including rape,
family violence, and the eventual removal of her children. Chinook must be
well be dead (Chrystos, 1995: 41). With exceptional courage,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
229
applauded for her candid discussion of her experiences with tribal courts and what
she terms her re-victimization. As well, she must be applauded for her determination to survive such
horrendous treatment. Through her personal narrative, she broadens our knowledge about the reality of life for
Her story makes real issues that we grapple with as

academics. As such, Chinook humanizes the violence to which far too many Native
women are subjected.
many contemporary Native women.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
230
Ontological Violence
Surveillance was used as a weapon to monitor and assimilate
indigenous people until they were deemed competent,
capitalist and mature enough to be granted legal status or
citizenship- this resulted in the ontological violence and
paternalism.
In 1887 the Dawes Allotment Act divided native lands into individual allotments of 80-160 acres. The federal
Native peoples were given fees in trust

for twenty-five years, until deemed "competent" by the secretary of the interior . They
government then expropriated the remaining surplus lands.
could then obtain fee patents enabling them to sell their lands. The rationale for this policy was that the practice of
communal land ownership among native peoples was discouraging them from working the land. In the 1887 Indian
commissioner's report, J. D. C. Atkins explains the need for allotment: Take the most prosperous and energetic
community in the most enterprising section of our country-New England; give them their lands in common, furnish
them annuities of food and clothing, send them teachers to teach their children, preachers to preach the gospel,
farmers to till their lands, and physicians to heal their sick, and I predict that in a few years, a generation or two at
This pauperizing policy above outlined was, however, to

necessary at the beginning of our efforts to civilize the savage
Indian. He was taken a hostile barbarian, his tomahawk red with the blood
of the pioneer; he was too wild to know any of the arts of civilization....
Hence some such policy had to resort to settle the nomadic Indian and
place him under control. This policy was a tentative one. . . . Now, as fast as any tribe becomes
most, their manhood would be smothered....
some extent
sufficiently civilized and can be turned loose and put upon its own footing, it should be done. Agriculture and
education will gradually do this work and finally enable the Government to leave the Indian to stand alone. (Report
of the Secretary of the Interior 1887, n.p.) The report warns that allotment will not work overnight: "Idleness,
improvidence, ignorance, and superstition cannot by law be transformed into industry, thrift, intelligence, and
surveillance practices were essential, in

order to instill normalizing discipline as a means to forcibly absorb native
peoples into the colonial state. This pathway toward civilization required
native peoples to adapt to a capitalist work model. The commissioner's report further
Christianity speedily" (ibid., 4). Consequently,
explained how work could save native peoples from barbarism. It must be apparent ... that the system of gathering
the Indians in bands or tribes on reservations[,] ... thus relieving them of the necessity of labor, never will and never
Labor is an essential element in producing civilization. . . . The

greatest kindness the government can bestow upon the Indian is to teach
him to labor for his own support, thus developing his true manhood, and,
as a consequence, making him self-relying and self-supporting . (ibid., 6-7) Thus,
through the careful policing and monitoring of native social structures, it
would be possible to save native peoples from themselves, as well as to
absorb them into colonial whiteness. Despite these civilizational strategies,
native peoples never seemed to attain humanity. Homi Bhabha (1997) and Edward Said (1994)
argue that the colonization process involves partially assimilating the
colonized in order to establish colonial rule. If the colonized group were to
remain completely different from the colonists, it would implicitly
challenge the supremacy of colonial rule, by introducing questions around
whether the way colonizers live is the only way to live. Hence, in order to
preserve the cultural ideals of the colonizers, the colonized had to resemble the
can civilize them.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
231
colonists-but only partially, for if the colonized were to be completely assimilated,

they would be equal to the colonists, and there would be no reason to continue to
colonize them. In this way, the promised assimilation was never total or complete, which created a permanent
colonial anxiety with respect to the indigenous peoples who were to be absorbed. As Kevin Bruyneel contends,
advocacy for bestowing full citizenship on native peoples soon gave way to notions
of a more qualified citizenship, as native peoples were deemed to be civilizing
too slowly. Because of native peoples' imposed ontological status as
children, they were never considered mature enough to earn full
independence from their colonial fathers (Bruyneel 2004, 3).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
232
ROB
Role of the ballot is to use this round for red pedagogy
Grande 8 (Sandy, Ph.D. Kent State University Associate Professor of Education
at Connecticut College, Red Pedagogy: The Un-Methodology, Handbook of Critical
and Indigenous Methodologies, eds. Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln, and Linda
Tuhiwai Smith, Pages 249-250)
From the standpoint of Red pedagogy, the primary lesson in all of this is pedagogical. In
other words, as we are poised to raise yet another generation in a nation at war and at risk, we must
consider how emerging conceptions of citizenship, sovereignty, and democracy will affect
the (re)formation of our national identity, particularly among young people in schools. As
Mitchell (2001) notes, "The production of democracy, the practice of education, and the constitution of
the nation-state" have always been interminably bound together. The imperative before us
as citizens is to engage a process of unthinking our colonial roots and rethinking democracy. For teachers
and students, this means that we must be willing to act as agents of transgression, posing
critical questions and engaging dangerous discourse . Such is the basis of Red pedagogy. In
particular, Red pedagogy offers the following seven precepts as a way of thinking our way
around and through the challenges facing American education in the 21st century and our
mutual need to define decolonizing pedagogies: 1. Red pedagogy is primarily a pedagogical project. In this context,
pedagogy is understood as being inherently political, cultural, spiritual, and intellectual . 2.

Red pedagogy is fundamentally rooted in indigenous knowledge and praxis . It is particularly
interested in knowledge that furthers understanding and analysis of the forces of
colonization. 3. Red pedagogy is informed by critical theories of education . A Red
pedagogy searches for ways it can both deepen and be deepened by engagement with critical and revolutionary
Red pedagogy promotes an education for decolonization . Within Red

pedagogy, the root metaphors of decolonization are articulated as equity,
emancipation, sovereignty, and balance . In this sense, an education for decolonization
makes no claim to political neutrality but rather engages a method of analysis and social inquiry
that troubles the capitalist-imperialist aims of unfettered competition, accumulation, and
exploitation. 5. Red pedagogy is a project that interrogates both democracy and
indigenous sovereignty. In this context, sovereignty is broadly defined as "a people's right to
rebuild its demand to exist and present its gifts to the world ... an adamant refusal to
dissociate culture, identity, and power from the land " (Lyons, 2000). 6. Red pedagogy
actively cultivates praxis of collective agency. That is, Red pedagogy aims to build transcultural
and transnational solidarities among indigenous peoples and others committed to
reimagining a sovereign space free of imperialist, colonialist, and capitalist exploitation .
7. Red pedagogy is grounded in hope . This is, however, not the future-centered hope of
the Western imagination but rather a hope that lives in contingency with the past
one that trusts the beliefs and understandings of our ancestors, the power of traditional
knowledge, and the possibilities of new understandings . In the end, a Red pedagogy is
about engaging the development of "community-based power" in the interest of "a
responsible political, economic, and spiritual society." That is, the power to live out "active presences and
survivances rather than an illusionary democracy ." Vizenor's (1993) notion of
survivance signifies a state of being beyond "survival, endurance, or a mere response to
colonization" and of moving toward "an active presence ... and active repudiation of
dominance, tragedy and victimry?" In these post-Katrina times, I find the notion of survivance
theories and praxis. 4.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
233
speaks to our collective need

to decolonize, to push back against empire, and to reclaim what it means to be a
people of sovereign mind and body. The peoples of the Ninth Ward in New Orleans serve as a reminder to all of
particularly as it relates to colonized peoplesto be poignant and powerful. It
us that just as the specter of colonialism continues to haunt the collective soul of America, so too does the more
hopeful spirit of indigeneity.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
234
Alternative
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
235
Alt Solves Imperialism, Race, and Post-Colonialism

Indigenous knowledge and inclusion of native pedagogy
resolves a multiplicity of oppressions and problems because
they are the path through which empire is able to manifest
itself
Indigenous)]-DD
Drawing upon that historical memory, which arises from indigenous lived
experiences of colonization and genocide and which links those experiences with
globalization and imperialism, indigenous critical theory prioritizes indigenous
ontologies to read symptomatically against the colonialist discourses of settler
societies. By foregrounding how colonialist discourses justify the legal, political,
economic, and physical dispossession of American Indian lives, lands, and cultures,
and by centering indigenous subjectivities and epistemologies through which we
might theorize the violences of the United States manifest destiny, scholars
interested in developing a conversation among postcolonial, subaltern, and
transnational indigenous studies might begin by understanding how the United
States global imperialist projects are underwritten by the continued
colonization of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Hawaiian lands. Here, I
would suggest, indigenous critical theory might make some important
contributions to critical race and postcolonial studies through a sustained
exploration of the incommensurability of the internal for the over 560 sovereign
Indigenous nations that consolidate under the U.S. umbrella designation as Native
American. As Gayatri Spivak argues, the work of the colonizer is at some level
consolidating the Self of Europe by obliging the native to cathect the space of the
Other on his home ground. Within the context of indigenous nations in North America, that cathexis of
the space of the Other demands at the same time a capitulation to the self as assimilated possibility, an obligation,
in Spivaks words, to domesticate the alien [settler] as Master. In other words, according to Spivak, colonialism
functions dialectically as a process of worlding that obliges the native to imagine and invest herself counter to her
As indigenous nations colonized by the United States are continually

worlded into the more perfect union, the United States which has only existed as
fifty states for just over fifty years gains hegemonic authority to enact
paternalistic policies that seek to protect U.S. homelands by expanding control
and markets in an ever-widening net of influence . Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06). The Transit of
own world. 20
Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (p. 124). University of
Minnesota Press. Kindle Edition.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
236
Alt Solves Heidegger

Alt solves case native perspectives on the world IS ALETHEIA
a decolonization solves all their offense
Wohlpart 2013 (A. James, Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences
and Professor of English at the Florida Gulf Coast University, Walking in the Land of
Many Gods: Remembering Sacred Reason in Contemporary, April 1 st 2013, Pages
16-17)KC
Heidegger's expropriative appropriating" finds a nice parallel in N. Scott
Momadays definition of Native American ethical perspectives on the physical world
as "a matter of reciprocal appropriation." Momaday explains that this paradoxical
ethic of appropriation occurs when man invests himself in the landscape, and at
the same time incorporates the landscape into his own most fundamental
experience."15 Significantly, Heidegger's use of the word play emphasizes that this
mirroring is not a static thing but rather a dynamic happening of giving up and
taking in. This mirroring is world for Heidegger, not the world as a spatial entity but
world as a happening. as an event, a "worlding." And the role of humans in this
happening of being is to step back from the thinking that merely represents-that is ,
explains-to the thinking that responds and recalls.16 Heideggers understanding of language lies at the heart of
For Heidegger, true language names things in such a way

that they are called, bringing "the presence of what was previously uncalled into a
nearness. As a result, the things that were named, thus called, gather to
themselves sky and earth, mortals and divinities. The four are united primally in
being toward one another, a fourfold. The things let the fourfold of the four stay with them. This
gathering, assembling, letting- stay is the thinging of things. The unitary fourfold of sky and earth,
mortals and divinities, which is stayed in the thinging of things, we call - the world ."
Through language, then, humans have the opportunity to dwell, to allow things to be
called in such a way that this calling unites the fourfold, what Heidegger calls
world. While world, which occurs through the happening of the thinging of the thing, and the thing itself are
this concept of co-responding.
intimately interwoven, they remain disparate, which Heidegger denotes through the term difference. He
explains that the way in which mortals, called out of the difference into the difference, speak on their own part, is:
by responding. Mortal speech must first of all have listened to the command, in the form of which the stillness of
the difference calls world and things into the rift of its onefold simplicity. Every word of mortal speech speaks out of
Authentic human speech becomes a responding to

the call of Being, which begins through listening : "Mortals speak insofar as they listen." But the
such a listening, and as such a listening."
listening is of a certain kind-it is a listening to the stillness of world and thing, to a granting that is a preserving and
a caring. Stillness is not something human but is rather the staying of things on Earth, the allowing of things to
presence in themselves; through this staying, which becomes a responding, language speaks through humans:
What is important is learning to live in the speaking of language. To do so, we need to examine constantly whether
and to what extent we are capable of what genuinely belongs to responding: anticipation in reserve.21
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
237
Alt Solves Feminism

The alt. solves the impact- Gender violence and patriarchy are
tools of settler colonialism that seek to instill the supposed
inevitability of social hierarchies.
Gender violence is a central strategy of settler colonialism and white
supremacy. Colonizers did not just kill off indigenous peoples in this land:
native massacres were always accompanied by sexual mutilation and rape .
The goal of colonialism is not just to kill colonized peoples, but to destroy
their sense of being people (A. Smith 2005a). The generally nonpatriarchal and
nonhierarchical nature of many native communities posed a threat to European
patriarchal societies. Consequently, when colonists first came to this land, they
saw the necessity of instilling patriarchy in native communities, for they
realized that indigenous peoples would not accept colonial domination if
their own indigenous societies were not structured on the basis of social
hierarchies. Patriarchy rests on a gender- binary system; hence, it is no coincidence that colonizers also
targeted indigenous peoples who did not fit within this binary model. Gender violence thus
inscribed patriarchy onto the bodies of native peoples, naturalizing social
hierarchies and colonial domination. The imposition of heteropatriarchy serves not
only to secure colonial domination for indigenous peoples, but also to secure
patriarchy within the colonizing society against the threats of the alternative
governance structures that indigenous societies represent . It is noteworthy that the high
status of women and the relatively peaceful nature of many native societies did not escape the notice of white
A society based on domination, hierarchy,

and violence works only when it seems natural or inevitable. Given an alternative,
peoples will generally choose not to live under violent conditions. The
demonization of native societies, as well as their resulting destruction,
was necessary to securing the "inevitability" of patriarchy within colonial
societies. Again, the colonialist surveillance of native bodies served the
simultaneous purposes of making them visible to the state while at the
same time making invisible the threat to the settler state posed by
indigenous governance. To further remove the threats that indigenous governance systems posed to
peoples, in particular of white women (A. Smith 2005b).2
settler societies, the problem resulting from this colonial disease was relocated from a patriarchal and violent settler
state to the "Indian" problem. As Wolfe (1999) notes ,
the more gender-egalitarian nature of

some indigenous societies became anthropologically marked as the sign of
their unevolved, premodern status. By adopting patriarchy, colonialists
speculated, native peoples might evolve toward "humanity" and "civilization."
Native peoples were to be bureaucratically managed through allotment
processes, church- and government-run boarding schools, and
government-run health programs, among other strategies to facilitate
their ascension to humanity. While courts often held that native peoples were
potential citizens with the right to vote -unlike African Americans in the antebellum period-such
potential could be realized, from the colonialist perspective, only when those peoples mature out of
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
238
their status as native. In addition, native peoples' were generally assigned the legal
status of children, deemed legally incompetent to handle their own affairs and thus
legally marked as "nonworkers." Native peoples pathway to citizenship thus
depended on their maturation into adult (i.e., white) workers. Thus, native peoples'
acquisition of citizenship and voting rights was framed as a reward for proving their
ability to work.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
239
Native American tradition places femininity as a center of

being allowing stronger resistance to patriarchal systems
Another feature distinguishing indigenous matrices of identity is its disen- gagement
from the "myth of male dominance," that is, the universal assumption that all
societies have been defined by, and organized through, patriarchy . Indeed, for many
indigenous peoples the constructs of legacy, power, and cer- emony evoke ideas of
"woman" and/or of "Mother." Indeed, contrary to simplistic New Age
commodifications of a passive, pastoral "mother earth," however, the traditions of
tribal peoples conceive a more complex, proactive, and powerful entity. Consider, for
example, the traditional constructions of the Earth Mother by the Pueblo Indians .
Paula Allen Gunn (Laguna Pueblo) states that the La- guna do not set up some "primitive"
equation between fertility and womanhood; rather, they associate "the essential
nature of femininity with the creative power of thought " (cited in Bierhorst 1994). This
association emanates from the Laguna earth spirit herself, Tse the nako, or Thought Womana creator who inhabits
the earth yet also stands apart from it (Bierhorst 1994). For the Laguna and other Pueblo groups of New Mexico,
Thought Woman prepares for the creation of life on Earth while entrusting the task itself to a 174 Chapter Six pair of
Creation, thus, is both profoundly relational and essentially female.

For the Kuna people, the Earth Mother is said to have exerted her intellect in
conjunction with a male companion and, together, they conceive the future "from
the very beginning." Creation for the Kuna, thus, is also relational but equally shared by men and women.
Similarly, in one of the Navajo creation stories, "the one called Earth mother" is said
to have given humans the gift of intellect. Specifically, the mother is believed to
have placed her hands on both sides of the human head, declaring "this will be your
thinking, this you will think by" and from that time forward the Earth was in charge
of human consciousness (Bierhorst 1994).11 Indigenous understandings of the
(feminine) Earth are, thus, far from passive. On the contrary, she is constructed as a
powerful and intellectual life force that has served as a guiding and directive entity
since "the very beginning." Though the significance of these narratives varies from
nation to nation and woman to woman, collectively they serve to ground the
formation of indigenous subjectivity in a woman-centered sense of the universe .
This grounding lays the foundation for strong conceptions of self in which the notion of woman is: (1) conceived in a deep and abiding relationship to a powerful
and "enchanted universe" (Berman 1981); (2) positioned in dialectical relationship
with man and all other beings; and (3) viewed as an extension of the Earth Mother
herself, the life force and symbol of women's continuing strategies for creativity,
intelligence, and empowerment. None of this is to say that American Indian women (or men) are
sisters (Bierhorst 1994).
immune to the patriarchal system that surrounds them, only that such traditions enable indigenous peoples to draw
upon a reserve of ancestral knowledge that in- herits what whitestream feminism has been unable to instilla
pervasive understanding of woman as power. Therefore ,
as indigenous men and women

increasingly suffer the ills of patriarchy, it becomes even more necessary to build a
sense of indigena that conjures a decolonized sense of being in the world, one that
sustains different ways of inhabiting the space of beingness, community, and family.
Moreover, in times when fierce xenophobia is disguised as patriotic nationalism, it
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
240
is incumbent upon all of us to conceptualize ways of being that operate beyond
the dispirited, displaced, and patriarchal notions of nationhood and citizenship.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
241
Alt Solves Resistance against Power

Native American narratives of surveillance can be points of
resistance against power
Red pedagogy is the manifestation of sovereignty, engaging the development of
"community-based power" in the interest of "a responsible political, economic, and
spiritual society" 12 (Richardson and Villenas 2000, 272). Power in this context refers to the
practice of "living out active presences and survivances rather than an illusionary
democracy"( Richardson and Villenas 2000, 273). As articulated by Vizenor, the notion of survivance signifies a
state of being beyond "survival, endurance, or a mere response to colonization," toward "an active presence . . .
and active repudiation of dominance, tragedy and victimry"(Vizenor 1998, 15 ).
The survivance

narratives of indigenous peoples are those that articulate the active recovery,
reimagination, and reinvestment of indigenous ways of being. These narratives
assert the struggles of indigenous peoples and the lived reality of colonization as a
complexity that extends far beyond the parameters of economic capitalist
oppression.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
242
Alt- Incommensurability
The alternative is to enact an ethic of incommensurability that
aspires to literal decolonization
Eve Tuck is an assistant professor of educational foundations at the State
University of New York at New Paltz. Her writing, which has been concerned with
Indigenous theories, qualitative research, research ethics, and theories of change,
has appeared in the Harvard Educational Review, the Urban Review and several
edited volumes, including Ethical Futures in Qualitative Research and the Handbook
of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. and K. Wayne Yang is an assistant
professor at UC San Diego. Ph.D., 2004, Social and Cultural Studies, University of
California, Berkeley. 2012 [Decolonization is not a metaphor, Decolonization:
Indigeneity, Education & Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, pp. 1-40,
http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/download/18630/15554] KM
Incommensurability is an acknowledgement that decolonization will require a
change in the order of the world (Fanon, 1963). This is not to say that Indigenous peoples or Black and
brown peoples take positions of dominance over white settlers; the goal is not for everyone to merely
swap spots on the settler-colonial triad, to take another turn on the merry-go-round.
The goal is to break the relentless structuring of the triad - a break and not a
compromise (Memmi, 1991). Breaking the settler colonial triad, in direct terms,
means repatriating land to sovereign Native tribes and nations, abolition
of slavery in its contemporary forms, and the dismantling of the imperial
metropole. Decolonization here is intimately connected to antiimperialism elsewhere. However, decolonial struggles here/there are not parallel ,
not shared equally, nor do they bring neat closure to the concerns of all involved - particularly not for settlers.
Decolonization is not equivocal to other anti-colonial struggles. It is

incommensurable. There is so much that is incommensurable, so many overlaps that cant be figured, that
cannot be resolved. Settler colonialism fuels imperialism all around the globe. Oil is the motor and motive for war
and so was salt, so will be water. Settler sovereignty over these very pieces of earth, air, and water is what makes
possible these imperialisms. The same yellow pollen in the water of the Laguna Pueblo reservation in New Mexico,
Leslie Marmon Silko reminds us, is the same uranium that annihilated over 200,000 strangers in 2 flashes. The
same yellow pollen that poisons the land from where it came. Used in the same war that took a generation of young
Pueblo men. Through the voice of her character Betonie, Silko writes, Thirty thousand years ago they were not
strangers. You saw what the evil had done; you saw the witchery ranging as wide as the world" (Silko, 1982, p. 174).
In Tucson, Arizona, where Silko lives, her books are now banned in schools. Only curricular materials affirming the
settler innocence, ingenuity, and right to America may be taught. In No, her response to the 2003 United States
invasion of Iraq, Mvskoke/Creek poet Joy Harjo (2004) writes, Yes, that was me you saw shaking with bravery, with
a government issued rifle on my back. Im sorry I could not greet you, as you deserved, my relative. Dont Native
Americans participate in greater rates in the military? asks the young-ish man from Viet Nam. Indian Country
was/is the term used in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq by the U.S. military for enemy territory. The first Black
American President said without blinking, There was a point before folks had left, before we had gotten everybody
back on the helicopter and were flying back to base, where they said Geronimo has been killed, and Geronimo was
the code name for bin Laden. Elmer Pratt, Black Panther leader, falsely imprisoned for 27 years, was a Vietnam
Veteran, was nicknamed Geronimo. Geronimo is settler nickname for the Bedonkohe Apache warrior who fought
Mexican and then U.S. expansion into Apache tribal lands. The Colt .45 was perfected to kill Indigenous people
during the liberation of what became the Philippines, but it was first invented for the Indian Wars in North
America alongside The Hotchkiss Canon- a gattling gun that shot canonballs. The technologies of the permanent
settler war are reserviced for foreign wars, including boarding schools, colonial schools, urban schools run by
military personnel. It is properly called Indian Country. Ideologies of US settler colonialism directly informed
Australian settler colonialism. South African apartheid townships, the kill-zones in what became the Philippine
colony, then nation-state, the checkerboarding of Palestinian land with checkpoints, were modeled after U.S.
seizures of land and containments of Indian bodies to reservations. The racial science developed in the U.S. (a
settler colonial racial science) informed Hitlers designs on racial purity (This book is my bible he said of Madison
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
243
Grants The Passing of the Great Race). The admiration is sometimes mutual, the doctors and administrators of
forced sterilizations of black, Native, disabled, poor, and mostly female people - The Sterilization Act accompanied
the Racial Integrity Act and the Pocohontas Exception - praised the Nazi eugenics program. Forced sterilizations
became illegal in California in 1964. The management technologies of North American settler colonialism have
provided the tools for internal colonialisms elsewhere. So to with philosophies of state and corporate landgrabbing24. The prominence of flat world perspectives asserts that technology has afforded a diminished
significance of place and borders. The claim is that U.S. borders have become more flexible, yet simultaneously, the
physical border has become more absolute and enforced. The border is no longer just a line suturing two nationstates; the U.S. now polices its borders interior to its territory and exercises partial forms. New Orleans lower ninth
ward lies at the confluence of river channels and gulf waters, and at the intersection of land grabbing and human
bondage. The collapsing of levies heralded the selective collapsibility of native-slave, again, for the purpose of
reinvasion, resettlement, reinhabitation. The naturalized disaster of Hurricane Katrinas floodwaters laid the perfect
cover for land speculation and the ablution of excess people. What cant be absorbed, cant be folded in (because
the settlers won't give up THEIR land to advance abolition), translates into bodies stacked on top of one another in
public housing and prisons, in cells, kept from the labor market, making labor for others (guards and other
corrections personnel) making money for states -human homesteading. It necessitates the manufacturing of crime
at rates higher than anywhere in the world. 1 in 6 people in the state of Louisiana are incarcerated, the highest
number of caged people per capita, making it the prison capital of United States, and therefore the prison capital of
the world. The Yazoo and Mississippi Rivers delta flood plain was once land so fertile that it could be squeezed for
excess production of cotton, giving rise to exceptionally large-scale plantation slavery. Plantation owners lived in
houses like pyramids and chattel slavery took an extreme form here, even for the South, beginning with enslaved
Chitimachas, Choctaw, Natchez, Chaouachas, Natchez, Westo, Yamasee, Euchee, Yazoo and Tawasa peoples, then
later replaced by enslaved West Africans. Literally, worked to death. This most Southern on earth(Cobb, 1992)
was a place of ultimate terror for Black people even under slavery (the worst place to be sold off too, the place of
no return, the place of premature death). Black and Native people alike were induced to raid and enslave Native
tribes, as a bargain for their own freedom or to defer their own enslavibility by the British, French, and then
American settlers. Abolition has its incommensurabilities. The Delta is now more segregated than it was during Jim
Crow in 1950 (Aiken, 1990). The rising number of impoverished, all black townships is the result of mechanization of
agriculture and a fundamental settler covenant that keeps black people landless. When black labor is unlabored,
the Black person underneath is the excess. Angola Farm is perhaps the more notorious of the two State
Penitentiaries along the Mississippi River. Three hundred miles upriver in the upper Delta region is Parchment Farm.
Both State Penitentiaries (Mississippi and Louisana, respectively), both former slave plantations, both turned
convict-leasing farms almost immediately after the Civil War by genius land speculators-cum-prison wardens. After
the Union victory in the Civil War abolished slavery, former Confederate Major, Samuel Lawrence James, obtained
the lease to the Louisiana State Penn in 1869, and then bought Angola Farm in 1880 as land to put his chattel to
work. the United States, not some secret Thai triad or Russian mafia or Chinese smuggler. The U.S. carceral state is
properly called neo-slavery, precisely because it is legal. It is not simply a product of exceptional racism in the U.S.;
its racism is a direct function of the settler colonial mandate of land and people as property. Black Codes made
vagrancy - i.e. landlessness - illegal in the Antebellum South, making the self-possessed yet dispossessed Black
body a crime (similar logic allowed for the seizure, imprisonment and indenture of any Indian by any person in
California until 1937, based on the ideology that Indians are simultaneously landless and land-like). Dennis Childs
writes the slave ship and the plantation and not Benthams panopticon as presented by Foucault, operated as
spatial, racial, and economic templates for subsequent models of coerced labor and human warehousing - as
Americas original prison industrial complex (2009, p.288). Geopolitics and biopolitics are completely knotted
together in a settler colonial context. Despite the rise of publicly traded prisons, Farms are not fundamentally
capitalist ventures; at their core, they are colonial contract institutions much like Spanish Missions, Indian Boarding
Schools, and ghetto school systems26. The labor to cage black bodies is paid for by the state and then land is
granted, worked by convict labor, to generate additional profits for the prison proprietors. However, it is the
management of excess presence on the land, not the forced labor, that is the main object of slavery under settler
colonialism. Today, 85% of people incarcerated at Angola, die there. An
ethic of
incommensurability, which guides moves that unsettle innocence, stands
in contrast to aims of reconciliation, which motivate settler moves to
innocence. Reconciliation is about rescuing settler normalcy, about rescuing a
settler future. Reconciliation is concerned with questions of what will
decolonization look like? What will happen after abolition? What will be the
consequences of decolonization for the settler? Incommensurability
acknowledges that these questions need not, and perhaps cannot, be
answered in order for decolonization to exist as a framework. We want to say,
first, that decolonization is not obliged to answer those questions - decolonization is not accountable to settlers, or
settler futurity. Decolonization is accountable to Indigenous sovereignty and futurity. Still ,
we acknowledge
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
244
the questions of those wary participants in Occupy Oakland and other settlers who want to know
what decolonization will require of them. The answers are not fully in view and cant
be as long as decolonization remains punctuated by metaphor. The answers will not emerge
from friendly understanding, and indeed require a dangerous understanding of uncommonality that un-coalesces
coalition politics - moves that may feel very unfriendly. But we will find out the answers as we get there, in the
exact measure that we can discern the movements which give [decolonization] historical form and content (Fanon,
To fully enact an ethic of incommensurability means relinquishing settler

futurity, abandoning the hope that settlers may one day be commensurable to
Native peoples. It means removing the asterisks, periods, commas, apostrophes, the whereass, buts, and
conditional clauses that punctuate decolonization and underwrite settler innocence. The Native futures, the
lives to be lived once the settler nation is gone - these are the unwritten possibilities
made possible by an ethic of incommensurability.
1963, p. 36).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
245
Decolonization of the Mind

Fighting Colonialism requires a decolonization of the mind
Yellow Bird 10 Dr. Michael Yellow Bird, a citizen of the Sahnish (Arikara) and
Hidatsa First Nations, is Assistant Professor and Director of the Office for the Study
of Indigenous Social and Cultural Justice in the School of Social Welfare, University
of Kansas
In observation of Native American Heritage Month, Dr. Michael Yellow Bird of North Dakota State University spoke on
campus Friday, discussing the impact of colonization for Native American peoples .
Yellow Bird is a citizen of the North Dakota Three Affiliated Tribes Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara and director of
indigenous tribal studies at NDSU. Speaking at the Alice Peters Auditorium with students and members of Native
American tribes in attendance, Yellow Bird opened the event speaking in his native tongue. I try to speak my tribal
language as much as I can. Early on, I was taught it wasnt of any value and that its not going to help us in any way
in this culture, he said. But its an important part of who I am and a way of thanking the people of the territory we
and how the colonizing of

people leads to the control of their thinking a term he coined, neurocolonization. Colonization inhibits an idea, understanding of the mind
and brain, which makes those subjected believe in an idea that is untrue
or exacerbated. George Orwell stated that those who control the language
also control the people, Yellow Bird said. The result of this is modern-day
colonialism, so deeply ingrained in American culture, is that its often
accepted and brushed off, he said. He used examples such as the childhood
game Cowboys and Indians and the NFL team name The Washington
Redskins. The idea of colonialism reaches as far back as the Founding
Fathers, he said. Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and George
Washington all held detrimental policies against Native Americans, such
as The Trail of Tears, the forced relocation of thousands of Native
American tribes from their homeland, he said. Colonialism is like rust. It
never sleeps, Yellow Bird said. Its always breaking down so it can
continue to control and manipulate. Yellow Bird discussed the importance
of decolonization of the mind, or trying to change native peoples
thoughts about themselves as colonized people so they are liberated from
the thought that they are controlled. Resolving ideas through diversity, to fight the system and
overcome oppressors and our own selfish ways of thinking, Yellow Bird said. We must come to
understand not the decolonization process, but the beauty of
understanding ways of life that are sustainable. There seems to be this idea that we
are on. During the discussion, Yellow Bird elaborated on colonialism
are living in a world of American exceptionalism, and that God will guide this country. If thats true, God doesnt like
Indians, Yellow Bird added. The event was organized by the First Nations Indigenous Student Organization of Fresno
State, the Presidents Commission on Human Relations and Equity and the Office of the Vice President of Student
Affairs. A second guest, Dr. Cornel Pewewardy of Portland State University, will speak on campus on Nov. 17.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
246
Answers to Answers
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
247
AT Link of Omission
This is not a link of omission- the act of not-seeing is a tactic
used to undermine Native claims to land, etc. the 1AC is an
act of forgetting which leaves settler colonialism in tact
Settler colonialism fundamentally relies on a logic of not-seeing . In particular,
on a not-seeing of the indigenous people's lands in order to allow their
colonial takeover. Terra nullius, the legal justification used for the expropriation of
indigenous land in Australia and elsewhere-or to use the Zionist justification for
Palestinian expulsion, "a land without a people for a people without a land"-is
premised on the not-seeing of peoples already there. Within the United States, this
expropriation relied on the "doctrine of discovery." As outlined in the case Johnson v.
Mcintosh (1823), "Discovery is the foundation of title, in European nations, and this
overlooks all proprietary rights in the natives." "Discovery" necessarily rests on the
absence of native peoples, who would otherwise be the actual "discoverers" of their
lands. And, as Robert Williams (2005) notes, U.S. jurisprudence has never renounced the
doctrine of discovery on which Indian case law is based. Consequently, the colonial
project is a somewhat precarious project of disappearing the peoples that it cannot
see a genocide that must disavow itself. As Sarita See argues, "If the history of the
American empire is defined by forgetting, its aesthetic is structured by
double disavowal. According to the New World aesthetic, it seems possible
to erase the erasure of the past" (2009, 66). Thus, the strategies of surveillance
are always simultaneously not just about what can be seen, but about
disappearing from view that which delegitimizes the state itself . What
must not be seen is not only the peoples themselves, but the forms of
governance and ways of life that they represent.
The omission of the racialized history of surveillance is a

political strategy to maintain colonialism and white supremacy.
Jackson, professor of African-American Law & Policy at UC Berkeley, 20 13
(Marissa Jackson, Neo-Colonialism, Same Old Racism, April 2013,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1096&context=bjalp)CQF
Ironically, the election of a black President in the United States might suggest to
some that America is beyond racism and might further remove racism from
American discourse, even as there has been a dramatic racist backlash against the
election of the nation's first black president. 8 According to Woody Doane, "claims
that race is irrelevant in a 'united America' potentially make it unpatriotic or even
subversive to raise questions of racial injustice ." 9 Further, "[r]ace is defined as an illegitimate topic for
conversation" under a color-blind order, and "those who are conscious of race or who inject racial issues into a debate may be accused of complaining, of
seeking special treatment, or 'playing the race card,' or even of being racist. (Referring to Ferraro's comments, Obama responded, "They are divisive...they
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
248
Obama denounced Ferraro's statement but did not explicit mention its
racist nature); Obama's opposition found that " the 'denial' or 'strategic
avoidance of race' was an effective political strategy for legitimizing the
persistence of white hegemony" as they subjected him to racist stereotypes,"
questioned his religious beliefs12 and his wife's college thesis 13 while accusing
Obama of playing the race card on the rare occasion that he addressed such
attacks. 14 Colorblindness-removing race from public discourse while leaving racism
intact-is the source of his dilemma. 15 Patricia Williams illustrates the impact of colorblindness on a personal level, by sharing
are patently absurd."
an experience she had while attempting to obtain a home loan. 16 When she was mistaken for a white person, her loan was approved with ease. However,
when she sought to correct the mistake, she suddenly no longer qualified to receive the loan on its original terms- not because of race, but because of
"increased risk."' 17 In a style reminiscent of Cdsaire, Williams shares her frustration and, in so doing, further articulates the suffocating impact of
colorblindness upon racial minorities: "Typecasting!" I protest. "Predictive indicator," assert the keepers of the gate. "Prejudice!" I say. "Precaution," they
8 Colonialism supposedly died during the mid-twentieth century, and (depicting

conservative accusations in 2006 that Obama had engaged in race-baiting by
mentioning that he was the only black member of the Senate) . Jackson: Neo-Colonialism, Same Old
reply.'
Racism: A Critical Analysis of the Unit Published by Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository, 2009 NEO-COLON1ALISM SAME OLD RACISM racism is supposedly
. However, white supremacy and colonial empire exist in

symbiosis: empire depends on the creation of race and maintenance of racial
hierarchy, and to the extent that racism exists in the United States, colonialism is
also present. This Note will demonstrate that both have managed to veil and
transform themselves, and continue to be fundamental to American liberal
democracy. In the United States, colorblindness is becoming an increasingly effective tool, employed by those who have an (unconscious or
also becoming obsolete
conscious) interest in maintaining the white supremacist order upon which American liberal democracy has been established.
Colorblindness pretends that race and racism do not exist, and removes
them from the discourse, even as racism continues to flourish. In particular,
the shift of the United States Supreme Court from antiracism to colorblindness has
created a legal order in which racism is increasingly difficult to prevent, prohibit, or
prosecute. The Note will begin with a discussion of colonialism, its roots in white supremacy, and its link to American liberal democracy. It will then
analyze shifts in the American approach to racism by analyzing the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Note will examine decisions
over the course of three time periods: the pre-civil rights era, the civil rights era, and the present postcivil rights, neo-conservative era. This discussion
will capture the Courts' shifts as paradigms under which it managed America's colonialinspired liberal democracy. The Note will illuminate the manner in
which Supreme Court rulings reflect or catalyze shifts in theory and policy sustaining a white supremacist legal order. Finally, using France as an
a move away from colorblindness and the present

neocolonial order in the United States towards an approach that is decidedly
antiracist and post-colonial is the only way to solve for this dilemma.
illustrative model, the Author recommends
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
249
AT Perm
Perm leads to co-option- we must construct native identities
outside of the state, otherwise indigenous peoples become
enclosed in an oppressive relationship which forces them to
alienate themselves from their communities in the name of
preventing their physical annihilation.
Alfred and Corntassel '05 (Gerald Alfred, Jeff Corntassel, Gerald
Alfred is an author, educator and activist. Alfred is an
internationally recognized Kanienkehaka professor at the
University of Victoria, Jeff Corntassel received his Ph.D. in
Political Science from the University of Arizona in 1998, and is
currently Director in Indigenous Governance at the University
of Victoria, 2005, "Being Indigenous: Resurgences against
Contemporary Colonialism")
Contemporary Settlers follow the mandate provided for them by their imperial forefathers
colonial legacy, not by attempting to eradicate the physical signs of Indigenous peoples as human bodies , but
by trying to eradicate their existence as peoples through the erasure of the histories and
geographies that provide the foundation for Indigenous cultural identities and sense of self .
The geographer, Bernard Nietschmann, has demonstrated the need for critical translations
of the artificial, state-created identities (such as ethnic group) that are imposed on original
peoples in this colonizing process of redefinition from autonomous to derivative existence
and cultural and political identities. State-imposed conceptions of supposedly Indigenous
identity read to Indigenous peoples, from perspectives rooted in their own cultures and languages, not as
moves towards justice and positive integration (as the strategy is framed in colonial discourses) but as indicators
of an on-going colonial assault on their existence, and signs of the fact that they remain, as
in earlier colonial eras, occupied peoples who have been dispossessed and disempowered in
their own homelands.3 For example, in Canada today, many Indigenous people have embraced
the Canadian governments label of aboriginal, along with the concomitant and limited
notion of postcolonial justice framed within the institutional construct of the state. In fact,
this identity is purely a state construction that is instrumental to the

states attempt to gradually subsume Indigenous existences into its own
constitutional system and body politic since Canadian independence from Great Britain a process that
started in the midtwentieth century and culminated with the emergence of a Canadian constitution in 1982. Far
from reflecting any true history or honest reconciliation with the past or present
agreements and treaties that form an authentic basis for Indigenousstate relations in the
Canadian context, aboriginalism is a legal, political and cultural discourse designed to
serve an agenda of silent surrender to an inherently unjust relation at the

root of the colonial state itself. The acceptance of being aboriginal (or its equivalent term in
other countries, such as ethnic groups) is a powerful assault on Indigenous identities. It must be understood that
the aboriginalist assault takes place in a politico-economic context of historic and ongoing dispossession and of
Indigenous peoples are forced by

the compelling needs of physical survival to cooperate individually and collectively with
the state authorities to ensure their physical survival. Consequently, there are many
contemporary deprivation and poverty; this is a context in which
aboriginals (in Canada) or Native Americans (in the United States) who identify themselves solely by their
political-legal relationship to the state rather than by any cultural or social ties to their Indigenous community or
culture or homeland. This continuing colonial process pulls Indigenous peoples away from
cultural practices and community aspects of being Indigenous towards a political-legal

construction as aboriginal or Native American, both of which are representative of what we refer to
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
250
as being incidentally Indigenous. There are approximately 350 million Indigenous peoples situated in some 70
countries around the world. All of these people confront the daily realities of having their lands, cultures and
governmental authorities simultaneously attacked, denied and reconstructed by colonial societies and states. This
there are new faces of empire that are attempting to

strip Indigenous peoples of their very spirit as nations and of all that is
held sacred, threatening their sources of connection to their distinct existences and the
has been the case for generations: but
sources of their spiritual power: relationships to each other, communities, homelands,

ceremonial life, languages, histories. . . These connections are crucial to living a
meaningful life for any human being
The state is not redeemable. First priority means perms must

be rejected.
Churchill Reader 2003, pg 241-245] JCS
THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION AT THIS CONFERENCE,* AND I THINK appropriately so, of the modes of state repression which have been created within or directed against
the planet has been

divided essentially into three spheres: the industrialized, capitalist First World; the
industrialized, socialist Second World; and a colonially underdeveloped Third
World which may be either socialist or capitalist in its orientation, but which is in either event industrializing.1 Afroamerica and other
peoples or communities of color in this country have by-and-large been classified by
conference presenters as Third Worlders, a matter I again find to be generally accurate and therefore appropriate. The black
the Third World. The latter term has been employed, appropriately enough, in conformity with Mao Zedungs famous observation that
population of the United States to my mind constitutes an internal colony, as does the Latino population, most especially its Chicano and Puertorriqueo segments. The Asian American
population, or at least appreciable portions of it, also fall into this category and, I would argue, so do certain sectors of the Euroamerican population itself, perhaps most notably the
Scotch-Irish transplants who are now referred to as Appalachian Whites.2 I am here, however, as may have been gleaned from my opening quotation of George Manuel, to discuss a
This is the existence of yet another

world, a world composed of a plethora of indigenous peoples, several
thousand of us, each of whom constitutes a nation in our own right.3
Taken together, these nations comprise a nonindustrial Fourth World, a
Host World upon whose territories and with whose natural resources
each of the other three, the worlds of modern statist sociopolitical and
economic organization, have been constructed.4 In substance, the very existence
of any stateand it doesnt matter a bit whether it is fascist, liberal
democratic, or marxist in orientationis absolutely contingent upon
usurpation of the material and political rights of every indigenous nation
within its boundaries. To put it another way, the denial of indigenous rights, both national and individual, is integral to the creation and functioning of the
reality left unmentioned not only by Mao, but by analysts of almost every ideological persuasion.
world order which has evolved over the past thousand years or so, and which is even now projecting itself in an ever more totalizing manner into our collective future.5 We say, and I
believe this includes all of us here, that we oppose this prospect, that we oppose what was once pronounced by the papacy to be the Divine Order of things, what Englands Queen
Victoria asserted was the worlds Natural Order, what George Bush, following Adolf Hitler, described as a New World Order, what Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have sought to
In other words, we are opposed to the entire

system presently coordinated by bodies like the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund and the Trilateral Commission.6 We say we oppose all of this, and,
with at least equal vehemence, we announce our opposition to more particularized
byproducts of the trajectory of increasingly consolidated corporate statism, or
statist corporatism, or whatever else it might be more properly called, that we as a
species are presently locked into. The litany is all too familiar: an increasingly rampant homogenization and commodification of our cultures and
consummate behind alphabet soup banalities like GATT and NAFTA and the MAI.
communities; the ever more wanton devastation and toxification of our environment; an already overburdening, highly militarized and steadily expanding police apparatus, both public
and private, attended by an historically unparalleled degree of social regimentation and an astonishingly rapid growth in the prison-industrial complex; conversion of our academic
institutions into veritable votechs churning out little more than military/ corporate fodder; unprecedented concentration of wealth and power. We say we oppose it all, root and
branch, and of course we are, each of us in our own way, entirely sincere in the statement of our opposition. But, with that said, and in many cases even acted upon, what do we mean?
Most of us here identify ourselves as progressives, so lets start with the term
progressivism itself. We dont really have time available to go into this very
deeply, but Ill just observe that it comes from the word progress, and that the
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
251
progression involved is basically to start with whats already here and carry it
forward. The underlying premise is that the social order we were born into results
from the working of iron laws of evolution and, however unpalatable, is therefore
both necessary and inevitable. By the same token, these same deterministic forces make it equally unavoidable that what weve inherited can and
will be improved upon.7 The task of progressives, having apprehended the nature of the progression, is to use their insights to hurry things along. This isnt a
liberal articulation. Its whats been passing itself off as a radical left alternative to
the status quo for well over a century. It forms the very core of Marxs notion of historical materialism, as when he observes that feudalism
was the social precondition for the emergence of capitalism and that capitalism is itself the essential precondition for what he conceives as socialism. Each historical phase creates the
conditions for the next; thats the crux of the progressive proposition.8 Now you tell me, how is that fundamentally different from what Bush and Clinton have been advocating? Oh, I see.
You want to move forward in pursuance of another set of goals and objectives than those espoused by these self-styled centrists. Alright. Ill accept that thats true. Let me also state
that I tend to find the goals and objectives advanced by progressives immensely
preferable to anything advocated by Bush or Clinton. Fair enough? However, I must go on to observe that the differences
at issue are not fundamental. They are not, as Marx would have put it, of the
base. Instead, they are superstructural. They represent remedies to symptoms
rather than causes. In other words, they do not derive from a genuinely radical
critique of our situationremember, radical means to go to the root of any phenomenon in order to understand it9and thus
cannot offer a genuinely radical solution. This will remain true regardless of the fervor with which progressive goals and
objectives are embraced, or the extremity with which they are pursued. Radicalism and extremism are, after all, not really
synonyms. Maybe I can explain what Im getting at here by way of indulging in a sort of grand fantasy. Close your eyes for a moment
and dream along with me that the current progressive agenda has been realized . Never
mind how, lets just dream that its been fulfilled. Things like racism, sexism, ageism, militarism, classism, and
the sorts of corporatism with which we are now afflicted have been abolished. The police
have been leashed and the prison-industrial complex dismantled. Income disparities have been eliminated across the board, decent housing and healthcare are available to all, an amply
The whole nine yards. Sound good? You bet. Nonetheless,

In this seemingly rosy scenario, what,
exactly, happens to the rights of native peoples? Face it, to envision the
progressive transformation of American society is to presuppose that
Americathat is, the United Stateswill continue to exist. And, self-evidently, the
existence of the United States is, as it has always been and must always be,
predicated first and foremost on denial of the right of self-determining existence to
every indigenous nation within its purported borders . Absent this denial, the very
society progressives seek to transform would never have had a landbase
upon which to constitute itself in any form at all. So, it would have had no resources with which to actualize a
endowed educational system is actually devoted to teaching rather than indoctrinating our children.
theres still a very basicand I daresay uncomfortablequestion which must be posed:
mode of production, and there would be no basis for arranging or rearranging the relations of production. All the dominoes fall from there, dont they? In effect, the progressive agenda is
no less contingent upon the continuing internal colonial domination of indigenous nations than that advanced by Bill Clinton.10 Perhaps we can agree to a truism on this score: Insofar as
progressivism shares with the status quo a need to maintain the structure of colonial dominance over native peoples, it is at base no more than a variation on a common theme,
intrinsically a part of the very order it claims to oppose. As Vine Deloria once observed in a related connection, these guys just keep right on circling the same old rock while calling it by
ince, for all its liberatory rhetoric and sentiment, even the self-sacrifice of
its proponents, progressivism replicates the bedrock relations with indigenous
nationsmarking the present status quo, its agenda can be seen as serving mainly to
increase the degree of comfort experienced by those who benefit from such
relations. Any such outcome represents a continuation and reinforcement of the existing order, not its repeal. Progressivism is thus one possible means of consummating that
which is, not its negation.12 Its time to stop fantasizing and confront what this consummation
might look like. To put it bluntly, colonialism is colonialism, no matter what its
trappings. You cant end classism in a colonial system, since the colonized by
definition comprise a class lower than that of their colonizer s.13 You cant end racism
in a colonial system because the imposed inferiority of the colonized must
inevitably be explained (justified) by their colonizers through contrived
classifications of racial hierarchy.14 You cant end sexism in a colonial system, since it functionsagain by definitionon the basis of one party
different names.11S
imposing itself upon the other in the most intimate of dimensions for purposes of obtaining gratification.15 If rape is violence, as feminists correctly insist,16 then so too is the
interculture analogue of rape: colonial domination. As a consequence, it is impossible to end social violence in a colonialist system. Read Fanon and Memmi. They long ago analyzed that
fact rather thoroughly and exceedingly well.17 Better yet, read Sartre, who flatly equated colonialism with genocide.18 Then ask yourself how you maintain a system incorporating
domination and genocidal violence as integral aspects of itself without military, police, and penal establishments? The answer is that you cant. Go right down the list of progressive
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
252
youll discover, if youre honest with yourself, is that none of them can
really be achieved outside the context of Fourth World liberation. So long as
indigenous nations are subsumed against our will within broader statist
entitiesand this applies as much to Canada as to the United States, as much to China as to Canada, as much to Mexico and Brazil as to China, as much to Ghana as to
any of the rest; the problem is truly global colonialism will be alive and well .19 So long as this is the case, all efforts at
positive social transformation, no matter how revolutionary the terms in which they are couched, will be self-nullifying, simply leading us right back
into the groove were in today. Actually, well probably be worse off after each iteration since such
outcomes generate a steadily growing popular disenchantment with the idea that
meaningful change can ever be possible. This isnt a zero-sum game were involved in. As Gramsci pointed out, every failure of
supposed alternatives to the status quo serves to significantly reinforce its hegemony.20 When a strategy or, more important, a way
of looking at things, proves itself bankrupt or counterproductive, it must be replaced
with something more viable. Such, is the situation with progressivism, both as a method and as an outlook. After a full century of failed revolutions and
aspirations and what
derailed social movements, it has long since reached the point where, as Sartre once commented, it no longer knows anything.21 The question, then, comes down to where to look for
a replacement. There are a lot of ways I could try and answer that one. Given the emphasis Ive already placed on the Fourth World, I suppose I could take a New Age approach and say
you should all go sit at the feet of the tribal elders and learn all about the native worldview. But, Ill tell you instead that the last thing the old people need is to be inundated beneath
awave of wannabe tribalists seeking spiritual insights.22 This is not to deny theres a lot in the indigenous way of seeing the world that could be usefully learned by others and put to
work in the forging of new sets of relationships between humans both as individuals and as societies, as well as between humans and the rest of nature. Such information is plainly
essential. There are, however, serious considerations as to when and how it is to be shared. As things stand, we lack the intellectual context which, alone, might allow a constructive
transfer of knowledge to take place. For the people here, or your counterparts throughout the progressive milieu, to run right out and try to pick up on what the Naropa Institute likes to
market under the heading of indigenous wisdom would be an act of appropriation just as surely as if you were to go after Indian land. There is such a thing as intellectual property, and,
The point is that the right of the Fourth World to decolonize

itself exists independently of any direct benefit this might impart to
colonizing societies or any of their subparts, progressivism included . More strongly,
the right of the Fourth World to decolonization exists undiminished even if
it can be shown that this is tangibly disadvantageous to our colonizers.
The principle is not especially mysterious, having been brought to bear in
Third World liberation struggles for the past half-century and more.24 Yet,
where indigenous nations are concerned, nearly everyoneThird World
liberationists, not least professes confusion concerning its applicability. 25
therefore, intellectual imperialism.23
Do not compromise with the genocidal US state. Even the

Nazis could put on humanitarian garb, and they learned their
genocidal politics from the US.
The Indian policies undertaken by the United States during the two centuries since its inception appear on the surface to have been varied, even at times
Openly genocidal at times, they have more often been garbed, however thinly, in
the attire of humanitarianism. In fact, as the matter was put by Alexis de Tocqueville, the great French commentator
contradictory.
on the early American experience, it would occasionally have been impossible to destroy men with more respect to the laws of humanity.139 Always,
there was an underlying consistency in the sentiments which begat policy: to

bring about the total dispossession and disappearance of North Americas
indigenous population. It was this fundamental coherence in U.S. aims , invariably denied by
responsible scholars and officials alike, which caused Adolf Hitler to ground his own notions of
lebensraumpolitik (politics of living space) in the U.S. example.140 Neither Spain nor Britain should be
the models of German expansion, but the Nordics of North America, who had ruthlessly pushed aside an inferior race to
win for themselves soil and territory for the future. To undertake this essential task,
sometimes difficult, always cruelthis was Hitlers version of the White Mans
Burden.141As early as 1784, A British observer remarked that the intent of the fledgling
United States with regard to American Indians was that of extirpating them totally
however,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
253
from the face of the earth, men, women and children. 142 In 1825, Secretary of State Henry Clay opined that
U.S. Indian policy should be predicated on a presumption that the Indian race was
destined to extinction in the face of persistent expansion by superior AngloSaxon civilization.143 During the 1870s, General Phil
Sheridan is known to have called repeatedly the for complete extermination of targeted native groups as a means of making the West safe for
repopulation by Euroamericans.144 Subsequent assimilationists demanded the disappearance of any survivors through cultural and genetic absorption by
Euroamerica as a whole typically referredoften

hopefullyto indigenous people as the vanishing race , decimated and ultimately subsumed by the far
greater number of invaders who had moved in upon their land.146 Many of the worst U.S. practices associated
with these sensibilities have long since been suspended (arguably, because their
goals were accomplished). Yet, largescale and deliberate dislocation of native people from their land is anything but an historical
their conquerors.145 Well into the twentieth century,
relic. Probably the most prominent current example is that of the Big Mountain Din, perhaps the largest remaining enclave of traditionally oriented
Indians in the United States. Situated astride an estimated twenty-four billion tons of the most accessible low sulfur coal in North America, the entire
13,500 person population of the Big Mountain area is even now being forcibly expelled to make way for the Peabody corporations massive shovels. There
being no place left on the remainder of the Navajo Reservation to accommodate their sheepherding way of life, the refugees, many of them elderly, are
being resettled in off-reservation towns like Flagstaff, Arizona.147 Some have been sent to Phoenix, Denver, and Los Angeles. All suffer extreme trauma
and other maladies resulting from the destruction of their community and consequent transition.148 Another salient illustration is that of the Western
Mostly resident to a vast expanse of the Nevada desert secured by their

ancestors in the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, the Shoshones have suffered the fate of
becoming the most bombed nation on earth by virtue of the U.S. having located
the majority of its nuclear weapons testing facilities in the southern portion of their
homeland since 1950. During the late seventies, despite being unable to demonstrate that it had ever acquired valid title to the territory
Shoshone.
the Shoshones call Newe Segobia, the government began to move into the northern area as well, stating an intent to construct the MX missile system
the Shoshones are still being pushed off their land,

freeing it for use in such endeavors as nuclear waste dumps like the one at Yucca
Mountain.149 In Alaska, where nearly two hundred indigenous peoples were instantly
converted into village corporations by the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, there is a distinct possibility that the entire native population of about 22,000
will be displaced by the demands of tourism , North Slope oil extraction, and other
developmental enterprises by some point early in the twenty-first century . Already,
their landbase has been constricted to a complex of tiny townships and their
traditional economy mostly eradicated by the impacts of commercial fishing,
whaling, and sealing, as well as the effects of increasing Arctic industrialization on
regional caribou herds and other game animals.1 50 Moreover, there is a planapparently conceived in all
seriousnessto divert the waterflow of the Yukon River southward all the way to the Ro Grande,
an expedient to supporting continued nonindian population growth in the arid
regions of the lower forty-eight states and creating the agribusiness complex in
the northern Mexican provinces of Sonora and Chihuahua envisioned in the North American
Free Trade Agreement.151 It seems certain that no traditional indigenous society can be expected to stand up against such an environmental
onslaught. Eventually, if such processes are allowed to run their course, the
probability is that a Final Solution of the Indian Question will be
achieved.152 The key to this will rest, not in an official return to the pattern of nineteenth-century massacres or the emergence of some
there. While the MX plan has been dropped,
Auschwitz-style extermination program, but in the erosion of sociocultural integrity and confusion of identity afflicting any people subjected to conditions
of diaspora. Like water flowing from a leaking bucket, the last self-consciously Indian people will pass into oblivion silently, unnoticed and unremarked.
The deaths of cultures destroyed by such means usually occur in this

fashion, with a faint whimper rather than resistance and screams of
agony.153 There are, perhaps, glimmers of hope flickering upon the horizon. One of the more promising is the incipient International Convention on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Drafted over the past decade by the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, the instrument is due for
submission to the General Assembly at some point in the near future. When it is ratified, the Convention could at last extend to native peoples the
essential international legal protections enjoyed by their colonizers the world over.154 Should it be adhered to by this nation of laws, the instrument will
and the U.S.

has historically demonstrated a truly remarkable tendency to simply ignore those
elements of international legality it finds inconvenientthe future of American
Indians looks exceedingly grim.155
effectively bar the United States from completing its quietly ongoing drive to obliterate the remains of Native North America. If not
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
254
Reformism fails- youre still super colonialist and this arg is a

new link the USFG will always attempt to obfuscate violence
by pretending to do good
Indigenous)]-DD
The conflation of racialization and colonization makes such distinctions difficult precisely because discourses of
humanism, enfranchisement, and freedom are so compelling within the smooth narrative curves through which the
state promises increasing liberty through pluralization .
Just as Indianness serves as a transit of

empire, analyses of competing oppressions reproduce colonialist discourses even
when they attempt to disrupt and transform participatory democracy away from its
origins in slavery, genocide, and indentureship. One reason why a postracial and
just democratic society is a lost cause in the United States is that it is always
already conceived through the prior disavowed and misremembered colonization of
indigenous lands that cannot be ended by further inclusion or more participation. 25
I hope to disrupt this dilemma by placing indigenous phenomenologies into
conversation with critical theory in order to identify indigenous transits and consider
possible alternative strategies for legibility. Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06). The Transit of Empire:
Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) . University of Minnesota Press. Kindle
Edition.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
255
AT Perm Surveillance
Perm doesnt solve-The alt. will never occur in the world of the
affirmative-The settler state instills a double-standard for
indigenous peoples, surveillance is used to justify surveillance
by seeing violence in communities while simultaneously
ignoring that this violence is a direct result of state policy
Surveillance and Gender Violence .The
surveillance strategies employed to normalize

native peoples- from the monitoring of sexual behavior in Indian boarding
schools to the surveillance of land ownership through the Dawes
Allotment Act-have never come to an end, even though colonial
policymakers continually promise they will. The civilizing policies directed
against native peoples have never seemed to succeed enough to justify dismantling
them. Of course, one indicator used to determine that native peoples are
continuing to be a "problem" and are not sufficiently "civilized" is the high
rate of gender violence within native communities . As Dian Million (2014) brilliantly
notes, the U.S. government's funding of healing programs goes hand-in-hand with the
imposition of neoliberal economic regimes on Indian communities . According to this logic,
native communities do not deserve the right of self-determination because
they are violent. Instead, under the guise of colonial paternalism, the
state deems it necessary to carefully monitor and surveil the violence
within native communities in order to once again save native peoples from
themselves. Of course, in this constant "seeing" of violence within native
communities, the state hides from view the fact that most such violence is
a direct result of state policy. What must not get seen is the inherent
violence of the state itself. In one example of this dynamic, the Australian
government declared a national emergency in the Northern Territory as a result of
the publication of the Little Children Are Sacred report, which detailed the "problem"
of child abuse in aboriginal communities in a manner similar to the way gender
violence in native communities is framed in the United States (Povinelh 2011, 59). The
government seized control of indigenous lands through military police action,
instituted compulsory medical exams for children, and took control of the finances
for all indigenous programs. Through this intense surveillance, native peoples
could be monitored in terms of school attendance, purchasing choices,
and medical practices. While the report itself made an effort not to blame child abuse on aboriginal
"culture," it was used by the Australian government to identify aboriginal
culture as the problem and thus to justify its surveillance practices.
Through these surveillance strategies, the Australian government could
"see" and hence surveil the problem of indigenous child abuse, yet it did
not see that these abuses were themselves the result of gendered colonial
policies, such as the government kidnapping of aboriginal children from
their communities in order to place them in violent government schools
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
256
(Manne 2004)-one example in which state abuse created child abuse as an epidemic problem in native
communities. The only solution the state can "see" to ending gender and child
abuse is the settler state. What cannot be seen is the fact that such
violence is the result of state violence.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
257
There is not a pure or benign state beyond its strategies of

surveillance, State-based solutions to violence result in an
increase in surveillance and prevent effective solutions.
If the private sphere is not a place of safety and refuge, what then becomes the
source of protection from violence in the home? The antiviolence movement has
generally relied on the state. As a result, there is often a disconnect between racial-justice and genderjustice groups. Racial-justice groups focus on the state as an agent of violence from which they need protection.
Largely white antiviolence groups, and for that matter, many women-of-color groups, have seen the state as the
this has
put antiviolence groups in the problematic position of marching against police
brutality while simultaneously calling on the police to solve the problem of
sexual/domestic violence as if it were two different institutions. As one example, I attended
solution to addressing intercommunal gender violence (Richie 1996). As Bhattacharjee (2000) notes,
a meeting of tribally based antiviolence advocates who were discussing the need to address gender violence from
the perspective of tribal sovereignty, and when the time came to develop actual strategies for addressing violence,
the response was to call for more FBI agents on the reservation. Gender violence thus stands as the exception to
the rule of opposing state surveillance. In this setup ,
the state becomes the solution to

violence, so antiviolence programs must adopt the surveillance strategies
of the state when they provide services. For instance, many domestic- violence
shelters screen out women who are not documented, who have criminal histories,
who are sex workers, or who have substance-abuse issues. One advocate told me
that her program did background searches on potential clients and had them
arrested if they had any outstanding warrants!" This, despite the fact that these women have
warrants out for their abusers and are trying to escape abusers who have forced them into criminal activity.
women in shelters are

constantly surveilled to make sure they conform to the behavior deemed
fitting by the shelter staff. Koyama describes her experience in a shelter. I am a survivor of domestic
Moreover, shelters are often run like prisons. As Emi Koyama brilliantly notes,
violence. I am someone who has stayed in a shelter, back in 1994. My experience there was horrendous; I
constantly felt the policing gaze of shelter workers across the half-open door, and feared "warnings" and
punishments that seemed to be issued arbitrarily. No, to describe the practice as "arbitrary" would be inaccurate; it
was clearly selective in terms of who gets them most frequently: the poor Black and Latina women with children,
especially if they are in "recovery" from alcohol or drug "abuse." Snitching on other residents was actively
encouraged: residents were rewarded for reporting rule violations of other residents and their children, even when
the allegations were not exactly accurate. I did not know whom to trust. Eventually, the feeling of constant siege by
shelter staff and all the "crazymaking" interactions pushed me over the edge, and I cut myself with a knife. Not
surprisingly, they put me in a mental hospital, effectively ending my stay at the shelter before I could find a
permanent, safer space to live. Eventually, Koyama became involved in the antiviolence movement, where she
worked for a shelter and found herself, against her politics, sometimes engaging in the same policing activities.
When a woman who spoke Arabic called the shelter asking for services, Koyama's supervisor told her to tell the
survivor that she needed to find another shelter. Koyama complied. This episode marked my last day working at the
domestic violence shelter, which is more than two years ago now, but I continue to ache from this experience. Of
course, this was not the first time that I questioned how shelters were being ran. I questioned everything: its "clean
and sober" policy regarding substance use, its policy against allowing women to monitor their own medications, its
use of threats and intimidations to control survivors, its labeling of ordinary disagreements or legitimate complaints
as "disrespectful communication," its patronizing "life skills" and "parenting" classes, its seemingly random
enforcement of rules that somehow always push women of color out of the shelter first. I hated just about
everything that went on in a shelter, and I refused to participate in most of these. I never issued formal "warnings"
against any of the residents, preferring instead to have dialogs about any problems as casually as possible. I
pretended that I did not smell the alcohol in the women's breaths so long as their behaviors did not cause any
problems for other residents. I never ever walked a woman to the bathroom and watched her as she peed into a
little cup for drug tests, as the shelter policy expected of me to do. I did everything I could to sabotage the system I
viewed as abusive: I was disloyal. But in many other situations, I failed. To this day, I ask myself why I did not simply
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
258
ignore my supervisor's order on that day, let the woman come to the shelter and deal with the consequences later.
(Koyama 2006, 215) Essentially, shelter staff take on the role of abusers or prison guards in the lives of survivors.
Women-of-color advocates are in the difficult position of trying to dismantle the

structures of settler colonialism and white supremacy in the long term, while
securing safety for survivors of violence in the short term. Under these conditions of
immediate threat, women of color will often become preoccupied with addressing
immediate short-term crises. In addition, these state-driven surveillance strategies
for addressing violence force us to see violence in specific ways that foreclose the
possibility of seeing violence in other ways. In particular, these strategies frame
survivors of violence as themselves the problem: survivors are "sick" and require
healing from a professional who will monitor their behavior to ensure that they are
healing properly. Those who do not "heal" are no longer deemed worthy of this
"antiviolence" project. Thus, by seeing gender violence through the lens of the
state, we can only see survivors as clients who need services, rather than as
potential organizers who might dismantle social structures of violence. Indigenous
feminism reshapes the manner in which we engage surveillance studies,
demonstrating that focus on the surveillance strategies of the state
obscure the fact that the state is itself a surveillance strategy. There is not
a pure or benign state beyond its strategies of surveillance . Yet, the state, rather
than being recognized for its complicity in gender violence, has become the institution promising to protect women
from domestic and sexual violence by providing a provisional "sanctuary" of sorts from the now criminally defined
"other" that is the perpetrator of gender violence (Richie 2000). As I have argued elsewhere (A. Smith 2005a), the
state is largely responsible for introducing gender violence into indigenous communities as part of a colonial
strategy that follows a logic of sexual violence. Gender violence becomes the mechanism by which U.S. colonialism
The complicity of the state

in perpetrating gender violence in other communities of color, through
slavery, prisons, and border patrol, is also well documented (Bhattacharjee 2001;
Davis 2003, 1981; A. Smith 2005b). The state actually has no interest in gender or
racial justice, since state laws are often, in practice, used against the
people they supposedly protect. For instance, the New York Times recently reported that the
is effectively and pervasively exerted on native nations (A. Smith 2005a).
effects of the strengthened anti-domestic violence legislation is that battered women kill their abusive partners less
frequently; however, batterers do not kill their partners less frequently, and this is more true in black than in white
communities (Butterfield 2000). With mandatory arrest laws, police officers frequently arrest those being battered
rather than batterers. Thus, laws passed to protect battered women are actually protecting their batterers! Many
scholars have analyzed the ineffectiveness of the criminal-justice system in addressing gender violence, particularly
against poor women, women of color, sex workers, and queer communities (Richie 1996; A. Smith 2005b; Sokoloff
The mainstream anti-violence movement's reliance on policies

embedded in state violence to solve the problem of gender violence
depends on what David Kazanjian (2003) refers to as the "colonizing trick": the liberal
myth that the United States was founded on democratic principles that
have eroded through post-9/11 policies, which obfuscates how the state
was built on the pillars of capitalism, colonialism, and white supremacy.
2005).
The affs focus on state surveillance and state-based solutions

prevents us from realizing alternatives to state power, only a
rejection of the state can combat colonialism.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
259
Reliance on state surveillance prevents us from seeing other possibilities

for ending violence, such as through communal organization that might be
able to address violence more effectively. This is apparent in the mandate of much surveillance
studies, which tends to focus on curtailing state surveillance without questioning the state itself. Consequently, this work
does not explore possibilities for different forms of governance, ones not based on
the logics of patriarchal and colonial surveillance. The work of indigenous activists to
develop indigenous nations that are not based on the principles of domination,
violence, and control cannot be seen-even by antiviolence activists (A. Smith 2008). An
evocative example is an experience I had working with the group Incite! Women of Color Against Violence. I was conducting a
workshop on community accountability. We were discussing the following question: if there was violence in your community, is there
anything you could do that would not involve primarily working with the police? During this discussion, one woman stated that she
lived in an apartment complex in which a man was battering his partner. She did not know what do to do, because she did not trust
the police, but she also did not want the abuse to continue. Her comment made me realize how much our reliance on the state has
impacted not only survivors of violence but also people who might think to intervene. It did not occur to this woman -nor might it
necessarily occur to many of us in a similar situation-to organize in the apartment complex to do something. The only potential
interveners in this situation seems to be ourselves as individuals or the state. It seems like our only response is either a privatized
The result is that not only do we not

"see" other solutions to the problem of violence, but we also become
absolved from having to see the violence in the first place. Essentially, the
apparatus of state surveillance, which allows the state to see violence,
absolves us from the responsibility of having to see it. A feminist approach to surveillance
response to violence or a communal one that is statedriven.
studies highlights not only the strategies of the state, but how people have internalized these same strategies, and it asks us to
rethink our investment in the state. Without this intervention, the state is presumed to be our protector; we should only modify the
manner in which the state protects. For example, during a survey I conducted for the Department of Justice on tribal communities'
response to sexual assault, I found that most communities had not developed a response, because they assumed the federal
government was taking care of the problem. In fact, as Amnesty International later documented, the federal government very rarely
prosecuted sexual assault crimes in Indian country (Amnesty International 2007). Because of an investment in the state, tribal
governments had not invested in their own possibilities for addressing violence. When one asks the question "What can I do?," the
answer is likely to call the police or to do nothing. But when one asks the question "What can we do?," a whole range of other
groups around the country have asked that question and

have developed a variety of community-accountability models that do not
rely primarily on police involvement (Chen et al. 2011).7 Similarly, many native
activists, such as Sarah Deer (2009), are active in organizing tribal
communities to develop their own responses to sexual violence. Of course, all of
possibilities arises. In fact,
these models have their own challenges. For example, will community- accountability models simply adopt the same strategies used
by the state to address violence? How might these models develop without a romanticized notion of "community" that is not sexist,
homophobic, or otherwise problematic-or the potentially problematic assumption that a "community" even exists in the first place?
How might they address the immediate needs of survivors who may still require state intervention, even as they seek to eventually
replace the state? These questions and others continue to inform the development of the community-accountability movement
(Chen et al. 2011). After 9/11, even radical scholars framed George Bush's policies as an attack on the U.S. Constitution. According
to Judith Butler, Bush's policies were acts against "existing legal frameworks, civil, military, and international" (2004, 57). Amy
Kaplan similarly describes Bush's policies as rendering increasingly more peoples under U.S. jurisdiction as "less deserving of . . .
constitutional rights" (2005, 853). Thus, Bush's strategies were deemed a suspension of law. Progressive activists and scholars
accused him of eroding U.S. democracy and civil liberties. Under this framework, progressives are called in to uphold the law, defend
U.S. democracy, and protect civil liberties against "unconstitutional" actions. Surveillance studies often carries similar presumptions.
That is, this field is concerned with the "rapidly increasing influence of surveillance in our daily lives and in the operation of very
large-scale operations" (Lyon 2007, 9). It is concerned with what is presumed to be the increasing erosion of civil liberties and the
loss of privacy that this surveillance entails. It takes the state for granted, but is concerned that the state not overstep its proper
And yet, from the perspective of indigenous peoples, the eye of the
state has always been genocidal, because the problem is not primarily the
surveillance strategies of the state, but the state itself. If we were to
employ a settler colonial analytic, we would see the growth in surveillance
strategies less as a threat to the democratic ideals of the United States
than as a fulfillment of them. As these surveillance strategies grow, they
impact everyone, not just native peoples, because the logic of settler
colonialism structures the world for everyone. In particular, surveillance
strategies not only allow the state to see certain things, but prevent us
boundaries.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
260
from seeing the state as the settler colonial, white supremacist, and
heteropatriarchal formation that it is.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
261
AT Perm Marxism
Marxist dogma cannot be combined with indigenous
perspectives
None of what has been said herein should be taken as an apology or defense, direct
or implied, of U.S. (or other capitalist) state policies . American Indians, first and foremost, know what
the U.S. has done and what its about. We experienced the meaning of the United States since long before there were marxists
around to explain it to us. And weve continued to experience it in ways which leave little room for confusion on the matter. Thats
why we seek change. Thats why we demand sovereignty and selfdetermination. Thats why we cast about for allies and alternatives
to be. In considering any alliance, however, it is necessary

indeed, essentialthat we first interrogate it in terms of our own best interests. This
is no less true of marxism than of anything else. Thus, we must askonly fools would not whether marxism offers
the vision of a bona fide alternative to that which capitalism has already imposed
upon us. From the answer(s) to this query we can discern whether marxists can really be the sort of allies who would, or even
of the sort marxists have often claimed
could, actually guarantee us a positive change come the revolution. Here, we need to know exactly what is meant when marxist
friends like Bob Avakian and David Muga assures us, as they have, that the solutions to our present problems lie in the models
offered by the USSR, China, Vietnam, and revolutionary Nicaragua.115 And this, it seems to me, is rather painfully evident in what
Marxism, in its present form at least, offers us far worse

than nothing. With friends such as these, we will be truly doomed. So it is. But must it be? I think not. An
increasing number of thoughtful marxists have broken with at least the worst of
marxian economism, determinism, and human chauvinism . Salient examples such as Albert,
has been discussed above.
Hahnel, and the early Baudrillard have been mentioned or quoted herein. The German Green Movement, involving a number of
marxists or former marxists like Rudi Dutschke and Rudolph Bahro, has been in some ways a hopeful phenomenon (albeit, less so in
there issufficient basis to suggest that at least some elements of

the marxian tradition are capable of transcending dogma to the extent that they
may possess the potential to forge mutually fruitful alliances with American Indians
and other indigenous peoples (although, at the point where this becomes true, one has reason to ask whether they
may be rightly viewed as marxists any longer).117 The key for us, as Indians, is, I think , to remain both clear and
firm in the values and insights of our own traditions. We must hold true to the
dialectical understanding embodied in the word Metakuyeayasi and reject anything
less as an unbalanced and imperfect view, even a mutilation of reality. We must
continue to pursue our traditional vision of a humanity within rather than apart from
and above the natural order. We must continue to insist, as a fundamental principle, upon the right of all peoples
North America).116 All in all,
each and every one, no matter how small and primitiveto freely select the fact and form of their ongoing national existence.
we must reject all contentions by any state that it holds license

for any reasonto dissolve the inherent rights of any other nation. 118 Perhaps
most important of all, we must choose our friends and allies accordingly. I submit that theres
nothing in this game-plan which contradicts any aspect of what weve come to describe as the Indian way.119 In
conclusion, I must say that I believe such an agenda, which I call
indigenist, can and will attract real friends, real allies, and offer real
alternatives to both marxism and capitalism. What will result, in my view, is the emergence of a
Concomitantly,
movement predicated on the principles of what are termed deep ecology,120 soft-path technology,121 green anarchism,122
and global balkanization.123 But we are now entering into the topic of a whole different discussion. So, with that, allow me to
close.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
262
AT Perm Racialization
The perm is a link: The equation of racialization to the
oppression colonizes bodies face not only replicates
colonialism, but actively obfuscates the material reality of
placelessness
Indigenous)]-DD
that racialization in the United States
now often evokes colonization as a metonym, such discursive elisions
obfuscate the distinctions between the two systems of dominance and the
coerced complicities amid both. 15 The generally accepted theorizations of racialization in the
United States have, in the pursuit of equal rights and enfranchisements, tended to be sited along the axis of
inclusion/ exclusion as the affective critique of the larger project of liberal
multiculturalism. When the remediation of the colonization of American Indians is
framed through discourses of racialization that can be redressed by further inclusion
into the nation-state, there is a significant failure to grapple with the fact that such
discourses further reinscribe the original colonial injury. 16 As Kanaka Maoli scholar J. Khaulani
Kauanui, White Earth Ojibwe scholar Jean M. OBrien, and other indigenous scholars have noted , the
conflation of racialization into colonization and indi-geneity into racial
categories dependent upon blood logics underwrites the institutions of
settler colonialism when they proffer assimilation into the colonizing
nation as reparation for genocide and theft of lands and nations. 17 But the
larger concern is that this conflation masks the territoriality of conquest by
assigning colonization to the racialized body, which is then policed in its degrees
from whiteness. Under this paradigm, American Indian national assertions of
sovereignty, self-determination, and land rights disappear into U.S. terrioriality as
indigenous identity becomes a racial identity and citizens of colonized indigenous
nations become internal ethnic minorities within the colonizing nation-state.
When these two historical processes are so enmeshed
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
263
AT Perm Immigration
Framing native experience as simply equivalent of that to
immigrants replicates native oppression and masks the
ongoing cultural genocide of the indigenous
Indigenous)]-DD
In addition to tackling accepted scientific rationales for the peopling of the Americas via the Bering Strait, the lines
above complicate matters further by evoking the history of anti-Asian immigration laws and the yellow peril
racisms that were particularly virulent in the early 1990s. 31 Such amalgamations of anthropological discourses
with the often unquestioned Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06). The Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism
(First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (pp. 51-52). University of Minnesota Press. Kindle Edition.
foreignness
of Asian Americans were intended to alert the aware viewer to the

calculated political intervention of the artists performance, which sought to
overturn not only the history of displaying native others but also the racist and antiimmigrant xenophobias that have remained since the formation of the United
States. Instead, for those audience members who were unaware of such critical
resonances, the collapsing of indigenous experience into immigrant experience
reiterated those discourses that not only erase the indigeneity of the indigenous
peoples of the Americas but implicitly necessitate the reordering of their temporal
arrival into a post-conquest invasion that threatens white nativity. Such a turn
naturalizes the colonization of indigenous peoples into the state formation of the
United States, and reframes citizens of externally sovereign nations into racialized
ethnic minorities whose oppressions are then remediated through an almost but not
quite inclusion. It is a turn that progresses not the promissory dream of a perfecting
postracial United States but the colonialist and genocidal intent the nation-state has
leveled against indigenous peoples from its beginning. Fusco and Gmez -Peas
Two Undiscovered Amerindians Visit relies on racial tropes to express otherness
and presents us with an elision between colonization and racialization. Homi
Bhabhas concept of colonial discourse as inherently split and therefore ruptured is
useful in understanding the ways in which hybridity reveals the processes behind
the discourses of colonialism, even as those splits and ruptures undermine their
authority in the place of enumeration that makes the structure of meaning and
reference an ambivalent process. 32 While Bhabhas third space allows us to elude the politics of
polarity and emerge as the other to our selves, it also relies upon a breach between the I and you, between
colonizer and colonized. 33 That third space may open between and within a rupture, but it does Byrd, Jodi A.
(p. 52). University of Minnesota Press. Kindle Edition. not disrupt the structure in which the third space originates.
Such a schema does not emphasize an escape from binaries; instead, even as a third space is opened within the
space of the slashed rupture , the dialectical life and death struggle between self/ other occurs in the diametric
opposites who must then traverse that third space of enumeration to introduce ambivalence into colonial discourses
and their resistances. 34 Focused as it is on the dialectics initiated by formal administrative colonialisms, Bhabhas
where racialized and

colonized peoples, existing in the same geographical space, interact with one
another as well as the colonizer, in what is, essentially a cacophonous proliferation
of third spaces. Anne McClintock, in Imperial Leather, touches briefly on such a
criticism by pointing out the ways in which Bhabhas theory, which centers on race,
ruptured discourse is more difficult to mobilize along the axes of other/ others,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
fails to fully address the intersectional loci of class or gender . 35
264
Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06).

The Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (pp. 52-53).
University of Minnesota Press. Kindle Edition.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
265
AT Perm Heidegger
Heideggers philosophies cannot be separated from his
Eurocentric geopolitics, which are rooted in a forgetfulness of
damanation
Maldonado-Torres 4 (Nelson MaldonadoTorres (2004), Associate Professor and Department Chair,
Joint appointment with Comparative Literature, Ph.D. 2002, Brown University, Religious Studies, with a Certificate
for Outstanding Work in Africana Studies, The topology of being and the geopolitics of knowledge, City: analysis of
urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 8:1, 29-56 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360481042000199787) l.gong
Bypassing the much relevant divide for German romanticism between French ideas of civilization and Germanys
Kultur, the figure that bridges France and Germany is the most renown German figure of the Enlightenment,
Immanuel Kant. Kants work brings France and Germany together while also promoting global institutions of
authority, which, translated into the present, would counter US unilateralism. Habermas and Derrida do not
interrogate the ties of Kant with the imperial mentality of his times or the way in which their plea for a common
foreign policy, beginning in the core of Europe has all the problematic ties with a tradition of searching for roots in
Europe.82 In a very condescending gesture Habermas and Derrida write that Europeans could learn from the
perspective of the defeated to perceive themselves in the dubious role of victors who are called to account for the
violence of a forcible and uprooting process of modernization. This could support the rejection of Eurocentrism, and
inspire the Kantian hope for a global domestic policy.83 In their reference to victors called to account for the
Habermas and Derrida have more Heidegger

in mind than former colonized peoples. It is also as if they are responding more to the
complaints of German romantics who were very critical of the Enlightenment, than to
colonized peoples everywhere. They reduce the challenges of Europes imperial past to the
uprooting of modernity, a process to which Europeans, among others, have being victims. They cannot
uprooting process of modernity it would seem that
see the peculiarity of the challenge that emerges in the colonial world. That is why they posit the search for roots at
Fanons statement remains as

significant today as it was when Heidegger was forging his mythical project of
searching for roots: For centuries [Europeans] have stifled almost the whole of
humanity in the name of a so-called spiritual experience. Look at them today swaying
between atomic and spiritual disintegration . . . Europe now lives at such a mad, reckless pace
that she has shaken off all guidance and reason . . . It is in the name of the spirit, in the name of
the core of Europe as a response to the marginalization of Europe.
the spirit of Europe, that Europe has made her encroachment, has justified her crimes and legitimized the slavery in
which she holds four-fifths of humanity. Yes, the European spirit has strange roots.84 Habermas and Derrida at
most gesture toward a Eurocentric critique of Eurocentrism. Instead of challenging the racist geopolitics of
knowledge that have become so central to Western discourse, they continue it by other means. Why not engaging
seriously Muslim intellectuals?85 Why not trying to understand the deeply theoretical claims that have emerged in
contexts that have known European coloniality? Why not breaking with the model of the universal or global and
furthering the growth of an epistemically diverse world?86 Fanon did not do all these things, but in some ways he
set a mark below which theorists and intellectuals should not allow themselves to go. His radicalism was about a
The concepts of
coloniality of power, coloniality of knowledge and coloniality of being follow Fanons
radicalism. Yet they also can become problematic if they do not make space for the enunciation of non- Western
cosmologies and for the expression of different cultural, political and social memories. Radical critique
should take dialogical forms. It should also take the form of radical self-questioning
and radical dialogue. The project of searching for roots would be, in this regard, subordinated to the project
critique of the roots, which was inspired by the need to respond to the damned of the earth.
of criticizing the roots that maintain alive the dominant topology of Being and the racist geopolitics of knowledge.
Radical diversality would involve the effective divorce and critique of the roots that
inhibit dialogue and the formulation of a decolonial and non-racist geopolitics of
knowledge. Part of the challenge is to think seriously about Fort-de-France, Quito, La Paz, Baghdad and Algiers,
not only Paris, Frankfurt, Rome or New York as possible sites of knowledge. We also need to think about those who
are locked in positions of subordination, and try to understand both the mechanisms that create the subordination
and those that hide their reality from view to others.
There is much in the world to learn from
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
266
others who have been rendered invisible by modernity . This moment should be more about
examining our complicity with old patterns of domination and searching for invisible faces, than about searching for
imperial roots; more about radical critique than about orthodox alignments against what are persistently conceived
as the barbarians of knowledge. In an essay written in 1955 in response to Ernst Jungers attempt to map nihilism
Heidegger wrote: Certainly a topography of nihilism is required, of its

process and its overcoming. Yet the topography must be preceded by a topology: a
discussion locating the locale which gathers being and nothing into their essence , determines
and responses to it,
the essence of nihilism, and thus lets us recognize those paths on which the ways toward a possible overcoming of
Through an analysis of Heideggers implicit topology of Being,

which is inscribed in his geopolitics, I have suggested that the apparent neutrality
of philosophical ideas can very well hide an implicit imperial cartography
that merges race and space. Racismin the form of the forgetfulness of
damnation, epistemic racism and many other formsis more widespread
than often thought. It is inscribed into the cartography of what is often considered
to be consistent philosophical work and critical thinking . Beyond biological justifications of
racism, or justifications based on differences in culture or manners , one can find in some influential
trends in Western thought a more subtle ontological and epistemological
justification. The implications are nefarious since the merging of race and space is behind imperial and military
nihilism emerge.87
conceptions of spatiality that tend to give new meaning to Augustines classical account of the earthly and heavenly
cities: the difference between the City of God and the Earthly City of Men is translated into the divide between the
imperial cities of the human gods and the cities of the damned. Unfortunately, the search for roots in Europe and
The project of searching for roots in Europe also leads,

or so I have argued in this essay, to dismissal of the larger geopolitical relations at
work in the very formation of modernity. Against this systemic amnesia, Fanon
proposes an-other geopolitics. While Heidegger attempts to find roots in the earth ,
and Levinas grounds philosophy in two cities (Athens and Jerusalem), Fanon opens up a path of
reflection that takes colonial differences as a point of departure for critical thinking .
A critical account of the European topology of Being and its geopolitics of knowledge
should lead, or so I have attempted to make clear here, to render visible what has remained invisible or
marginal so far and to uncover how categories of damnation worke.g. the black, the Jew and the Muslim. It is
for this purpose that concepts such as modernity/coloniality, coloniality of power,
coloniality of knowledge and coloniality of Being have been formulated. These are only a
racist geopolitics often go hand in hand.
few of the concepts that would have to become part of a decolonial grammar of critical analysis which would
recognize its own vulnerability by being open to critical accounts based on the experiences and memories of
peoples who have confronted modernity/racism in any of its forms.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
267
AT Perm Parallax Gap

Reject the perm. Maintaining the parallax gap between our
perspectives is necessary to reach truth.
Indigenous)]-DD
This parallax differential creates certain dialectical shifts or what iek terms
parallax gaps. He structures his argument around three sites of parallax
ontological difference as ultimate parallax (which conditions our access to
reality), scientific parallax (which accounts for the gap between
phenomenology and scientific explanations), and political parallax (which
hinders the creation of common ground through which to mobilize political
resistances) as the sites through which to interrogate biopolitics and class
warfare. 102 In order to perceive the difference and to approach the Lacanian Real, iek argues that one has to
shift perspective to alternate viewing locations and approximate the Real in the gap. Thetruth, iek
explains, Is not the real state of things, that is, the direct view of the object
without perspectival distortion, but the very Real of the antagonism which causes
perspectival distortion. The site of truth is not the way things really are in
themselves, beyond their perspectival distortions, but the very gap, passage,
which separates one perspective from another, the gap which makes the
two perspectives radically incommensurable. 103 The gap between two sides of the same
phenomenon allows us to discern its subversive core that cuts across the cosmopolitan hybrid/ nomad and
Multiple viewing locations of

the Real are created, though no single one of them is capable of discerning the Real
and there is no possibility of triangulating the Real by taking into consideration all
perspectives. Instead, according to Jodi Dean, the distortion among the differing
views indicates the Real of the event. The Realness of the event is what generates the multiplicity,
acknowledges the lived conditions of violence, class, and oppression. 104
the impossibility of its being encompassed.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
268
AT Intersectionality
Intersectionality only continues genocide by appropriating and
destroying native culture.
We must get out of ourselves, or, more accurately, the selves we have been conned into believing are us. We must break out of the cage of artificial self in which we have been
entrapped as men by todays society. We must get in touch with our true selves, recapturing the Wild Man, the animal, the primitive warrior being which exists in the core of every
man. We must rediscover the meaning of maleness, the art of being male, the way of the warrior priest. In doing so, we free ourselves from the alienating tyranny of being what it is
were told we are, or what it is we should be. We free ourselves to redefine the meaning of man, to be who and what we can be, and what it is we ultimately must be. I speak here, of
course, of genuineliberation from societys false expectations and thus from the false selves these expectations have instilled in each and every one of us here in this room. Let the Wild
Robert Bly, 1991 In retrospect, it seems entirely predictable

that, amidst Robert Blys welter of babble concerning the value of assorted strains
of imagined primitivism and warrior spirit, a substantial segment of his following
and he himself in the workshops he offers on practical ritualwould end up
gravitating most heavily toward things Indian. After all, Native Americans and our ceremonial life constitute living, ongoing
Man loose, I say! Free our warrior spirit!
entities. We are therefore far more accessible in terms of both time and space than the Druids or the old Norse Odinists. Further, our traditions offer the distinct advantage of seeming
satisfyingly exotic to the average Euroamerican yuppie male, while not forcing them to clank about in the suits of chain mail and heavy steel armor which would be required if they they
were to opt to act out their leaders hyperliterate Arthurian fantasies. I mean, reallyJousting, anyone? A warrior-type fella could get seriously hurt that way.9 A main sticking point, of
course, rests precisely in the fact that the cultures indigenous to America are living, ongoing entities. Unlike the Druids or the ancient Greek man-cults who celebrated Hector and
Achilles, Native American societies can and do suffer the socioculturally debilitating effects of spiritual trivialization and appropriation at the hands of the massively larger Euro-
They
came for our land, for what grew or could be grown on it, for the resources in it, and
for our our clean air and pure water. They stole these things from us, and in the
taking they also stole our free ways and the best of our leaders, killed in battle or
assassinated. And now, after all that, theyve come for the very last of our
possessions; now they want our pride, our history, our spiritual traditions. They
want to rewrite and remake these things, to claim them for themselves. The lies and
thefts just never end.10 Or, as the Oneida scholar Pam Colorado frames the matter: The process is ultimately
intended to supplant Indians, even in areas of their own culture and
spirituality. In the end, non-Indians will have complete power to define
what is and what is not Indian, even for Indians. We are talking here about
a complete ideological/conceptual subordination of Indian people in
addition to the total physical subordination they already experience. When this
immigrant population which has come to to dominate literally every other aspect of our existence. As Margo Thunderbird, an activist of the Shinnecock Nation, has put it,
happens, the last vestiges of real Indian society and Indian rights will disappear. Non-Indians will then claim to own our heritage and ideas as thoroughly as they now claim to own our
land and resources.11 From this perspective, the American Indian Movement passed a resolution at its 1984 Southwest Leadership Conference condemning the laissez-faire use of native
ceremonies and/or ceremonial objects by anyone not sanctioned by traditional indigenous spiritual leaders.12 The AIM position also echoed an earlier resolution taken by the Traditional
Elders Circle in 1980, condemning even Indians who engage in use of [our] spiritual ceremonies with non-Indian people for profit.13 Another such condemnation had been issued
during the First American Indian Tribunal at D-Q University in 1982.14 In June 1993, the Lakota Nation enacted a similar resolution denouncing non-Lakotas who presume to adopt their
rituals, and censoring those Lakotas who have chosen to facilitate such cultural appropriation.15 Several other indigenous nations and national organizations have already taken
comparable positions, or are preparing to.16 This may seem an exaggerated and overly harsh response to what the Spokane/Coeur dAlene writer Sherman Alexie has laughingly
the hard edges of Euroamerican hubris and

assertion of proprietary interest in native assets which has always marked
Indian/white relations are abundantly manifested in the organizational literature of
the Mens Movement itself. Of even greater concern is the fact that the sort of appropriation evidenced in
these periodicals is no longer restricted simply to claiming ownership of Indian ceremonies and
dismissed as being little more than a Society for Confused White Men.17 But
spiritual objects, as in a passage in a recent issue of the Mens Council Journal explaining that sweats, drumming, dancing, [and] four direction-calling [are] once-indigenous now-ours
Rather, participants have increasingly assumed a stance of expropriating

native identity altogether, as when, in the same journal, it is repeatedly asserted
that weare all Lakota and that members of the Mens Movement are now
displacing actual Lakotas from their previous role as warrior protectors (of what, is left
unclear).19 The indigenous response to such presumption was perhaps best expressed by AIM leader Russell Means, himself an Oglala Lakota, when he stated that, This is
the ultimate degradation of our people, even worse than whats been done to us by
Hollywood and the publishing industry, or the sports teams who portray us as
mascots and pets. What these people are doing is like Adolf Eichmann claiming
rituals.18
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
269
during his trial that, at heart, he was really a zionist, or members of the Aryan
Nations in Idaho claiming to be True Jews. 20 Elsewhere, Means has observed that: Whats at issue here is the same old question
that Europeans have always posed with regard to American Indians, whether whats ours isnt somehow theirs. And, of course, theyve always answered the question in the affirmative
], Indian
people as such will cease to exist. By definition, the causing of any culture
to cease to exist is an act of genocide.21 Noted author Vine Deloria, Jr., agrees in principle, finding that as a
result of the presumption of groups like the Mens Movement, as well as academic
anthropology, the realities of Indian belief and existence have become so
misunderstood and distorted at this point that when a real Indian stands up and
speaks the truth at any given moment, he or she is is not only unlikely to be
believed, but will probably be publicly contradicted and corrected by the citation of
some non-Indian and totally inaccurate expert. 22 Moreover, young Indians in [cities and]
universities are now being trained to view themselves and their cultures in the
terms prescribed by such experts rather than in the traditional terms of the tribal
elders. The process automatically sets the members of Indian communities at odds with one another, while outsiders runaround picking up the pieces for themselves. In
this way [groups like the Mens Movement] are perfecting a system of self-validation in which all
semblance of honesty and accuracy are lost. This isabsolutely devastating to Indian societies.23 Even Sherman Alexie, while
We are resisting this because spirituality is the basis of our culture. If our culture is dissolved [via the expedients of spiritual appropriation/expropriation
choosing to treat the Mens Movement phenomenon with scorn and ridicule rather than open hostility, is compelled to acknowledge that there is a serious problem with the direction
Peyote is not just an excuse to get high, Alexie points out. A Vision
Quest cannot be completed in a convention room rented for that purpose [T]he
sweat lodge is a church, not a free clinic or something A warrior does not have to
scream to release the animal that is supposed to reside inside every man. A warrior
does not necessarily have an animal inside him at all. If there happens to be an
animal, it can be a parakeet or a mouse just as easily as it can be a bear or a wolf.
When a white man adopts an animal, he [seems inevitably to choose] the largest
animal possible. Whether this is because of possible phallic connotations or a kind
of spiritual steroid abuse is debatable, [but] I can imagine a friend of mine, John,
who is white, telling me that his spirit animal is the Tyrannosaurus Rex. 24 The
mens movement seems designed to appropriate and mutate so many
aspects of native traditions. I worry about the possibilities: mens movement chain stores specializing in portable sweat lodges; the Indians R
Us com modification of ritual and artifact; white men who continue to show up at powwows in full regalia and dance.25 Plainly, despite sharp
differences in their respective temperaments and resultant stylistic
approaches to dealing with problems, Alexie and many other Indians share
Russell Means overall conclusion that the culture vultures of the Mens
Movement are not innocent or innocuouscute, groovy, hip, enlightened
or any of the rest of the things they want to project themselves as being.
No, what theyre about is cultural genocide. And genocide is genocide, no
matter how you want to qualify it. So some of us are starting to react to
these folks accordingly.26
taken by Blys disciples.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
270
AT Framework -Education
Your education is locked into a Eurocentric paradigm.
Over the past decade, the nature and adequacy of educational content have been matters for increasingly
The
American educational system as a whole has been amply demonstrated to be
locked firmly into a paradigm of Eurocentrism, not only in terms of its focus,
but also in its discernible heritage, methodologies, and conceptual structure. Among
people of non-European cultural derivation, the kind of "learning" inculcated
through such a model is broadly seen as insulting, degrading, and functionally
subordinative. More and more, these themes have found echoes among the more enlightened and
vociferous debate among everyone from academics to policymakers to lay preachers in the United States.
progressive sectors of the dominant Euroamerican society itself. 1 Such sentiments are born of an ever-widening
reliance upon a single

cultural tradition constitutes a rather transparent form of intellectual domination,
achievable only within the context of parallel forms of domination. This is meant in
cognition that, within any multicultural setting , this sort of monolithic pedagogical
precisely the sense intended by David Landes when he observed, "It seems to me that one has to look at
imperialism as a multifarious response to a common opportunity that consists simply as a disparity of power. ,,2 I n
while education in America has existed for some

time, by law, as a "common opportunity," its shape has all along been defined
exclusively via the "disparity of power" exercised by members of the ruling
Euroamerican elite.3 Responses to this circumstance have, to date, concentrated primarily
upon what might be best described as a "contributionist" approach to remedy. This
is to say, they seek to bring about the inclusion of non-Europeans and/ or nonEuropean achievements in canonical subject matters, while leaving the
methodological and conceptual parameters of the canon itself essentially
intact.4 The present essay represents an attempt to go a bit further, sketching out to some degree the
this connection, i t i s often pointed out that,
preliminary requisites for challenging methods and concepts as well. It should be noted before proceeding that
while my own grounding in American Indian Studies leads me to anchor my various alternatives in that particular
perspective, the principles postulated should prove readily adaptable to other "minority" venues.
Their claim to education does not recognize the forced

education and assimilation of native people into civil society.
Not only is society an antagonism structured against them, but
they were forced to un-learn their culture via the process of
forced re-education.
Pratts experiment at Carlisle laid the basis for a network of comparatively

well-funded federal institutions with a coherent curriculum intended to
acculturate Native Americans to the dominant culture. Indian schools were supported by
powerful politicians like General Thomas Jefferson Morgan who became the Indian Commissioner a decade after the founding of
Carlisle and helped establish the structure of off-reservation boarding schools. He built 11 additional schools, bringing the total to 19
and in 1890 promulgated Rules for Indian Schools (Library Staff 1999). There is no accurate count of the number of students; Adams
(1995: 58) estimated attendance at nearly 18 000 at the turn of the century. In addition to Carlisle, major institutions included:
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
271
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Flandreau, South Dakota; Chemawa, Oregon; Haskell, Kansas; Mt. Pleasant, Michigan; Riverside,
Indian schools constituted a particular nexus of the political

and educational apparatus. Unlike, for instance, public schools during the same time
period which were decentralized and completely disconnected from federal power,
the Indian schools were a site where U.S. government policy directly influenced
ideological production. The application of state power led to two
developments: a centralized curriculum and accountability . Under the direct control of
California; and Phoenix, Arizona.
the BIA, boarding schools had shared characteristics: the architecture and landscaping was similar, as was the military-style
regimen. Common curricular content FIGURE 3. Photograph probably made by Charles R. Scott, an employee of the Seneca Training
School, for Superintendent Horace B. Durant. 1905. National Archives and Record Service (BIA) NRFF-75-10-MIAMI-1(3). included:
English language only, a basic academic curriculum with equal emphasis on farming and manual trades for men and domestic work
Owen
Lindauer made an important point about the depth of the re-socialization attempted
by the Indian schools: In 1888 John Oberly, superintendent of Indian schools ,
argued that the objective of the schools was to wean the student from the
tribal system and to imbue him with the egotism of American civilization,
so that he would say I instead of we, and this is mine, instead of this is ours.
(Lindauer 1998: n.p.) The goal of the boarding schools thus went far beyond
industrial training, English language instruction, gender role socialization
and even the creation of capitalist desires. It was also more ambitious than
the Americanization process being employed to assimilate European immigrants
during the same historic period. Its goal was no less than transformation of the soul; exactly the project Michel
for women, rigid adherence to clock time, team sports and military-style regimentation (Lindauer 1998; Marr n.d.).
Foucault argues was the accomplishment of modern institutions: the historical reality of the soul, which, unlike the soul represented
by Christian theology, is not born in sin and subject to punishment, but is born rather out of methods of punishment, supervision,
and constraint (Foucault 1995: 29). In his examination of the role of photography in producing structures of surveillance and
discipline, John Tagg noted that while unable to photograph the soul, the camera was an exquisite machine for demonstrating the
effects of discipline on the body. As Foucault (1995: 25) put it: the body is also directly involved in a political field; power relations
have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit
signs.
Their form of education is used as an instrument of cultural

annihilation and assimilation.
Smith, '01 (Maureen Smith, Maureen E. Smith is an enrolled member of the Oneida
Tribe of Wisconsin. She currently serves as the Director of Native American Studies and
Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Maine at Orono. She
received her Ph.D. in Urban Education from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, Fall
2001, "Forever Changed: Boarding School Narratives of American Indian Identity in the U.S.
and Canada")
*This card has been modified to avoid stealing the words of the American Indian Peoples
the intent of the Western educational system was

to purposefully eliminate the cultural identity of American Indian people . But as
As this Native man so eloquently stated,
the narratives will show, the students were not passive recipients of the process. One purpose of this paper is to
give voice to the American Indian people who survived the Western educational system. The Native perspective of
this cultural assault and the ensuing opposition to this aggression, as well as the existence and tenacity of this
people, as demonstrated by the narratives of the participants, form the significance of this paper.These narratives
tell many stories. Within this paper are stories about American Indian reactions to the educational system itself, the
assault on their cultural anchors, and the extreme psychological trauma they endured. There are stories of the
staunch resistance that enabled the Native students to survive within this devastating system. Furthermore, these
voices demonstrate that despite the oppressive social and educational policies, American Indians resisted
assimilation and allowed then* ethnic identity to survive. Utilizing Native responses to the Western educational
system, this essay provides an analysis of the structures in the educational system that conflicted with traditional
the goal of the schools was to make them

they (the boarding schools) tried to make [them]* white, to
American Indian life. Indian children were aware that
as white as possible.
"But
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
272
give [them]* the white culture, to integrate [them]*."2 This essay further examines
possible reasons why American Indian culture did not disappear despite the attendance at the schools; however,
the paper concludes in agreement with Mato: American Indians and their communities were forever changed by the
experience. This essay arises from a study completed in 1993.3 In that study, eightyfive interviews, memoirs, and
autobiographies of both Canadian and American individuals, spanning the time frame from 1819 to 1934, were
studied. Within this study there was a wide diversity of tribal affiliations, times in attendance, and continuance with
tribal tradition. Clearly, American Indian people came from a wide diversity of tribal backgrounds, personal family
situations, individual school policy and personnel, and varied degrees of cultural interruption within their
communities. Thus, their responses to the system were conflicted due to all these variables, and Native people who
attended the educational system had diverse responses to its effect upon their lives. It is clear that the experience
The educational system brought changes not only to

individual American Indians, but also to whole tribal communities. The United
States government was very clear in its Indian policy. Historically, it was the express
purpose of the United States government to eliminate all vestiges of
tribal and cultural identity for American Indian people.4 History has
shown that policies attempted to relocate and terminate Indian people in an
effort to eliminate the "Indian problem."5 One of the main vehicles for
this annihilation was education. Charles Mix, who had a significant impact on Indian
thoroughly altered their lives.
affairs throughout his tenure, perhaps best exemplifies the tone of many Commissioners of Indian Affairs of his day.
Charles Mix began working for the Office of Indian Affairs in 1838. He became chief clerk and in that capacity,
served under twelve different commissioners and either wrote most of the annual reports or supplied the
information contained in them. Finally, in 1858, he was appointed commissioner. He believed Indians should be
settled upon reservations and assimilated into white society.6 In his 1860 annual report, Commissioner Mix
expressed his feelings regarding the goals of American Indian education

when he wrote: Educate him in the rudiments of our language. Teach him to
work. Send him to his home, and tell him he must practice what he
has been taught or starve. It will in a generation regenerate the race. It
will exterminate the Indian, but develop a man.7 Canada utilized an educational
model very similar to that of the United States. In fact, the Canadian government looked to the U.S. for examples of
how to deal with the issue of education stipulated in the treaties. To that end, the Canadian government supported
missionaries in setting up a series of residential schools existing from the 1880s to the 1970s. These schools'
philosophies and intents were similar to those of Commissioner Mix. Describing the intent of the educational system
in Canada, A. G. Harper stated that "the extinction of the Indians as Indians is the ultimate end" of the Canadian
The inherent
problem of racial confusion for Indian students seemed almost unavoidable.
A constant conflict occurred between what the white educators taught and
what was taught in the home culture. School officials told Indian students
that they and their lifestyle were a sin and an abomination to God, and that
the only escape from this condition was to become like whites. Commissioner of
Indian policy.8 Within the white educational setting, everything Indian was viewed as negative.
Indian Affairs William Jones was optimistic about the benefits of education. "With education will come morality,
cleanliness, self-respect, industry and above all, a Christianized humanity, the foundation stone of the world's
progress and well-being."9 The school experience weathered by many Indian people was a bittersweet experience.
Indian
people contend that the educational experience led to the demise of many
tribal languages. It has stolen the parenting skills away from many Indian
people. It nearly caused the annihilation of the culture. Education has had
a big part in creating generations of people ashamed of who they
are. However, some Indian people responded that, in fact, the schools were a good, safe, and predictable place
For many, it impacted negatively upon them for their entire lives, and the impact continues today.
to be. Schools always provided food and clothing for the students, even if parents were unable to so provide. "Some
of those Indian families are so poor that they can't afford the clothing or anything that it takes to send a kid to
public school. They at least know that if their child is at a boarding school, they will get three meals a day."1 0 "Old
Uncle Sam, he was pretty good to us. I had three square meals a day," remembered another student.1 1 A Sioux
woman remarked: Don't you think that wasforfor the kids' own good because I know in my time, we went
hungry a lot of times. We didn't have no shoes to wear. And when my dad took me to the Indian school, we got
three meals a day, we got a good education, and I'm glad that my dad took me there. Otherwise where would I be?1
2
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
273
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
274
Your exclusion framing of debate mirrors the way minorities

are excluded from modern education systems.
Bartolome 94 [Lilia; PhD in Language, Literacy and Culture, Stanford University, Professor of Applied
Linguistics, College of Liberal Arts; Harvard Educational Review Vol. 64 No. 2; Beyond the Methods Fetish: Toward a
Humanizing Pedagogy; pp. 173-191] JCS
teaching strategies are neither designed nor implemented in a

vacuum. Design, selection, and use of particular teaching approaches and strategies
arise from perceptions about learning and learners. I contend that the most pedagogically
advanced strategies are sure to he ineffective in the hands of educators
who implicitly or explicitly subscribe to a belief system that renders
ethnic, racial, and linguistic minority students at best culturally disadvantaged
and in need of fixing (if we could only identify the right recipe!), or, at worst, culturally or genetically
deficient and beyond fixing. 7 Despite the fact that various models have been proposed
to explain the academic failure of certain subordinated groups academic failure described as
historical, pervasive, and disproportionate the fact remains that these views of difference are
deficit-based and deeply imprinted in our individual and collective psyches (Flores, 1982,
As discussed earlier,
1993; Menchaca & Valencia, 1990; Valencia, 1986, 1991). The deficit model has the longest history of any model discussed in the
education literature. Richard Valencia (1986) traces its evolution over three centuries:Also known in the literature as the social
pathology model or the cultural deprivation model, the deficit approach explains
disproportionate academic problems among low status students as largely being due to
pathologies or deficits in their sociocultural background (e.g., cognitive and linguistic deficiencies, low self-esteem, poor motivation).
. . . To improve the educability of such students, programs such as compensatory education and parent-child intervention-have
been-proposed. (p. 3) Barbara Flores (1982, 1993) documents the effect this deficit model has had on the schools past and current
perceptions of Latino students. Her historical overview chronicles descriptions used to refer to Latino students over the last century.
The terms range from mentally retarded, linguistically handicapped, culturally and linguistically deprived, and semilingual,
research
continues to lay bare our deficit orientation and its links to discriminatory school
practices aimed at students from groups perceived as low status (Anyon, 1988; Bloom, 1991;
to the current euphemism for Latino and other subordinated students: the at-risk student. Similarly, recent
Diaz, Moll, & Mehan, 1986; Oaks, 1986). Findings range from teacher preference for Anglo students, to bilingual teachers preference
for lighter skinned Latino students (Bloom, 1991), to teachers negative perceptions of working-class parents as compared to
unequal teaching and testing practices in schools

serving working-class and ethnic minority students (Anyon, 1988; Diaz et al., 1986; Oaks, 1 986; U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, 1973). Especially indicative of our inability to consciously acknowledge
the deficit orientation is the fact that the teachers in these studies teachers
from all ethnic groups were themselves unaware ofthe active role they played in
the differential and unequal treatment of their students. The deficit view of
middle-class parents (Lareau, 1990), and, finally, to
subordinated students has been critiqued by numerous researchers as ethnocentric and invalid (Boykin, 1983; Diaz et al., 1986;
Flores, 1982; Flores et al., 1991; Sue & Padilla, 1986; Trueba, 1989; Walker, 1987). More recent research offers alternative models
that shift the source of school failure away from the characteristics of the individual child, their families, and their cultures, and
many
of these alternative models often unwittingly give rise to a kinder and
more~liberal,yet more concealed version of the deficit model that views
subordinated students as being in need of specialized modes of
instruction a type of instructional coddling that mainstream students do not
require in order to achieve in school. Despite the use of less overtly ethnocentric models to explain the
toward the schooling process (Au & Mason, 1983; Heath, 1983; Mehan, 1992; Philips, 1972). Unfortunately, I believe that
academic standing of subordinated students, I believe that the deficit orientation toward difference, especially as it relates to low
socioeconomic and ethnic minority groups, is very deeply ingrained in the ethos of our most prominent institutions, especially
schools, and in the various educational programs in place at these sites. It is against this sociocultural backdrop that teachers can
begin to seriously question the unspoken but prevalent deficit orientation used to hide SES, racial/ethnic, linguistic, and gender
inequities present in U.S. classrooms. And
it is against this sociocultural backdrop that I critically
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
275
examine two teaching approaches identified by the educational literature as

effective with subordinated student populations .
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
276
AT FW Debate is Key
Educational spaces key
As we raise yet another generation in a nation at war, it is even more imperative
for schools to be reimagined as sites for social transformation and emancipation;
as a place "where students are educated not only to be critical thinkers, but also to
view the world as a place where their actions might make a difference " (McLaren 2003).
More specifically, McLaren outlines the essential elements of a post-9/11 critical pedagogy: (1) to support
the broader societal aim of freedom of speech; (2) to be willing to challenge the
Bush administration's definition of "patriotism"; (3) to examine the linkages
between government and transnational corporations; (4) to commit to critical selfreflexivity and dialogue in public conversations; (5) to enforce the separation
between church and state; (6) to struggle for a media that does not serve corporate interests; and, above all, (7) to commit to understanding the fundamental
basis of Marx's critique of capitalism (McLaren 2003) Indeed, in a time when the forces of free-market
politics conspire not only to maintain the march of colonialism but also to dismantle (i.e., privatize) public
the frameworks of
revolutionary critical theory provide indigenous educators and scholars a way to
think about the issues of sovereignty and self-determination that moves beyond
simple cultural constructions and analyses . Specifically, their foregrounding of capitalist relations as the axis of exploitation helps to frame the history of indigenous
peoples as one of dispossession and not simply oppression. Their trenchant critique of
education, such aims are essential. In addition to these immediate concerns,
postmodernism helps to reveal the "problem" of identity (social representation) as a distraction from the need for
social transformation. Similarly, the work of revolutionary critical feminists helps to explain how gendered
differences have been systematically produced and continue to operate within regimes of exploitation. In all these
ways, the analyses of revolutionary critical pedagogy prove invaluable.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
277
AT FW Red Pedagogy=Survival Strategy

Red Pedagogy is a key survival strategy to sustain indigenous
lifeways.
what distinguishes Red pedagogy is its basis in hope. Not the future-centered hope of
the Western imagination, but rather, a hope that lives in contingency with the pastone that
trusts the beliefs and understandings of our ancestors as well as the power of
traditional knowledge. A Red pedagogy is, thus, as much about belief and acquiescence as it is
about questioning and empowerment, about respecting the space of tradition as it intersects
with the linear time frames of the (post)modern world. Most of all, it is a hope that
believes in the strength and resiliency of indigenous peoples and communities,
recognizing that their struggles are not about inclusion and enfranchisement to the
"new world order" but, rather, are part of the indigenous project of sovereignty and
indigenization. It reminds us that indigenous peoples have always been peoples of
resistance, standing in defiance of the vapid emptiness of the bourgeois life. This is the
Finally,
spirit that guides the ensuing engagement between critical theory and American Indian education. The hope is for
Red pedagogy that not only helps sustain the lifeways of indigenous peoples
but also provides an explanatory framework that helps us understand
the complex and intersecting vectors of power shaping the historical
material conditions of indigenous schools and communities. A logical place
to begin this journey of understanding is at the point of "encounter," examining
the various dimensions of conflict and contradiction between the sovereign peoples
of the Americas and the colonizers, asking the question: Can democracy be built upon the bloody soils
a
of genocide?
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
278
AT Framework Middle Ground

Mere inclusion without a fundamental change of the form only
reinforces colonialism. Do not weigh the aff.
From the preceding observations as to what White Studies is, the extraordinary pervasiveness and corresponding
secrecy of its practice, and the reasons underlying its existence, certain questions necessarily arise. For instance,
the query might be posed as to whether a simple expansion of curriculum content

to include material on nonWestern contexts might be sufficient to redress matters. It
follows that we should ask whether something beyond data or content is fundamentally at issue. Finally, there are
structural considerations concerning how any genuinely corrective and liberatory curriculum or pedagogy might
actually be inducted into academia. The first two questions dovetail rather nicely, and will be addressed in a single
the answer
must be an unequivocal "no. " Content is, of course, highly important, but, in and of itself, can
never be sufficient to offset the cumulative effects of White Studies indoctrination.
Non-Western content injected into the White Studies format can be-and, historically,
has been-filtered through the lens of Eurocentric conceptualization, taking on
meanings entirely alien to itself along the way. 49 The result is inevitably the
reinforcement rather than the diminishment of colonialist hegemony. As Vine
response. The third will be dealt with in the following section. In response to the first question,
Deloria, Jr., has noted relative to just one aspect of this process: Therein lies the meaning o f the white's fantasy
about Indians-the problem of the Indian image. Underneath all the conflicting images of the Indian one fundamental
truth emerges-the white man knows that he is an alien and he knows that North America is Indian-and he will never
let go of the Indian image because he thinks that by some clever manipulation he can achieve an authenticity that
cannot ever be his.5O 2 7 9 Plainly, more is needed than the simple introduction of raw data for handling within the
parameters of Eurocentric acceptability. The conceptual mode of intellectuality itself must be called into question.
Perhaps a bit of "pictographic" communication will prove helpful in clarifying what is meant in this respect. The
following schematic represents the manner in which two areas of inquiry, science and religion (spirituality), have
in the European tradition. In this model, "knowledge" is divided into

discrete content areas arranged in a linear structure. This division is permanent and culturally
been approached
enforced; witness the Spanish Inquisition and "Scopes Monkey Trial" as but two historical illustrations.s1 In the
cases of science and religion (as theology), the mutual opposition of their core assumptions has given rise to a third
category, speculative philosophy, which is informed by both, and, in tum, informs them. Speculative philosophy, in
this sense at least, serves to mediate and sometimes synthesize the linearly isolated components, science and
religion, allowing them to communicate and "progress." Speculative philosophy is not, in itself, intended to
apprehend reality, but rather to create an abstract reality in its place. Both religion and science, on the other hand,
are, each according to its own internal dynamics, meant to effect a concrete understanding of and action upon "the
Such compartmentalization of knowledge is replicated in the

departmentalization of the Eurocentric education itself. Sociology, theology, psychology,
real world. "s2
physiology, kinesiology, biology, cartography, anthropology, archaeology, geology, pharmacology, astronomy,

agronomy, historiography, geography, demography-the whole vast proliferation of Western " ologies," " onomies,"
and " ographies" -are necessarily viewed as separate or at least separable areas of inquiry within the university.
Indeed, the Western social structure both echoes and is echoed by the same sort of linear fragmentation, dividing
The
structure involved readily lends itself to-perhaps demands-the sort of hierarchical
ordering of things, both intellectually and physically, which is most clearly manifested
in racism, militarism and colonial domination, class and gender
oppression, and the systematic ravaging of the natural world.
itself into discrete organizational spheres: church, state, business, family, education, art, and so forth.53
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
279
AT This Time its Different/Outdated

History overwhelming supports our skepticism of reforms.
Domestic Dissent
We have arrived at the core of the myth, perpetuation of which constitutes the
real purpose of reviews such as Theoharis'. This is, and has always been, the central myth of the FBI. Regardless of the variations
it has remained
remarkably consistent and ultimately reducible to the simplest terms: "Don't
worry, everything is OK now." No matter when or in what circumstances the Bureau has been called to
and complexities of the lesser mythologies required to support it at a given moment or given context,
account, its official spokespeople and unofficial apologists can be counted upon to queue up and say whatever is necessary to pass
while there may have been "problems" or "errors" in the past, these
have been corrected. There has never been, in such recountings, any current reason for worry or concern. All has
already been set right. This theme prevailed in the 1920s, in the wake of the Palmer Raids. It
was maintained in the '30s, after the worst of the Bureau's union busting had been
completed. It continued in the '40s, when the true extent of the FBI's surveillance of
the citizenry began to be apparent. During the '50s, it held up even as the Bureau's
linkages to Mc- Carthyism were exposed. In the '60s, those who would pose
uncomfortable questions concerning FBI activities were, like Martin Luther King,
dismissed as liars and "paranoids." Even during the 1970s, as the COINTELPRO
revelations were ushered forth, the myth was used as the Bureau's major defense.
And in the end, as always, it held sway. Meanwhile, through it all, the
apparatus of political repression which the myth was created to shield continued, essentially
unhindered by real public scrutiny of any sort, to be evolved, perfected and
applied. As we enter the '90s, the FBI's slaughter of "AIM militants" has long since
been completed and hidden from view. CISPES (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) and
some 200 other domestic dissident groups have more recently found themselves
monitored, disrupted and occasionally destabilized by Bureau operatives using
many of the same COINTELPRO tactics employed against "New Left" organizations two decades ago." And still
Professor Theoharis would have us believe the FBI no longer engages in political
counterintelligence programs and when evidence emerges to the contrary, the Bureau (not the
victims) should be given every benefit of the doubt. We readily concur with his assessment that these
along the idea that,
are "important questions of decided contemporary relevance." Unlike him, however, we will continue to conclude that their
importance lies in the fact that, concerning the form and function of the FBI, things have never been "OK." Further, we will continue
to assert that things will never be OK in this regard until the realities both he and the Bureau seek so desperately to hide are
brought fully into the open, until the whole pattern of FBI performance has at last been pieced completely together, called by its
right name and placed before the public. Then, perhaps, real corrective action can occur. Unquestionably,
the start of any
such positive process must rest in destroying the myth Theoharis so clearly presents.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
280
AT State Inevitable
The state is not monolithic, it can be destroyed
It required/requires no particularly sophisticated analysis to perceive that the
imposition of colonial/neocolonial forms of exploitation upon Third World populations
entailed/entails a degree of systemic violence sufficient to ensure the permanence
of their revolt until it succeeds. 113 Similarly, it was/is understandable that Third
World revolution would continue of its own volition whether or not it was
accompanied by overt revolutionary activity within the "mother countries " (advanced
capitalist states).114 These understandings are readily coupled with the knowl edge that the types of warfare
evidenced in decolonization struggles were unlikely, under normal circumstances, to trigger superpower
confrontations of the type which would threaten mother country populations (including their internal opposi
tions).l15 Instead, the existence ofarmed Third World liberation movements would necessitate a continuing range of
(token) con cessions by the advanced industrial states to their own popula tions as a means of securing the internal
it is possible for the

resident opposition to the advanced industrial states to rely upon the armed efforts
of those in the colonies to diminish the relative power of the "mutual enemy," all the
while awaiting the "right moment" to take up arms themselves , "completing the
world revolution" by bringing down the state . The question then becomes one of when to "seize
security required for the permanent prosecution of "brush fire wars."116 It follows that
the time," and who-precisely-it is who will be responsible for "picking up the gun" within the mother country
From here it is possible to extrapolate that when state power has been sufficiently
weakened by the liberation struggles of those in the colonies (read: nonwhites), the
most oppressed sectors ofthe mother country population itself(again read non
whites, often and accurately described as constituting internal colonies)-which are
guided by motivations similar to those in the Third World-will be in a position to
wage successful armed struggles from within.ll8 Such dissolution of the state will
mark the ushering in of the postrevolutionary era.
itsel117
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
281
AT Pacifism/Nonviolence Works
The affirmative effects no change theyre playing the savior
only to reinforce their position of relative comfort,
strengthening the state and its ability to exploit
Jenson 7 (Derrik, American author and radical environmentalist (and prominent
critic of mainstream environmentalism) , Jensen has published several books,
including The Culture of Make Believe and Endgame, that question and critique
civilization as an entire social system, exploring its inherent values, hidden
premises, and modern links to supremacism, oppression, and genocide, as well as
corporate, domestic, and worldwide ecological abuse. He has also taught creative
writing at Pelican Bay State Prison and Eastern Washington University, 2007,
Pacifism as Pathology: Notes on an American Psuedopraxis, Preface, AK Press, pgs
5-6)
This is a necessary book, a book that grows more necessary with each day that passes. Our backs really are against
Ninety percent of the large fish in the oceans

are gone. Amazonian rainforests could enter permanent decline within the year.
Every stream in the United States has been contaminated with carcinogens. This
should not surprise us, since the breast milk of every mother on the planet-human
and nonhuman-has been contaminated with carcinogens. Global warming is
accelerating, with a very real possibility that it may render this planet essentially
uninhabitable, and the response by those in power is to tell us that this way of lifethis way of life that is killing the planet. that commits genocide against every
indigenous culture it encounters, that degrades and impoverishes the vast majority
of humans, indeed, that is based upon and requires each of these things-is not
negotiable. At the same time, the efforts of those of us fighting against the system
are insufficient. Obviously, or we would not be losing. Rates of deforestation would
not continue to accelerate, oceans would not continue to be murdered, indigenous
peoples would not continue to be slaughtered or driven off their land . What are we going
the wall. The dominant culture is killing the planet.
to do? With all the world at stake, it is long past time we put all of our options on the table. This is a necessary
book, a book that grows more necessary with each day that passes. In this book, Churchill makes clear that many
of the claims of pacifism are often at odds with reality. For example, Gandhi is often used to illustrate a pacifist
achieving his goal. But Gandhi's success (such as it was: one can make the argument that the Indian people didn't
really win that revolution, but rather at this remove Coca-Cola and Microsoft have won, at least for now) came at
the end of a hundred year struggle-often violent - for independence by the Indians. Further, many Indians consider
Gandhi to have co-opted Indian rage against the British into something altogether much more manageable,
something even the British did not so much fear. Likewise, we can ask how much Martin Luther King Jr. could have
accomplished were it not for African-Americans taking to the streets, sometimes with guns. This question is not
often enough asked. Churchill points out some of the reasons for this failure of discourse. Churchill doesn't, of
course, argue for blind, unthinking violence. He merely argues against blind, unthinking nonviolence. And who,
Those in power are

insatiable. They will do anything-lie, cheat, steal, kill-to increase their power. The
system rewards this accumulation of power. It requires it. The system itself is
insatiable. It requires growth. It requires the ever-increasing exploitation of
resources, including human resources. It will not stop because we ask nicely, else it
would have stopped long ago when Indians and others of the indigenous asked
nicely for members of this culture to stop stealing their land. It will not stop because
it is the right thing to do, else it would never have started. It will not stop so long as
there is anything left for it to exploit. It cannot . Welcome to the end of the world. This book, more
apart from dogmatic pacifists and those in power, could have a problem with that?
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
282
than any other, demystifies and deconstructs dogmatic pacifism: shows it for what it really is. That's a crucial task,
especially given the stranglehold dogmatic pacifism has on much of the so-called resistance especially in the United
States, but more broadly the industrialized nations. As Churchill states early in this essay: " Pacifism,
the
ideology of nonviolent political action, has become axiomatic and all but universal
among the more progressive elements of contemporary mainstream North
America." This stranglehold is especially unfortunate, given , as Churchill next states, "Always,
it promises that the harsh realities of state power can be transcended via good
feelings and purity of purpose rather than by self-defense and resorting to combat.
Pacifists, with seemingly endless repetition, pronounce that the negativity of the
modem corporate-fascist state will atrophy through defection and neglect once there is
a sufficiently positive social vision to take its place... Known in the Middle Ages as alchemy, such insistence on the
repetition of insubstantial themes and failed experiments to obtain a desired result has long been consigned to the
realm of fantasy, discarded by all but the most wishful or cynical (who use it to manipulate people)." Of course,
those who say that this way of life is not negotiable-or those who say nothing, but
who act as though this way of life is not negotiable-have it all wrong. They have
confused dependent and independent variables: this way of life-any way of life-is
and must be based-upon a healthy landbase. Without a healthy landbase you have
nothing. Those in power can dream all they want about some grim technotopic
capitalist dystopia and we likewise can fantasize all we want about some groovy
ecosocialist utopia fIlled with free love and great music-but it doesn't matter if you
can't breathe the air and can't drink the water . Everything arises from your landbase: everything
else is the dependent variable to the landbase's independent variable. No landbase, no way of life. In fact, no
landbase means no life. It really is that simple. Unfortunately, simpleness or complexity are not the point, and
The problems we face are not and have never been cognitively
challenging: rational problems for us to puzzle our way through. Indeed the
problems we face are not rational at all, and to believe they are is part of
the problem, be cause to believe they are is to believe they are amenable
to rational solution: if we just think about it hard enough, and if we just
make the case clearly and persuasively enough, we can convince (read:
beg) those in power to stop the exploitative and destructive behavior that
characterizes this culture, and for which they are extremely wellrewarded.
never have been.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
283
AT Violent Resistance Fails.

The alternative solves violence is the only truly effective way
to fight back, their arguments are rooted in a dogmatic need
for peace that accomplishes nothing
23-25)
Pacifists tell us that the ends never justify the means. This is a statement of values
disguised as a statement of morals. A person who says ends don't justify means is
simply saying: I value process more than outcome. Someone who says ends do
justify means is merely saying: I value outcome more than process . Looked at this way, it
becomes absurd to make absolute statements about it . There are some ends that justify some
means, and there are some ends that do not. Similarly, the same means may be
justified by some people for some ends and not justified by or for others (I would,
for example, kill someone who attempted to kill those I love, and I would not kill
someone who tried to cut me off on the interstate). It is my joy, responsibility, and honor as a
sentient being to make those distinctions, and I pity those who do not consider themselves worthy or capable of
Pacifists tell us
that violence only begets violence. This is manifestly not true. Violence can
beget many things. Violence can beget submission , as when a master beats a slave (some
making them themselves, and who must rely on slogans instead to guide their actions.
slaves will eventually fight back, in which case this violence will beget more violence; but some slaves will submit
for the rest of their lives, as we see; and some will even create a religion or spirituality that attempts to make a
virtue of their submission, as we also see; some will write and others repeat that their freedom must not come at
the expense of others; some will speak of the need to love their oppressors; and some will say that the meek shall
Violence can beget material wealth, as when a robber or a

capitalist (insofar as we can make a meaningful distinction) steals from someone.
Violence can beget violence, as when someone attacks someone who fights back.
Violence can beget a cessation of violence, as when some one fights off or kills an
assailant (it's utterly nonsensical as well as insulting to say that a woman who kills a rapist is begetting more
inherit what's left of the earth).
violence). Pacifists tell us, "We must be the change what we wish to see." This ultimately meaningless statement
I can change
myself all I want, and if dams still stand, salmon still die. If global warming proceeds
apace, birds still starve. If factory trawlers still run, oceans still suffer. If factory
farms still pollute, dead zones still grow. If vivisection labs still remain, animals are
still tortured. They tell us that if you use violence against exploiters, you become
like they are. This cliche is, once again, absurd, with no relation to the real world. It is based on the
flawed notion that all violence is the same. It is obscene to suggest that a woman
who kills a man attempting to rape her becomes like a rapist. It is obscene to
suggest that by fighting back Tecumseh became like those who were
stealing his people's land. It is obscene to suggest that the Jews at who fought back against their
manifests the magical thinking and narcissism we've come to expect from dogmatic pacifists.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
284
It is obscene to
suggest that a tiger who kills a human at a zoo becomes like one of her captors .
exterminators at Auschwitz/Birkenau, Treblinka, and Sobib6r became like the Nazis.
Pacifists tell us that violence never accomplishes anything. This argument, even more than any of the others,
reveals how completely, desperately, and arrogantly out of touch many dogmatic pacifists are with physical,
If violence accomplishes nothing, how do these people

believe the civilized conquered North and South America and Africa, and before
these Europe, and before that the Middle East, and since then the rest of the world?
The indigenous did not and do not hand over their land because they recognize
they're faced with a better culture run by better people. The land was (and is)
seized and the people living there were (and are) slaughtered, terrorized, beaten
into submission. The tens of millions of Africans killed in the slave trade would be
surprised to learn their slavery was not the result of widespread violence. The same
is true for the millions of women burned as witches in Europe. The same is true for
the billions of passenger pigeons slaughtered to serve this economic system. The
millions of prisoners stuck in gulags here in the us and elsewhere would be
astounded to discover that they can walk away anytime they want, that they are
not in fact held there by force . Do the pacifists who say this really believe that people all across the
emotional, and spiritual reality.
world hand over their re sources to the wealthy because they enjoy being impoverished, enjoy seeing their lands
and their lives stolen-sorry, I guess under this formulation they're not stolen but received gracefully as gifts-by
those they evidently must perceive as more deserving? Do they believe women submit to rape just for the hell of it,
One reason violence is used so often by

those in power is because it works. It works dreadfully well. And it can work for
liberation as well as subjugation. To say that violence never accomplishes anything
not only degrades the suffering of those harmed by violence but it also devalues the
triumphs of those who have fought their way out of abusive or exploitative
situations. Abused women or children have killed their abusers, and become free of
his abuse. And there have been many indigenous and other armed struggles for
liberation that have succeeded for shorter or longer periods. In order to maintain
their fantasies, dogmatic pacifists must ignore the harmful and helpful efficacy of
violence.
and not because of the use or threat of violence?
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
285
AT Debate on the Aff Leads to Real Change

You cant debate the oppressor. You have to fight back.
11-13)
I have, in my life, been in a few relationships I would classify as emotionally abusive. It took me years to learn this
you cannot argue with an abuser. You will always lose. In fact
you've lost as soon as you begin (or more precisely as soon as you respond to their provocations). Why?
Because they cheat. They lie. They control the framing conditions for any "de
bate," and if you deviate from their script, they hurt you until you step back in line.
(And of course we see this same thing on the larger scale.) If this happens often
enough they no longer have to hurt you, since you no longer step out of line. And if
this really happens long enough, you may come up with a philosophy or a religion
that makes a virtue of you not stepping out of line. (And of course we see this same
thing on the larger scale, too). Another reason that you always lose when you argue
with an abuser is that they excel at creating double binds . A double bind is a situation where if
you choose option one you lose, if you choose option two you lose, and you can't withdraw. The only way out
of a double bind is to smash it. It's the only way. A double bind. One of the smartest things the nazis did
very important lesson:
was make it so that at every step of the way it was in the Jews' rational best interest to not resist. Many Jews had
the hope-and this hope was cultivated by the nazis-that if they played along, followed the rules laid down by those
in power, that their lives would get no worse, that they would not be murdered. Would you rather get an ID card, or
would you rather resist and possibly get killed? Would you rather go to a ghetto (reserve, reservation, whatever) or
would you rather resist and possibly get killed? Would you rather get on a cattle car, or would you rather resist and
possibly get killed? Would you rather get in the showers, or would you rather resist and possibly get killed? But I'll
tell you something important: the Jews who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, including those who went
on what they thought were suicide missions, had a higher rate of survival than those who went along. Never forget
I recently reconnected
with an old friend. In the years since we last talked he has, it ends up, become a
pacifist. He said he thinks it's possible to reach anyone if you can just make a
convincing enough argument. "Ted Bundy?" I asked. "He's dead." "Back when he was alive.II "Okay, I
that. The only way out of a double bind is to smash it. Never forget that either.
guess not." "Hitler?" Silence from my friend. I said, "Gandhi tried. Wrote him a letter requesting he please stop.
Was evidently surprised when Hitler didn't listen to him." "I still think," he said, "that in most cases you can come
what if someone wants

what you've got, and will do anything to take it?" I was thinking of the words of the
Oglala man Red Cloud, who spoke of the insatiability and abusiveness of members
of the dominant culture: "They made us many promises, more than I can remember.
But they only kept but one. They promised to take our land and they took it .,,9 My
to some sort of agreement with people." "Sure," I responded. "Most people. But
friend said, "But what is worth fighting for? Can't we just leave?" I thought of many things worth fighting for: bodily
integrity (my own and that of those I love), my landbase, the lives or dignity of those I love. I thought of the mother
bear who charged me not one week ago, because she thought I was threatening her baby. 1 thought of the mother
horses, cows, dogs, cats, hawks, eagles, chickens, geese, mice who have in my life attacked me because they
thought I might harm their little ones. I thought: If a mother mouse is willing to take on someone eight thousand
times her size, what the hell is wrong with us? I said, " What
if they want everything on the planet?
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
286
The planet is finite, you know. Ultimately you can't just run away." My friend wasn't such a good pacifist after all,
for
he said, "I guess at some point you've got to fight back."
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
287
AT Identity Tied to Land Bad

Indigenous identity is inseparable from the land, they are
intimately tied
Tamang and Peters 07 (Stella, chair of the International Womens Caucus at
the third session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and is the chair of
the South Asia Indigenous Women Forum and an advisor of Nepal Tamang Women
Ghedung. She founded Bikalpa Gyan Kendra in Nepal to provide an education and
contribute to students livelihood by combining book learning with practical skills.
She also is a member of Cultural Survivals Program Council, and Ramona, Mashpee
Wampanoag from Cape Cod, Massachusetts. She is a nationally known artist who
has revived her tribes traditional pottery-making techniques. She is a teacher,
spokesperson, curator, interpreter, consultant, and indigenous rights activist. She
also is a member of Cultural Survivals Program Council. Spring 2007, Our Land,
Our Identity, Our Freedom: A Roundtable Discussion, Cultural Survival,
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/none/ourland-our-identity-our-freedom-roundtable-discussio)
Stella Tamang: Not all indigenous groups have geographical territorysome have cultural territory. But suppose we
indigenous peoples with historic, cultural, and linguistic connections to their land. They
have an intimate connection to the land; the rationale for talking about who
they are is tied to the land. They have clear symbols in their language that connect
them to places on their land. For example, in Nepal we have groups that only can
achieve their spiritual place on the planet by going to a certain location . Ramona Peters:
are talking about
Id like to think that we can still draw strength from the land, regardless of who lives there, although a lot of my
people dont feel that way. They see other peoples houses in our territory and they see that land as dead or
the relationship between land and identity is still very

strong, to the point where overdevelopment devastates us emotionally. Eight-two
percent of our adult men are diagnosed as being depressed. We grew up in a
fishing, hunting, and planting society that has been transformed into a lost group of
people. Now we have health issues that we did not have 25 years ago. Not being in
control of the land, or not being able to protect it or have access to the natural
foods and medicines that grow on it, gives us a really shaky future . Stella Tamang: Our
lands are the places where we get our medicines, where we might know about some
special plant. Ramona Peters: For us, its access to natural resourcesforaging, access to
waterways and fishing grounds. People try to block us with private-property signs or
by telling us that the clams are their pets. They call the police any time natives are
in the area. One of the few reasons that I would be an advocate for federal
recognition is the partnership it would provide to protect the land from pollution and
random dumping. That dumping is now sometimes state sanctioned or town
sanctioned: dredging up one area to make a marina and dumping material on what
might seem like a vacant lot. But that lot is not vacant. There are things that live
there, things that we use and that others dont . Stella Tamang: Free prior and informed consent,
corrupted. I disagree with that. But
which the declaration requires states to get from indigenous peoples before taking action affecting them, is
essential. Consider the Sherpa on Mt. Everest. Mountaineering is something that should be governed by Sherpa
people. They receive no benefit from the number of people who come to climb, nor do they control the criteria.
Sherpa feel that people die there because they are failing to respect the mountain. It is immoral for people to climb
the mountain to conquer it because the mountain should be respected. The Sherpa should get the benefit as well
as the decision-making authority to decide who climbs the mountain.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
288
Native American identity and heritage is intimately tied to land

Lewis 95 (David, associate professor at Department of History at Utah State
University, 1995, Native Americans and the Environment: A survey of twentieth
century issues with particular reference to peoples of the Colorado Plateau and the
Southwest, American Indian Quarterly,
http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Research/native_americans1.htm)
Native Americans have long had an immediate relationship with their physical
environments. At contact most lived in relatively small units close to the earth,
cognizant of its rhythms and resources. They defined themselves by the land, by the
sacred places that bounded and shaped their world. They recognized a unity in their
physical and spiritual universes, the union of natural and supernatural . Their origin
cycles, oral traditions, and cosmologies connected them with all animate and inanimate beings, past and present.
The pace of change in Native American cultures and environments increased dramatically with Euroamerican
contact. Old World pathogens and epidemic diseases, domesticated plants and livestock, the disappearance of
native flora and fauna, and changing patterns of native resource use altered the physical and cultural landscape.
Nineteenth-century removal and reservation policies reduced the continental scope of Indian lands to islands in the
Reservation lands were largely unwanted or remote

environments of little economic value. The Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887
provided for the division of some reservations into individual holdings as part of an
effort to transform Indians into idealized agrariansyeomen farmers and farm
families. In subsequent acts Congress opened Indian Territory, withdrew forests,
reservoir sites, mineral and grazing lands, regulated Indian access to those areas,
and even circumvented the trust period to speed the transfer of lands into nonIndian hands. These policies contributed to the alienation of more than 85 percent
of Indian reservation lands - a diminishment of land, resources, and biotic diversity
that relegated Indians to the political and economic periphery of American society .
stream of American settlement.
By the early twentieth century, the little land Native Americans controlled was mostly in the trans-Mississippi West.
They maintained a land base and a cultural identity, things that continue to set them apart, economically as well as
socially and politically from other ethnic groups or classes in the United States. Although viewed as relatively
valueless by nineteenth-century white standards, these lands were places of spiritual value and some contained
resources of immense worth. This fact informs nearly all Native American environmental issues in the twentieth
century. Land (its loss, location, and resource wealth or poverty), exploitation of land, and changing Indian needs,
attitudes, and religious demands define the issues facing modern Indians and their environments.
Native American culture relies on the land and is intimately

tied to it
Nelson No Date (Robert, professor of English, Emeratus at University of
Richmond, Place, Vision, and Identity in Native American Literatures, University of
Richmond, https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~rnelson/pvi.html)
Understandably, one of the recurring themes of recent Native American literature3 is the issue of Native American
identity. What is sometimes hard to grasp is that "identity," correctly speaking, is not an attribute of either the
individual or of the context--the environment, including cultural traditions--in which the individual is embedded.
In
recent Native American literature, as in many of the cultural traditions this body of
literature refers and defers to, identity, like life itself, derives from the land. Whoever
Rather, identity is an event that takes place in the creation of the relationship between individual and context.
wishes either to recover or to sustain a healthy state of existence, then, must enter into some working identity not
only with a cultural tradition but also with a particular landscape. One of the clichs of New Age Nativism, American
and European alike, is that Native spiritual vision is rooted in animal or "totem" identity. Nativists also tend to
assume that the larger the animal one calls one's ally, the more powerful one's own vision must be: self-proclaimed
New Age shamans seem more predisposed to adopt names like Black Bear or White Eagle than Pink Piglet or Gray
Titmouse. Within the context of Western hierarchical traditions, as formulated perhaps most clearly and
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
289
dramatically in the Renaissance concept of the Great Chain of Being, it makes more sense to think of oneself (at
one's "angelic" or most spiritually rarefied, at any rate) as being closer in nature to an animal than to a plant, and
In the universe as imagined by Western religious tradition,

all life derives from God in such a way that one moves away from God in the
direction of the earth and towards God in the direction of the sky. Accordingly, only
the most degraded person would choose to identify with the worm rather than the
eagle, let alone with the dirt the worm calls home. But in the spiritual traditions of
many Native American groups, the spirit and the life of the People derive from the
land: life is a "property" of the land as well as of the creatures occupying it . In her
closer to a plant than to a mineral.
groundbreaking collection of critical essays The Sacred Hoop (1986), one of the first large-scale attempts to apply
Native American cultural (and literary) values to modern Native American writing, Paula Gunn Allen puts it this way:
We are the land. To the best of my understanding, that is the fundamental idea
embedded in Native American life and culture in the Southwest. . . . The land is not
really the place (separate from ourselves) where we act out the drama of our isolate
destinies. . . . It is rather a part of our being, dynamic, significant, real. It is ourself,
in as real a sense as such notions as "ego," "libido" or social network. . . . Nor is this
relationship one of mere "affinity" for the Earth. It is not a matter of being "close to
nature." The relationship is more one of identity, in the mathematical sense, than of
affinity. The Earth is, in a very real sense, the same as ourself (or selves), and it is this
primary point that is made in the fiction and poetry of the Native American writers of the Southwest. (191) The
notion that a human's relationship to the land can be more than an "affinity" or a
matter of being "close to nature" probably doesn't come easily to most students of
American literature. But many Native Americans are born into family and cultural
traditions that not only end with statements of this identity (as Protestant traditions
do: "ashes to ashes . . .") but also begin with this fundamental vision of identity.
Within the context of such traditions, the most fundamental act of spiritual vision
that one can experience is the act of seeing oneself as a living part of the living
place where one's life takes place.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
290
AT Over Focus on Land

The land is key it shapes the totality of US/indigenous
relations
Since the inception of the American republic, and before, control of land and the
resources within it has been the essential source of conflict between the
Euroamerican settler population and indigenous nations . In effect, contentions over
land usage and ownership have served to define the totality of U.S./Indian
relationships from the first moment, shaping not only the historical flow of
interactions between invader and invaded, but the nature of the ongoing
domination of native people in areas such as governance and jurisdiction,
identification, recognition, and education. 1 The issue of a proprietary interest of nonindians in the American Indian
landbase has also been and remains the fundament of popular (mis)conceptions of who and what Indians were and are, whether we continue to exist, and
even whether we ever really existed.2 All indications are that these circumstances will continue to prevail over the foreseeable future. As should have
a rather vast amount of

intellectual energy has been expended by Euroamerican legal theorists over the
years in an unending effort to make the armed expropriation of native land on a
continental scale seem not only natural and therefore inevitable, but right and
just, which is to say lawful.3 All questions of jurisprudence aside, the hegemonic function
embodied in any such trajectory of legalistic rationalization is
unmistakable.4 Plainly, the exercise has been harnessed not to the task of extending
and perfecting the set of humanitarian and explicitly anti-imperialist principles to
which the United States laid claim in 1787, but rather to a diametrically opposing
purpose. Meanwhile, it has been all along insisted that the opposite of this opposite is true. The result can only be described as comprising, at best,
become quite evident in reading the essay entitled The Law Stood Squarely on Its Head in this volume,
an unremitting juridical subterfuge.5While this pattern of prevarication has always worked well enough within what the U.S. has proclaimed as its own
domestic sphere, the situation became considerably more complex during the early-to-mid-twentieth century, during the course of the countrys
In the main, the objective of American foreign policy during

this period can be seen as an undermining of the conceptual cornerstones by which
the classic European mode of external colonialism was purportedly legitmated ,7
thereby creating openings in the former colonies comprising what has become
known as the Third World for a more refined form of neocolonial
exploitation at which the United States all along figured to excel. 8 The trick, of
emergence as a bona fide world power.6
course, was to devise some practical means of discrediting Europes conquest/colonization of peoples abroad that would not simultaneously demolish the
inherently self-contradictory justification(s) with which America larded its continuing subjugation of indigenous nations within its home territory.9
The
crunch came in 1945, when the U.S. sought to assert its moral leadership on a
planetary basis by formulating and forcing upon its allies a plan to prosecute
surviving officials responsible for nazi expansionism during World War II.10 Charged
with having committed Crimes Against Peace, Waging Aggressive War, and
Crimes Against Humanity as a result, the Germans initially professed a certain
bewilderment, their first line of defense being that theyd done nothing the United
States itself hadnt done to American Indians. 11 Although the presiding judges dodged this bullet by accepting at
face value the transparently false assertion advanced by U.S. representatives that, unlike Germanys gunpoint expropriations, their own countrys
territorial acquisitions had occurred mainly by purchase and always with the consent of prior owners (i.e., through treaties of cession),12
Americas vulnerability to allegations that it was in many respects no

better than the Third Reich was glaringly apparent.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
291
The land is key

Indigenous)]-DD
Within American Indian epistemologies where something takes place is more
important than when, and the land itself, according to Cree scholar Winona
Wheeler, is mnemonic, it has it own set of memories. 3 A land that remembers is
a land that constructs kinship relations with all living beings who inhabit it, creating
what Abenaki scholar Lisa Brooks has described as the common pot , a reciprocal
conceptualization of land dependent on shared resources and responsibility. 4 For
American Indians, who have lived for tens of thousands of years on the lands that
became the United States two hundred and thirty years ago, the land both
remembers life and its loss and serves itself as a mnemonic device that triggers the
ethics of relationality with the sacred geographies that constitute indigenous
peoples histories. Such mnemonics inform Joy Harjos poetry when she writes, I
think of the lush stillness of the end of a world, sung into place by / singers and the
rattle of turtles in the dark morning. 5 Her poem The Place the Musician Became a Bear is
dedicated to Creek saxophonist Jim Pepper and reflects on the processes of renewing a place-world defined through
spatial relations brought into being by aurality. Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06). The Transit of Empire: Indigenous
Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (p. 118). University of Minnesota Press. Kindle
Edition.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
292
AT Fluid Borders
Borders are material realities not simply signifiers.
January 1st 2004, Pages 110). KM
"Indian Country" persists as both a metaphoric space and a geographic place, one that profoundly shapes the
subjectivities of those who traverse it. Specif- ically ,
the relationship between American Indian

communities and the surrounding (white) border towns not only shapes the ways
Indians perceive and construct the whitestream but also their views of themselves.
Thus, while reservation borders exist as vestiges of forced removal, colonialist domination, and whitestream
greed, they are also understood as marking the defensive perimeters between cultural
integrity and wholesale appropriation. They are the literal dividing lines between
"us" and "them," demarcating the borders of this nation's only internal sovereigns.
Though the power of this status is continually challenged, American Indians have retained enough of their plenary
the borders of such

communities are thus material realities and not simply "signifiers" of
Indian Country. That being said, tribal sovereignty remains deeply fettered by
the fact that most reservation economies are only sustainable with the infusion of
outside capital (Deloria and Lytle 1984). This dependency on outside capital generates a
subordinating effect, often leaving American Indians at the mercy of venture
capitalists and whitestream do-gooders. Emissaries of white justice, private entrepreneurs, and New
powers to establish tribal courts, tribal governments, and tribal police forces;
Age liberals thus descend on reservation communities, forging lucrative careers at the same time they engage in
Indeed, most of the business people, teachers, principals, doctors,

and health care professionals in reservation communities are white and most of
the laborers, minimum-wagers, underemployed, and unemployed are American
Indian. Safely bivouacked in their internal and external compounds, they wield
power and broker services by day and, by night, retreat back into the comforts of
their bourgeois border towns.
"charitable" practices.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
293
AT We Need Objective Ways to Determine

Indianness
This logics leads to genocidal blood quantum policies
The bloody encounter between these operational truths and those of the In- dian
nations came to a head in 1887 with the passage of the General Allot- ment Act. As
discussed in chapter 2, Senator Henry Dawes spearheaded a campaign to rid the nation of tribalism through the
virtues of private property, allotting land parcels to Indian heads of family . Before allotments could be dispensed,
the government had to determine which Indians were el- igible, igniting the
official search for a federal definition of Indian-ness . The task of defining "Indianness" was assigned to the Dawes commission, a delegation of white men who
facilely embraced the prevailing racial purity model, expressing Indian-ness in terms
of blood-quantum. Satisfied with their quantifiable definition of Indian-ness, Dawes commissioners
dispersed into the field, interviewing thousands of Indians about their "origins." Much to their dismay,
federal officials found that "after forced re- locations, intermarriages, absconded
parents, informal adoptions, and civil wars" many Indians had only fuzzy ideas of
their origins and little knowledge of their blood-quantum (Malcomson 2000, 16). Since there
was no "scientific means of determining precise bloodlines, so commission
members often ascribed blood status based on their own racist notions of what it
meant to be Indiandesignating full-blood status to "poorly assimilated" Indians
and mixed-blood status to those who most resembled whites. As a result, a significant
number of Indians refused to comply with the process of racial categorization (Malcomson 2000). Unfazed,
the Dawes Commission published the first comprehensive tribal rolls neatly listing
names in one column and blood quanta in another; designating F for "full-blood" and 1/2,1/4, or
1/8 for "mixed bloods."Land parcels were dispensed according to the lists and followed
their same racist logic. That is, "full-blooded" Indians (considered legally
incompetent), received relatively small parcels of land deeded with trust patents
over which the government retained complete control for a minimum of twenty-five
years. "Mixed-blood" Indians, on the other hand, were deeded larger and better
tracts of land, with "patents in fee simple" (complete control), but were also forced
to accept U.S. citizenship and relinquish tribal status (Churchill and Morris 1992; Stiffarm and
Lane 1992). In perhaps the most controversial turn, Indians who failed to meet the
established criteria were effectively "de- tribalized," deposed of their American
Indian identity and displaced from their homelands, discarded into the nebula of the
American "otherness."3 Its myriad indiscretions arguably make Dawes the single most destructive U.S.
policy. All told, the act empowered the U.S. government to: (1) legally preempt the
sovereign right of Indians to define themselves; (2) implement the specious notion
of blood-quantum as the legal criteria for defining Indi- ans;4(3) institutionalize
divisions between "full-bloods" and "mixed- bloods"; (4) "detribalize" a sizable
segment of the Indian population; and (5) legally appropriate vast tracts of Indian
land. Indeed, so "successful" was this aspect of the "democratic experiment" that the federal
government decided to retainor rather, further exploitthe notion of bloodhowever,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
294
quantum and federal recognition as the means for dispensing other resources and
services such as health care and educational funding.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
295
AT Democracy Solves
US democracy does not extend to indigenous peoples, they
have historically been excluded from the democratic process
despite laws meant to include them
Orleck No Date (Annelise, B.A. The Evergreen State College, M.A. New York
University, Ph.D. New York University, professor of History at Dartmouth College,
The Problem of Citizenship in American History, The Flow of History,
http://www.flowofhistory.org/c_toolkit/essays/citizenship.html)
Though enacted primarily to protect the voting rights of African Americans, the Voting Rights Act has also been
used as a tool by Native Americans whose citizenship rights have been denied in a variety of ways over the past
The major arguments for denying Native citizenship rights were three-fold:
1) that they were members of foreign nations with which the U.S government had
made treaties; 2) that they were hostile and uncivilized and thus needed to be
controlled; 3) that they were wards of the state without independent rights. The first
and second views were combined in the Supreme Courts Worcester v. Georgia
decision in 1832, in which Chief Justice John Marshall argued that Indian tribes were
both dependents and foreign sovereigns. Neither of these notions stopped President
Andrew Jackson from deferring to the state of Georgia when it decided to remove
the Cherokee. Fourteen years later, in U.S. v. Rogers, Justice Taney, later the author
of the Dred Scott decision, held that Indians were subject to U.S. law but did not
have the rights of citizens. In the 1871 Indian Appropriations Act, Congress annulled
the status of Indian tribes as sovereign. Their ambiguous and essentially rightless
status was affirmed by the Supreme Courtfirst in 1884 in Elk v. Wilkins, which
ruled that Native Americans, although born in the United States, were not wholly
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government and therefore were not
protected by the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal treatment under the law . In
220 years.
1886, in U.S. v. Kagama, Indians were declared to be completely subject to U.S. federal government authority but
still not entitled to federal citizenship rights. In 1887, at the end of two centuries of wars between Euro-American
settlers and North American Indians, a majority in Congress voted that Indians should be given rights if they
acculturated to white American norms. The Dawes Severalty Act of 1887 converted all communal tribal lands into
individual property allotments. Under this new system, if individual Native Americans renounced their tribal
affiliations and their claim to any tribal lands, they could receive 160 acres and full citizenship. According to Dawes,
every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States who has voluntarily taken up, within said limits,
his residence separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, is
hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States, and is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of
such citizens. One of those rights, to private property, was observed for Native Americans only in the breach. Most
of those who accepted 160-acre individual parcels under the Dawes Act lost them to swindlers aided by state and
territorial governments over the next 20 years. Dawes breaking up of tribal holdings reduced reservation lands
granted by the federal government to native tribes dramatically. In 1887, the tribes had owned about 138 million
acres; by 1900 the total acreage in Indian hands had fallen to 78 million. This policy was not reversed until 1934,
when the Indian Reorganization Act asserted the importance of perpetuating Indian cultural institutions and
Suits are ongoing in the 21st century to

restore to or compensate tribes for lands lost under the Dawes Act. In 1924, after a
generation of lobbying by Native American groups, President Calvin Coolidge finally
signed the Indian Citizenship Act granting all Native Americans born within U.S.
borders full citizenship. States routinely ignored this federal guarantee until the
1940 Nationalities Act established a federal minimum standard for Indian rights that
states would be obliged to respect. Even so, many states continued to keep Native
Americans from voting, using four major arguments. One was the old argument that
permitted surplus lands to be returned to tribal ownership.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
296
Indians were under federal guardianship, or were federal "wards," and therefore not
independent and competent for voting. The second was that Indians living on
reservation lands were residents of their reservation and not of the state (even
though the Supreme Court declared all reservation Indians residents of their states
in 1881). The third was that Indians did not pay state taxes and, therefore, should
not be able to affect revenue decisions. And the fourth was that continued
participation in their tribal communities precluded participation in other elections.
Idaho, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, among other states, required that
Indians relinquish tribal affiliations before they would be allowed to vote . The last legal
obstacle was not struck down until 1957, when Utahs law preventing Native voting was repealed. Into the 21st
Native Americans remain the group most likely to encounter obstacles to

their voting rights. Recently tightened voter identification requirements discriminate
against elderly reservation-dwellers who often do not possess any forms of ID
recognized by the federal or state governments. In the 2004 elections numerous
examples were reported of poll watchers challenging the registration status of
Indian voters. Polls are few and far between on reservations, in some cases as much
as 60 miles away from smaller towns. Finally, though Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act guarantees language assistance to qualified voters whose first language is not
English, there has been little attempt to provide that assistance for Indian-language
speakers at polling places.
century,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
297
AT Indian = Bad Term

American Indian is the Preferred Title for the vast majority
Gaffney 06 Gaffney is a writer who likes to explore history, culture, and politics.
Ive written profiles, news and travel stories, essays, humor, and magazine pieces
for publications such as the New York Times, Readers Digest, and Mother Jones, as
well as for the companion websites to the PBS TV shows Antiques Roadshow and
American Experience.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html
At the 2005 ROADSHOW in Bismarck, North Dakota, a man brought in a Colt gun made at the turn of the 20th
century, and had some dramatic family folklore in tow as well. The gun had apparently belonged to his great-uncle,
who in 1902 got into a gunfight; he was, in the words of the present owner, "killed by an Indian." That word
Indian has often been used, both by guests and appraisers alike, to refer to various indigenous American peoples
There's no doubt
that labels, especially as they apply to groups of people, are a very sensitive
subject, and sometimes difficult to discuss. Nonetheless, the appraisal in Bismarck caused us to ponder again
who crafted objects such as rugs or pots that appear on ANTIQUES ROADSHOW regularly.
what are the issues surrounding this particular label and the widely varied group of people it is often used to
describe?
Is the term Indian anachronistic, even offensive? What about American

Indian? Is the more recent term Native American preferable, or simply more politically correct than proper? In
the 1960s, many people, both non-Indians as well as Indians, challenged the use of
the word "Indian." Some argued that it was a term coined by oppressors , and also a
misnomer they were not, after all, the Indians of the East Indies that Columbus thought he had met in the
Caribbean. The critics argued further that over the centuries the word had gained a pejorative meaning, often
conjuring up images that were simplistic, romanticized and often disparaging that were reinforced by TV serials and
Hollywood westerns think, for instance, of Tonto of the Lone Ranger series. These cultural critics suggested
substituting the term Native American for Indian. They maintained that Native American was also more accurate, as
one meaning of native was "being the original inhabitants of a particular place," as Native Americans were. But
despite the supposed political correctness of Native American, it has not become the preferred term. "The
acceptance of Native American has not brought about the demise of Indian," according to the fourth edition of the
American Heritage Book of English Usage, published in 2000. "Unlike Negro, which was quickly stigmatized once
black became preferred, Indian never fell out of favor with a large segment of the American population." Nor did the
A 1995 Census Bureau survey that asked

indigenous Americans their preferences for names (the last such survey done by the
bureau) found that 49 percent preferred the term Indian, 37 percent Native
American, and 3.6 percent "some other name." About 5 percent expressed no preference.
Moreover, a large number of Indians actually strongly object to the term Native
American for political reasons. In his 1998 essay "I Am An American Indian, Not a
Native American!", Russell Means, a Lakota activist and a founder of the American
Indian Movement (AIM), stated unequivocally, "I abhor the term 'Native American.'"
He continues: It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous
prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the
word Indian fall out of favor with the people it described.
original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiaqs. And, of course, the
I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins. ... As an
added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States
with the American before our ethnicity . At an international conference of Indians
from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland, at the United Nations in 1977 we
unanimously decided we would go under the term American Indian . "We were enslaved as
American Indian.
American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians and
then we can call ourselves anything we damn please." Yet others argue that neither term should be used, because
they both blur the differences between various Indian peoples. In her essay "What's in a Name? Indians and Political
Correctness," Christina Berry, a Cherokee writer, argues that people should avoid the terms Indian and Native
American: In the end, the term you choose to use (as an Indian or non-Indian) is your own personal choice. ... Very
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
298
few Indians that I know care either way. The recommended method is to refer to a person by their tribe, if that
information is known. The reason is that the Native peoples of North America are incredibly diverse. It would be like
referring to both a Romanian and an Irishman as European. It's true that they are both from Europe, but their people
have very different histories, cultures, and languages. The same is true of Indians. The Cherokee are vastly different
from the Lakota, the Dine, the Kiowa, and the Cree, but they are all labeled Native American. So whenever possible
an Indian would prefer to be called a Cherokee or a Lakota or whichever tribe they belong to. This shows respect
because not only are the terms Indian, American Indian, and Native American an over simplification of a diverse
ethnicity, but you also show that you listened when they told what tribe they belonged to. ... What matters in the
long run is not which term is used but the intention with which it is used
Tribes prefer the term American Indian

Giago 07 Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, was born, raised and educated on the
Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. He was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard in the
Class of 1991 and founder of The Lakota Times and Indian Country Today
newspapers. He founded and was the first president of the Native American
Journalists Association, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-giago/the-name-indianand-polit_1_b_67593.html
Indians, Native Americans, American Indians are all labels foisted upon the indigenous people of America and so
In his book The Day the World

Ended at Little Big Horn, Joseph M. Marshall III reviewed all of these labels and then
wrote, "We prefer to be identified by our specific tribes or nations, of which there
are nearly five hundred ethnically identifiable in the United States." He goes on,
"However, in the interest of avoiding confusion within the pages of this work, I have
chosen to used the word Indian mostly in those instances when there is a necessary
reference to more than a specific tribe or native nation ." And so in this era of political
what is a newspaper to do when selecting the supposed correct label?
correctness even the great Sicangu author, Joe Marshall, has to admit that he is also faced with this recurring
dilemma. Any writer covering issues related to events and people associated with Indian country faces this same
If one visits
an Indian reservation (there's that word Indian again) and speaks to the elders of
the tribe, he or she will find that they refer to themselves as "Indian," without
reservation (no pun intended). I am a firm believer that most historians are wrong when they credit
question and must decide whether to follow political correctness or go along with historic usage.
Christopher Columbus for coining the word "Indian" because he thought he was landing his ships in India. In 1492
there was no country known as India. Instead that country was called Hindustan. I think that is closer to the truth
that the Spanish padre that sailed with Columbus was so impressed with the innocence of the Natives he observed
that he called them Los Ninos in Dios. My spelling may be wrong on the Spanish words, but the description by the
padre means something like "Children of God." After many years of usage the word Indios emerged and to this day
the indigenous people of South and Central America are called Indios. I am told that as the word wound its way
North it evolved into "Indian." Of course some will say that there was a place called the East Indies in 1492 and
Columbus may have thought he was headed for that region. So how and when did the efforts to politicize the name
I suspect that some of it started when Native Americans enrolled in some of the
white colleges. I think they found the word "Indian" offensive and set about to
remake it. They found that the word Indian was often used in a derogatory fashion
such as "drunken Indian" or "rotten Indian." Perhaps the white people would have found it more
start?
difficult to say "drunken Native American?" And finally, when some Indian journalists made it to the newsrooms of
large and prestigious mainstream newspapers, they reacted to the word "Indian" as they did when they were in
college. They went to their editors and tried to impress upon them that the paper should no longer use the word
"Indian," but should, instead, switch to Native American or Native. I first ran across this sudden change when I was
mailed a copy of my weekly column that had appeared in the Lincoln (Neb.) Star Journal. In every place I had used
"Indian" the editorial page editor edited it to read "Native." Of course I was appalled. If I had intended to use
"Native" I would have used it and I resented the fact that the EPE had changed the word in order to fit his
presumption of political correctness. I immediately dropped him a note and asked, " When
you come across

organizational names like National Congress of American Indians or National Indian
Education Association are you going to change them to read National Congress of
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
299
Native Americans or National Native Education Association ." How about newspapers like
"Indian Country Today," my former weekly paper? "Native American Country Today" just doesn't have the same ring
to it.The local daily newspaper in Rapid City, SD decided to drop the use of the word "Indian" and replace it with
"Native American." I believe they did so when they, with unintended fanfare, used a headline that highlighted the
word "Indian" when describing the new education director for the Rapid City Schools. A howl went up in the Indian
community, but the howl was less about political correctness than about the bad usage of the name in that
particular context. I believe it is a policy that needs to be reconsidered because anyone born in the United States of
America is a Native American, but they are not American Indians.Politically correct labels have been applied to
other races in the past and since Indians are always the last to be labeled for anything, I suppose our time has
come
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
300
The term Native American was created by the US government,

and does not reflect the values of the peoples want to be
called Indian
Native Sun News 4/12 http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/life/commentary/11389-nativeamerican-vs-american-indian-political-correctness-dishonors-traditional-chiefs-of-old
One
day a reporter was interviewing an East Coast Indian and the reporter said, "Indian"
and the East Coast Indian said, "No, we dont like to be called Indians because we
got that name when Columbus thought he landed in India: We prefer to be called
Native Americans." "Well," the reporter replied, "I am of Irish descent but I was born in America so therefore I
Who decided for us that we should be called "Native Americans?" It was the mainstream media of course.
also am a Native American." And so when the story was published the Indian people were labeled as Native
Americans. The white media had finally pulled one over the indigenous people. The Lee Enterprise newspapers, and
there are several of them in Indian Country, decided to cut this down even further and they told all of their
reporters, editors and publishers to just use the word "Native" when referring to Indians, or to be politically correct,
Native Americans. So when you read an article that goes, "He was a Native Rapid City guy" that doesnt mean he
The activist
Russell Means preferred the name American Indian . He would say that just as you have Mexican
Americans, African Americans, or Asian Americans, you should have American Indians. During the activist
days of the 1960s and 70s the U. S. Government responded to the activists protests
by proposing the term "Native American." And so the anti-government activists
decided to accept the name Native American, a name suggested by the U nited States
Government, a government that they despised. Say what? The other arguable
explanation was Columbuss use of the term "una gest in Dios" or "a people in God"
which was reduced to "Indios" for every day usage by the Spaniards and later was
further changed to "Indian" as the word moved north. And whats more we hear that in 1492
was Native, it just means that he was native. In fact everyone who lives in Rapid City is a native.
Columbus could not have thought he had reached the Indies because at that time there was no Indies, but they
instead were called Hindustan. That sad part of this entire fiasco is that so many of the so-called "elitist Indians"
have allowed themselves to be bullied into using the name "Native Americans" and even "Native" by a white media
that seems to have set the agenda for what we should be called. One elderly Lakota man from the Standing Rock
Sioux Reservation said recently, "If some Indians want to be called Native Americans or Natives, let them be called
if you travel to any Indian reservation out

west you will soon discover that nearly all of the indigenous people refer to
themselves as "Indian," especially the elders who are still fluent in their Indian
language. As Chief Oliver Red Cloud said a few years before he died, "I am Lakota
and I am Indian." As an Indian newspaper we must be very careful that what we call
ourselves is not dictated to us by the white media. We have been Indians for a few
hundred years and the name carries our history. Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and Little
Wound (Read their quotes) all called themselves "Indian" and they said it with pride.
Should we dishonor them by saying they were wrong? Political correctness be
damned: We will use "Indian" if and when we choose. We will not be intimidated by the
that, but I was born an Indian and I shall die an Indian. So
politically correct bunch or the white media.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
301
The term Indian is comparatively best- alternatives obscure

colonial violence
Berry 6 Cherokee writer and producer of the website All Things Cherokee (Christina, What's in a Name?
Indians and Political Correctness, All Things Cherokee,
http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_culture_events_070101.html SW)
Ironically, Indians, or American Indians (whichever you prefer), did not seem interested in
changing their name. AIM, the American Indian Movement, did not begin calling
itself NAM. The American Indian College Fund did not change its name. Many
Indians continue to call themselves Indian or American Indian regardless of what the
rest of America and the world calls them. Why? The reasons are diverse and personal, but there are
two popular reasons. The first reason is habit. Many Indians have been Indians all their
lives. The Native people of this continent have been called Indian throughout all of
post-Columbian history. Why change now? The second reason is far more political.
While the new politically correct terms were intended to help ethnic groups by
giving them a name that did not carry the emotional baggage of American history, it
also enabled America to ease its conscience . The term Native American is so recent
that it does not have all the negative history attached. Native Americans did not
suffer through countless trails of tears, disease, wars, and cultural annihilation -Indians did. The Native people today are Native Americans not Indians, therefore we
do not need to feel guilty for the horrors of the past. Many Indians feel that this is
what the term Native American essentially does -- it white-washes history. It cleans
the slate.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
302
AT Churchill Indicts 9/11

Churchill used the term Eichman to describe those killed in the
9/11 attacks, he meant they blindly followed authority---he is
not crazy.
Frisch, P.h.D in ethnic studies at the university of Arizona, 2005 (Deborah, A
Psychologists Defense of Ward Churchill 2/12/2005,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/02/12/a-psychologist-s-defense-of-wardchurchill/) CQF
Hannah Arendt was a journalist for the newspaper "The New Yorker" when she saw the Eichmann Trial in Israel in
1961. Her book is based on a series of articles she wrote about the trial. In the article, she coined the term "banality
Hitlers henchmen who had behaved monstrously did not look like monsters.
Instead, they were bland and benign. According to Arendt, Eichmanns character flaw was
mindless obedience to authority, not a sadistic or psychopathic personality. This, of
course, is even scarier than finding that Eichmann and other Nazis were crazy in
some way. Arendts analysis inspired Stanley Milgrams experiment on obedience to authority at Yale University
and Philip Zimbardos Prison Study at Stanford University. So there is nothing absurd or outrageous
about using the term "Eichmann" to refer to the stockbrokers who died that day . Its a
of evil."
little strange to completely ignore the firefighters, secretaries and building maintenance workers who died that day.
And singling out the stockbrokers and ignoring the firefighters dehumanizes them the same way Nazis
I agree with Churchill that America was not an "innocent victim" on

911. Im tempted to agree that "titans" of finance are more guilty than the rest of
us. But even though theyre better compensated than the rest of us, theyre no
more guilty, really. Were all little Eichmanns. Only the far left is willing to admit it.
Churchills crime was noting that the 911 victims in particular and Americans in
general were not inFrFnocent lambs. This is worse than Susan Sontags crime noting
that the 911 terrorists werent "cowards." But its just as true . Since hes well within
his first amendment rights, Churchills attackers are questioning his academic
credentials. Hes been forced to prove that hes a genuine native American . Social
dehumanized Jews.
psychologists, philsophers and sociologists should be defending Churchill for his brilliant, but veiled reference to
Arendt, Milgram and Zimbardo. But the academic social science left has been lukewarm at best to Churchill.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
303
AT Churchill Indicts Academic Misconduct

Churchill was unjustly fired and did not commit academic
misconduct
Wilson, Wilson is a PhD student in Educational. Administration and Foundations at
Illinois State, 2013 (John K., Ward Churchills Last Appeal, 4/2/2015,
http://academeblog.org/2013/04/02/ward-churchills-last-appeal/)CQF
The US Supreme Court has rejected Ward Churchills final appeal of his firing by the
University of Colorado, and an ugly chapter in the history of academic freedom will
now be left to the history books rather than the courts. I commented at Inside
Higher Ed in criticism of their coverage claiming that many academics believe
Churchill committed scholarly misconduct. This is hardly supported by the facts. As I
wrote back in 2006 on Inside Higher Ed, the evidence of Churchills misconduct was
very weak and poorly analyzed. There is a vast difference between mediocre
scholarship deserving criticism and the extreme kind of scholarly misconduct that
justifies the firing of a tenured professor, something that very few people who have
honestly looked at the evidence could conclude Churchill did (and even the faculty
committee did not endorse his firing). Even a jury found that Churchill had been
wrongly fired, and scholars such as Stanley Fish agreed. The idea posed by Inside
Higher Ed that the MLA is sympathetic to Churchills politics (and therefore would
have defended him if he was not guilty) is absurd.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
304
Aff Answers
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
305
Perm
The Perm is key. We must overcome tactical difference or be
crushed by the surveillance state.
Domestic Dissent [The end of this card is the end of the book]
To be sure, mere hope is no solution to anything. It represents a point of departure , no more. The development
of viable options to avert consummation of a full-fledged police state in North America will require a deep rethinking, among many
who purport to oppose it, of priorities and philosophical positions, including the near hegemony of pacifism and nonviolence on the
left.
The emphasis accorded confrontation with the police and penal systems will
have to increase rapidly and dramatically within virtually all groups pursuing
progressive social agendas, from environmentalism to abortion rights. The fates of
prisoners, particularly those incarcerated for having been accused of engaging in armed struggle against the state, must thus be
made a central concern-and primary focus of activism- in every politically conscious sector of the U.S. population. Understandings
mustbe achieved that what is currently being done to political prisoners and prisoners of war, in ,kv,, "exemplary" fashion, is
ultimately designed for application to far wider groups than is now the case; that the facilities in which such things are done to them
are intended to eventually house us all; that the enforcement apparatus which has been created to combat their "terrorism"
if we
do not move - and quickly - to overcome our tactical differences to the
extent that we can collectively and effectively confront the emergent structure of
"law enforcement" in this country, all the rest of our lofty and constructive social
preoccupations will shortly be rendered meaningless by the very forces we have all
too frequently elected to ignore. There are many points of attack open to us, places
where important victories can and must be attained. These include renewed and concerted
simultaneously holds the capacity to crush all that we hold dear or seek to achieve, soon and perhaps irrevocably. In sum,
efforts to extend real community control over local police forces, the dismantling of localized police SWAT capabilities, the
curtailment or elimination of national computer net participation by state and local

police forces, the abolition of police "intelligence" units, and deep cuts in the
resources (both monetary and in terms of personnel) already allocated to the police
establishment. The judicial system, too, must become an increasing focus of broadbased progressive attention; not only is substantial support work vitally necessary with regard to activists brought to
court on serious charges, but every judicial ruling - whether or not it is rendered in an overtly political trial - which serves to
undercut citizen rights while legitimating increased police intervention in the political process must be met with massive, national
It is incumbent upon us to infuse new force and meaning

into "the court of public opinion," using every method at our disposal. By the same
expressions of outrage and rejection.
token, maximal energy must be devoted to heading off the planned expansion of penal facilities across the U.S. and securing the
abolition of "control units" within every existing prison in the country. The BoP and state "adult authorities" must also be placed,
finally, under effective citizens' control, and the incipient "privatization" of large portions of the "prison industry" must be blocked at
all costs. Plainly, this represents a tremendously ambitious bill of fare for any social movement. Coming to grips with the FBI is of
major importance. The Bureau has long since made itself an absolutely central ingredient in the process of repression in America,
not only extending its own operations in this regard, but providing doctrine, training and equipment to state and local police,
organizing the special "joint task forces" which have sprouted in every major city since 1970, creating the computer nets which tie
the police together nationally, and providing the main themes of propaganda by which the rapid build-up in police power has been
accomplished in the U.S. Similarly, the FBI provides both doctrinal and practical training to prison personnel - especially in
connection with those who supervise POWs and political prisoners - which is crucial in the shaping of the policies pursued within the
penal system as a whole. Hence, so long as the FBI is able to retain the outlook which defined COINTELPRO, and to translate that
outlook into "real world" endeavors, it is reasonable to assume that both the police and prison "communities" will follow right along.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
306
should the FBI ever be truly leashed, with the COINTELPRO mentality at last
rooted out once and for all, it may be anticipated that the emergent U.S. police
state apparatus will undergo substantial unraveling. In the concluding chapter of Agents of
Conversely,
Repression, we offered both tactical and strategic sketches of how the task of bringing the Bureau to heel might be approached. In
his book, War at Home, Brian Glick extends these ideas in certain directions. At the same time, both we and Glick indicated that
our recommendations should be considered anything but definitive, and

that readers should rely upon their own experience and imaginations in
devising ways and means of getting the job done. Since publication of those books, a number
of people have contacted us to expand upon our ideas and to enter new ones. Although the specifics vary in eachcase, there are two
consistent themes underlying such contributions. These are first that is it is imperative more and more people take the step of
translating their consciousness into active resistance and, second, that this resistance must be truly multifaceted and flexible in
form. We heartily agree. Hence, we would would like to close with what seems to us the only appropriate observation, paraphrasing
Malcolm X and Huey P. Newton: We are confronted with the necessity of a battle which must be continued until it has been won.
That choice has already been made for us, and we have no option to simply wish it away. To lose is to bring about the unthinkable,
and there is noplace to run and hide. Under the circumstances,
all means available, and by any means necessary.
the FBI and its allies must be combatted by
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
307
Perm Totalized Focus Bad (Especially for K affs)

The perm is key. Totalizing focus on settler colonialism fails.
Smith 10 (Andrea Smith, associate professor in the Department of Media and
Cultural Studies at the University of California, Riverside, Queer Theory and Native
Studies: The Heteronormativity of Settler Colonialism 2010)
many indigenous scholars such as Elizabeth CookLynn, Sandy Grande, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith, while diverse in their concerns and methodologies, have all called
for the development of a field of Native/Indigenous studies that is distinct because
of its methodologies and theoretical frameworks and not just because of its object of study.7
Their scholarly contributions call into question the assumption that Native studies
should be equated with its object of studyNative peoples . Rather, their work suggests that
As a strategy for addressing ethnographic entrapment,
Native studies could potentially have diverse objects of study that might be approached through distinct
methodologies and theoretical formations that are necessarily interdisciplinary in nature. Robert Warrior has called
such intellectual projects an exercise in intellectual sovereignty.8 Warrior understands Native studies as a field
with its own integrity that can be informed by traditional disciplines, but is not simply a multicultural add-on to
them. As I discuss below, this reformulation of Native studies does not entail rejecting identity concerns, but
expands its scope of inquiry by positioning Native peoples as producers of theory and not simply as objects of
Many
sectors of Native studies have often rejected engagement with other fields of
inquiry such as ethnic studies and postcolonial studies, by highlighting the tension
between Native studies and other fields. 9 At countless Native studies conferences, I have
heard Native studies scholars opine that they should not have to read
Michel Foucault, Karl Marx, or Jacques Derrida because they are not
Indian. Unfortunately, as Rey Chow so compellingly points out, ethnic studies and, by the same logic,
Native studies often confine themselves and are confined to the realm of
ethnic or cultural representation rather than positioning themselves as
intellectual projects that can shape scholarly discourse as a whole. 10 Because
analysis. Warrior points out that intellectual sovereignty is not to be equated with intellectual isolationism.
Native studies scholars have often rooted their scholarship in a commitment to social and political justice for Native
it becomes all the more important for Native studies to develop its own
intellectual project in conversation with rather than in isolation from potential
partners. Alliances are necessary if Native scholars and activists are to build
sufficient political power to enable the social transformation needed to ensure the
survival of indigenous nations. A critical Native studies must interrogate the
strictures within which Native studies and ethnic studies find themselves .11 Native
studies can be part of a growing conversation of scholars engaged in
diverse intellectual projects that do not dismiss identity but structure
inquiry around the logics of race, colonialism, capitalism, gender, and
sexuality. Native studies must be part of this conversation because the logics of settler colonialism structure
nations,
all of society, not just those who are indigenous.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
308
Perm Antiblackness
Black and native bodies should form survival strategies
together- they endured the horrors of slavery together, and
formed a means of surviving together and helping each other.
Coalitions may be bad in other instances, but are crucial in this
scenario.
Indigenous)]-DD
Harjo writes, Ive always believed us Creeks ( Creek is the more common name for the Muscogee people) had
something to do with the origins of jazz.
After all, when the African peoples were forced here

for slavery they were brought to the traditional lands of the Muscogee peoples. Of
course there was interaction between Africans and Muscogees. 6 And yet, most of
the history books and musicologists who discuss the birth of the blu es (and later, its
influence in the creation of jazz) understand it as primarily emerging out of the crucible of
slavery that filled a Mississippi Delta emptied of any prior indigenous presences to
link West African traditions with European Christianity. 7 The blues that surfaced out
of this specific land and history fused trauma and redemption with the harsh lived
experiences of slavery and Jim Crow oppression. The expansion of what Clyde
Woods delineates as blues epistemology was the full expression of the rise of an
African American culture that was self-conscious of its space and time and,
therefore, fully indigenous. The South was a space of origin, the African American
hearth. 8 Building off a model that positions African American folk culture as fully
indigenous to the Mississippi Delta, he argues that If we are to build a society
where working-class knowledge and participatory democracy are truly treasured we
must understand that the South is the center of African American culture, not its
periphery. The Delta then becomes understood as a Mecca. 9 One of the earliest descriptions of the blues
comes from archaeologist Charles Peabody who in 1901 traveled on a mission from the Harvard Peabody Museum
to Coahoma County, Mississippi, to grave rob Southeastern mounds, most likely Chickasaw and Choctaw, at the
Dorr and Edwards sites south of Clarksdale. 10 Those mounds Peabody excavated were part of the larger
Mississippian Ceremonial Complex and represented huge earthworks the Dorr Mound had a north-south length of
90 feet, an east-west width of 60 feet and rose 9 feet, Byrd, Jodi A. (2011-09-06). The Transit of Empire: Indigenous
Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (pp. 118-119). University of Minnesota Press.
Kindle Edition. 6 inches above the surrounding ground. The largest of the twenty-three mounds at the Edwards
site measured 190 feet north to south, 180 feet east to west, and was 26 feet high. 11 The mounds date from at
excavations found contemporary

burials, which demonstrate that the Choctaws and Chickasaws continued to use the
mounds until they were forcibly removed to Indian Territory in the 1830s. According
to Southeastern cosmologies, Mississippian mounds played a significant cultural and
symbolic role, representing in the case of the Nanih Waiya mound the site of
creation itself for the Choctaw. Other mounds served as navels, sites of birth,
death, and renewal that linked the Upper and Lower Worlds of complementary
balance to manifest in this world. The black workers Peabody hired in Clarksdale,
Mississippi, sang as they performed the labor of cutting into the mounds with their
shovels and stirring up those who rested there. Peabody found himself fascinated by what he
least 3500 BCE to DeSotos arrival in the 1530s, though Peabodys
heard so much so that he published an essay in 1903 in the Journal of American Folk-Lore that documented some
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
309
of the lyrics and music that those laborers sang as they worked. Though he referred to what he was hearing as
ragtime, most scholars now suggest that what he documented was the blues, and what is fascinating about his
essay is the underlying signifying heteroglossia and improvisation that Peabody narrated without realizing. In the
brief essay documenting the birth of the blues into white academic consideration, he attempts to catalog and
remark upon the function of the music he was hearing, figuring it as alternating between spirituals and work songs
Organized as call and response with

leaders improvising and riffing on identity, history , community, and politics, the
songs gesture to prior forms of musical presences in the South that tie to African
traditions and to Southeastern Indian stomp dance songs that are also call Byrd, Jodi A.
to distract from the back-breaking labor he was demanding.
and response, with leaders singing

about the politics, concerns, and spiritual matters of the community . Byrd, Jodi A. (2011(pp. 119-120). University of Minnesota Press. Kindle Edition.
09-06). The Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism (First Peoples: New Directions Indigenous) (p.
120). University of Minnesota Press. Kindle Edition.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
310
Perm Nonviolence
Perm do both the negatives totalizing rejection of pacified
resistance dooms their struggle to failure, only a combination
of revolutionary methods can accomplish real change
Pacifism as Pathology: Notes on an American Psuedopraxis, Preface, AK Press, pg
18)
They tell us you can't use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house. I can't
tell you how many people have said this to me. I can, however, tell you with reasonable certainty that none of
these people have ever read the essay from which the line comes: "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The
Master's House," by Audre Lorde (certainly no pacifist herself). The essay has nothing to do with pacifism, but with
the exclusion of marginalized voices from discourse ostensibly having to do with social change. If any of these
pacifists had read her essay, they would undoubtedly have been horrified, because she is, reasonably enough,
suggesting a multivaried approach to the multi various problems we face. She says, "As women, we have been
taught either to ignore our differences, or to view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as
Without community there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable

and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression. But community
must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these
differences do t . ,,11wr no eXISt. we can say the same for unarmed versus armed
resistance, that activists have been taught to view our differences as causes for
separation and suspicion, rather than as forces for change. That's a fatal error . She
continues, "[Survival] is learning how to take our differences and make them
strengths.,,12 It has always seemed clear to me that violent and nonviolent
approaches to social change are complementary. No one I know who
advocates the possibility of armed resistance to the dominant culture's
degradation and exploitation rejects nonviolent resistance. Many of us
routinely participate in nonviolent resistance and support those for whom this
is their only mode of opposition . Not long ago I and two other non-pacifists wasted two hours sitting at a
forces for change.
county fair tabling for a local environmental organization and watching the-how do I say this politely?-supersized
passersby wearing too-small Bush/Cheney 2004 T-shirts and carrying chocolate-covered bananas. We received
many dogmatic
pacifists refuse to grant the same respect the other way. Our survival really does
depend on us learning how to "take our differences"-including violent and
nonviolent approaches to stopping civilization from killing the planet-"and make
them strengths." Yet these fundamentalists attempt to eradicate this difference, to
disallow it, to force all discourse and all action into only one path: theirs. That's
incredibly harmful, and of course serves those in power. The master's house will
never be dismantled using only one tool, whether that tool is discourse, hammers,
or high explosives.
many scowls. We .did this nonviolent work, although we accomplished precisely nothing. But
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
311
The perm solves only a combination of nonviolence and

violence can solve
Ryan 7 (Mike, 2007, On Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology:" Toward a
Revolutionary Practice, AK Press, pgs 149-151)
I also find in Churchill's essay the starting point for the process which can reverse the slide into the oblivion of
irrelevance, or worse, upon which we presently appear to have embarked. I quote a passage which must be
What is at issue...is not the replacement of hegemonic

pacifism with some "cult of terror." Instead, it is the realization that in order to be
effective and ultimately successful, any revolutionary movement within advanced
capitalist nations must develop the broadest possible range of thinking/action by
which to confront the state. This should be conceived not as an array of component
forms of struggle , but as a continuum of activity stretching from petitions/letter
writing and so forth through mass mobilizations/demonstrations, onward into the
arena of armed self-defense, and still onward through the realm of "offensive"
military operations (e.g., elimination of critical state facilities, targeting of key individuals within the
considered key in this regard:
governmental corporate apparatus, etc.). All this must be apprehended as a holism, as an internally consistent
liberatory process applicable at this generally formulated level to the late capitalist context no less than to the Third
only from this basis can

a viable liberatory praxis for North America emerge .41 I am arguing that on the basis of the
recognition of the interrelatedness implied in such a continuum, in such a spectrum of activity, we
begin to seriously recognize our current shortcomings for what they are: dogma
which must be replaced by honest theory, a reactionary rote-like protest which has
displaced honest practice. I am arguing that we recognize, as Barbara Deming has, that: There is a
sense even in which we do share the same faith. When we define the kind of world
we want to bring into being, our vision and theirs too is of a world in which no
person exploits another, abuses, dominates another-in short, a non violent world.
We differ about how to bring this world into being: and that's a very real difference.
But we are in the same struggle and we need each other. We need to take strength
from each other, and we need to learn from each other... I think it is very important
that we not be too sure that they have all the learning to do, and we have all the
teaching. It seems obvious to us right now that the methods they are sometimes
willing to use are inconsistent with the vision we both hold of the new world . It is just
World. From the basis of this fundamental understanding and, it may be asserted,
possible-as we pursue that vision that we are in some way inconsistent, too, for we have been in the past,42 On
we must recognize a symbiosis between our

struggles, that when any of us are stronger, all of us are stronger; when any of us
are weaker, all of us are weaker. I am suggesting that we develop a genuine praxis ,
"Pacifism as Pathology" I am suggesting that
and here I am using praxis, as Churchill did, to mean action consciously and intentionally guided by theory while
If we fail to do so, we abdicate our

revolutionary responsibility and remain for the oppressed of this earth nothing more
than Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
simultaneously guiding the evolution of theoretical elaboration.43
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
312
Perm - Drones
Drone surveillance threatens the remnants of indigenous
sovereignty- perm is the best option
DC 2013 [7-8-2013, DecolonizeChris, REFLECTIONS ON
RESISTANCE UNDERMINING THE VIOLENCE OF CAPITAL,
STATE, AND EMPIRE,
https://decolonizechris.wordpress.com/tag/surveillance-state/]DD
S. 744 threatens indigenous sovereignty. Amnesty Internationals report, In Hostile
Terrain (2012), devotes its third chapter to abuses against Native Americans.
Although there are over 26 First Nations in the areas around the Mexico-u.s. border,
the wall has already gravely threatened the rights and livelihood of inhabitants who
have proper claim to the land. In addition to cutting through Native lands, many
Native residents have been repeatedly accosted by Border Patrol agents while
trying to access areas of their community. This is in direct violation of the Treaty of
Guadalupe-Hidalgo (1853), wherein the united states and Mexico both affirmed the
rights of indigenous people.
Drone surveillance is a major part of limiting freedom of

movement and protest for indigenous peoples- supercharges
the perm.
Habre and Garza 2014 [7-5-2014, Fraco Habre and Maria Garza,
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is Anti-Immigrant & AntiIndigenous,
https://www.popularresistance.org/comprehensiveimmigration-reform-is-anti-immigrant-anti-indigenous/]-DD
The title of Senate Bill S.744 is, The Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration
The title makes it easy to infer the priority of the billborder

security. The policing/surveillance of the 1,933-mile colonial boundary called the
US/Mexico border has grown exponentially in the last decade. Communities along
this border have experienced the unrelenting infestation of increasingly
abusive Border Patrol agents, aerial drones, in-land weaponized
checkpoints during daily routines in their own neighborhoods, and increased freight
traffic. In addition, despite the increased border security, people still die in
the deserts of the border region, those migrating north from Mexico and
Central America to flee economic and/or political injustice. This bill will
continue to limit the freedom of movement for Indigenous peoples as the
bill contains provisions for increased militarization of their homelands , and
Modernization Act.
will thus continue shifting border crossers through the perilous deserts of Lipan Apache, Kickapoo,
Tohono Oodham, and Yaqui homelands.u
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
313
Perm Drones Epistemology

Indigenous Epistemology DA: Drone surveillance is part of a
securitizing epistemology that allows unfettered consumption
and destruction of the environment- that contradicts native
epistemology, which largely includes protection of the
environment when possible- this means perm is best option or
they dont access native epistemology.
Barry 13 [Glen, 4-27-2013, ESSAY: Freedom Isn't Free,
Terrorism Is Pervasive, EcoInternet,
http://ecointernet.org/2013/04/27/essay_freedom_isnt_free_terr
or/]-DD
Drone perma-war, tar sands and coal, old-growth logging, inequity,
ecocide, lack of justice, poverty, and human rights abuses are all terrorism
and need to end. These acts of ecocidal and genocidal terror are waged
upon Earth and her ecosystems every day by the industrial growth
machine and by our unfair consumption. Ecosystems and their life that
together power Earth's biosphere are being methodically plundered by this
growth-at-all-costs mentality, which can only end in ecological collapse and the end
of being for most or all life. As ecological thresholds are surpassed and climate and
ecosystems are in the process of collapsing, this means continued economic growth
without destroying the biosphere is not possible, and the continuation of an
economic system that tries is itself an act of unspeakable terrorism upon all being.
It is time to passionately love all life and end the burning, cutting, and pillaging.
Out-of-control human growth in industry, economies, and population is steadily
stripping Earth of its ecosystems meaning the end is near unless we stop. ECOTERRORISM The real, worst sorts of terrorists are eco-terrorists, the corporate elite
and their minions ravaging ecosystems and climate. Every day, eco-terrorism by the
industrial growth machine and nanny government is waged against Earth's
ecosystems and all species, killing billions (including humans) and destroying the
biosphere as habitats essential to life are weakened and killed.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
314
Perm Heidegger
Heidegger is a valuable way to enguage indigenous thought
and critize the status quo. Even if they win a link, the
engaugement with indigenous thought solves.
Reddekop 14 Jarrad Reddekop PhD candidate at The
University of Western Ontario Thinking Across Worlds:
Indigenous Thought, Relational Ontology, and the Politics of
Nature; Or, If Only Nietzsche Could Meet A Yachaj
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3410&context=etd
I have tried to open up and explore one possible conversation between
Western theory and Indigenous thought. I selected Nietzsche and Heidegger for this
conversation not only because I think they offer valuable bridges for
engaging Indigenous thinking, but because I am also convinced that they
offer some of the most enduringly important available critiques of our
present cultural moment (especially in our relationship to nature) from within the Western
In this chapter,
tradition. And yet, it may also perhaps be a matter of faithfulness to the spirit of their own thought to experience as
sharply as possible the way that our habits of thinking, our language and its metaphors, our inherited ontological
dicta, and so on, delimit and give shape to what we experience as possibilities for being and thinking in the world. If
the wasteland we experience as unfolding in late modernity (not only within ourselves, but across the earth itself, in
the form of what from one vantage point are ecological crises) traces the fallout of our own habitual philosophical
heritage, then a reflexive engagement with Indigenous American traditions (such as have, indeed, dwelt upon this
land since time immemorial) will perhaps be recognized as holding no small value. If our approach is to be a
Nietzschean one i.e., one diagnostic of a sickness latent in our culture and looking towards a greater health then
we should not, I think, exclude a diagnosis of our evidently ruinous relationship to nature from our motivations
and concerns. And Indigenous traditions are, I think, some of the best available teachers concerning the possibility
of having more dialogical relationships with the land, of growing the self through those relationships and paying
heed to the ways in which this can happen. In this, they also precisely avoid anything like our accustomed
Romanticism, and the ways this might lead us to try to overcome a rift with nature by seeking a one-ness with
have accordingly attempted to

explore some of the ways it might be possible at once to think with and against
Nietzsche and Heidegger to work through elements of their thought that are
perhaps especially provocative (glossed here as their turn towards relationality), and yet to see
some of these carried further into much more into altogether different horizons. Of
course, to reflect on Indigenous traditions of thought in this way is to construe,
inflect, and respond to them in ways that are inevitably and significantly shaped by
a very different tradition and trajectory. That a non-Indigenous response and
engagement with Indigenous traditions (such as this one) is and must be its own
distinct phenomenon, forming its own pathways, need not of itself be viewed as
a weakness or a bad thing, I think, provided that it recognize itself for what it is. At
it, the ways we would understand what this would mean, and so on. I
some level, such a recognition would seem to be a necessary beginning-point for any authentic engagement in this
Nietzsche and Heidegger can in turn have its own distinct

they help us recognize, by analogy, something of what
the challenge in engaging and learning from Indigenous thought, of even being up
to an honest conversation with it, must be for us moderns. Not least amongst these
regard. 92 Arranging this engagement through
advantages for us. Among them is this: that
difficulties would seem to be the problem of overcoming our own endemic banality, our own impoverished sense of
experience, of the world and of ourselves. The thought of Nietzsche in particular may be taken as instructive here,
as to what grappling with such banalized horizons must be: the challenge, in ways perhaps not so different from
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
315
those he saw levied on us by the echoes of ancient Greece, is likely to be both harrowing and difficult. At stake is
not only the possibility of altering the terrain of understandings through which the self may be experience and
cultivated, but moreover of letting the face of the world show itself in altered (and, at a certain level, much more
expansive and terrifying) guise At the same time, by engaging Nietzschean thought through Indigenous relational
it becomes possible to recuperate elements of Nietzschean critique reworked

along more relational lines (and lines more profoundly dialogical, especially with the nonhuman). The
challenge to explore more aristocratic, affirmative, or daring modes of being and
thinking can be dissociated from the lingering traces of a commanding
ethos, and from the valorization of a tyrannical posture (including over meaningless nature)
as the necessary outflow of aristocratic self-affirmation. Rather, we can come to see how something
like a more affirmative existence in the Nietzschean sense might be taken to be
perfectly consistent with a profound vulnerability and respectful listening to the
thought,
nonhuman. An affirmation of this-worldliness becomes reconcilable with an emplaced situatedness quite different
from the modern love of rootlessness and transience. By rethinking power and thus substituting containment for
commanding, we can come to see how a call to strength and to the joys of becoming stronger can be perfectly
consistent with an ethos oriented around cultivating rooted relations and being a good relative. We can also
experience something like a call to a reverential dwelling in place that pushes well beyond the relatively traditional
A slavishness and smallness or impoverishment of self, as

well as that which is annihilated by technological seeing, can also be
reinterpreted along lines that do not lock us back in our more accustomed
ontology and all the associated concepts the modern problem of nature might
lead us to try to avoid.
Western ontology of Heidegger.
Perm: Heideggers ontology is a crucial starting point to

approach coloniality
Heideggers fundamental ontology informs the conception of

Being that I want to elaborate here. His work, particularly his 1927 magnus opus, Being and Time is not the
point of departure to think about the coloniality of Being but it is, at least when spelled
out in the context of the phenomenological tradition and its heretic expressions, an
inescapable reference point. I do not think that Heideggers conception of ontology and the primacy
As I made clear at the outset,
that he gives to the question of being necessarily provide the best basis for the understanding of coloniality or
his analyses of being-in-the-world serve as a starting point to

understanding some key elements of existential thought , a tradition that has
made important insights into the lived experience of colonized and
racialized peoples.39 Returning to Heidegger can provide new clues about how to
articulate a discourse on the colonial aspects of world making and lived experience .
decolonization, but
Heideggerian and indigenous thinking can be combined

UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
316
In addition, I have already discussed at some length (in the last chapter) how knowing in the sense of (e.g.,) the
Quichua becoming-yacharishka, is bound up with a notion of the body as delimiting perspective but a body that is
also susceptible to transformation through relational connections. Certain affinities can perhaps readily be found
here between Indigenous thought and Nietzsches turn to the body, his experience of thought as fundamentally
the Heideggerian/phenomenological turn to

place would seem helpful in opening up a way of thinking and attunement that
brings us closer to a point of conversation with Indigenous relationships to
the land, understandings of the landscape as storied, as an active participant in
daily life, and so on.27 For place connotes specificity of there-ness, an immersion
within a specific set of (bodily) relationships, in a way that resonates well with the
sense of situatedness characteristic of Indigenous thinking a point I will return to
shortly.
embodied, and so on. But it is also the case that
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
317
AT Universality Link Heidegger

No link to their universality arguments.
Heideggers thought of worldhood here admits us not to a universalism,
so much as to the acknowledgement of a positive multiplicity of possible and viable
versal turnings of what is to intelligibility and coherence. 95 And because the way is opened
As such,
here to think matters of truth not, from the beginning, in terms of certainty concerning the real, but in terms of
interpretive disclosure, we can see the possibility for a different kind of relationship to the metaphysical
the way is opened for a

certain reflective stepping-back and mindfulness of the (necessarily interpretive,
and therefore contestable) conditions under which certain vistas rather than others
become possible. And with this, we also open the possibility of a more sympathetic
exploration of alternate possible framings. And along with this, it is to be hoped: a
certain ethos, a thoughtful or questioning reconsideration of ourselves and/in the
world.
delimitations of our thought than that found in Descartes, and thereafter. Rather,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
318
Surveillance Link Turn

Challenging surveillance challenges the states ability to
establish its identity
Torney 2k
Passport. IG
States have sought to monopolize the capacity to authorize the movements of persons - and unambiguously to establish their identities in 3
COMING AND GOING order to enforce this authority - for a great variety of reasons which reflect the ambiguous
nature of modern states, which are at once sheltering and dominating. These reasons include such objectives as the
extraction of military service, taxes, and labor; the facilitation of law enforcement; the control of "brain drain" (i.e.,
the restriction of
access to areas deemed "off-limits" by the state, whether for "security" reasons or
to protect people from unexpected or unacknowledged harms; the exclusion,
surveillance, and containment of "undesirable elements," whether these are
of an ethnic, national, racial, economic, religious, ideological, or medical character;
and the supervision of the growth, spatial distribution, and social composition of populations within
their territories. States' efforts to monopolize the legitimate means of movement have
involved a number of mutually reinforcing aspects: the (gradual) definition of states everywhere - at least from
the point of view of the international system - as "national" (i.e., as "nation-states" comprising
limitation of departure in order to forestall the loss of workers with particularly valued skills);
members understood as nationals); the codification of laws establishing which types of persons may move within or
cross their borders, and determining how, when, and where they may do so; the stimulation of the worldwide
development of techniques for uniquely and unambiguously identifying each and every person on the face of the
globe, from birth to death; the construction of bureaucracies designed to implement this regime of identification
and to scrutinize persons and documents in order to verify identities; and the creation of a body of legal norms
designed to adjudicate claims by individuals to entry into particular spaces and territories. Only recently have
states actually developed the capacities necessary to monopolize the authority to regulate movement. To be sure,
despotisms everywhere frequently asserted controls on movement before the modern period, but these states
generally lacked the extensive administrative infrastructure necessary to carry out such regulation in a pervasive
The successful monopolization of the legitimate means of

movement by states and the state system required the creation of
elaborate bureaucracies and technologies that only gradually came into
existence, a trend that intensified dramatically toward the end of the nineteenth
century. The process decisively depended on what Gerard Noiriel has called the
"revolution identificatoire" the development of "cards" and "codes" that identified
people (more or less) unambiguously and distinguished among them for
administrative purposes. 5 Such documents had existed previously, of course, but their uniform
and systematic fashion.
dissemination throughout whole societies, not to mention their worldwide spread as the international passport with
which we are familiar today, would be some time in coming. Once they THE INVENTION OF THE PASSPORT became
available to (almost) anyone, however, they also became a requirement for legitimate movement across territorial
spaces. Things have not always been this way. The great migrations that populated many of the world's inhabited
regions would otherwise have been greatly hampered, if not rendered impossible. Where the right to authorize
movement was controlled by particular social groups before the coalescence of the modern state system (and
indeed until well after it had come into being), these groups were as often private entities as constituted political
authorities. Indentured servants' right to move, for example, was under the control of their masters .
Under
serfdom, the serfs' legal capacity to move lay in the hands of their landlords, who
had jurisdiction over them. Slavery, even when it did not involve actual shackles,
entailed that slaveholders held the power to grant their slaves the right to move. 6
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
319
As modern states advanced and systems of forced labor such as slavery and
serfdom declined, however, states and the international state system stripped
private entities of the power to authorize and forbid movement and gathered that
power unto themselves. In doing so, they were responding to a considerable extent to the imperatives of
territorial rule characteristic of modern states, as well as to the problem of "masterless men" 7 as personal freedom
advanced. The phenomenon is captured nicely in Karl Polanyi's discussion of the emergence of "the poor" as a
distinctive group in early modern England: [T]hey became conspicuous as individuals unattached to the manor, "or
to any feudal superior[,]" and their gradual transformation into a class of free laborers was the combined result of
The transition from private

to state control over movement was an essential aspect of the transition from
feudalism to capitalism.
the fierce persecution of vagrancy and the fostering of domestic industry . . . 8
Challenging surveillance prevents the state from performing

its must basic functions.
Torney 2k
Passport. IG
states have come decisively to depend on the unique and
unambiguous identification of individuals in order to carry out their most
fundamental tasks. 30 The examination of individual stigmata, the essential form of which lies at the
heart of all modern systems of identification, "places individuals in a field of surveillance
[and also] situates them in a network of writing; it engages them in a whole mass of
documents that capture and fix them ." 31 The document held by the individual as "ID" thus
By their own lights, then,
corresponds to an entire series of files chronicling movements, economic transactions, familial ties, illnesses, and
the power/knowledge grid in which individuals are processed and

constituted as administrative subjects of states. The achievement of this administrative
much else besides -
knowledge was a long time in coming, however; state-sponsored identification practices with the aim 16 COMING
AND GOING of extending states' embrace of their populations have evolved significantly over time. Prior to the
French Revolution, for example, descriptions of a person's social standing - residence, occupation, family status, etc.
- were generally regarded as adequate indicators of a person's identity for purposes of internal passport controls in
France. Thereafter, the growing preoccupation with surveillance and the progress of modern science
combined to render insufficient these earlier, more homespun practices. States wanted to embrace their inhabitants
more firmly, and to be able to distinguish them from outsiders more clearly, than was possible with such methods.
Achievement of this aim necessitated greater precision in identifying them. Yet at the same time, the rise of liberal
and natural law ideas
proclaiming individual freedom and the inviolability of the person

cast into disfavor older habits of "writing on the body" such as branding,
scarification, and tattooing, as well as dress codes as means for identifying persons
(except when these methods of marking are voluntarily assumed, of course). As a result, states with a rising
interest in embracing their populations had to develop less invasive means to identify people. The approach they
adopted employs roughly the same principle that underlies ju-jitsu:
the person's body is used against
him or her, in this case as evidence of identity . Techniques for "reading off the body" have become
more and more sophisticated over time, shifting from unreliable subjective descriptions and anthropometric
measurements to photographs (themselves at first often considered unreliable by police), fingerprinting,
electronically scanned palm-prints, DNA fingerprinting, and the retina scans dramatized in the recent film version of
Mission: Impossible. The persistent tinkering with these techniques indicates that states (and other entities, of
course) have a powerful and enduring interest in identifying persons, both their own subjects and those of other
The ability of states uniquely and unambiguously to identify

persons, whether "their own" or others, is at the heart of the process
whereby states, and the international state system, have succeeded over time
countries.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
320
in monopolizing the legitimate means of movement in the modern world.

Against this background, let us briefly examine the imposition of passport controls in early modern European states,
as rulers increasingly sought to establish untrammeled claims over territories and people. Such rulers began to
move away, however unintentionally, from a "political map [that] was an inextricably superimposed and tangled
one, in which different juridical instances were geographically interwoven and stratified, and plural allegiances,
asymmetrical suzerainties and anomalous enclaves abounded." 33 In doing so, they cleared away some of the
medieval underbrush that stood between them and the nation-state.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
321
Challenging the States ability to identify people challenges its

very existence.
Torney 2k
Studies Faculty Board at the University of California, Irvine. IG
belief that the dominance of Western states
in the period examined has been relatively clear-cut, and that the imposition of
Western ways on most of the rest of INTRODUCTION the world has been one of the most
remarkable features of the era. Here I am only echoing what I take to be common
wisdom about the rise and dominance of the West during the modern age. This
should not be taken to imply any denigration of non-Western cultures, but only the
recognition that those societies have not been sufficiently powerful to impose their
ways upon the world. Indeed, I would be delighted if this study were to stimulate studies of systems of
The geographical frame of the study derives from my
documentary controls on movement and identity in other parts of the world and in other periods. 5 For now,
however, it seems worthwhile to begin to make sense of the processes that spawned the world-girdling system of
passport controls on international movement that arose from the gradual strengthening of state apparatuses in
Europe and the United States during the past two centuries or so. Because the passport system arose out of the
relatively inchoate international system that existed during the nineteenth century, I have not undertaken strong,
systematic comparisons of one country versus another. I argue that the emergence of passport and related
controls on movement is an essential aspect of the "state-ness" of states,

and it therefore seemed to be putting the cart before the horse to presume to
compare states as if they were "hard," "really-existing" entities of a type that were
more nearly approximated after the First World War. Moreover, what is remarkable
about the contemporary system of passport controls is that it bears witness to a
cooperating "international society" as well as to an overarching set of norms and
prescriptions to which individual states must respond . 6 This does not mean, as some seem to
think, that there is no such thing as "sovereignty," but only that this is a claim states make in an environment not of
Marx, states make their own policy, "but they do not make
it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by
themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given, and transmitted" from
the outside. The following study seeks to demonstrate that passports and other documentary controls on
movement and identification have been essential to states' monopolization of
the legitimate means of movement since the French Revolution, and that this
process of monopolization has been a central feature of their development as states
during that period. The project has been motivated in considerable part by the uneasy feeling that much
their own making. To paraphrase
sociological writing about states is insupportably abstract, failing to tell us how states actually constitute and
maintain themselves as ongoing concerns. By focusing not on the grand flourishes of state-building but on what
Foucault somewhere described as the "humble modalities" of power, I hope to contribute to a more adequate
understanding of the capacity that states have amassed to intrude into our lives over the last two centuries.
Surveillance has been the chief tool of assimilation for Native

Americans
Kundnani and Kumar 13
Arun Kundnani teaches at New York University. His latest book is The Muslims Are Coming! Islamophobia,
Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror, Deepa Kumar is an associate professor of Media Studies and Middle
East Studies at Rutgers University.http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
322
important to note that the production of the racial other at these

various moments is conjunctural and heterogenous . That is, the racialization of Native
Americans, for instance, during the settler-colonial period took different forms from
the racialization of African Americans. Further, the dominant construction of Blackness under slavery
It is, however,
is different from the construction of Blackness in the neoliberal era; these ideological shifts are the product of
empire and capital, at various moments, determine who

will be targeted by state surveillance, in what ways, and for how long. In the second part,
specific historic conditions. In short,
we turn our attention to the current conjuncture in which the politics of the War on Terror shape national security
surveillance practices. The intensive surveillance of Muslim Americans has been carried out by a vast security
apparatus that has also been used against dissident movements such as Occupy Wall Street and environmental
rights activists, who represent a threat to the neoliberal order. This is not new; the process of targeting dissenters
has been a constant feature of American history. For instance, the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s were
passed by the Federalist government against the Jeffersonian sympathizers of the French Revolution. The British
hanged Nathan Hale because he spied for Washingtons army in the American Revolution .
State surveillance
regimes have always sought to monitor and penalize a wide range of dissenters,
radicals, and revolutionaries. Race was a factor in some but by no means all of
these cases. Our focus here is on the production of racialized others as security
threats and the ways this helps to stabilize capitalist social relations. Further, the current
system of mass surveillance of Muslims is analogous to and overlaps with other systems of racialized security
surveillance that feed the mass deportation of immigrants under the Obama administration and that
disproportionately target African Americans, contributing to their mass incarceration and what Michelle Alexander
racialized groupings are produced in the very act

of collecting information about certain groups deemed as threats by the national
security statethe Brown terrorist, the Black and Brown drug dealer and user, and
the immigrant who threatens to steal jobs. We conclude that security has become
one of the primary means through which racism is ideologically reproduced in the
post-racial, neoliberal era. Drawing on W. E. B. Duboiss notion of the
psychological wage, we argue that neoliberalism has been legitimized in part
through racialized notions of security that offer a new psychological wage as
compensation for the decline of the social wage and its reallocation to homeland
security. Settler-colonialism and racial security National security surveillance is as
old as the bourgeois nation state, which from its very inception sets out to define
the people associated with a particular territory, and by extension the nonpeoples, i.e., populations to be excluded from that territory and seen as threats to
the nation. Race, in modern times, becomes the main way that such threatsboth internal and externalare
mediated; modern mechanisms of racial oppression and the modern state are born together . This is
particularly true of settler-colonial projects, such as the United States, in which the
goal was to territorially dispossess Indigenous nations and pacify the resistance that
inevitably sprang up. In this section, we describe how the drive for territorial expansion and the
formation of the early American state depended on an effective ideological erasure
of those who peopled the land. Elaborate racial profiles, based on empirical
observationthe precursor to more sophisticated surveillance mechanismswere
thus devised to justify the dispossession of native peoples and the obliteration of
those who resisted. The idea of the American nation as the land of white AngloSaxon Protestants enabled and justified the colonial-settler mission .5 Thus, when the US
state was formed after the Revolutionary War, white supremacy was codified in the Constitution;
the logical outcome of earlier settler-colonial systems of racial discrimination
against African slaves and Indigenous populations .6 But the leaders of the newly formed state
refers to as the New Jim Crow.4 We argue that
were not satisfied with the thirteen original colonies and set their sights on further expansion. In 1811, John Quincy
Adams gave expression to this goal in the following way: The whole continent of North America appears to be
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
323
destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system
of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs.7 This
doctrine, which would later come to be known as manifest destiny animated the project of establishing the
European settlers were the chosen people who would

bring development through scientific knowledge, including state-organized
ethnographic knowledge of the very people they were colonizing .8 John Comaroffs
American nation across the continent.
description of this process in southern Africa serves equally to summarize the colonial states of North America:
The
discovery of dark, unknown lands, which were conceptually emptied of their

peoples and cultures so that their wilderness might be brought properly to order
i.e., fixed and named and mappedby an officializing white gaze.9 Through, for
example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the United States sought to develop methods
of identification, categorization, and enumeration that made the Indigenous
population visible to the surveillance gaze as racial others. Surveillance that
defined and demarcated according to officially constructed racial typologies enabled
the colonial state to sort tribes according to whether they accepted the priorities
of the settler-colonial mission (the good Indians) or resisted it (the bad
Indians).10 In turn, an idea of the US nation itself was produced as a homeland of
white, propertied men to be secured against racial others . No wonder, then, that the founding
texts of the modern state invoke the Indigenous populations of America as bearers of the state of nature, to which
The
earliest process of gathering systematic knowledge about the other by colonizers
often began with trade and religious missionary work. In the early seventeenth
century, trade in furs with the Native population of Quebec was accompanied by the missionary
the modern state is counterposedwitness Hobbess references to the the Savage people of America.11
project. Jesuit Paul Le Jeune worked extensively with the Montagnais-Naskapi and maintained a detailed record of
By studying and documenting where and how

the savages lived, the nature of their relationships, their child-rearing habits, and
the like, Le Juene derived a four-point program to change the behaviors of the Naskapi in
the people he hoped to convert and civilize.12
order to bring them into line with French Jesuit morality. In addition to sedentarization, the establishment of chiefly
Le Juene sought to curtail the independence

of Naskapi women and to impose a European family structure based on male
authority and female subservience.13 The net result of such missionary work was to pave the way for
the racial projects of colonization and/or integration into a colonial settler nation . By the nineteenth
century, such informal techniques of surveillance began to be absorbed into
government bureaucracy. In 1824, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun established the Office of
Indian Affairs (later Bureau), which had as one of its tasks the mapping and
counting of Native Americans. The key security question was whether to forcibly
displace Native Americans beyond the colonial territory or incorporate them as
colonized subjects; the former policy was implemented in 1830 when Congress passed the Indian Removal
Act and President Jackson began to drive Indians to the west of the Mississippi River. Systematic
surveillance became even more important after 1848, when Indian Affairs
responsibility transferred from the Department of War to the Department of the
Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs sought to comprehensively map the
Indigenous population as part of a civilizing project to change the savage into a
civilized man, as a congressional committee put it . By the 1870s, Indians were the
quantified objects of governmental intervention; resistance was subdued as much
through rational techniques of racialized surveillance and a professional
bureaucracy as through war.14 The assimilation of Indians became a comprehensive policy through the
authority, and the training and punishment of children,
Code of Indian Offenses, which included bans on Indigenous cultural practices that had earlier been catalogued by
ethnographic surveillance. Tim Rowse writes that For the U.S. government to extinguish Indian sovereignty, it had to
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
324
be confident in its own. There is no doubting the strength of the sense of manifest destiny in the United States
during the nineteenth-century, but as the new nation conquered and purchased, and filled the new territories with
colonists, it had also to develop its administrative capacity to govern the added territories and peoples. U.S.
sovereign power was not just a legal doctrine and a popular conviction; it was an administrative challenge and
achievement that included acquiring, by the 1870s, the ability to conceive and measure an object called the Indian
The use of surveillance to produce a census of a colonized population

was the first step to controlling it. Mahmood Mamdani refers to this as define and
rule, a process in which, before managing a heterogeneous population, a colonial
power must first set about defining it; to do so, the colonial state wielded the
census not only as a way of acknowledging difference but also as a way of shaping,
sometimes even creating, difference.16 The ethnic mapping and demographics
unit programs practiced by US law enforcement agencies today in the name of
counterterrorism are the inheritors of these colonial practices. Both then and now, state
population.15
agencies use of demographic information to identify concentrations of ethnically defined populations in order to
target surveillance resources and to identify kinship networks can be utilized for the purposes of political policing.
Likewise, todays principles of counterinsurgency warfarewinning hearts and minds by dividing the insurgent from
the nonresistantecho similar techniques applied in the nineteenth century at the settler frontier. Class, gender,
and racial security While racial security was central to the settler-colonial project in North America, territorial
dispossession was only one aspect of the process of capital accumulation for the new state; the other was the
discipline and management of labor. As Theodore Allen shows in The Invention of the White Race, the white race
did not exist as a category in Virginias colonial records until the end of the seventeenth century. Whiteness as an
explicit racial identity had to be cultivated over a period of decades before it could become the basis for an
organized form of oppression.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
325
Surveillance on Native Americans is nonconsensual and leads

to cooperate exploitation.
Reddix-Smalls 14(director of the South Carolina Conference of Branches of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Satellite Remote
Sensing and Database Management Who Owns Digitalization of Indigenous Peoples,
Antiquities and Their Artifacts, https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/ReddixSmalls_Brenda_IPSC_paper_2014.pdf)
Remote Sensing technologies, on the other hand, obtain data such as measurements of electromagnetic energ y
from distant targets which enable the viewer to extract information about features, and objects on the Earths land
surface.
The interpretation of geospatial data is possible because objects made of

diverse materials emit and/or reflect a different qua ntity of energy in diverse
regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. 14 In viewing these multi - spectral images, an observer
sees pixels. Each pixel has a set of spectral values and can be charted as a vector in a multi dimensional space
on the basis
of spectral content we can identify and categorize the diverse surfaces (soil,
vegetation, sea), materials (soil types, vegetation cover types, concrete) and obj
ects (urban areas, archaeological feature) by classes or types, substance, and
spatial distribution according to their specific characteristics (fresh snow, senescent
vegetation, clear water, moisture content, grain size ). The different spectral responses observed
whose axes correspond to the given image band in the multi spectral image space. 15 Therefore,
for diverse materials according to their characteristics, is generally known as spectral signatures. 16 The scientific
community engaged in archeology, geo - archeology, paleo - environment, paleo - climate and cultural heritage
research has utilized various forms of remote sensing coupled with advancing technologies to further scientific
The pertinent inquiry for a review of remote sensing technology, policy and
intel lectual property is: to whom do the spectral signatures identified as humans
belong? 17 The question is germane where the scientists are not observing or identifying ancient buried artifacts
or surveying ancient sites but are identifying and storing knowledge of extant human societies. Where the
indigenous societies neithe r give their consent for observation n or for data storage
does remote satellite viewing violate imperatives for the preservation of human
rights or the infringement of intellectual cultural property rights? Routinely, u tilizin
g visual tools, observers use knowledge, experience and cultural perspectives to
gain entry into indigenous communities to preserve, exploit, examine , record and
identify cultural artifacts, habits, lives, antiquities and traditional knowledge based
information. This information, i.e. spectral signatures, then becomes data, data
stored, data analyzed, interpreted and commodified by commercial entities .
inquiry.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
326
Surveillance Link Turn Drones

Turn: Affs reduction of drone surveillance is key to solvedrones effect native populations in horrific manners
Barry 13 [Glen, 4-27-2013, ESSAY: Freedom Isn't Free,
Terrorism Is Pervasive, EcoInternet,
http://ecointernet.org/2013/04/27/essay_freedom_isnt_free_terr
or/]-DD
Imagine the terror of an indigenous tribe suddenly finding a logging,
mining, or oil company entering their ancestral land, where they have
lived from time immemorial, telling them it does not belong to them.
Instead, their forests will be cut, they must go to the cities, and their
women are whores to service their needs. Or please consider the heartfelt
terror of innocent communities hearing the incessant buzz of drones over
their heads, not knowing when or whether they will be targeted as
"collateral" damage meaning murder victims. Or feel the everyday terror of the working
poor, serving as slaves to the elite and then going home to unfed families and uneducated children, devoid of hope.
What of the terror felt by kindred wildlife species as their habitat is razed and their young slaughtered in the name
Such systematic terror arising from pervasive inequity, lack of human

rights, militarism, and other injustices have been endured for far too long. Many
acts of criminal terror result from these social ills, and we will not achieve a lasting
reduction of violence until they are addressed. Working to resolve the terror pervasive in our
of "progress"?
social and economic structures may well be the only way that an unlikely, albeit possible, large scale act of
biological or nuclear criminal terrorism can be avoided. Further stripping our civil liberties, establishing a police
surveillance state, and waging perma-war certainly won't do so.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
327
Surveillance Turn Impact

This surveillance is part of the genocide of indigenous peoples.
Reddix-Smalls 14(director of the South Carolina Conference of Branches of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Satellite Remote
Sensing and Database Management Who Owns Digitalization of Indigenous Peoples,
Antiquities and Their Artifacts, https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/ReddixSmalls_Brenda_IPSC_paper_2014.pdf)
16 continues where natives have fought to retain recognized indigenous are as in
Brazil. Invasion by loggers, ranchers, miners and squatters or road s, dams, power
lines and railroads created in the name of progress also seek to undermine ind i g e
nous autonomy. 62 Political a utonomy for natives in the interplay of political, economic and cultural practices
that shape the Latin America of today, with competing imperial designs, local interest, geo - cultural and
geopolitical concerns continue unabated. The quest for power and dominance in Brazil by racial ethnic groups
continues with the struggle for social justice. 63 Without resort to the economic history of the Amazon region and
the poli tical economy of Brazil it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion of the Amazonian Indians and their
struggle for cultural and sovereign rights. 64 W ithout res ort to the particulars of the Amaz on and its bio - diversity
one must assess the rights of a people to

preserve their cultural identity without intrusions by others in the commodification o
f data compilati on. The truth is that the Indian is not on the verge of extinction, nor can the indigenous
groups be collected as one monolithic group. T heir human rights cannot be denigrated and the
use of technology to observe, collate and collect data c annot be conducted without
reso r t to international law, ethics and human n orms. In discussing the property
rights of indigenous people, it is eas y to succumb to the western capitalistic
framework of individualistic property owne rship. That is to attempt to distribute
property rights to individuals as opposed to a distributive formula based on
communal or a collective basis for ownership. I ntellectual property rights such as trade secrets,
interests, cultural imperatives for the indigenous people,
patents, copyrights and trademarks seem ill equipped to serve the nee ds of people living on their lands, claiming
17 because of t he
intrusion of commercial entities on traditional lands, indigenous people are often
faced with conflicting and competing demands on tribal resources,
conservation efforts, and cultural preservation and community assets. These
demands are heightened in the face of group disparities of income and
wealth based on historical inequities, oppressions and past genocidal
harms.
group ownership of traditional knowledge, and/or cultural based norms. However,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
328
Domestic/Foreign Distinction Good

Domestic Surveillance has a unique hierarchy; means the
distinction is important
Cincotta 10 Thomas R. Cincotta; Thomas Cincotta is the former civil liberties
program director at Political Research Associates; Platform for Prejudice: How the
Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative Invites Racial Profiling, Erodes
Civil Liberties, and Undermines Security; http://goo.gl/YfjG8S
However, there is reason to question whether the bewilderingly complex domestic security bureaucracy that has
This vast,
Byzantine bureaucracy includes new mechanisms for federal, state, and local
collaboration. At the top of the system, federal institutions sift, coordinate, analyze,
and direct. At the center of the intelligence matrix, two key organs of interagency coordination stand out: 1)
emerged in recent years has solved the governments persistent information sharing problems.
state and major metropolitan intelligence Fusion Centers loosely overseen and partly funded by the Department of
At the base of the system, local

police departments, ranging in size from rural sheriffs offices to major urban
departments, are dedicating resources to form intelligence units . These agencies are
key players in Suspicious Activity Reporting, which is based on a concept called Intelligence-Led
Policing, in which local law enforcement officials take on new intelligence-gathering roles. The SAR Initiative
takes these agencies reporting and funnels it to Fusion Centers, key components of
the national security Information-Sharing Environment (ISE) that facilitate the
movement and exchange of terrorism-related information within the bureaucracy .
Municipal police departments, county sheriffs, transit police, campus security
agencies, and other law enforcement agencies lacking their own intelligence
capacity have been encouraged to plug into the Information Sharing Environment
Homeland Security, and 2) the FBIs Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
through the intelligence-gathering Fusion CenteTrhs.e SAR Initiative is slated to go nationwide at all 72 Fusion
Center sites in the spring of 2010. Before the initiative becomes fully operational, the public has a right to know
whether collecting intelligence about noncriminal activity is an effective counterterrorism tool, how their
Constitutional rights will be affected by this major development, and whether the program merits continued and
expanded taxpayer investment. This report maintains that, rather than fixing the existing problem of insufficient
the U.S. government has created an expanding

bureaucracy of agencies whose untested information- gathering and sharing
processes are flooding already overburdened intelligence systems with junk data, or
information sharing across intelligence agencies,
noise. In data-systems analysis, this is a familiar and well-studied phenomenon known as GIGO, or garbage in
garbage out. This overabundance of junk data does little to protect us from terrorists and much to threaten our
civil liberties. The Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing in Detroit shows on the one hand that information
sharing hurdles have not been fixed, and secondly, part of the problem may be the overwhelming volume of data.
Programs that lower the threshold for intelligence gathering and thereby lower the quality of data contribute to this
problem.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
329
Domestic/Foreign Distinction Good - Racism

The SAR initiative means some racist activities are unique to
domestic surviellence
The SAR Initiative operates in a context that includes intense surveillance of racial
and ethnic minority (particularly Arab, Muslim, and South Asian) communities. When collecting
information, FBI agents are now authorized to enter mosques, churches, synagogues, and other places of worship
Arab
Americans have a greater fear of racial profiling and immigration enforcement than
of falling victim to hate crimes. The SAR Initiatives new information sharing
systems allow racialized fears about terrorism to be magnified . Its broad
without identifying themselves. A Justice Department-financed study found that following September 11,
definition of suspicious activity and emphasis on socalled pre-crime (i.e., innocent) activity creates confusion
among police, encourages subjective judgments, and
opens the door for habitual, often

unconscious stereotypes to enter police decision-making on reporting and
investigations. Sometimes the results stretch credulity. On July 3, 2005, a man photographed three Middle
Eastern men videotaping the iconic pier at Santa Monica beach. Weeks later, police seized the video, which they
characterized as probing for a terror attack because the tourists themselves were not in the footage. Police
consulted with the FBI, the Los Angeles Terrorism Early Warning Group (precursor to todays Fusion Center), and the
state Department of Homeland Security. As a result, Santa Monica police requested $2 million to install pre-emptive
measures such as surveillance cameras, additional patrols, and bomb-sniffing dogs to beef up security at the pier.
No arrests were made, and tax payers picked up the tab. This episode shows how racial profiling harms us all.
The
increased involvement of local and state law enforcement officials, who lack sufficient
training and expertise in national security and counter-terrorism practices, will likely in Suspicious Activity
Reporting Initiative crease misconduct based on the race, ethnicity, and religion of
targeted groups. Nationwide information sharing also increases the chances that
innocent people caught in the surveillance web will experience ongoing difficulties .
Notwithstanding official policies prohibiting the use of racial profiling, biases in input and analysis will likely lead to
an overrepresentation of South Asian, Middle Eastern, Arab, and Muslim populations in SAR data. This will create an
untenable situation that will alienate these communities from civil society, at a time when nearly all their leaders
want to work to improve safety and cultivate mutual trust.
Domestic surveillance uniquely leads to prejudice

The Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative,
a new framework that guides, orchestrates, and

connect s the federal governments nationwide Information Sharing
Environment, undermines civil rights and liberties as well as security to the extent
that it targets noncriminal behavior and political speech . The SAR Initiative is highly
problematic, because it creates a platform for prejudice that targets two major groupings
as potential terrorists: 1) Muslims and Arabs living in the United States , and other
nationalities or ethnicities perceived by many Americans through the lens of stereotypes; and 2)
people with dissident views across the political spectrum . These prejudicesone
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
330
based on ethnic, racial, and religious identity; the other based on ideology and
beliefthreaten the very foundations of our democracy .
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
331
Domestic/Foreign Distinction Good - Policymaking

Domestic Intelligence has developed separately, therefore
needing different policies to curtail it
The failure of American intelligence prior to September 11, 2001 prompted a call for more
effective data sharing, smarter analysis, and a vigilant political leadership attuned
to heeding intelligence warnings. In response, the U.S. government undertook a
sweeping restructuring and expansion of its domestic counterintelligence apparatus to
promote information sharing and joint action. Domestic intelligence in the past managed only an
informal and unstructured cooperation based primarily on paper records. Today,
interagency collaboration is reaching new heights of electronic and organizational
sophistication. With the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress mandated a
fundamental reordering of Americas intelligence gathering institutions. It also called for the creation of
an Information Sharing Environment (commonly known as the ISE) to facilitate the
exchange of terrorism information among all appropriate federal, state, and local
agencies and the private sector through the use of common guidelines and technologies.1 Establishing uniform
standards for Suspicious Activities Reporting and a technological infrastructure enabling rapid and wide sharing
Domestic institutions at every level

are now better positioned to collect information on U.S. citizens and residents,
share incident reports, and target designated individuals.
potentially gives government more power to detect terror plots.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
332
Domestic/Foreign Distinction Good - Advocacy

Domestic and International Distinction is Key to Advocating for
Local Issues
Benvensti and Downs 09
Eyal Benvenisti is an attorney and professor of human rights at Tel Aviv University's
Faculty of Law. Since 2003 he has been part of the Global Law Faculty at New York
University School of Law.George Woodrow Downs, Jr. was an American political
scientist and pioneer of the application of noncooperative game theory to
international politics. Eur J Int Law (2009) 20 (1): 59-72
http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/1/59.full IEG
There is little indication that the change is related to any alteration in the process by which judges are selected or
to the growing salience of international law school curricula over the last 15 years. The self-defined mission of
guardians of the domestic legal order has largely remained the

same. They continue to regard themselves first and foremost as national agents, and their chief
motivation is not to promote global justice but to protect primarily, if not
exclusively, the domestic rule of law. Moreover, their sensitivity to the national
interest continues to reflect itself in any number of traditional and predictable ways ,
national court judges as
such as their continuing refusal to constrain their executives when such constraints might harm their economies, for
example by imposing international trade law obligations on their executives,3 or piercing the immunity granted by
international law to acting officials of foreign states.4What has changed is the context in which national court
judges find themselves operating. Fifteen years of accelerating globalization have altered the assessment of
primary threats to the domestic order are and what

strategies they will need to adopt in order to cope with them. National courts are
increasingly discovering that the most effective way for them to maintain the space
for domestic deliberation and to strengthen the ability of their
governments to withstand the pressure brought to bear by foreign and local
interest groups and powerful foreign governments is to ensure to the extent
possible that their judgments complement rather than conflict with those of other
national courts about what the
national courts. Increasingly this requires them to monitor the opinions of other courts at both the national and
international level and to engage in what amounts to tacit co-ordination. We argue that these co-ordination
activities, in turn, can function as a kind of global good which facilitates further interjudicial co-operation,
potentially accelerating the evolution of a more coherent international legal system.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
333
Reforms Solve
The dichotomy between liberty and surveillance is a liesurveillance can be modified to generate equality but still
maintain security from threats- the perm would be net
beneficial
Chesterman 11 [Simon Chesterman, ?-?-2011, One Nation Under Surveillance A New Social Contract
to Defend Freedom Without Sacrificing Liberty. , Dreier T (2011). One Nation Under Surveillance A New Social
Contract to Defend Freedom Without Sacrificing Liberty. jipitec, Vol. 2. (urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30966)]-DD
Framing
the problem as a tension between liberty and security is also a category

error, as it adopts an emergency paradigm as the lens through which to view the
threat. Terrorism may well present the most significant threat of violence to the
countries discussed in this book, but it is unlikely to constitute an existential
threat to organized political life as such. In the event that a dirty bomb is detonated
in Manhattan, civil liberties will certainly be curtailed . That is not an argument for abandoning those
liberties today. Instead, what is needed now is a reasoned examination of the framework within which the growing surveillance
powers of the state should be exercised. Three key elements of that framework are agreement that special powers can only be
granted to actors accountable directly to the public, that the extent and the purpose of those powers must be provided for in law,
and that a regime is set up to ameliorate and compensate the intended and unintended consequences of the use of those powers.
Profiling
raises legitimate concerns about explicit or implicit racism and other forms
of bigotry. Yet it is also clearly a part of the investigative method currently used by
police and intelligence officers. The debate as it is often presented sets the civil
liberties of the profiled group against the security interests of the population as a
whole. It is misleading, however, to say that the choice is between profiling and lost
lives. A better analysis might be that the use of ethnicity as a basis for profiling
imposes a cost on innocent members of the targeted groupfor example, younger
Muslim men of Middle Eastern backgrounds. It might be preferable to distribute that
cost more equitably, perhaps by excluding the factor perceived as relevant but
offensive, and increasing the scrutiny of the population as a whole. One scholar concludes
that profiling does not pose the question of whether ethnic sensitivity must be bought at the price of thousands of lives, but whether
such sensitivity should be bought at the price of arriving half an hour earlier at the airport.3
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
334
Reform Solves Indigenous People Want It

Indigenous people want legal protection from surveillance.
Madsen 14 ( Wayne Madsen., American investigative journalist, author and
columnist specializing in intelligence and international affairs. Protecting
indigenous peoples privacy from eyes in the sky). KM
Satellite-based geographic information systems (GIS), if not properly regulated,
could infringe on indigenous rights to privacy. As early as 1983 the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) established a GIS for ten tribes across the United States. The system,
called the Indian Integrated Resource Information Program (IIRIP), was designed to
allow the ten tribes to promote the use of GIS in the management of their lands.
However, the system was used more heavily by the IIRIP's National Center and the
BIA than by the Indian tribes concerned (Marchand and Winchell, 1994, 49-51). This
inevitably leads to the question of who benefits more from such "wampum"
technology, the native Americans or the Federal government acting as forward
scouts for exploitative industry? The Colville Confederated Tribe in Washington State was faced with the
dilemma of the BIA refusing to relinquish control of some GIS-derived information to the tribal confederacy . The
confederacy was concerned that GIS maps detailing archeological and cultural sites
might fall into the wrong hands, thus disrupting the sites. It was decided that the
confederacy's Physical Resource Department would be the central authority for
administering the GIS data resources (Marchand and Winchell, 1994, 50). Indian
leaders contend that those who operate GISs must be sensitive to the traditions
surrounding their lands. Many Indian tribes feel that certain data must
remain private and not be released to the general public. Data security and
privacy controls therefore become problematic. Tribal officials such as the Colville
Confederacy leadership feel that certain data cannot be treated as regular data.
Information on hunting and gathering areas has a spiritual significance for the
Indians that is perhaps unappreciated by statisticians in cold, gray and distant
computer rooms (Marchand and Winchell, 1994, 51). GIS data used
indiscriminately can be used to deny Indian nations their rights under
existing international treaties. For example, the United States government and the
Nez Perce tribe signed a treaty in June 11, 1855 that preserved the right of the Nez
Perce to hunt, gather roots and berries, and raise livestock on "open and unclaimed
lands" outside the reservation. Subsequent treaties squeezed the tribe into smaller
parcels of land so that presently the Idaho reservation territory resembles a
patchwork not unlike the recently disestablished South African "Bantustans." GIS
data can be used by outside exploiters to deny tribes like the Nez Perce access to
their rightful lands and squeeze them onto unproductive tracts. The Nez Perce also
stress security and privacy for data contained within their GIS systems in hopes of
preventing any wrongful exploitation (Meyers, 1993, 35-37). A recent Canadian study concluded that
Canadian Indian tribes or "band councils" have a right and a duty to adopt their own data protection codes and fair
information practices (Peladeau, 1994, 15). Such legislation could be tailored to include as personal information that
data which collectively applies to the tribe or band at large. Non-traditional data concerning cultural affairs and
natural resources might be included in an expanded definition of what constitutes collective privacy information.
Any Canadian data protection and fair information code of practice for Indian bands might also serve as a useful
model for indigenous peoples in the United States and other parts of the world. Indigenous peoples have
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
335
historically reviled attempts by central governments to collect information on them. Many native groups have felt
Many
enumerators and surveyors considered indigenous respondents as nothing more
than "sample units" and not as people (Casley and Lury, 1987, 123 ). Subjecting
indigenous peoples to remote space-based imagery and surveillance
without proper guarantees of their rights to privacy and selfdetermination can only exacerbate existing strained feelings.
"abused" by intrusive population censuses and other types of surveys affecting their land and activities.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
336
Utopianism Bad
The alternative fails- their totalizing claims about the state
prevent short-term solutions that are key to long-term success
Smucker 14 (John Smucker, The danger of fetishizing revolution. July 1, 2014.
http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/danger-fetishizing-revolution/. KLB)
If we project a totalizing imaginary-future moment onto our own situation,
we may also fixate on present-day moments that seem to carry the essence of our ideas about such an imagined
We may elevate ritualistic signifiers of revolutionary zeal above

winning real-world victories and above the patient construction of social
bases of collective power that could win bigger, more systemic we might
even say revolutionary changes. Revolution as apocalypse or as a
totalizing moment is highly related to utopianism . The practical implications of the two
concepts are equivalent. With both orientations a post-revolutionary, utopian vision of the future can
become the distorted lens through which to view the messy present. Nothing in
present society, including stepping-stone victories, can measure up to utopian
standards. It is as if the revolutionary or utopian dreamer is afraid of contaminating the purity of his or her
revolution.
vision with the grit of real life. In reality, the seeds of societys redemption the fits and starts of social justice
The job of effective change

agents is to identify and encourage these fits and starts; to awaken and empower
the better angels that we find in our histories and our contemporary cultures; to
claim and contest both history and culture, rather than try to build from scratch in
the ashes of an imaginary-future apocalypse. This is not at all to suggest that we give up on big
struggles are always manifest in the fabric of what already exists in society.
structural changes even including ultimately ending capitalism. To the extent that revolutionary means big
The problem here is not the radicalness of our

end goal; the problem is all-or-nothing apocalyptic thinking about political change in
the meantime. If the structures of society were to collapse tomorrow, why would society reconstruct itself in a
structural changes I am all for being revolutionary.
way that substantially differs from its present structure? A revolutionary social justice movement will not magically
A movement gains strength by organizing over time, by

showing more and more people that it can succeed. By winning small victories, it
begins to overcome popular resignation, awakening hope in people that it is
possible to fight for something and win that collective action gets the goods. If
a movement is incapable of winning even small things, why should anyone believe
it capable of winning a revolution of accelerating from zero to sixty in a mere
moment? Most people are not going to join our movement because they want to ride with us into the
ascend in the wake of catastrophe.
apocalypse; they join when they have enough reason to believe that the movement can act effectively as a vehicle
to bring about changes that matter to them. Its on us to show that this is indeed possible.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
337
Institutions Good
Their refusal to engage with institutions nullifies their
transformative politics- institutions are constantly developing
based around the power relationships that shape them. Only a
politic that recognizes the capacity for the subject to have
access to the levers of power can be transformative
Dussel, '11 (Enrique Dussel, He has acquired a doctorate in
philosophy in the Complutense University of Madrid and a
doctorate in history from the Sorbonne of Paris and has been
visiting professor at Notre Dame University, Duke University,
Harvard University, "From Critical Theory to the Philosophy of
Liberation: Some Themes for Dialogue", 2011)
Political action that seeks to change or transform the world inevitably confronts
institutions. In a situation of chaos or pure original dissidence (disidencia originaria), there can be
no transformation or dissent. To chaos one can only con-form, institutionalizing it
toward the permanence of life by way of this institutionalizing (instituyente)
power.76 Original dissidence, on the other hand, is death and non-power, because when there is no consensus
or agreement the powers-to-posit"77 of each member oppose and cancel out one another (and it is not possible to
The form of the

institution or consensus is open to change, to be trans-formed through a moment
of overcoming chaos with creative dissidence, into a higher form. To trans-form or
change is not simply to destroy: it is to de-construct in order to innovate and move
toward a better construction. Revolution is not only, or primarily, or principally destruction: it
means having a principle that orients the deconstruction just as much as it orients
the new construction (it is not the business of destroying everything, only that which is irretrievable). Those
create any mediation to sustain life). The starting point should be some sort of consensus.
who lack criteria and principles for a new construction (note that I am not saying a re-construction), are not
revolutionaries but simply destructive a2`nd barbaric .
It would not be possible for millions of

human beings to maintain and expand communal life without institutions.
Should we irrationally return to the Paleolithic era? No. We are dealing with the trans-formation (what Marx called
Veraenderung) of those institutions which began as lifeenhancing mediations, but which have since become
instruments of death, impediments to life, instruments of an exclusion which can be observed empirically in the cry
arising from the pain of the oppressed, the ones suffering under unjust institutions. Such entropically-repressive
institutions exercise a power-over 78 their victims, whose power-to-posit79 their own mediations is negated, and
whoare thereby repressed. Strategic action can have a principle, or fundamental political postulate, much like Marx
applied an economic postulate to the economic order, denoted negatively as the realm of freedom. Marx tells us: In
fact, the realm of freedom (Reich der Freiheit) actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity
and mundane considerations ceases80; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond (jenseits) the sphere of
actual material production.81 This beyond (jenseits) already suggests the transcendental character of an
empirical impossibility, but which is possible as we will see as a postulate. This postulate is defined as follows:
Freedom in this [economic] field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating
their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control (gemeinschaftliche), instead of being ruled by
it as by the blind forces of Nature. The ideal content of the postulate logically possible but empirically impossible
represents a principle for the material orientation of action. What is Marx thinking about here? I believe that he is
thinking (as he often does) of the late Kant (after the Critique of Judgment). Kant writes the following on the
question of perpetual peace: It follows that perpetual peace, the ultimate end of all international right, is an idea
incapable of realisation. But the political principles which have this aim, i.e. those principles which encourage the
formation of international alliances designed to approach the idea itself by a continual process, are not
impracticable. For this is a project based upon duty, hence also upon the rights of men and states.83 Kant calls
these regulative Ideas, principles for the orientation of action. Marx knows that the realm of freedom (zero work
time, a perfect economy, maximum free time) is empirically impossible, but it allows us to orient ourselves
according to the principle that in all action or institutional transformation we bear in mind a postulate in which the
workers under their common control [...] achiev[e] this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions
most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.84 However, all possible production not only capitalist,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
338
but also post-capitalist must empirically exist in a feasible economy, which is to say: But it nonetheless still
(immer) remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it (jenseits) begins that development of human energy which is an
end in itself, 85 the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as
its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite.86 If communism is the realm of freedom,87 it
is a postulate that helps to orient critical praxis and reflection. Thus, in order to understand the fetishized world,
one ought likewise to deploy the postulate of economic reason (which was only formulated later, in Capital): Let us
finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common
(gemeinschaftlichen), and expending their many different forms of labour-power in full self-awareness as one single
social labour force.88 In order to understand the concealment of meaning through which the commodity comes to
be autonomous from the value of its substance (living labor), Marx resorts to a postulate that allows him to
describe, by default, the commodity-fetish.89 But this postulate is likewise an orientation for all strategies for
partial or revolutionary transformation. Therefore, communism is not some empirical future moment in history, but
rather apostulate for practical orientation whose historical realization would be impossible. To attempt to realize
such a postulate historically is to open a breach for standard90 Marxism, which pulls the floor from under one's feet
and makes all feasible political-strategic action impossible. We should proceed in politics in the very same manner
The dissolution
of the state should be defined as a political postulate. To seek to bring this
about empirically leads to the anti-institutional fallacy, and the
impossibility of a critical, transformative politics. To say that we need to
transform the world without exercising power through institutions including the
state (which we need to radically transform, but not eliminate) is the fallacy into
which Negri and Holloway fall. The presently given institutions, and even the
particular state as a political macro-institution, are never perfect and always
require transformation. But there are moments in which institutions become diachronically repressive
that Marx proceeded in economics: working on the level of macro-institutional feasibility.
in the extreme, in their final entropic moment. Hegemony the consensus exercised over the obedient la
The state machinery,

in the service of the economic interests of the dominant classes in the postcolonial
metropolitan nations, become definitively repressive. The popular masses92 go on
gaining consciousness in proportion to level of their oppression. This accumulation
of power-to (potentia),93 which takes place partially in the exteriority of the
structures of the particular state but within the bosom of the people (which is not
without its contradictions), confronts the political institutions currently in force. It does so to
trans-form them (not necessarily for reforms94, but only rarely for revolution95), not necessarily to
Weber's legitimate domination91 gives rise to domination in the Gramscian sense.
destroy them (though it could if required by the postulates), but to use them and transform them according to its
ends and according to the degree of correspondence to the permanence and extension of life and symmetrical
The anti-institutionalist believes that the

destruction of the state represents an important victory on the path to revolution.
This sort of destruction is irrational. They have confused thedissolution of the state as a postulate
democratic participation of the oppressed people.
(empirically impossible, but functioning as a principle for strategic orientation) with its empirical negation. How are
we to understand the postulate of the dissolution of the state? Right-winged anarchism like that of Nozick
proposes the dissolution of the state or something close to under the guise of the minimal state. The unhindered
market produces equilibrium, especially in Hayek's formulation; for this, the minimal state needs only to destroy the
monopolies that impede the free movement of the market. A union seeking a wage increase is a monopoly, because
it places demands on the market that do not emanate from free competition. The duty of the state is therefore to
dissolve the union. In the service of this total market definition, the process of globalization as controlled by
transnational industrial and financial capital (not with hegemony, because this was lost in the move to the lastinstance use: the violent coercion of military power), equally proposes the dissolution or weakening of the particular
The postcolonial state -however much it may be

dominated by the private bureaucracies of the transnational corporations which
impose their own members onto the political bureaucracies of those states (and we
see, for example, a Coca-Cola distributor as president96) still represents the last possible
resistance for oppressed peoples. To dissolve or substantially weaken
their states is to take away their only possible defense. The second Iraq War
states in postcolonial peripheral nations.
represents a war against a particular postcolonial state that, however corrupt and dictatorial, nevertheless had a
certain degree of sovereignty and self-determination which interposed some resistance to the appropriation of its
petroleum by foreign companies.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
339
At Shift Aboard or Private Nonunique

Nonunique: private companies and other governments big into
surveillance now.
Hopkins and Taylor, Hopkins is the Guardians defense and security
correspondant and Taylor is former political strategy chief advisor to the PM of the
UK, 2013 (Nick and Matthew, Private firms selling mass surveillance systems
around world, documents show 11/18/2013,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/18/private-firms-mass-surveillancetechnologies)CQF
Private firms are selling spying tools and mass surveillance technologies to
developing countries with promises that "off the shelf" equipment will allow them to
snoop on millions of emails, text messages and phone calls , according to a cache of
documents published on Monday. The papers show how firms, including dozens from Britain, tout
the capabilities at private trade fairs aimed at offering nations in Africa, Asia and
the Middle East the kind of powerful capabilities that are usually associated with
government agencies such as GCHQ and its US counterpart , the National Security
Agency. The market has raised concerns among human rights groups and ministers, who are poised to announce
new rules about the sale of such equipment from Britain. "The government agrees that further regulation is
necessary," a spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said. "These products have
legitimate uses but we recognise that they may also be used to conduct espionage ." The
documents are included in an online database compiled by the research watchdog Privacy International, which has
spent four years gathering 1,203 brochures and sales pitches used at conventions in Dubai, Prague, Brasilia,
Washington, Kuala Lumpur, Paris and London. Analysts posed as potential buyers to gain access to the private fairs.
The database, called the Surveillance Industry Index, shows how firms from the UK,
Israel, Germany, France and the US offer governments a range of systems that allow
them to secretly hack into internet cables carrying email and phone traffic. The index
has details from 338 companies, including 77 from the UK, offering a total of 97 different technologies. One firm
says its "massive passive monitoring" equipment can "capture up to 1bn intercepts a day". Some offer cameras
hidden in cola cans, bricks or children's carseats, while one manufacturer turns cars or vans into surveillance
There is nothing illegal about selling such equipment, and the

companies say the new technologies are there to help governments defeat
terrorism and crime. But human rights and privacy campaigners are alarmed at the
sophistication of the systems, and worry that unscrupulous regimes could use them
as tools to spy on dissidents and critics.
control centres.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
340
AT Shift Aboard or Private Link Turn

No shift Das: The plan leads to international norms that
constrain all surveillance.
Lewis 14. (James Andrew Lewis is the Director and Senior Fellow of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Underestimating Risk in the Surveillance Debate. Center for Strategic and
International Studies. December 2014. http://csis.org/files/publication/141209_Lewis_UnderestimatingRisk_Web.pdf> MMG)
No president will take the risk of ending surveillance programs, but continuing them
without increasing oversight and transparency will erode public confidence and
trust. Surveillance programs create serious and legitimate concerns about oversight and constitutionality that
must be addressed by the Congress. Congress needs to modify the 1970s intelligence
oversight process to provide greater accountability on the size, scope, and accuracy
of domestic collection programs, and increase transparency for FISA (Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act) decisions. Much of what is secret could be made public in summary
form without harm to national security. The United Kingdom, for example, publishes an annual report on
surveillance programs that at a minimum makes the public aware of these activities and their scope .
Our goal
should be to increase accountability without an unacceptable increase in risk. Some
proposed measures would do the exact opposite. Adding a permanent advocate to the FISA Court,
for example, could return the United States to pre-9/11 gridlock for
counterterrorism. The United States should reconsider foreign espionage activities
in light of political risk and availability of other sources of information. We have not
adjusted intelligence collection to the information age, where the availability of intelligence reduces the need for
collection. Collection against some foreign targets can be eliminated without harm, given the availability of
The United States should also act to protect American

companies against retaliatory trade practices, where countries use surveillance as
an excuse to promote their own industries. Almost all countries approach communications
commercial information sources.
interception as an untrammeled privilege of the sovereign that requires little oversight or consent by citizens. This
needs to change, not just in the United States.
A good outcome would be to create an

initiative to develop international norms for responsible state behavior in
cyberspace that constrains surveillance by all actors and protects both
personal data and intellectual property.
Aff solves. Government surveillance is key to private

surveillance market.
Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst with the ACLUs Speech, Privacy and Technology
Project, 2004 (Jay, The Surveillance Industrial Complex: How the American
Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a
Surveillance Society August 2004,
https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf)
As disturbing as the government-sponsored informer programs are, even more
alarming is the governments recruitment of companies and other independent
organizations into its growing surveillance machinery. The Privacy Act of 1974,
although riddled with exceptions and loopholes, does restrict the ability of law
enforcement agencies to maintain dossiers on individuals who are not suspected of
involvement in wrongdoing.27 But the government is increasingly circumventing
those restrictions simply by turning to private companies, which are not subject to
the law, and buying or compelling the transfer of private data that it could not
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
341
collect itself. A long history of privatesector surveillance The U.S. government actually has a
long history of turning to the private sector for help in gathering information on
individuals. Examples include: The Western Goals Foundation. In Los Angeles ,
thousands of files on activists of all kinds were ordered destroyed in the wake of the
revelations of domestic spying in the 1970s. But in 1983 these raw intelligence files were
discovered hidden away in the garage of an LAPD detective, who had been sharing them with the Western Goals
Foundation, a Cold War anti-communist group that used the files to build private dossiers on progressive political
activists around the nation. Western Goals acted as a 8 THE SURVEILLANCE-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX The government
is increasingly circumventing those restrictions simply by turning to private companies. private clearinghouse of
dossiers on political activists from police agencies in different states collecting, disseminating and laundering
the sources of that information.28 The group circulated information much of it false and defamatory about those
activists not only to local police departments, but also to numerous federal police agencies including the Secret
The San Diego Research Library. In

another case, a retired military intelligence officer named Ralph H. van Deman
established a legendary data collection facility in California, which kept dossiers on
religious, labor, civil rights and other activist s. For over 30 years beginning in 1929, this private
Service, the FBI, the State Department and the CIA.29
facility, operated with the support of private donors, the state of California and the Army, maintained 200,000 files
based in part on confidential information provided by volunteer informers. The facility regularly exchanged material
with federal and state intelligence agencies, and thus served as a quasi-governmental intelligence agency.30
Operation Shamrock. Perhaps the ultimate example was the Cold War program
called Operation Shamrock, in which the major U.S. telegraph companies secretly
turned over to the NSA, every day, copies of all messages sent to or from the United
States.31 As described by reporter and author James Bamford, the program began in 1945 when the presidents
of the telegraph companies all agreed to participate after the government appealed to their patriotism. They took
part knowing that their actions were illegal and against the uniform recommendations of their own corporate
attorneys.32 When the carriers computerized their operations in the 1960s, Operation Shamrock gained the ability
the NSA increasingly began to

scan the nations telegraphs against long lists of surveillance targets provided to
the NSA by other security agencies including American anti-war and civil rights
protesters, and even such groups as the Quakers .33 The potential is greater today
But even abuses like Operation Shamrock pale in comparison to what is possible
with todays technology: Computer hardware and software is far more sophisticated. Unwieldy tape reels
to conduct keyword searches through each days traffic. At that point,
have been replaced by swift and massive hard drives, and software today can, with increasing reliability, transcribe
spoken words or analyze meaning based on the context of a communication. More business is conducted
electronically. Because of the convenience of cell phones, the Internet and other innovations, the amount of
business that Americans conduct via electronic communication has vastly increased. Corporations are gathering
Companies have discovered that information about

customers has enormous cash value and now have on hand cheap new
technologies for collecting, storing and sharing such data. Americans are increasingly finding
more data for their own reasons.
themselves pestered for personal 9 An ACLU Report The threat posed by government collection of third-party
information is far greater today than it would have been in the 1950s, or even the early 1990s. details at every turn,
or routinely tracked through stratagems like supermarket loyalty cards all for the purpose of building a financially
valuable record of their lifestyle and habits.34 The result of these developments is that the threat posed by the
systematic government collection of personal information held by corporations and other third parties is far greater
today than it would have been in the 1950s, or even the early 1990s. Many options for accessing private data The
bottom line is that the private sector is tracking more and more of our activities for its own purposes, and the
government is free to leverage this private collection as a way of extending its own powers of surveillance. The
government has an array of options for accessing third-party information. It can: sk for data to be shared
voluntarily. Simply buy information. Demand it, using legal powers granted by the Patriot Act and other laws.
Use laws and regulations to dictate how private-sector data is handled and stored in order to increase its
surveillance value for the government. Create regularized systems for standing access to records of private
Corporate compliance with government datasurveillance efforts ranges from

unwilling resistance to indifferent cooperation to eager participation to actual
lobbying of the government to increase such activitie s. But with a range of options at its
activities.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
342
disposal, the government can acquire a rich stream of information about private activities from any source. These
techniques add up to a startling advance in government monitoring of American life. Let us examine each of them.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
343
Nonviolence Turn
Data overwhelmingly show nonviolence is more effective. The
alt leads to an overwhelming state response and worse
violence.
Fisher 11/5/13 Max Fisher; Fisher is a former writer and editor at The Atlantic
and currently is a reporter for The Washington Post; Peaceful protest is much more
effective than violence for toppling dictators; http://goo.gl/TK0dWC
Political scientist Erica Chenoweth used to believe, as many do, that violence is the most reliable way to get rid of a
dictator. History is filled, after all, with coups, rebellions and civil wars. She didn't take public protests or other forms
of peaceful resistance very seriously; how could they possible upend a powerful, authoritarian regime? Then, as
Chenoweth recounts in a Ted Talk posted online Monday , she put together some data and was
surprised by what she found. "I collected data on all major nonviolent and violent
campaigns for the overthrow of a government or a territorial liberation since
1900," she says -- hundreds of cases. "The data blew me away." Here's her chart, which
pretty clearly suggests that nonviolent movements are much likelier to
work: And that trend is actually "increasing over time ," Chenoweth adds.
"Nonviolent campaigns are becoming increasingly successful ." Below is a chart of the
successful campaigns from 1940 to 2006. The data actually show a big rise in violent successes
in the 1970s and '80s, perhaps a product of both decolonization -- the departure of European powers from
sub-Saharan Africa was followed by a number of violent conflicts over power -- and the Cold War, in which U.S. and
But that trend has been

reversed significantly since the end of the Cold War, with nonviolent successes way
up. "Researchers used to say that no government could survive if just 5 percent of
the population rose up against it," Chenoweth says. "Our data shows the number may be
lower than that. No single campaign in that period failed after they'd achieved the
active and sustained participation of just 3.5 percent of the population ." She adds, "But
get this: every single campaign that exceeded that 3.5 percent point was a
nonviolent one. The nonviolent campaigns were on average four times larger than
the average violent campaigns." Of course, 3.5 percent is a lot of people. In, for example, Iran, it
Soviet backing might have helped push rebel movements toward success.
amounts to 2.7 million people. In China, it's 47 million people. Still, it does happen. It's not clear exactly how many
Egyptians protested in the February 2011 uprising that led to President Hosni Mubarak's downfall, but meeting the
2.9 million threshold doesn't sound unlikely. Chenoweth focuses a lot of her talk on the importance of getting 3.5
percent of the population to protest in order to bring down a government and why nonviolent resistance is the best
way to do that. I'd argue that the things that make nonviolence more effective than violence go beyond the
question of which is better at getting more people into the streets. I did my master's thesis on government
crackdowns on popular uprisings, which involved a lot of looking at these same phenomena. To be clear, I don't
have anything approaching Professor Chenoweth's expertise, and I looked at only about 30 cases compared to her
"hundreds." Still, I did find a few things that back up her argument that nonviolent resistance is more effective. One
about 50 percent more likely to fail if it turns to

violence. It seems to be the case that once protesters pick up guns, it
legitimizes the state's use of overwhelming violence in response. In other
words, security forces are much more likely to open fire -- and individual police or
soldiers are much more likely to follow that order -- if the opposition is shooting at them. That's
a human reaction, since people don't like to be shot at , but it also matters for the government's
thing I found is that an uprising becomes
internal politics. Uprisings can often cause a crisis of legitimacy within the government, particularly if the
relationship breaks down between the head of state and the military and/or security forces, which can in turn cause
that government to fall. The more violent the uprising, the more likely that it will internally unify the regime. Keep in
the state almost always has the military force at its disposal to crush just
about any uprising. This is particularly true since the end of World War I, after which most states acquired
mind that
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
344
tanks, machine guns and other tools that almost no rebel group could match on the battlefield. I found that an
uprising is half as likely to succeed if the military intervenes directly and that this far less likely to happen if the
Using violence also tends to reduce public support for an

uprising. Chenoweth thinks this is because a violent uprising is more physically
demanding and dangerous and thus scares off participants, but I'd add that violence
is controversial and can engender sympathy for police and soldiers at the other end
of dissidents' rifles. A violent uprising can end up polarizing people in
support of the government, whereas a government crackdown against a
nonviolent uprising will often reduce public support for the regime . Chenoweth goes on to
make an important point: Violent resistance movements, even if they do succeed,
can create a lot of long-term problems. "It turns out that the way you resist
matters in the long run, too," she says, explaining that her data suggest that
countries with nonviolent uprisings "were way more likely to emerge with
democratic institutions." They were also 15 percent less likely to "relapse" into civil
war. After all, a nonviolent movement is often inherently democratic, a sort of expression of mass public opinion
uprising remains nonviolent.
outside of the ballot box. A violent movement, on the other hand, no matter what its driving ideals, is all about
legitimizing power through force; it's not hard to see how its victorious participants would end up keeping power
primarily through violence, as well.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
345
Nonviolence Good Persuasion

Nonviolence is the only effective solution to persuade others
Gregg 84 Richard B. Gregg; Gregg was an American Social Philosopher who
started the noviolence movement. He influenced Martin Luther King, Jr. and Aldous
Huxley; The Power of Non-Violence (Pacifism); http://goo.gl/8KWZwK
WHAT MORE IS THERE about the subtle interplay of forces operating during the
struggle? For purposes of explanation, we may somewhat arbitrarily analyze and consider these forces in two
groups: those which are mainly unconscious and those which are mainly conscious. In operation they are all
we can understand the matter better by discussing these

processes as if they were separate. One of these processes is what psychologists
call suggestion. The conduct of the nonviolent resister suddenly presents the violent
assailant with these startling new ideas: that the dispute can be settled calmly and
amicably; that calm conduct is more dignified, more decent, more efficient, more worthy of
respect than violence; that there may be something in the world more powerful and desirable than physical
force; that the position of the attacker is much less favorable than he at first thought;
that perhaps the two parties are not really enemies after all . The attacker, at this
moment, is in a most receptive and suggestible state , as we pointed out in the previous
chapter. He is excited and, because of his wonder at the new ideas evoked by his
nonviolent opponent, his attention is spontaneously concentrated on these new
ideas. Under such conditions the process of suggestion acts most potently. It is well known that
suggestion, which is essentially a process of the unconscious ,(1) is both powerful
and lasting. The spectacle of bravely endured suffering along with all the surprises and uncertainty of the
situation, creates emotion in the attacker. If there is a crowd present, it tends to heighten his suggestibility. These
suggestions tend to change his inner attitude . Or we may state it thus. If you want to
conquer another man, do it not by outside resistance but by creating inside his own
personality a strong new impulse that is incompatible with his previous tendenc y.
inextricably mingled, but
Reinforce your suggestion by making it an auto-suggestion in him, so that it lives by his energy instead of by yours.
And yet that new impulse is not to conflict directly with his former urge, but to divert and blend with it and absorb
it, so as to use the full psychological energy of both impulses. That is the wisest psychological dynamics and moral
strategy. The new ideas in the astonishing situation tend strongly to stimulate the attacker's imagination. The
Nancy school of psychology maintains that imagination and suggestion together are much stronger than conscious
will power, so that if a person consciously wills and thinks that he desires to accomplish a given purpose, while his
imagination is filled with ideas of his inability to accomplish it or of some contrary desire, then he will surely fail in
the task. Baudouin states it as the law of reversed effort. He says, When the will and imagination are at war, the
If this be so, it may be that the ideas thus suggested

to the attacker gradually capture his imagination and conquer his will to de-feat the
victim by violence. The Freudians show how much more powerful is a repressed wish than an opposing
imagination invariably gains the day(2)
conscious desire. Possibly a suggestion acting imaginatively in the subconscious is as powerful as a repressed wish.
The sight of a person voluntarily undergoing suffering for a belief or an ideal moves
the assailant and beholders alike and tends to change their hearts and
make them feel a kinship with the sufferer. There are two reasons for this. First, our
ancestors from the dawn of life have suffered pain and deprivation so extensively
and intensely in the long course of evolution that suffering is very familiar to our
entire nervous system. Indeed, it is almost habitual to the human species. Probably the nervous system is
more responsive to stimuli associated with pain than to any other type of stimulus. Hence the sight of
suffering causes an involuntary sympathetic response in the nervous system of the
beholder, especially in the autonomic nervous system. The response may be inhibited or crusted over by custom,
prejudice or hostile emotions, but it is there, nevertheless, at least in the subconscious. Therefore,
the
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
346
spectacle of a nonviolent resister submitting voluntarily to bodily suffering for the

sake of his cause rouses feelings of sympathy in the onlooker . If the sight is pro-longed or
frequently repeated, the effect is all the stronger. There seems to be a social as well as an individual subconscious,
A related process affecting the attacker is

unconscious imitation. Imitation is a basic means of communication by which we
learn to talk and walk, learn skilled manual trades, pick up gestures and postures of our elders, follow our leaders
through which such feelings would function.^)
a limitless range of conduct. It lasts throughout life. Rivers tells us that "unwitting imitation is the most
When an attacker watches his victim's actions and comes to respect his
courage, be it ever so little, he begins unconsciously to imitate him and thus his anger
effective(4)
tends to subside. The James-Lange theory of the emotions adds weight to this conjecture. For reasons already
considered, the peaceful contestant is less likely to be influenced to-ward violence by suggestion and imitation.
(5,6,7) War, according to Clausewitz, the great military strategist, is a constant case of reciprocal action, the
effects of which are mutual..(8) Again, Lieut-General von Caemmerer, in his Development of Strategical Science,
says, Every action in war is saturated with mental forces and effects. . . . War is a constant reciprocal effect of
action of both parties(9) This is true also of a conflict between individuals. This factor of imitation also helps
explain the futility of violence as a means of solving conflicts. Suppose A attacks B, and B responds with violence.
While part of B's response is purely instinctive and defensive, part of it also is unconscious imitation of A. So anger,
resentment, hatred and revenge, in the process of reciprocal imitative violence, mount higher and enter more
tensely into the personalities of the combatants, consuming all their energies, to the point of utter exhaustion or
destruction. Nonviolent resistance is a means of communicating feelings and ideas. It uses facial expressions, bodily
gestures and the tone of voice, just as in all personal communication. In prolonged situations it may also use writing
and printing. Its means of expression are as ample as those of any language. Even in situations where words can be
used little or not at all, conduct, as indicated above, itself may be a rapid, accurate, and efficient means of
communication. (10) Nevertheless, the ideas to be conveyed are so unusual that the understanding of them by the
recipient may be slow or incomplete. At first and perhaps for some time, the understanding will be more emotional
than intellectual. Therefore, the success of the communication does not depend upon the extent of formal or book
education of either party to the conflict. The idea itself is no more complex than that of war, for both involve
discipline and control. In waging war, fear must be controlled, while anger is deliberately intensified and directed
against the enemy; in nonviolent resistance, both anger and fear are controlled. Both anger and fear are elemental
and similar emotions, and one control is no more complex than the other, nor are the ideas to be conveyed in either
case. There is both an emotional and an intellectual element to be transmittedboth feelings and ideas. There will
be difficulties arising from the unusualness of the feelings and ideas, but no more difficulties arising from
inadequacy of means than in the case of any other sort of language.(11) Another largely unconscious process at
work is the creative power of trust and expectation evinced by the nonviolent resister. He tries to give concrete and
repeated evidence of his trust in the decency and reasonableness of the violent attacker, and of his expectation
that this fine spirit, perhaps only latent at the start, will grow stronger until it informs, controls, and changes the
assailant into nonviolent and kindly ways. This belief gives the resister hope, and he acts and holds himself in an
attitude of expectancy and trust. Trust is subtly but powerfully creative. An example of this was shown by Gandhi in
going to the second Round Table Conference at London in 1931. Although no results of it were then visible in the
British government, there is evidence of considerable effect upon numerous persons who met Gandhi privately at
that time.(12) Psychologists tell us that the greater part of our mind is subconscious, beneath the surface, just as
the preponderant bulk of an ice-berg exists unseen below the water level. Forces that operate upon a person's
subconscious, whether of suggestion, imagination-stimulus, imitation, communication or trust, have a greater effect
than forces that operate only or chiefly upon the conscious mind and conscious feelings. This presumably holds true
of a group as well as of an individual. The analogy may be carried further. When an iceberg drifts into warm waters
the submerged part gradually melts, showing little change above the water level. But after the melting underneath
has gone far enough, sometimes the entire iceberg suddenly turns over and thereafter looks entirely different. Such
sudden reversals can also occur in people as a result of forces acting a long time on the sub-conscious. It is not a
miracle, but merely an instance of the operation of forces which we usually ignore. The analogy would tend to
explain in part some of the impressive results of Gandhi's march to the sea in 1930, to make salt in defiance of the
The total effect of these psychological processes taking place in

the mind and heart of the violent opponent can best be described by the word
"conversion." Probably the process is analogous to that of religious conversion, though in this case the
change is moral rather than religious. The process may be explained as follows: Every civilized person
possesses in either his conscious or subconscious mind a store of elementary moral
memories. Some of these are myths, fables, stories or other fictitious events which, as a child, he took for
British government.
realities; some are moral relationships or moral standards impressed upon the individual at various stages in his
development. Some of these have been repressed because they were inconsistent with subsequent courses of
conduct. Others have been forgotten simply from lack of use or lack of attention. Each such residue of former
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
347
beliefs or impressions is composed of representational, emotional and motor factors associated into a unit, and
During a prolonged struggle between

a nonviolent resister and his opponent, the psychological processes which we have
described, together with the emotional and moral perturbation caused thereby, apparently recall to
consciousness some of the forgotten elemental fragments of moral memories ,
dissociate some of the complexes that have been controlling the opponent's
conduct, transfer their emotional tone and psychic energy to some of the revived
memories and form new combinations. Along with this shifting of the representational, feeling and
each of these units seems to have more or less psychic energy.
motor factors of the psychic units, and their reassociation into new constellations, the experiences of the struggle
also tend to induce in the attacker a sublimation of his desires and energies, lifting them to a more social level,
redirecting them in a more inclusive synthesis in which they can be reconciled with the ideals of human
association." Nonviolent resistance in complete form is a dramatization of the idea of essential human unity.
it works upon the mind and heart of the

opponent. In this drama the movement and confronting of ideas and forces causes in both the opponent and the
Therefore, with all the subtle power of genuine drama,
spectator a clearer and profounder realization of human relations, a reconciliation of impulses and an illumination,
enlargement and enrichment of consciousness. It brings about a more highly organized and more delicately
balanced synthesis of the elements in the spectator's experience, an inner organization "less wasteful of human
It reveals the power of the human spirit to

triumph over suffering and apparent disaster . The psychological nature of nonviolent resistance
possibilities" than that which prevailed in him before.
may well be considered a form of what Rivers calls "manipulative activity." In discussing different modes of reaction
to danger, he says: In the presence of danger, man, in the vast majority of cases, neither flees nor adopts an
attitude of aggression, but responds by the special kind of activity, often of a highly complex kind, whereby the
danger may be avoided or overcome. From most of the dangers to which man-kind is exposed in the complex
conditions of our own society, the means to escape lie in complex activities of a manipulative kind which seem to
justify the term I have chosen. The hunter has to discharge his weapon, perhaps combined with movements which
put him into a favourable situation for such an action. The driver of a car and the pilot of an aeroplane in danger
of collision have to perform complex movements by which the danger is avoided.(15) We may say that nonviolent
resistance is a sort of moral manipulative activity in which the factors used and operated upon are largely
psychological. It may clarify our thinking somewhat to remember that we are not considering two static entities, an
angry person versus a kindly person. We are dealing with two natures and an environment, each of which is mobile
and changing, constantly acting on the other, influencing, changing, then responding to the new condition thus
Another process develops after the struggle has proceeded for some time,
namely, that of reassuring the violent party . Much of the latter's original basis of
anger or fear is removed. He finds that the resister does not bear enmity toward him, that at least his
created (16)
"better self and potentialities are respected instead of humiliated. He finds his original desires so illuminated and
transmuted that in their new form they may be more easily satisfied.
He finds the resister always ready
to negotiate, always showing and inviting him to take a dignified way by which he, the assailant, may quickly
regain his self-respect and public esteem. Since he has been provided with a satisfactory road for action, he is not
Then comes the stage of what is known

as "integration." In a very thoughtful book, Creative Experience, M. P. Follett shows that either voluntary
left with what Graham Wallas called a "balked disposition."
submission of one side, struggle and victory of one side over the other, or a compromise, are all highly
Integration is
arrived at by first analyzing the expressed desires of the opponents into their
underlying, fundamental meanings. To take a simple case, an insistence on having a table in a certain
unsatisfactory and productive of further trouble. She then explains a fourth way, "integration.^)
place in a room might really mean a wish to have light on one's writing while working at the table, together with an
inability to see how it could be secured in any other way. An individual's insistence upon following a given trade
may mean a need for employment, a desire for money, and a desire to satisfy pride. A nation's insistence upon
political control of a certain territory may mean a need for food and industrial raw material, a desire to satisfy pride,
and an inability to see how the satisfaction of these needs can be made wholly secure in any other way. In each
integration consists of working out a wholly new solution , perhaps involving very
which satisfies all or most of the fundamental desires and needs of
both parties in a situation, and utilizes freely and fully the energies of both without
balking or suppression. The integration requires preliminary analysis, then the invention of a new solution
case,
different activities,
which gives free scope to the energies of all parties concerned. Inevitably the solution is satisfying all around. It
takes much creative intelligence and ingenuity to find integrations, and not all differences can be integrated
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
348
immediately. Temporary compromises can be made, however, pending further search and alterations due to
passage of time, ending in an ultimate integration.(18) In this connection it is well to remember the importance of
love. Love for an opponent makes possible a sympathetic appreciation of the real meaning of his apparent needs,
contentions, positions and de-sires, and implies a willingness to approach them open-mindedly, creating the right
atmosphere for an integration of both one's own and the opponent's interests to a higher plane of action. Love also
induces a frame of mind in the opponent which leads him to understand your needs, contentions, etc. And it shows
the opponent that you are so appreciative of his side of the case that he can safely trust you. The principle of
integration indicates that, as a method, nonviolent resistance does not by itself necessarily settle all the conflict. It
may be said to solve most of the emotional part-the fear, anger, pride, etc.while the rest of the conflict may have
to be solved by keen and perhaps prolonged intellectual exploration, with the new emotional attitude always at its
elbow to help over the tight places. All this ebb and flow of feeling and action and discussion may take place in
different order from that described above. Its temper and intensity may vary according to the circumstances and
character of the persons involved. It might take a considerable time to work through. Between sensitive persons the
course of feelings and actions might be almost instantaneous. With a very proud or self-deceiving person, or a
hardened soldier or policeman as attacker, the actual violence might be severe, repeated and lasting before the
change of attitude or heart of the attacker would come about. Yet even among such attackers the surprise and
wonder would often be so great as to cause a far quicker about-face and solution than might at first be expected.
When a solution is found, there is satisfaction and good feeling, a finer attitude and
action not only among the participants to the struggle but among all the onlookers
and public. To have the finer potentialities of men flower forth and bear fruit
enhances the morale of all who learn of it.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
349
Nonviolence Good Human Nature

Nonviolence is human nature; anything else can only create
problems as it solves them
Gyatso 90 Tenzin Gyatso; Gyatso is the fourteenth Dali Lama and an advocate
for peace; The Global Community and The Need for Universal Responsibility;
http://goo.gl/DppX4l
Every day the media reports incidents of terrorism, crime and aggression . I have never
been to a country where tragic stories of death and bloodshed did not fill the newspapers and airwaves. Such
But the overwhelming

majority of the human race does not behave destructively; very few of the five
billion people on this planet actually commit acts of violence. Most of us prefer to be
as peaceful as possible. Basically, we all cherish tranquility, even those of us given to
violence. For instance, when spring comes, the days grow longer, there is more sunshine, the grass and trees
reporting has become almost an addiction for journalists and their audiences alike.
come alive and everything is very fresh. People feel happy. In autumn, one leaf falls, then another, then all the
beautiful flowers die until we are surrounded by bare, naked plants. We do not feel so joyful. Why is this? Because
we desire constructive, fruitful growth and dislike things collapsing, dying

or being destroyed. Every destructive action goes against our basic nature; building,
being constructive is the human way . I am sure everybody agrees that we need to
overcome violence, but if we are to eliminate it completely, we should first analyze
whether or not it has any value. If we address this question from a strictly practical
perspective, we find that on certain occasions violence indeed appears useful. One
can solve a problem quickly with force. At the same time, however, such success is
often at the expense of the rights and welfare of others. As a result, even though
one problem has been solved, the seed of another has been planted . On the other
hand, if one's cause is supported by sound reasoning, there is no point in using
violence. It is those who have no motive other than selfish desire and who cannot achieve their goal through
deep down,
logical reasoning who rely on force. Even when family and friends disagree, those with valid reasons can cite them
one after the other and argue their case point by point, whereas those with little rational support soon fall prey to
anger: Thus anger is not a sign of strength but one of weakness.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
350
AT US too Oppressive for Nonviolence to Work

Even when controlling for how oppressive a regime is,
nonviolence is still twice as effective as violence.
Lyubansky 3/12/14 Mikhail Lyubansky; Lyubansky has a Ph.D. in psychology
and is a member of teaching faculty at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign; Is Nonviolence Effective?; https://goo.gl/tpdDcb
One of the great debates among social scientists has been whether nonviolence is effective, particularly at the level
of large groups and nation states. Perhaps since the dawn of civilization, the nearly unanimous consensus has been
that nonviolence is a wonderful ideal, but that if one wants to achieve results, violence is the means to choose.
Nonviolence, it is said, is the weapon of the weak, to be employed only when violent options seem totally out of
reach. Advocates of nonviolence have responded in two ways: 1) challenging the notion of ineffective outcomes and
2) challenging the appropriateness of using effectiveness as the primary criterion for evaluating the strategy of
evidence has been mounting

over the last century that nonviolence may, in fact, be more effective than violence .
Aldous Huxley made this argument as early as 1937 in his book Ends and Means. Gene Sharp and his
associates amassed hundreds of historical examples of effective nonviolent action
against authority and have, as noted previously, laid out a theoretical explanation
for the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance . For a more popular audience, Peter Ackerman and
nonviolence. Nonviolence sculpture From a social science perspective,
Jack Duvall (2000) documented the history of Twentieth Century Nonviolence in a PBS series and accompanying
book, entitled A Force More Powerful. Their subsequent DVD, Bringing Down a Dictator, tells the story of the
overthrow of Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, by a nonviolent campaign led by the group Otpor![i] many of
whose leaders had been trained in Gene Sharps techniques. Why Civil Resistance Works Perhaps the most
who assembled a
comprehensive data set of 323 violent and nonviolent campaigns between
1900 and 2006. They found that nonviolent campaigns were nearly twice
as likely to achieve full or partial success as were violent campaigns and that
the advantage for nonviolent campaigns held even when controlling for
the authoritarianism of the regime. Nonviolent campaigns turned out to be
more effective for both regime change and resistance to foreign occupation. The only
convincing study to date is that of Chenoweth and Stephan (2011),
purpose for which nonviolent campaigns were not more successful than violent ones was political secession
(notably, the secession analysis included only four nonviolent campaigns). Chenoweth and Stephan concluded that
nonviolent campaigns were more successful because the costs of participating in

them were lower than for violent campaigns (e.g., taking up arms or supporting rebels), and,
therefore, participation was higher and from a broader range of people, leading to
more diverse strategies. They also concluded that defections from the regime were more likely in the face
of nonviolent campaigns because of regime participants perceptions that they would be more likely to be
welcomed and less likely to be subject to reprisals in nonviolent campaigns. Notably, they conclude from their data
that nonviolent
campaigns succeed against democracies and nondemocracies, weak

and powerful opponents, conciliatory and repressive regimes . Thus, conditions shapebut do
not predeterminethe capacity for a nonviolent resistance to adapt and gain advantage under even the direst of
circumstances (p. 221). A second response to the question of effectiveness, common among nonviolence
advocates with a spiritual perspective, is to challenge the very notion of effectiveness as rooted in an industrial
mindset. The very notion of effectiveness is seen as a sort of hubris. Opposed to effectiveness is the idea of
fruitfulness, drawn from an agricultural metaphor. Here, ones duty is not to be effective, but to be faithful, to
plant seeds. How those seeds may develop is largely outside of ones controlin Gods hands, many would say. A
common illustration of fruitfulness is the story of Franz Jagerstatter, an Austrian peasant who was imprisoned and
eventually executed for refusing induction into Hitlers army during World War II. His efforts were utterly ineffective
he did not save a single victim of the Nazis. His story would have been utterly forgotten had it not been for
Gordon Zahn, an American WWII conscientious objector turned sociologist, who chanced upon it while doing
research for another book. Zahn published a biography of Jagerstatter, entitled In Solitary Witness in 1964. The
book eventually came into the hands of Daniel Ellsberg, influencing him to release what became known as The
Pentagon Papers. Thus, a nonviolent action which had no discernible effect at the time it was performed played a
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
351
role in shaping the course of the Vietnam War two decades later. Another example, which combines effectiveness
and fruitfulness, is the story of Le Chambon, a primarily Huguenot village in Vichy France, which, under the
leadership of pastor Andre Trocme and his wife Magda, sheltered hundreds of Jewish refugees under the eyes of the
Vichy police and later the Nazis. They were effective in saving hundreds of lives, but they were also fruitful. As the
story became known, largely through Philip Hallies book Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed (1979), their example
inspired many faith communities during the 1980s to shelter Central American refugees who were being deported
(sometimes resulting in their death) by the Reagan Administrations Immigration and Naturalization Service
nonviolence has been shown to be more

effective than violence in overthrowing repressive regimes and in resisting foreign
occupation. Perhaps more importantly, it has the potential to be fruitful over the
long term. But what does nonviolence actually look like, what kind of impact might it achieve, and what role
(Davidson 1998; Golden and McConnell 1986). Thus,
might psychologists play in nonviolent actions and movements? Read the full chapter titled "Toward a Psychology of
Nonviolence" in Toward a Socially Responsible Psychology for a Global Era (link is external), published by Springer
Press.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
352
Bitcoin Link Turn

Cryptocurrency specifically helps indigenous populations by
creating stable sovereignty external to major powers.
Ramos 14. Writer for NPR. A Native American Tribe Hopes Digital Currency Boosts Its Sovereignty. MARCH
07, 2014. http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/03/07/287258968/a-native-american-tribe-hopes-digitalcurrency-boosts-its-sovereignty. MMG)
There's a lot of talk about virtual currencies lately how they work, economic implications and whether they're
Native American tribe is using a bitcoin-like currency to help strengthen

its sovereignty. In South Dakota, the Oglala Lakota Nation has become the first Native
American tribe to launch its own form of virtual currency . Payu Harris, its creator, calls it
safe. But now a
mazacoin. Mazacoin does work a lot like the already famous bitcoin: You can either buy it with dollars or (virtually)
mine it. And then you can use it to trade for goods at places that accept it. (If you've been ignoring bitcoin, this
there are different ways in which

mazacoin can help the Lakota Nation but his main motivation for creating it was
enhancing the tribe's independence. "I'm sure everyone's aware that there are a lot of unresolved
treaty issues for Native American tribes," Harris says. "So by having our own sovereign cryptocurrency, that helps build on a foundation to enhance the sovereignty we have
and just strengthen it for the future ." The Oglala Lakota are one of the seven tribes that make up the
handy explainer is for you.) Harris, a developer and activist, says
Lakota people. Lakota Nation is a considered a semi-autonomous state, but since the 1970s, there have been
activists advocating for its recognition as a fully independent nation. Harris says part of the inspiration for the
currency came from a talk he had with his uncle about seven years ago: His uncle had proposed the idea of having
an independent physical currency for the "breakaway Republic of Lakota." But Harris actually sees mazacoin as
more of a link between all Native American tribes and other people with similar interests. "We don't want it to be
Like other crypto-currencies, it's open," he says. "We embrace usage

by everyone. We have users in the Balkan states, Ukraine, Russia and Serbia, South
America, all parts of North America." Harris also thinks mazacoin can help ease the
community's economic struggles. He says it could help the tribal government raise
revenue for social programs, and even stimulate business. But virtual currencies are still largely
just for the Lakota.
unexplored territory. Many are skeptical about whether mazacoin can have a significant economic impact. Pete
Earle, chief economist of Humint, a firm that develops crypto-currencies, says mazacoin can provide the Lakota
Tribe with a new spectrum of economic possibilities. "These currencies can be used to incentivize participation, to
create asset accounts, or to formalize agreements," Earle says. "Essentially
the only limitation to be
made is the limitation of imagination." Earle says the Lakota could even use mazacoin as a way of
rewarding outside groups that support the tribe's best interests. But he points out that for the
currency to have any value, there has to first be a market for it. Developing a
market where folks actually use a crypto-currency is tricky , says Mike Hearn, a bitcoin
developer. Generating demand for mazacoin can actually be the initiative's central obstacle especially if what it
offers is not too different from other crypto-currencies. "I think it's fine, but only if you have some technical
advantage that can't just be added onto bitcoin itself," Hearn says. "In other cases, just taking Bitcoin and
rebranding doesn't seem useful." Payu Harris concedes that mazacoin's user base is still rather small (in fact, he
described it as "a trickle"), but he's optimistic that the ideals behind it will be enough to entice potential buyers. He
he counts on outsiders who sympathize with the project's motivation to

participate in the mazacoin trade. "By mining the coin and being involved with the mazacoin
says
community you're helping out with the sovereign power of tribal communities," Harris says. And while he
acknowledges that even getting tribe members to fully embrace mazacoin might require some time, he is working
on educating folks so that they can take advantage of it. One of his projects consists of creating a program that
would teach young people how to trade crypto-currencies. And according to Harris, informing people opening
them up to possibility is what the initiative is ultimately about. "The first thing is to focus on home and get our
own people to realize the value of it; to become inspired and to start dreaming again," Harris says.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
353
Foucault No Link/Prerequisite
Foucaults Critique of colonialism is already present in his analysis of
biopolitical racism. The affirmative is a prerequisite towards any
analysis of colonialism.
Stoler 95 (Ann Laura Stoler, Willy Brandt Distinguished University Professor of
Anthropology and Historical Studies at the The New School for Social Research in
New York City, Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault's History of Sexuality and
the Colonial Order of Things, Chapter III: Toward a Genealogy of Racisms, 1995)
Within this modern biopolitical state, the sovereign right to kill appears in new form;
as an "excess" of biopower that does away with life in the name of securing it (TM:S2).
The death penalty serves as his example in The HiStory of Sexuality (HS: 137-138) and the atom bomb in the
Foucault returns to the problem of racism and to a basic paradox

of a biopolitical state: how does this disciplinary and regulatory power over life
permit the right to kill, if this is a power invested in augmenting life and the quality
of it? How is it possible for this political power " to kill, to give the order to kill, to expose to death not only its
lectures 52) From both,
enemies but even its own citizens? How to exercise the power of death in a political system centered on biopower"
this is the point where racism intervenes. It is not that all racisms
are invented at this moment. Racisms have existed in other forms at other times: Now, "what inscribes
racism in the mechanisms of the state is the emergence ofbiopower. ... racism inscribes itself as a
fundamental mechanism of power that exercises itself in modern states " (TM:S3). What
does racist discourse do? For one, it is a "means of introducing ... a fundamental diviSion
between those who must live and those who must die " (TM: S3). It fragments the biological
(TM:S2)? For Foucault,
field, it establishes a break (ctsUle) inside the biological continuum of human beings by defining a hierarchy of
races, a set of subdivisions in which certain races are classified as " good,"
fit, and superior. More
importantly, it establishes a positive relation between the right to kill and the assurance of life. It posits that " the
more you kill [and] let die, the more you will live ." It is neither racism nor the state that invented
this connection, but the permanency of war-like relations inside the social body. Racism now activates this
discourse in a novel way, establishing a biological confrontation between "my life
and the death of others" (TM:53). It gives credence to the claim that the more "degenerates" and
"abnormals" are eliminated, the lives of those who speak will be stronger, more vigorous, and improved. The
enemies are not political adversaries, but those identified as external and internal
threats to the population. "Racism is the condition that makes it acceptable to put
[certain people] to death in a society of normalization " (TM:54). The murderous function of the
biopolitical state can only be assured by racism which is "indispensable" to it (TM:54). Several crucial phenomena
One is evident in the knot that binds nineteenth-century biological

theory and the discourse of power: Basically, evolutionism understood in the broad sense, that is not
follow from this.
so much Darwin's theory itself but the ensemble of [its 1 notions. has become ... in the nineteenth century, not only
a way of transcribing political discourse in biological terms .... of hiding political discourse in scientific dress, but
way of thinking the relations of colonization, the necessity of war. criminality, the
phenomena of madness and mental illness ... (TM:SS). In addition, racism will develop in
modern societies where biopower is prevalent and particularly at certain "privileged
points" where the right to kill is required, "primo with colonization, with colonizing "
How else, Foucault rhetorically asks, could a biopohtical state kill "peoples, a population, civilizations" if not by
Colonialism is only mentioned in

passing because what really concerns him is not racism's legitimating function to
kill "others," but its part in justifying the "exposure of one's own citizens" to death
activating the "themes of evolutionism" and racism (TM:SS).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
354
and war. In modern racist discourse, war does more than reinforce one's own kind
by eliminating a racial adversary; it "regenerates" one's own race (TM:S6).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
355
Colonial violence is a result of disciplinary power structures

Barker 11 (Joanne Barker, Professor of American Indian Studies at San Francisco
State University, Native Acts: Law, Recognition, and Cultural Authenticity,
https://books.google.com/books/about/Native_Acts.html?id=cjzvkiNPlCsC)
This book does not offer a case study or other disciplinary exegesis of the laws that have concerned Native legal
status and rights, even as those laws are a critical focus of it.' Instead ,
following the methodological

approaches of such poststmcturalists as Michel Foucault (1975, 1977) and Stuart
Hall (Morley and Chen I996), l analyze how federal and tribal laws arbitrating the
tenns and conditions of Native status and rights work in the ongoing processes of
social formation. This does not mean that I consider the law to be ahistoric. But contrary to Aristotelian
philosophy, I do not treat the law as canonic or as an integral, isolated whole . The law cannot govern
from on high or in the abstract, and it is not politically disinterested. The law is a
discourse that operates in historically contingent and meaningful ways, articulated
to other discourses ideologically,strategically, and irrationally. lt informs the constitution
and character of the relations of power and knowledge between Native peoples and the United States, and within
Native communities. lneluctably, the law enables the state to subject groups and individuals to its authority
It occurs through the knowledge

the state claims about its subjects, engulfing them under its jurisdiction as police,
judges, criminals, terrorists, victims, inmates, guards, ex-cons, and parole oiccrs
(Althus- ser 197:). It occurs through the institutionalization of that knowledge in
mechanisms of regulation like . fines, and incarceration (Ross 1998; Davis 2.003).
And it occurs through the privatization and diusion of the state's control
throughout multiple sewice sectors and routine administrative procedures (Ong
1995). These processes normalize the state's domination, even or especially in the
context of criticisms of its failures to meet the demands of public safety and
national security, requiring still further controls to improve its operations .
(Foucault 1979; Hunt and Wickam 1994). This occurs in multiple ways.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
356
Foucault Root Cause

Biopolitical surveillance provided the founding and
continuation for settler colonialism, means aff is necessary to
solve.
Monaghan 13 (Jeff Monaghan, phd candidate at Queens university, like to
research surveillance, Settler Governmentality and Racializing Surveillance in
Canadas North-West, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 2013)
Race and racialization are central components to colonial surveillance practices .
Scholars have noted how colonial authorities develop systems of identification,
categorization, and enumeration that become surveillant infrastructures for the
biopolitical management of colonial populations (Cohn 1996; Hacking 1982; Smith 1985). As
techniques of colonial governance, surveillance practices not only aim to manage indigenous
populations, but tend to produce racial subjectivities according to prefabricated
typologies and normative demarcations held by settler societies . Scholarship on Orientalism
has detailed how race was constructed through the colonial imagination of occidental gaze, and many of these
fantasies and manifestations of colonial power were central to the construction of indigeneity in North America
(Francis 1992; Lawrence 2004). As Keith Smith (2009:4) has noted, colonial governance and the expansion of
liberalism (particularly through the Canadian prairies) was premised on ways of knowing Indigenous peoples
and their territories, [and] was facilitated and fashioned by means of surveillance. Contributing to literature that
Foucauldian understanding of race, racialization, and settler colonialism , I

surveillance was an important component in the efforts of the
Canadian government to eliminate indigenous opposition to settler colonial
expansion in the North-West. Examining correspondence materials that immediately predate the 1885
develops a
demonstrate how
Rebellion, I explore how surveillance practices contributed to processes of racialization that underwrote the radical
transformations forced on indigenous people of the North-West. Simone Browne (2012:73) uses the term
racializing
surveillance to describe how things get ordered racially to uphold

colonial Othering practices that seek to structure social relations and institutions in
ways that privilege Whiteness. In the context of the North-West, surveillance was necessary for
identifying indigenous peoples and sorting them based on their adoption of, or
resistance to, practices of European liberalism imposed by the Canadian settler
state. As settler colonialism was seen as the civilized progression of European reason, colonial surveillance
practices necessitated a vigilant gaze towards traces of indigeneity that marked
deviant behaviour from, or dangerous threats towards, the expansion of settler
governance
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
357
Feminism Link Turn

A feminist analysis is necessary to understand how colonialism
and white supremacists logics of surveillance are structured by
heteropatriarchy. This allows certain populations to be deemed
rapeable, which is a form of ontological violence.
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 Straight? and Scott Morgensen's Spaces Between Us call attention
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 Rifkin and Morgensen
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 individual 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 constantly marked
and policed. Through this surveillance, native peoples become racialized "Indians"
who are managed through the politics of biopower (Rifkin 2011). Of course, as racialized
subjects, native nations still constitute a threat to the well-being of the colonial
state and hence are never properly heteronormative. 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 administered through government policy, rather
than seen as a continuing political threat requiring ongoing military intervention. In
addition, 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. Indigenous colonization is then
achieved through sexual regulation, such as sexual acts of terror (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 surveillance
and regulation of native peoples. As I have argued elsewhere, sexual violence was 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
to the heteropatriarchal nature of colonial bio/ necropolitics. That is,
assertion that "the focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
358
these strategies were

foundational to the settler state that required the gendered
reclassification of the people from various indigenous nations into
"Indians."
management, protection or direction" preceded the rise of the bureaucratic state,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
359
AT Ontology/Epistemology
Prefer specific explanations to generalizations about
ontology/epistemology.
David Owen, Professor of Political Theory @ University of Southampton, 2002, Reorienting International Relations: On Pragmatism, Pluralism and Practical
Reasoning, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 31.3 Pgs. 655-657
Commenting on the philosophical turn in IR, Wver remarks that [ a]
frenzy for words like

epistemology and ontology often signals this philosophical turn, although he
goes on to comment that these terms are often used loosely.4 However, loosely deployed or not, it is clear that
debates concerning ontology and epistemology play a central role in the contemporary IR theory wars. In one
respect, this is unsurprising since it is a characteristic feature of the social sciences that periods of disciplinary
disorientation involve recourse to reflection on the philosophical commitments of different theoretical approaches,
and there is no doubt that such reflection can play a valuable role in making explicit the commitments that
characterise (and help individuate) diverse theoretical positions. Yet,
such a philosophical turn is not
without its dangers and I will briefly mention three before turning to consider a confusion that has, I will
suggest, helped to promote the IR theory wars by motivating this philosophical turn. The first danger with the
it has an inbuilt tendency to prioritise issues of ontology

and epistemology over explanatory and/or interpretive power as if the latter two
philosophical turn is that
were merely a simple function of the former. But while the explanatory and/or interpretive power of a theoretical
account is not wholly independent of its ontological and/or epistemological commitments (otherwise criticism of
it is by no means clear that it is, in

contrast, wholly dependent on these philosophical commitments . Thus, for example,
one need not be sympathetic to rational choice theory to recognise that it
can provide powerful accounts of certain kinds of problems, such as the tragedy of
the commons in which dilemmas of collective action are foregrounded. It may, of course, be the
case that the advocates of rational choice theory cannot give a good
account of why this type of theory is powerful in accounting for this class of problems (i.e.,
these features would not be a criticism that had any value),
how it is that the relevant actors come to exhibit features in these circumstances that approximate the assumptions
of rational choice theory) and, if this is the case, it is a philosophical weakness but
this does not

undermine the point that, for a certain class of problems, rational choice
theory may provide the best account available to us. In other words, while the critical
judgement of theoretical accounts in terms of their ontological and/or epistemological sophistication is one kind of
critical judgement, it is not the only or even necessarily the most important kind. The second danger run by the
prioritisation of ontology and epistemology promotes

theory-construction from philosophical first principles, it cultivates a theory-driven rather than
problem-driven approach to IR. Paraphrasing Ian Shapiro, the point can be put like this: since it
is the case that there is always a plurality of possible true descriptions of a
given action, event or phenomenon, the challenge is to decide which is the most
apt in terms of getting a perspicuous grip on the action, event or phenomenon in
question given the purposes of the inquiry; yet, from this standpoint, theory-driven work is part of a
reductionist program in that it dictates always opting for the description
that calls for the explanation that flows from the preferred model or
theory.5 The justification offered for this strategy rests on the mistaken belief that it is necessary for social
philosophical turn is that because
science because general explanations are required to characterise the classes of phenomena studied in similar
terms. However, as Shapiro points out, this is to misunderstand the enterprise of science since whether there are
general explanations for classes of phenomena is a question for social-scientific inquiry, not to be prejudged before
conducting that inquiry.6 Moreover,
this strategy easily slips into the promotion of the

pursuit of generality over that of empirical validity . The third danger is that the
preceding two combine to encourage the formation of a particular image of disciplinary debate in IRwhat might
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
360
be called (only slightly tongue in cheek) the Highlander viewnamely, an image of warring theoretical approaches
with each, despite occasional temporary tactical alliances, dedicated to the strategic achievement of sovereignty
over the disciplinary field. It encourages this view because the turn to, and prioritisation of, ontology and
epistemology stimulates the idea that there can only be one theoretical approach which gets things right, namely,
the theoretical approach that gets its ontology and epistemology right. This image feeds back into IR exacerbating
the first and second dangers, and so a potentially vicious circle arises.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
361
Alt Fails Settler Colonialism

Settler colonialism theory fails and retrenches oppression.
Macoun and Strakosch 13 (Alissa Macoun & Elizabeth Strakosch ba
Indigenous Studies Research Network, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia Institute for Culture and Society, University of Western
Sydney,Sydney, Australia The ethical demands of settler colonial theory 9/13/13)
SCT makes major contributions to current mainstream scholarship, but
that its analytic and explanatory power also presents a range of political and ethical
risks. Exposing colonization as a structure not an event 10 confronts settlers with
an account of contemporary colonialism that is dif fi cult to avoid, exposing underlying
similarities between conservative and progressive approaches to contemporary
Indigenous policy and revealing intimate connections between settler emotions ,
practices, knowledges and institutions. However, emphasizing continuities in colonial
relationships between the past and the present can tend to construct
existing political relationships as inevitable and unchanging. When deployed with
a neutral descriptive authority, SCT can also re-inscribe settler academics political
authority and re-enact the foundational settler fantasy that we constitute,
comprehend and control the whole political space of our relationships with
Indigenous people. In order to counter this potential, we suggest that while settler ways of thinking structure
We contend that
and dominate much of our contemporary reality, they are not equivalent to it. SCT makes visible our own frames of
reference, thus revealing possibilities and political visions that lie outside them. From this standpoint, the fact that
settler colonialism struggles to narrate its own ending does not mean that it cannot end. Ultimately, we contend
that this approach has the potential to facilitate new conversations and relationships with Indigenous people but, in
order to unlock this transformative potential, settler scholars must remain attentive to our own positions within
colonial relationships
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
362
Alt Fails - Neolib

Critiques of colonialism only get coopted in the neoliberal
crisis and become an attempt to reverse alterity onto the
oppressors, thereby recreating the master slave dichotomy.
Moreiras 14 (Alberto Moreiras is Professor of Hispanic Studies at Texas A&M
University, College Station, We Have Good Reasons for This (And They Keep
Coming) Revolutionary Drive and Democratic Desire, Spring 2014)
But let us say that decoloniality as such could be conceptualized as a democratic critique of domination, even if it
must endorse, in and by principle, positions that would themselves indulge in domination of the human by the
human simply because they have genuine subaltern, locationalist provenance, and some kind of cultural cachet:
the fact remains that decoloniality finds its absolute limit at the time of accounting
for the production of domination, which lamely becomes, in their minds, simply the
product of the extrapolation of European racism (and the 13 other things on Grosfoguels list)
onto non-European latitudes. That is idealist historiography at its most extreme. Domination includes
exploitation means: exploitation would cease if people would just learn to behave in
a nonracist manner, which perhaps only Quijanos public authority could teach
them, or enforce. Except of course for the good work decolonialists are already doing. I do not mean to deny
the importance of a critique of cultural domination for the advancement of democratic struggles, but I am with
a critique of domination is at best only a critique of the mechanisms of

reproduction of economic exploitation rather than of its production . Hence,
decoloniality can only ever succeed, even as a global ideology, as an ideological
commodity, fit for circulation, even earmarked for extraordinary circulation as a
compensatory mechanism for the neoliberal crisis . Who will disagree with the truisms that the
Jameson that
obscure dominators come to us as if from the eye of God, and that they wage a personal war on each and every
one of us (provided we are not one of them), which, why not, can be conceptualized as a race war? Even Freuds
The problem is
not the intuitive truth of cultural paranoia , always available, and perhaps at the same
time always already right. The problem is that cultural paranoia will no t accomplish,
perhaps does not even mean to accomplish, the transformative turn in global things that would
be associated primarily with an end to the economic domination of time , of each and
every ones time, which is only another name for exploitation under the commodity form of abstract labor. At the
limit, decoloniality pursues a strategy of delinking, since separating from European
racial domination is primary, and there would be nothing specifically wrong with a socialdemocratic
President Schreber felt the rays of God taking him from behind at every moment of his life.
capitalism, or with some other form of economic production more closely connected to non-European history,
provided it is orchestrated through, say, Afro-Indigenous hands (or through decolonialist hands that feel the world
The possession of the means of cultural and economic

production is the dominant goal here, and not their intrinsic quality. In other words,
it is not so much a matter of expropriating the expropriators as it is of racializing the
racists, and making them feel the burden of subaltern history .
through Afro-Indigenous categories).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
363
Corporations Turn
Turn: without legal restrictions, corporations will surveil and
genocide native peoples. Legal reform is key.
Madsen 14 ( Wayne Madsen., American investigative journalist, author and
columnist specializing in intelligence and international affairs. Protecting
indigenous peoples privacy from eyes in the sky). KM
Large multinational firms using local and central government proxies have used
GIS data to define lands to be targeted for exploitation. Not only has this had a
negative ecological impact but the native peoples have suffered by being
forcibly evicted from their lands either into unfamiliar urban settings or
unproductive lands. Other groups have faced cultural assimilation from central
governments eager to wipe out any notion that some groups have of being bonded
to their land. In yet other cases, native groups have been the victims of
extermination through genocide. International legal regimes should take
into account the right of indigenous peoples to be let alone , i.e., a right to
collective privacy. Africans, for example, are said to be communally-oriented and
not as individualistic as Westerners. The traditions of the Amharas of Ethiopia
include strictures against depriving peasants of their land. Kings and chiefs are also
required to share their wealth with their subjects (Howard, 1990, 163). Establishing a
modern legal baseline for protecting indigenous lands from wrongful exploitation
and sharing the wealth when indigenous lands are developed will enable indigenous
groups to advance their legal rights to their lands and resources to the highest
levels of international bodies, including the World Court and World Bank. The United
Nations has taken a first step in recognizing the privacy rights of indigenous peoples, i.e., their "right to be let
alone." The UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, adopted in 1993 at the eleventh session of the
urgent need to respect and

promote the inherent rights and characteristics of indigenous peoples, especially
their rights to their lands, territories and resources." Many indigenous peoples are
also using the terms of the Biodiversity Convention to protect their lands and
resources. Without enforceable legal regimes such declarations are merely
pieces of paper. Other international agreements like the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) have had little or no effect on indigenous rights.
Economic and Social Council's Commission on Human Rights recognizes "the
The ICCPR does not even define what constitutes a minority; it merely states that signatories should grant cultural,
religious, and linguistic rights to members of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority groups. What is more
important, the ICCPR does not levy any requirement on signatories to enact specific legislation protecting
indigenous minorities. The United Nations Declaration of Principles Regarding the Remote Sensing of Earth from
Space came close to addressing the rights of underdeveloped nations vis a vis space-based remote sensing
platforms. However, the principles were the product of much debate reflecting the ever-growing North-South
economic divide. Some human rights advocates have even put forth the notion that collective privacy rights for
peoples actually weaken the rights of individuals. They see attempts to put forward communal privacy rights as a
way of reversing gains already made in the area of individual human rights (Nagengast, Stavenhagen, and Kearney,
1992, 31-32).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
364
Alt fails - Globalization means corporations rather than the

state have become the true force of oppression. The
alternative clears the way for further corporate domination.
Miyoshi, professor of Japanese literature and culture at University of California,
1993 (Masao Miyoshi, Summer 1993 In the Journal Critical Inquiry: A Borderless
World? From Colonialism to Transnationalism and the Decline of the Nation State pp
742-744) CQF
Earlier, as traditional society transformed itself into bourgeois capitalist society in
the West, intellectuals and professionals who served in the planning and execution
of the capitalist agenda were led to think of themselves as free and conscientious
critics and interpreters. In the age of TNCs, they are even more shielded and mediated by the complexity
and sophistication of the situation itself because transnational corporatism is by definition unprovincial and global,
that is, supposedly free from insular and idiosyncratic constrictions. If clear of national and ethnic blinders, the TNC
class is not free of a new version of "ideologyless" ideology that is bent on the efficient management of global
production and consumption, hence of world culture itself. Are the intellectuals of the world willing to participate in
transnational corporatism and be its apologists? How to situate oneself in this neo-Daniel Bell configuration of
transnational power and culture without being trapped by a deadend nativism seems to be the most important
question that faces every critic and theorist the world over at this moment, a question to which I will return later.
The decline of the nation-state has been accelerated by the end of the cold war. War
activates nationalism and patriotism inasmuch as hostility ments of both skilled and
unskilled labor in the European community, too, offers an economic integration
model par excellence. 42. See Robert B. Reich, The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for TwentyFirstCentury Capitalism (New York, 1991). In his contribution to The New International Economy, Volker Bornschier
concludes, "we
know that personal income distribution is more unequal if the level of

[multinational corporation] penetration is high. No empirical evidence is reported
that MNCs reduce inequality in less developed countries in the course of their
operation, whereas there are several hypotheses with preliminary empirical support
for the contrary" (Volker Bornschier, "World Economic Integration and Policy Responses: Some Developmental
Impacts," in The New International Economy, pp. 68-69). deepens the chasm that cuts "them" off from "us." The
With
the demise of authoritarian socialist states, bourgeois capitalism looked as if it had
triumphed over all rivals. Whether such a reading is right or wrong, the
disappearance of "the other side," together with the end of administrative
colonialism, has placed the nationstate in a vacant space that is ideologically
uncontested and militarily constabularized. The choreographed display of high-tech destruction by
binary alignment that was present in all foreign relations during the cold war was abruptly removed in 1989.
the United States during the Gulf War could not conceal the lack of objective and meaning in that astounding
The Gulf War was the war of ultimate snobbery, all style,
demonstrating power for the sake of power in a world after the cold war. The war
expressed the contempt of the rich for the poor, just as military and political force
were being replaced in importance by economic and industrial power . The single
superpower, the United States, executed the war, of course, but as the "sharing" of
the military expenses among the "allied nations" demonstrates, the war was fought
on behalf of the dominant corporate structure rather than the United States, which
served after all as no more than a mercenary . Does this mean that from now on the armed forces
military exercise.
of the United States are in service of a corporate alliance with little regard for its own people's interests? Is the state
Wealth that
generates right and might seems to have overwhelmed power that creates
wealth.43 Against the effective operation of TNCs, the nation-states more
apparatus being even more sharply cut off from the welfare of the people than before?
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
365
and more look undefined and inoperable. Although the end of the cold war also loosened the
ties that bound nation-states such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia while encouraging separatist movements in
Scotland, Spain, India, Canada, and many other places, these are expressions of ethnicism, not nationalism.44 To
quote from The New International Economy, these independence movements

are "a kind of mirrored reflection of the decline of the viability of
nationalism as a politically unifying force, a decline occasioned moreover,
by the economic and political internationalization."
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
366
Red Pedagogy Bad

Red Pedagogy is Eurocentric and discounts Indigenous
worldviews outside the university which culminates in
commodification
Beauline-Sterling 12
(Rebecca, MA student at York University, A review of Red Pedagogy: Native American Social
and Political Thought by Sandy Grande, NeoAmericanist Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring/Summer,
http://www.neoamericanist.org/review/red-pedagogy)KM
In Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought Sandy Grande presents an important contribution to
critical theory with the intention of bridging the ostensible gap between whitestream theory and Indigenous
philosophies and approaches to education. Drawing on her experience and knowledge as a Quechua woman living
in the United States, Grande offers a critique-al (p. 2) analysis of the history of American Indian education and
democratization policies as well as theories of critical pedagogy, feminism, and identity. Her historical materialist
approach is clearly informed by revolutionary critical pedagogy as she understands the transformation of
capitalist social relations as essential to the fundamental project of Red pedagogy: decolonization, selfdetermination, and sovereignty that is grounded in the spirituality of Indigenous nations. Grande further initiates
the articulation of a critical theory of indigenista in response to feminisms that overlook colonization as the primary
basis of current and historical oppression of Indigenous women. Focusing instead on a universal patriarchy or
postmodern linguistic play and difference (p. 137), recent formulations of feminist thought constitute what
Grande calls a theory of property holders (p. 148) that denies the persistence of economic exploitation and,
accordingly, colonization. While revolutionary feminisms (those with a Marxist, materialist foundation) maintain this
economic understanding, they are altogether insufficient for addressing the far reaches of colonization and its
consequences. Therefore she proposes undertaking a Red pedagogy that encompasses valuable knowledge
contained in Indigenous experience and world-views, seen as essential by Grande for transforming capitalist social
relations between humankind and all of Creation. I certainly appreciate much of Grandes thought, as her writing
resonates with some of my own critiques of postmodern and critical theory. I also welcome her historical materialist
analysis of past and present social relations. This text indeed marks a significant contribution to critical education
theory and Indigenous academic work, yet I cannot help but ask: who is it written for? Though she positions
Grandes theory is articulated through a Western

epistemic frame. The language and content is accessible only to an academic
audience and as such, seems to be written for critical theorists rather than
Indigenous people or communities. As an Indigenous woman negotiating my way
through academia, I have come to understand what Grande calls the Native theory
of antitheory wherein engagement in abstract theory seems indulgent a luxury
and privilege of the academic elite. Further, theory itself is viewed as definitively
Eurocentric inherently contradictory to the aims of [I]ndigenous education (p. 2).
While this theory of antitheory persists in our communities and with good reason
Indigenous ways of knowing and being still form the basis for resistance and
emancipatory projects across Turtle Island. Our world-views are rich and complex,
full of theories that are merely ignored and devalued in the academy, the space for
them conscripted by academic colonialism (p. 103). Yet these theories have made
their way into universities, albeit ever slowly and not without struggle. Our voices
grow stronger beyond the boundaries prescribed for us. Grande calls for an
expansion of the intellectual borders of [I]ndigenous intellectualism (p. 3). I hope
that this does not mean that Indigenous intellectuals our Elders, knowledge
keepers and emerging leaders existing primarily outside of the university are
insufficient in their intellectualism and must engage with critical theory as Grande
has done in this text. Certainly it is important that Indigenous people create and find spaces within the
herself among other Indigenous scholars,
academy to formulate and share knowledge grounded in their own world-views. Most of us will have no choice but
to engage with whitestream theories, though some of us will find ways to work through or around them. Universities
are important and difficult places for that reason. In the same way, Grandes text is an incredible contribution. But
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
367
academia, critical theory and the university are not the only means by which we can remember, revitalize and
share our knowledges for the purposes of decolonization, a promise of the good life for generations to come.
We must be careful in how we relate to our own people, how in our own theorizing
we ostensibly place value (or not) on the rich knowledge sometimes hidden in our
families and communities. How we write reflects how we relate, just as who we
write for reflects who we consider as part of that relation.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
368
Essentialism Turn
Essentialist accounts of indigenous history erase indigenous
peoples and allow a disavowal of responsibility
January 1st 2004, Pages 103 ). KM
The desire for such control is underwritten by the understanding that critical scholarship threatens the myth of the
ever-evolving democratization of In- dianwhite relations . Second,
essentialist accounts of Indian

history (framed in good- vs. bad-guy terms) allow the consumer to fault rogue groups
of dog-matic missionaries and wayward military officers for the slow but
steady erosion of indigenous life, thereby distancing themselves and
mainstream government from the ongoing project of cultural genocide.
Third, the virtually exclusive focus on Indian history allows the whitestream to
ignore contemporary issues facing American Indian communities. As a result,
Indians as a modern people remain invisible, allowing a wide array of distorted
myths to flourish as contemporary reality: that all the "real" Indians are extinct, that
all surviving Indians are either alcoholics or gaming entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, as
these images are circulated, the intensive, ongoing court battles over land, natural
resources, and federal recognition are relegated to the margins of the discourse,
fueling the great lie of the twenty-first centurythat America's "Indian problem" has
long been solved.
Essentialism turns your pedagogy

Essentialist theories of identity theory have undoubtedly impacted educational
practice, shaping the way teachers view students and, perhaps more important, the way students view
themselves. American Indian students have indeed internalized the invisible but
powerful borders demarcating "authentic" Indian-ness. On some level, they
understand that the problem of forging a contemporary Indian identity is, in part, a
problem of resisting the images and fantasies of whitestream America. This is evident in
some students' resistance to occupying the social and political spaces associated with "acting white." As John
Ogbu (1986, 25-26) has noted,
"blacks and similar minorities (e.g., American Indians)

believe that in order for a minority person to succeed in school academically, he or
she must learn to think and act white."16 Thus, as a result of their subordinate position, Ogbu argues
that blacks have constructed an identity system that is not merely different from but formed in opposition to the
social identity of whites.
Furthermore, he argues that within the black community itself

there are formal and informal sanctions against those who cross over into what is
generally regarded as the "white cultural frame of reference." As such, Ogbu posits
that students from "castelike" minority groups may actively resist school
achievement, as it is often associated with "acting white."
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
369
Your essentialism recreates colonialism

Though there are clear differences between blacks and American Indians, their
shared positionality as subordinate groups in the United States maps a terrain of
common experience. Like black students, the majority of Ameri- can Indian students find
themselves in white-controlled institutions with agendas of assimilation and
therefore vulnerable to the hegemonic norms of identity. In more concrete terms, insofar as
everything from high achievement to learning classical violin is associated with "acting white," American
Indian students and their teachers often render such aspirations off-limits. As such,
students faced with the dilemma of choosing between "academic success"
and "cultural suicide" become unwitting but active participants in their own
"failure." McLaren (1998), therefore, theorizes resistance as part of the overall
process of hegemony, pointing out that students who actively contest the colonizing
effects of the dominant culture ultimately limit their own life chances Thus, as we
struggle to map the terrain of American Indian identity we must keep in mind that
domination is no longer signaled by overt exploitation and legal discrimination, but
has become increasingly codified in the systems of global capitalism. As Sleeter and
McLaren (1995, 9) note, "the motor force of capitalist domination rests on the tacit collusion of the oppressed in
For example, the fact that the practice of dividing indigenous

peoples according to their status under colonial law (e.g., full- blood, mixed-blood) is
replicated within and legitimated by American Indian communities speaks to the
insidious power of the broader legitimating structures within colonialist society. The
their own lived subordination."
insidious nature of colonialist power determines that American Indian students experience its hegemonic effects
on a visceral, subconscious level. In this context, resistance is clearly the manifestation of subjugation and the
impulsive desire to act in opposition to hegemonic absorption . Such courageous but misguided acts of defiance
indicate the need for a politics of difference that not only asserts the positivity of group difference but also ruptures
the "sacredotal status of universalist claims to unity that demonize certain groups" as malignant others (McLaren
In constructing such a politics, it is important to situate groups in

relation (not in binary opposition) to each other, thereby avoiding the
translation of difference to mean exclusion and dominance and the
subsequent impulse to act or behave oppositionally. In short, what is needed is a form
of critical agency that moves beyond the "either-or" logic of assimilation and resistance (McLaren 1998). It is
incumbent upon American Indian intellectuals to assist students in overcoming the
dilatory effects of resistance and its coconspirator, essentialism. In short,
American Indian intellectuals must be careful, in their own assertions of
what constitutes American Indian-ness, to avoid reenacting the divisive
logic of colonialist dominationone that not only pits Indian against non-Indian,
but also Indian against Indian and tribe against tribe. Thus, while the clearly defined
categories of essentialism provide the necessary protection against cultural
encroachment and colonialist absorption, it is important to recognize that they also
confine American Indian students to narrowly prescribed spaces, ossifying
indigenous subjectivity to the chasms of the whitestream imagination.
1998, 255).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
370
Static Identity Bad

Identity should not be tied and created based on a fixed
criterion like land, it is a complex, fluid notion. The neg
essentializes native identity and leads to dangerous identity
politics
Sprout Distro 12 (Sprout Distro is a practical article publishing and distributing
company, DANGEROUS FOUNDATIONS An argument against the Identity in
Identity Politics, Sprout Distro, pgs 3-4)
Identityalways mythical and inventedis in itself oppressive, and that a politics
founded upon one or another particular Identity is a dangerous strategy. These
dangers are numerous, and include: the creation and policing of arbitrary
boundaries of Identity, rigorous essentialism, the intensification of the norms
associated with the Identity, the suppression and homogenisation of difference
within, and the failure to recognise commonalities across boundaries of Identity . In
I believe that
line with Judith Butler and Donna Haraway, I want to suggest that a politics of affinity, rather than Identity, has
vastly more potential to transform the myriad of oppressive relations that we are subject to, and participate in,
every day. And though this essay is primarily argued through the lens of the sex/gender/desire matrix, the
Identity are thoroughly implied. T he Identity of identity

politics requires some investigation. It isnt the more mundane aspects of our identity such as our
implications for other struggles based around

name, our age, or
perhaps the car we drive, though all of these could become the basis for
capital-I Identity.
the idea of Identity used here includes sex/gender, sexuality, race and
ethnicity, nationalism, sometimes class (when it defines who one is) or even
political allegiances (anarchist included). Identity in this sense is an extrapolation from
some personal aspect of our selves parts of our body, our desires, beliefs, etc.
to a social category. In turn, being a member of such a social category is deemed
to say something important about us. One boy being attracted to another boy, for example, is one
Rather,
desire among the thousands of everyday desires we have. But in contemporary society, this desire becomes
something much bigger: it locates the boy in a social category, that of the homosexual (and, thus, not a
heterosexual), which then implies a number of things about the boy, a number of essential qualities. Perhaps he
is a sissy, or artistic, likes shopping, or any other number of homosexual stereotypes. It says something else too:
in being homosexual, the boy becomes located within a social hierarchy. He is lesser than heterosexuals, perhaps
on par with bisexuals (or perhaps, as half-bloods, they are lower still?), and no doubt above transsexuals.
Identity is essential to these sorts of hierarchies. Racism, sexism, compulsory

heterosexuality, and so on, require that an otherwise unique individual become
Identified, given an appropriate placing within the various hierarchies of Identity,
and treated in accordance with the value, traits and norms associated with that
Identity. Those Identities deemed of highest value are usually considered normal,
and deviations beyond its boundaries are considered lesser and subservient, or
sometimes even abhorrent (and in need of rectification). Despite this hierarchy,
the different identities actually need each other to make sense: the heterosexual
only makes sense in relation to the homosexual, defined as its opposite, its
relational other, and likewise man and woman only remain stable categories of
identity when they have each other to be defined against: I am a woman because I
have a vagina which a man does not have. In being the basis for founding much of
our behavior, and our conceptions of the world and each other, these identity
categories need certain solidity, a foundation from which they can be asserted . And,
obviously, simply being relational to one another doesnt provide this foundation. Identities are therefore deemed
as natural, as biological or god-given. In having a penis one joins the identity group of men, being like them in
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
371
several very important ways, and exercising the power attributed to them; and that this is natural therefore puts
it beyond question. The fact that these identities constantly change in meaning or are simply invented, that the
homosexual identity, for example, was only invented in the last decade of the nineteenth century, must therefore
be forgotten or else history rewritten.
Tying Indigenous identity to land leads to violent identity

politics and essentialism, and reinforces Western colonialism
Harris, Carlson, and Poata-Smith 13 (Michelle Harris, Associate Professor
and Coordinator of the Graduate Program in the Department of Sociology and Social
Work at Northern Arizona University, and Bronwyn Carlson, senior lecturer in the
Indigenous Studies Unit, Faculty of Law, Humanities and Arts at the University of
Wollongong. Bronwyns research focuses on a number of interrelated themes
including the politics of Indigenous identity, with particular interest in what it means
to identify as an Aboriginal person today focusing on what constitutes and is
constitutive of Aboriginal identity in contemporary times, and Evan Poata-Smith,
Head of Indigenous Studies at the University of Wollongong. Prior to this he taught
at the Auckland University of Technology and the University of Canterbury. More
recently he was a Fulbright Scholar-in Residence at Northern Arizona University.
2013, Indigenous Identities and the Politics of Authenticity, University of
Technology Sydney Library,
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54c91d76e4b00a94452c0e02/t/55122338e4b
069b54e6e542b/1427252024974/Politics+of+Identity.pdf)
The very question of Indigenous authenticity, as Jeffrey Sissons reminds us, ...has deep roots within colonial
Racialisation and the practice of creating and imbuing racial

categories with seemingly impermeable boundaries and indestructible meanings
has, after all, underpinned a range of colonial practices from the systematic
alienation of Indigenous land and resources to child abduction. Regimes of
biological and cultural authenticity continue to shape state policies and
practices that regulate the everyday lives of Indigenous people around the
world. Indeed, in some contexts , expectations of Indigenous cultural purity or
environmental naturalness exist alongside the imposition of varying degrees of
blood quantum as criteria for citizenship, political recognition and access to
resources and services. Failure to express Indigenous identities in these
terms often undermines the credibility of those individuals and groups
who claim Indigeneity but resist such institutionally sanctioned identity
categories. Although there are real material and non-material rewards associated with adopting Western
racism (2005, 43).
stereotypes of Indigeneity that are recognised by institutions of the state and wider public, this is a double edge
The operation of oppressive authenticity has been

integral to the foundation of all settler nations and it continues to haunt the
formation and implementation of their cultural politics. Included in the excluded
middles of m any post-settler states today are millions of Indigenous 2 people
variously described as half-castes , mixed-blood , urbanized, non-traditional and
westernized - usually the majority of their Indigenous citizens . (2005, 39). In this
way, a significant number of Indigenous people find themselves marginalised and
dismissed as contaminated, impure and inauthentic. It is not our goal in this volume
to interrogate who legitimately has claim to Indigenous identity, how one should
define Indigenous-ness, or to document the identity making process among
sword. As Sissons has noted, (2005, 39)
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
372
Indigenous peoples. Rather, it is our intent to explore what it means to claim

Indigenous identity in con temporary times-whether one can meet state or co m
munity standards of legitimate Indigenous status. We also explore some of the
ways individuals inhabit, negotiate and challenge existing definitions of Indigenous
identity, and how many others are creating new ways of being Indigenous .
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
373
Romanticization Turn
The negs construction of the noble savage turns the k
McLaurin 12 (Virginia, VIRGINIA MCLAURIN, B.A., EMORY UNIVERSITY , M.A.,
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST, May 2012, STEREOTYPES OF
CONTEMPORARY NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN CHARACTERS IN RECENT POPULAR
MEDIA, UMass Scholarworks, http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1941&context=theses)
The best realization to come from this debacle, though, is that not all archaeologists immediately fell into
condemnatory Native stereotype s in order to defend themselves from a perceived threat. It is possible that many
reevaluated their perceptions of a threat and found that no great threat to their work existed or perhaps believed
that repatriation was the correct ethical choice even in face of threats to their work. Some concluded that exciting
opportunities for engagement were being presented through 39 repatriation. The reasons that many archaeologists
supported repatriation have not been ascertained in this thesis, but their support of repatriation when many of their
peers felt deeply offended and threatened by it is undeniably of interest. Of course, there have always been
individuals who, for whatever reasons, questioned the prevailing attitudes of their time. Speaking of the colonists
throughout this thesis, then, is not meant to stereotype every individual colonist; rather, it is a term used to draw
attention t o generally held beliefs among a group of people who were active in the movement to spread into Native
lands (the New World). Throughout British colonial and United States history there were certainly individuals who
significantly bucked the conventions of their times on the subject of Native people; and in fact, many early New
England area colonists joined Native communities, to the horror of the colonists they had left behind, and were loath
Using the term colonists as a

generalization to refer to non-Native inhabitants of the present day United States,
fully aware that not every member of this group will conform to the behavior of the
others, is simply meant to draw attention to the continuities and discontinuities of
popular, widely observed American portrayals of the (also constructed) group
Native American Indians across the breadth of U.S. history. As for those individuals
grouped here as colonists who did not conform to disrespectful portrayals or
treatments of Native people, we can take their historical and contemporary
examples to heart as evidence that harmful stereotypes need not always be used as
a go-to attack or used in interactions between culturally distinct groups or
individuals. For quite some time now in popular culture, misguided but well-meaning
people have offered a noble savage image in an attempt to combat the wild west
movies s till 40 popular even beyond the 1950s; from historic depictions of Indians as
uncivilized primal men and winsome women belonging to a savage culture, to
present day Indians as mystical environmentalists (Mihesuah 1996:13). One example of a
mystical Native environmentalist is the 1971 Crying Indian commercial to raise
awareness of Earth Day (Advertising Educational Foundation 2003). It was certainly meant to be
sympathetic, tapping into Americans consciousness to coax guilt over despicable
U.S. Native American Indian policies and European descendants treatment of the
land. T his use of a noble savage character followed in a long tradition of
primitivism which was expanded in the late 1600s and early 1700s to include the
inhabitants of the New World thanks to authors like Montaigne, Rousseau, Voltaire, and Diderot
to rejoin to English colonial society (Lepore 1999; Demos 1994:99).
(Berkhofer 1979:95- 99). At this time, the idea of a noble savage, used by social and political reformers , was
contrasted with the idea of a savage, used by the reformers opponents ; but even after these images of Native
people ceased to be used as a polemic they continued on in literature and imaginative works, with slight
even the most romantic or

sympathetic noble savage imagery is ultimately unhelpful and stereotypical itself,
because victimization, guilt, and pity have never been the goals of Native people
and of course, without Native participation and input, many well intentioned
alterations to suit the creators visions (Berkhofer 1979:102-104). Of course,
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
374
educational materials that bemoan t he history of Native American Indians have

been guilty of spreading misinformation, bad historical work, or incorrect
assumptions passed as truths (Mihesuah 1996:15).
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
375
The neg reduces nativism to a set of assumptions, this turns

the k
Luger 14 (Cannupa, Born in North Dakota on the Standing Rock Reservation in a
small town known as Fort Yates Cannupa Hanska Luger comes from a place of
not knowing. His mother, Kathy Elk Woman Whitman, is faith, his father, Robert
Bruz Luger, is hard work, and he remains the middle distance. His genetics are
derived from Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Lakota, Austrian, Norwegian and trace
elements of suns and moons and dust. Cannupa Hanska spent his summers on his
fathers ranch in North Dakota and learned the benefit of labor. His mother raised
him and his siblings on art, it provided food, clothing, and shelter, and so selfexpression was in a way mothers milk. As an artists child he understands the ebb
and flow of the life that artists choose and he too feels compelled to do the same.
Now is the time to love and to fail and to learn and to decay, the universe is, and
that is alland so it goes, 2014, Stereotype: Misconceptions of the Native
American, This is a stereotype, http://www.thisisastereotype.com/stereotype/)
So what then does a Native American stereotype looks like? Native American stereotypes have been a part of global
consciousness since first contact, and have become further instilled in our more recent popular culture through
Hollywood, fashion trending and mainstream media. These stereotypes perpetuate two general ideas about the
First is the stereotype of the noble savage or the good Indian. This
Indian has a handsome physique, unusual stamina, is calm, dignified, and stoic. This
is a romantic idealism of the exotic other. The other general stereotype for the Native American is
Native American.
the red menace, the bad Indian. This Indian is lazy, dishonest and addictive, or he is constantly on the warpath to
get revenge on his enemies. This is a go-to profiling when the Indian is inconvenient. If you are aware you will see
that these Stereotypes are in every part of our modern culture from the latest fashion trending to cigar store
Stereotyping and appropriating Native American

culture has become an American tradition. Native culture is treated as if it is public
domain, as if one can simply go into this reservoir of stereotypical imagery and
draw from it without any kind of limitation or concern. Our lands have been lost and
traditions have been decimated, one of the last things left to be appropriated from
Native cultures is their very dignity. Stereotypes continue to exploit and pull away whatever shreds of
wooden Indians to current summer blockbusters.
dignity may be left for our tribes. The lack of respect for our cultures, our storied, our designs reflects Americas
Stereotypes are represented in symbols which reduce a diverse

people from over 500 nations into a single image, visual shorthand. These symbols
are powerful, and can be destructive to the individual and the culture. These
stereotypes dehumanize and demonize Native Americans, the ability of the nonIndian community to relate to Indians as contemporary, significant, and real humans
is diminished. Native American doctors, artists, architects don't fit in the box . These
historical amnesia.
one-dimensional representations of Native Americans are not only common, but thought to be no big deal by
many non-Native Americans. This apathetic attitude of society has often spread to the Native American community
itself with many Native people unwilling to speak out against it for fear of being ridiculed by those who dont
understand why these images are indeed a big deal. From professional teams to colleges and high schools
throughout the country, it seems that everyone is infected with a desire to be Indian. The images that are used
are not representative of Native American culture today, or at any time in the past, however, this is one of those
Native Americans have the highest high

school drop out rates, the lowest rates of college-age youth enrolled in colleges or
universities, and the highest rates of teen suicide in the entire country. It has been
argued by statisticians that the suicide rate of Native Americans is about 75 percent
higher than the national average. Other self-destructive activities are also
commonplace, such as alcoholism and other substance abuse. The poor self-image
areas where people wonder, Whats the big deal?
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
376
Native Americans have as a people contributes to these tragedies. That poor selfimage is a direct consequence of the persistent misrepresentation of Native
Americans in popular culture, by the media, athletic teams and organizations, and
the refusal of the mainstream public to acknowledge that these are indeed a major
root cause of all the larger problems. Stereotypes have been associated with lower
academic performance, physical performance, self-doubt, and non-recognition of
legitimate issues that fall outside of the stereotype for members of the stereotyped
group. For quite some time now in popular culture, misguided but well-meaning
people have offered a noble savage image in an attempt to combat negative
imagery, but from a non-native perspective. But even the most romantic or
sympathetic noble savage imagery is ultimately unhelpful and stereotypical itself,
because victimization, guilt, and pity have never been the goals of Native people
and of course, without Native participation and input, well intended education,
products and entertainment including Native American imagery and culture are
guilty of spreading misinformation or incorrect assumptions passed as truths . Because
many people have such a limited knowledge of Native Americans, we are, arguably, among the most
misunderstood and isolated ethnic groups in the United States. Thus the knowledge that most people have about
Indians does not come from direct experience. What people know is limited by their sources of information and,
unfortunately, much of the information about Indians is derived from popular culture. Stereotyping is a poor
substitute for getting to know individuals at a more intimate, meaningful level. By relying on stereotypes to
describe Native Americans, non-Natives come to believe that Indians are drunks, get free money from the
they may believe that Indians are at

one with nature, deeply religious, and wise in the ways of spirituality . Many of these
government, and are made wealthy from casino revenue. Or
myths may seem ridiculous, even silly, but each one is encountered by Native people on an almost daily basis.
Being able to quickly identify and flag certain portrayals of Native people as misinformed and politically motivated
stereotypes will be a helpful ability for the practices of avoiding their usage and actively teaching to correct them.
Additionally, encouraging the public to see the regional and sociopolitical motivations behind stereotypes helps to
dispel their believability. Calling attention to the motivations and misconceptions of those who propagate such
stereotypes equally undermines their credibility. Finally, as many tribes work diligently to have their sovereignty
correcting the misinformation of

Native stereotypes and exposing their biases against any perceived forms of Native
strength and prosperity will be a necessity when defending the rights of Native
nations. There are some overarching national themes for the United States such as the savage and the noble
recognized and to become increasingly economically successful,
savage, the concept of Manifest Destiny and the dying race of Natives which of these nationally familiar
stereotypes or tropes are utilized depends heavily on regional attitudes. The people of a certain area, based on their
perceptions of Native threat to their economy, lives, or even lifestyles, will selectively choose from a litany of
national and regional stereotypes those stereotypes which are most useful for their situation (as they see it). Where
Native threat is perceived to be high, the stereotypes will be more explicitly negative and violent (like the wild
savage stereotype); where Native threat is perceived to be low, the stereotypes will be less violent (like the noble
savage stereotype). When judging the Native population of a region that is not their own, most non-Native
individuals level of perceived strain is likely to lower and allow for less explicitly negative stereotypes except
perhaps in cases where they believe that Native activity in one area will spark unfavorable Native activity in their
own area, again raising their perceived strain about future interactions with Native people. -Cannupa Hanska Luger
Breaking the Stereotype. 2013. Since their first contact with Native Americans, Europeans sent back literary
depictions of the inhabitants of the "New World. What these writers encountered were a few of the over 2,000
indigenous cultures that existed on the North American continent. The writers couldn't and didn't take the time to
get to know all of those cultures, but lumped them into one classification "Indians." Then they wrote about what
they had expected to find in the New World "savages." Heathen and barbarian were other words often used in
these narratives. The stereotype die had been cast. Individual Indians could be good, but the group had to be bad
to justify the superiority of European civilization and the legal and moral rationale to take the land of the indigenous
inhabitants. Over the years, one media succeeded another. Newspapers, books, dime novels, photographs,
recordings, film, radio and television have all used Indians, usually as foils for the heroic settlers in search of their
manifest destiny. Over hundreds of years and thousands of works, very few depictions have come close to reality.
Since European colonization, philosophers and early writers have framed Native Americans as marginal human
beings. It is a legacy that has been in the making for hundreds of years.
Misappropriated images have
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
377
morphed into equally narrow stereotypes through the last century, from the
depictions of Native Americans crying when they see litter cast on the ground in the
1970s to the feather-headed mascot of the Washington Redskins, and now Johnny
Depps Tonto. The most damaging stereotype is an indian is an indian, when there
are 500 tribes alive and well in this world and we are all different from each other.
We have been horribly impacted by the imposition of the all-pervasive "categorical"
stereotypical classifications upon our basic sense of humanity-because of this we
suffer a unique form of self-esteem deficiency based solely on the widespread
mayhem that Indian stereotypes have caused negative images and attitudes toward
American Indians have served precisely the same function: To protect the historical
oppressors from a sense of guilt over the atrocities committed against Indians and
to justify further exploitation. The Native American community must be resolute in
its commitment to end this form of misrepresentation once and for all . We should place
an unrelenting pressure upon athletic organizations and corporations to cease and desist defaming time honored
Indigenous cultural traditions. It is only through this method that we might ever hope to be treated equally in this
society. There will be a day when painting yourself up in red face and making a fool of yourself supposedly in
honor of Native Americans will be seen as just as bad as the black face performers of the past. Hopefully, this
future will be the present generation. Being stereotyped is not a Native American issue, it is a HUMAN issue, and I
believe we need to approach it from a humanistic approach that fosters dignity, equality and valuing diversity of all
cultures. Media stereotypes are inevitable, especially in the advertising, entertainment and news industries, which
Stereotypes act like codes that

give audiences a quick, common understanding of a person or group of people
usually relating to their class, ethnicity or race, gender, sexual orientation, social
role or occupation. But stereotypes can be problematic. They can reduce a wide
range of differences in people to simplistic categorizations, transform assumptions
about particular groups of people into "realities", be used to justify the position of
those in power, perpetuate social prejudice and inequality and more often than not,
the groups being stereotyped have little to say about how they are represented.
Racial stereotypes are harmful because they ignore the full humanity and
uniqueness of all people. When our perceptions of different races are distorted and
stereotypical, its demeaning, devaluing, limiting, and hurtful to others. In some
cases, people who are repeatedly labeled in negative ways will begin to develop
feelings of inferiority. Some times, these feelings of inferiority can lead to selffulfilling prophecies that perpetuate the stereotype. Racial stereotypes can also
foster feelings of hate and aggression that might lead to a false sense of
entitlement and superiority. For those individuals who have power, this can lead to
their engaging in discriminatory and racist practices. We should be willing to engage
in honest dialogue with others about race that at times might be difficult, risky, and
uncomfortable. We should also seek out media portrayals of different races that are realistic and positive. As
need as wide an audience as possible to quickly understand information.
we gain more awareness and knowledge about racial groups, not only will our racial stereotypes lessen, but we will
As we change
ourselves, we can elicit changes in others through our examples and the quality of
our conversations. In doing this, we work to create a society in which all races are
valued, appreciated, and embraced.
also become better equipped to educate and challenge others about their racial stereotypes.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
378
Commodification Turn
The term Native Americans, Indians, and American Indians
make the indigenous identity a commodity of domination
Yellow Bird 96 Dr. Michael Yellow Bird, a citizen of the Sahnish (Arikara) and
Hidatsa First Nations, is Assistant Professor and Director of the Office for the Study
of Indigenous Social and Cultural Justice in the School of Social Welfare, University
of Kansas.http://www.aistm.org/yellowbird
use the terms "Indigenous" and "First Nations"
Peoples. For me, using these terms is an important part of my intellectual
decolonization and liberation from linguistic imperialism . I prefer using Indigenous
Peoples because it is an internationally accepted descriptor for peoples who are the
descendants of the original inhabitants of the lands, and have suffered and survived
a history of colonialism (for example, see the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
In my most recent writings, I consistently
www.halcyon.com/FWDP/drft9329.html). I like the term because it is accurate and reflects who we really are. For
instance, Websters New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981, defines indigenous "as having originated in...or living naturally
whereas, Indian is defined "as a native inhabitant of the

subcontinent of India or of the East Indies." Adding American to the term Indian
does little more than reflect the more recent colonization of Indigenous Peoples by
the United States government. I also prefer First Nations because it suggests that such persons are the original
in a particular region or environment"
peoples of the land and hold aboriginal title to the lands they occupy. The term also has a strong spiritual
foundation because it comes from tribal elders in British Columbia who maintain the traditions of First Nations
include a belief in a Creator who placed their Nations on the land to care for and control them. The terms
Indigenous and First Nations Peoples still generalize the identity of the more than 550 Indigenous groups in the
lower forty-eight states and Alaska. However, I believe they are empowering "generalized" descriptors because they
accurately describe the political, cultural, and geographical identities, and struggles of all aboriginal peoples in the
I no longer use "Indian," "American Indian," or "Native American"

because I consider them to be oppressive, "counterfeit identities." A counterfeit
identity is not only bogus and misleading, it subjugates and controls theidentity of
Indigenous Peoples. There are several additional problems with using the terms Indian, American Indian, and
Native American. First, they are inaccurate and confusing labels. For example, Indigenous Peoples in the
United States are not from India and, therefore, not Indians . They are the descendants of the
First Nations of these lands. The term Native American is confusing because anyone born in
the Americas can be referred to as a native American. Second, the terms threaten
the sovereignty and nationhood of Indigenous Peoples and undermine our right to
use our tribal affiliation as our preeminent national identity . The terms also subsume
our original identity ("Indigenous Peoples," who are the first peoples of the land) and imply
foreigners ("Indians"). Moreover, they are highly inaccurate for tribal groups who
continue to resist European American "citizenship" and colonization. Third, they are
historically entangled in American racist discourses that claim Europeans
"discovered" a "new world" that needed to be "settled," "claimed," and "civilized."
This myth-making has promoted the notion that the original inhabitants were unable
to settle, claim, and civilize these lands because they were "nomadic " (unsettled)
and "savage" (uncivilized) peoples. Fourth, the terms dehumanize and stigmatize
Indigenous Peoples by using stereotypical "American Indian" images as emblems for
selling products and mascots for sports teams. Indeed, educator Paulo Freire, who is most
noted for the promotion of critical consciousness among the oppressed, suggests
that through the process of dehumanization the consciousness of the oppressor
United States.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
379
transforms Indigenous identity into a commodity of its domination and disposal . The
continued use of Indian, American Indian, and Native American maintains counterfeit identities for Indigenous
Peoples. As part of the decolonization of Indigenous scholarship and thinking, I suggest these terms must be
discarded in favor of more empowering descriptors. To me, ceasing to call Indigenous Peoples Indians, American
Indians, or Native Americans is more than an attempt at "political correctness," or a change in semantics. It is an
act of intellectual liberation that corrects a distorting narrative of imperialist "discovery and progress" that has been
maintained far too long by Europeans and European Americans.
Capital exploitation of Native Americans contributes to the

systematic destruction and co-option of Native American
Spirituality.
Aldred 2k
[Lisa; Ph.D in Anthropology, former professor of Native American Studies; Plastic Shamans and
Astroturf Sun Dances: New Age Commercialization of Native American Spirituality; Nebraska Press; American
Indian Quarterly. Vol. 24. No. 3; pp. 329-352] JCS
Commercial exploitation of Native American
spiritual traditions has permeated
the New Age movement since its emergence in the 198os. Euro-Americans
professing to be medicine people have profited from publications and workshops. Mass quantities of products promoted as "Native
American sacred objects" have been successfully sold by white entrepreneurs to a largely non-Indian market. This essay begins
Its real focus,

however, is the motivation behind the New Agers' obsession and consumption of
Native American spirituality. Why do New Agers persist in consuming com- mercialized Native American spirituality?
with an overview of these acts of commercialization as well as Native Americans' objections to such practices.
What kinds of self-articulated de- fenses do New Agers offer for these commercial practices? To answer these questions, analysis
In
the so-called postmodern culture oflate consumer capitalism, a significant
number of white affluent suburban and urban middle-aged baby-boomers
complain of feeling uprooted from cultural traditions, community
belonging, and spiritual meaning. The New Age movement is one such
response to these feelings. New Agers romanticize an "authentic" and
"traditional" Native Amer- ican culture whose spirituality can save them
from their own sense of malaise. However, as products of the very consumer culture they seek to escape,
these New Agers pursue spiritual meaning and cultural identification through acts of
purchase. Although New Agers identify as a countercultural group, their commercial actions mesh quite well with mainstream
from a larger social and economic perspective is needed to further understand the motivations behind New Age consumption.
capitalism. Ultimately, their search for spiritual and cultural meaning through material acquisition leaves them feeling unsatisfied.
The community they seek is only imagined, a world conjured up by the promises of advertised products, but with no history, social
Meanwhile, their
fetishization of Native American spirituality not only masks the social
oppression of real Indian peoples but also perpetuates it.
relations, or contextualized culture that would make for a sense of real belonging.
The conception of a new age for Native Americans is the most

profitable dream, one that is open to capitalist exploitation.
Aldred 2k
[Lisa; Ph.D in Anthropology, former professor of Native American Studies; Plastic Shamans and
Astroturf Sun Dances: New Age Commercialization of Native American Spirituality; Nebraska Press; American
Indian Quarterly. Vol. 24. No. 3; pp. 329-352] JCS
The term New Age is often used to refer to a movement that emerged in the 198os.
Its adherents ascribe to an eclectic amalgam of beliefs and practices, often hybridized from various cultures. New Agers tend to
Many of them envision a

literal New Age, which is described as a period of massive change in the
future when people will live in harmony with nature and each other. Only in
this New Age will they realize the full extent of human potential, including spiritual
growth, the development of psychic abilities, and optimum physical health through
alternative healing. Most New Agers contend that this transformation will not take place through concerted political
focus on what they refer to as personal transformation and spiritual growth.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
380
change directed at existing structures and institutions. Rather, it will be achieved through individual personal transformation.
The
New Age is only a movement in the loosest sense of the term. There is no circumscribed creed or
defined tenets in the New Age movement. Nor are there any requirements for membership, although studies show most tend to be
white, middle-aged, and college educated, with a middle- to upper-middle-class income. Estimates of people identifying with the
Exact numbers are difficult to ascertain, however, because many New Age books have seeped into the mainstream and have
influenced the views of people not consciously identified with the movement . The New
New Age movement tend to run from ten to twenty million.
Age is thus not a strictly defined community headed by formally recognized leaders with an articulated dogma. Rather, it is a term
that is applied to a heterogeneous collection of philosophies and practices. There is a wide and burgeoning number of practices
associated with the New Age, including interests in shamanism, goddess worship, Eastern religions, crystals, pagan rituals,
extraterrestrials, and channeling spirit beings. "Native American spirituality" is among the most popular interests.' It is my
contention that the New Age is primarily a consumerist movement. There are a minority of adherents who live together and try to
incorporate New Age philosophies and practices into all aspects of their lives. Some incorporate these practices into part of their
lives by taking workshops and engaging in New Age practices in their spare time. However, the majority of those who identify
themselves as New Age (or who could be reasonably labeled as such by others) participate primarily through the purchase of texts
Native American spirituality is one of the most

popular and profitable sectors of this New Age commercialism .2 In this essay, the
and products targeted for the New Age market.
term New Agers is used to refer to the sector that is interested in Native American spiritual traditions. Certainly, not everyone
involved in the New Age movement is interested in Native American spirituality. More- over, there is diversity among those
interested New Agers. A small percentage constructs their essential identity around Native American religion. A number of those
who identify themselves as members of "the Rainbow Tribe" arguably fit into this category. Some Rainbow Tribe members spend
time in communities they form, engaged in their own version of Native American rituals. How- ever, many New Agers interested in
This
article is primarily concerned with New Agers whose interest in Na- tive American
spirituality is expressed through commercial pursuits. Although entrepreneurs will be discussed in the
Native American spirituality participate only through commercially run seminars or the purchase of texts and products.
overview of New Age commercialization of Native American spirituality, their motivations are not the subject of this analysis
(arguably, they are shrewd businessmen and women who know how to tap into lucrative markets). Rather, this essay seeks to
explain why New Age consumers seek spiritual meaning through purchase.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
381
Fetishization Turn
Your fetishization of indigenous people props up hierarchy and
colonialism.
Rifkin 11 [Mark; Associate Prof2essor and PhD of English and Women's and Gender Studies, fellowship from
the Center for the Study of Race, Politics, and Culture, author of Manifesting America: The Imperial Construction of
U.S. National Space ,When Did Indians Become Straight?: Kinship, the History of Sexuality, and Native Sovereignty,
and The Erotics of Sovereignty: Queer Native Writing in the Era of Self-Determination; Did Indians Become
Straight?: Kinship, the History of Sexuality, and Native Sovereignty, Oxford, pg 184-185] JCS
Official expressions of support for native *culture" and 'community"

function as a way of legitimizing the new policy regime as more democratic than its
predecessor, but these tropes of "tradition" end up dividing up native sociality
into units that fit Euramerican categories. Illustrating how social relations
conventionally characterized as kinship provided the pri-mary nexus for meaningful
individual and collective association, Dcloria's work disorients the assumptions animating
reorganization, refusing the seg-mentation of native life into distinct spheres (i.e., the
domestic, religion, governance) and showing how supposedly primitive residential arrangements that distended the nuclear family unit were saturated with the kind of
sentimental affect usually reserved for descriptions of the conjugal house-hold. In this way, Deloria employs the
concept of kinship to contest the effort under reorganization to sustain allotment's
privatization of 'family" and to cast U.S. policy as facilitating the restoration of
native forms of "social organization:* Her novel Waterlily, set among the Teton Sioux in the pre-reservation
period, indicates how such networks sustained a range of social statuses for which
there is no place in the de facto conjugal imaginary of postallotment
policy; the text uses the principles of individual and collective connection it gathers under the rubric of "kinship" as a way of
linking the range of practices and associations that had been outlawed as "Indian offenses"including the Sun Dance, polygamy,
redistribution or destruction of the belongings of the deceased, and regular travel to visit relatives (only the first one of which comes
to be recognized as a legitimate expression of culture under Collier).. In this way. the novel provides a historically located account of
demonstrates the limits of Indian policy's multicultural

fetishization of a particular version of "culture' Ella Deloriak work. in both Speaking of Indians
and Waterlily, then, helps reveal the kinds of social mappings that implicitly define
and constrain "self-government" under reorganization. In doing so, these texts help point
toward the ways post-IRA political discourses rely on heteronormative subjectivities in fashioning modes of sovereignty that will be recognized as legitimate by the U.S.
government. Reorganization does not so much eliminate the administrative
apparatus, subjectivities. or effects of the allotment program as selectively deploy them within a
framework in which the goal has shined from detribalization to self-government." That change in the aims of
federal policy has vast implications for the status of native governance and land
tenure, but It does not mark an utter negation of the technologies,
discourses, and ideologies of privatization put in play under allotment. Rather, In
changing the dominant scale and topoi of policy from the nuclear family
home to the reservation 'community: reorganization in one key pushes for
forms of political, territorial, and economic integration that appear
antithetical to the previous policy while in another key continuing to draw on the
imaginary of allotment in formulating what should occur at the level of kinship and
residency. In this way, the IRA replaces and extends the prior regime
simultaneously, but in different registers. Those patterns arc not in fact fully separable, how-ever, in
that the logic by which political and familial formations can be divided into distinct
Teton sociality that
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
382
domains/spheres is itself reliant on a distinction between public policy and

domesticity that Is a legacy of allotment. Thus, reorganization remains complexly
inflected by allotment even as the one embraces the idea of native
collectivity targeted for erasure by the other. The nexus of 'private personhood, intimacy, and
property holding operative under allotment comes to be treated as an incontestable given under reorganization. providing
the kernel around which native communities would be formed."
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
383
Victimization Turn
Victimization Turn The negative portrays Native Americans as
powerless victims of the oppression of the Federal Government
This is the new means of colonial pacification It
presupposes the inevitable defeat of Native American and
undermines any moves towards real solidarity guts alt
solvency
Root, Professor of Critical Theory at the University of Toronto 97 (Deborah,
Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation, Edited by Bruce Ziff) IEG
Why would Karma and his countercultural predecessors identify with people who, time and time again, are presented as
it is precisely the image of Indians as

doomed victims that some white people identify with : she calls this the "I'm a victim too complex. Indeed,
victims? First Nations writer Deborah Doxtator makes the point that
Friedrich Nietzsche conceived, something like this complex as the very core of Christian culture, underlining the link between
Thinking of someone else as a victim is a way of displacing one's own pain : in

White hippies do
tend to recognize some of the oppressive aspects of industrial, consumerist society but manifest
this by focusing on and identifying with people who seem to be even more oppressed, thus
reproducing the 1970s movie version of Natives as defeated victims who exist only in the
past. Western culture is permeated with the duplicitous, Christian notion of victimization, which
on the one hand implies a moral or spiritual superiority and on the other a kind of weakness
that is to be overcome. Martyred saints are represented as suffering physical torment with a heroic steadfastness of
pity and contempt.
reactive Christian thinking, I am less of a victim than you because you are more of a victim than me.
faith. Yet the body, whether sinful or suffering, is thought to be inherently abject. Thus, to be a victim is to be both heroic and
White representations (both "sympathetic" and explicitly racist) of colonial wars tend to
underline the view that Native heroism derives from and is the
consequence of defeat. The white fascination with the romantic, abstract heroism of Native
people is thus able to function as another means of colonial pracification because it
presupposes the inevitable defeat and disappearance of the nations. Colonialism adds a new twist to
abject.
maintain this definition and
the Christian view that people are victims by their very nature or essence, and here the relation between aggressor and victim
of course,
conceiving of an enemy nation as heroic also makes the oppressors look good because
they have defeated a truly worthy and valiant enemy. This, too, is nothing new in Western culture. Recall
becomes wholly static and cannot shift. Every-one is frozen into his or her position and role. And,
the famous Roman sculpture of the dying Gaul, an image of a heroic, yet defeated enemy. Here we approach what it was we
if Native nations are

portrayed as inherently abject and doomed to defeat, white viewers will not feel any
connection to colonialism, either in the past or in the present. This is why the phony Native culture of movies,
Edward Curtis photographs, and television is so appealing to white people: if, as Hollywood and capitalism would have it, the
nations are foreordained to assimilate and vanish, then white viewers need not question
racism or face the discomfort of interrogating our continuing position as members of a
colonizing nation. We will not feel connected to ongoing struggles in James Bay, Chiapas,
Kanesatake, and elsewhere and to the different relation to the land that these struggles express. Any sense of
connection to events occurring on the ground is lost, and "Native" becomes another empty
category that can be mined for its trappings and images. And the "love" of Indians professed by
counterculture old and new continues to have nothing to do with Native people and certainly
nothing to do with supporting contemporary Native struggles . Westerns and other colonial narratives
are in the business of producing binarisms which have had effects on all of us. As white people, we need to
rethink and recover the histories erased by popular culture and school textbooks. There were always
all forgot in our eagerness to embrace the representation of Inidans as heroic victim s:
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
384
alternatives to John Wayne. We also need to think through the nature of power and its relation to culture. John Trudell said
somewhere that there is a difference between being oppressed and being powerless: Native people may be oppressed, but
the traditions have power; white people may be "in charge" within a colonial context, but our culture has lost its heart, soul,
and life-its power. It
is up to us to look into how our traditions were taken over and distorted by a
destructive, soulless ethos and find ways to heal our cultural diseases . This is where Karma's
approach breaks down: he thinks he has to turn himself into a "white-skinned Indian" because he cannot find a way to
transform and locate power in his own tradition. Because of the elided histories, he is unable to identify with the white people
who have resisted oppression over the centuries. He, too, is rendered passive by the romantic discourse of inevitable defeat
and disappearance. And because Karma thinks white culture is one thing-the dead, shopping-mall culture of our timeappropriation becomes his only escape, and it becomes impossible for him to imagine standing side by side with Native
people as equals.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
385
Property Turn
Treating the land as Indigenous property is the same logic as
the colonial power of America and legitimizes exploitation
Ladson-Billings and Tate 95 (Gloria, American pedagogical theorist and
teacher educator on the faculty of the University of WisconsinMadison School of
Education and researcher at the Wisconsin Center for Education, and William, Dean
of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences and Vice Provost for Graduate Education,
Edward Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professor in Arts & Sciences,
1995,Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education, Teachers College Record Volume
97 Number 1, pgs 52-53 )
In our analysis we add another aspect to this critical paradigm that disentangles democracy and capitalism. Many
discussions of democracy conflate it with capitalism despite the fact that it is possible to have a democratic
government with an economic system other than capitalism. Discussing the two ideologies as if they were one
masks the pernicious effects of capitalism on those who are relegated to its lowest ranks. Traditional civil rights
approaches to solving inequality have depended on the rightness of democracy while ignoring the structural
inequality of capitalism." However. democracy in the US. context was built on capitalism. In the early years of the
republic only capitalists enjoyed the franchise. Two hundred years later when civil rights leaders of the 19505 and
19605 built their pleas for social justice on an appeal to the civil and human rights, they were ignoring the fact
that the society was based on property right.:." An example from the 1600s underscores the centrality of property
When the Pilgrims came to New

England they too were coming not to vacant land but to territory inhabited by tribes
of Indians. The governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, created
the excuse to take Indian land by declaring the area legally a vacuum. The
Indians, he said, had not subdued the land, and therefore had only a natural
right to it, but not a civil right. A natural right did not have legal standing.- Bell
examined the events leading up to the Constitution's development and concluded that there exists a
tension between property rights and human rights." This tension was greatly
exacerbated by the presence of African peoples as slaves in America. The purpose
of the government was to protect the main object of societyproperty.
The slave status of most African Americans (as well as women and children)
resulted in their being objectified as property. And, a government constructed to
protect the rights of property owners lacked the incentive to secure human rights
for the African American. According to Bell the concept of individual rights.
unconnected to property rights, was totally foreign to these men of property; and
thus, despite two decades of civil rights gains. most Blacks remain disadvantaged
and deprived because of their race." The grand narrative of U.S. history is replete
with tensions and struggles over propertyin its various forms. From the removal
of Indians (and later Japanese Americans) from the land, to military conquest of the
Mexicans," to the construction of Africans as property. the ability to define,
possess, and own property has been a central feature of power in
America. We do not suggest that other nations have not fought over and defined themselves by property and
landownership.- However, the contradiction of a reified symbolic individual juxtaposed to
the reality of real estate" means that emphasis on the centrality of property can
be disguised. Thus, we talk about the importance of the individual, individual rights.
and civil rights while social benefits accrue largely to property owners ."
in the Americas from the beginning of European settlement:
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
386
Dichotomies Turn
Dichotomies such as, native/colonist, and, white/indian,
structure a totalizing discourse enabling genocide
Meister, 5 /Department of Politics, University of California, Santa Cruz/
/Robert, "Never Again": The Ethics of the Neighbor and the Logic of Genocide,
Postmodern Culture, 15.2, IEG
Viewed from Lvinas's perspective, as set forth above, however, Fanon's argument is not that racially-based murder is justified
as a condition of self-liberation. Fanon demonstrates, rather, that colonial subjugation--the problematic Da in the Dasein--is
the "totalizing discourse" of white/black, master/slave,

self/other is itself a formula for murder because, in their quest for mutual recognition, those
who struggle do not acknowledge their prior lack-of-relation as mutually exterior occupants
of the same ground (see the Preface to Totality and Infinity). In this respect, the willingness of the native to
exterminate or expel the settler is simply a return-to-sender of the genocidal message of
colonialism itself. 25. The point here is emphatically not that racialized citizens of settler colonialist states are actual or
the conceptual root of genocide. For Lvinas,
would-be gnocidaires. The settler colonialist is not always, and almost never merely, a ruthless exploiter--and can also be a
developer, a civilizer, an educator. To be any or all of these things, however, is entirely consistent with the possibility of being
paranoid about one's own status as successor to the "Native." The settler's question is, "how can we live among these
savages without civilizing them?" The essence of Fanon's argument is that living without the "savages" is always a
conceivable option within colonial discourse that precedes (and to some extent informs) the project of "civilization," and thus
that living
without the settler must also be imaginable for liberation to occur as an outcome of
the totalizing project of colonialism--and presumably of any other totalizing project that
focuses on the relations of race and place (blood and soil). 26. Writing both after Auschwitz and during an era
of anti-colonial revolutions, Lvinas argues that all totalizing projects are grounded in imagining the death
of the other--that is, murder. He includes here even the totalizing project that grounds ethics, as Richard
Rorty does, on the shared qualities of all homo sapiens (and perhaps companion species) capable of
conscious suffering.15 The American philosopher Hilary Putnam restates Lvinas's concern as a concern about the
vulnerability of the human rights culture to assertions of the "inhumanity" of other homo sapiens: " the danger in
grounding ethics in the idea that we are all 'fundamentally the same' is that a door is
opened for a Holocaust. One only has to believe that some people are not 'really' the same to destroy all the force of
such a grounding" (35). At the pragmatic level, Rorty concedes "that everything turns on who counts as a fellow human being"
(124)-- indeed he stresses it--but the more fundamental claim made by Lvinas (and Putnam) is against the ethical
assumption that arguments appealing to our shared humanity could count at all in ethical justifications of human rights.16 The
meaning of Auschwitz, they suggest, is that ethics must now be based, not on a common humanity that we share, but rather
on the mere fact of occupying common ground with those with whom we do not presume any (other) affinity or relationship.
Thus conceived, Auschwitz reveals the limits of the ethical project that teaches us to treat the other under the aspect of the
same. Ethics--the ethics that is not subordinate to politics--must now begin with the damage that our mere presence causes to
others whom we displace, and whom we must treat as genuinely exterior to the "other" who
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
387
AT: Prior Questions

Claims of prior questions result in never-ending theorizing
which prevent productive action
Cochran 99 (Molly, Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Georgia Institute
for Technology, Normative Theory in International Relations, 1999, pg. 272)
To conclude this chapter, while modernist and postmodernist debates continue, while we are still unsure as to what
we can legitimately identify as a feminist ethical/political concern, while we still are unclear about the relationship
it is particularly important for feminists that we proceed with

analysis of both the material (institutional and structural) as well as the discursive.
This holds not only for feminists, but for all theorists oriented towards the goal of extending
further moral inclusion in the present social sciences climate of epistemological
uncertainty. Important ethical/political concerns hang in the balance. We
cannot afford to wait for the meta-theoretical questions to be conclusively
answered. Those answers may be unavailable. Nor can we wait for a credible
vision of an alternative institutional order to appear before an
emancipatory agenda can be kicked into gear. Nor do we have before us a chicken and egg
between discourse and experience,
question of which comes first: sorting out the metatheoretical issues or working out which practices contribute to a
The two questions can and should be pursued together, and

can be via moral imagination. Imagination can help us think beyond discursive and material conditions
credible institutional vision.
which limit us, by pushing the boundaries of those limitations in thought and examining what yields. In this respect,
I believe international ethics as pragmatic critique can be a useful ally to feminist and normative theorists generally.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
388
AT: Root Cause

Ontological warfare occurred between Native tribes in order to
make a collective identity against their enemy long before
European encounter
The
Mexica Aztecs, in a hundred-year period during the reigns running from Itzcoatl,
in the early fifteenth century, to the second Moctezuma , provide one of the more extreme
historical cases of the unabashed celebration of war, which they represented as a complex system of adornment.23
a high percentage of the society's able-bodied men

participated in war, and those who did wore dramatic, easily read signs of their
personal warring history. The war society relationship was both vocational and
extensively semiotic; those connected to military affairs displayed that relationship. Parents who wanted
Not all men were warriors, but
their male children to be warriors struck a deal with a military instructor early in the child's infancy, and when
training began at the age of fifteen,
the inchoate warrior's body became a bearer of warring

signs: "The hair on his head was shorn, but at the age of ten a tuft of hair was allowed to grow on the back of his
head, and by the age of fifteen, it was long, signifying that he had not yet taken captives in war."24 By the time
that inchoate warrior had become an adult fighter and had taken two captives, he
went to the palace to receive a mantle with red trim from the king. For three captives he
got a richly worked garment and for four, a special war garment as well as a complete haircut.25 As a result,
Aztec public space was dense with military signs, for "status achieved in war was
marked by the honors one received, the way one's hair was worn, the jewelry one
was entitled to wear, the clothing one wore in peace, and the arms, armor, and
insignia one wore in war."26 In short, there was nothing esoteric about the warring body; it was
perpetually visible within the social body displaying its combat history. For the Aztecs, then, it is hardly
metaphorical to say that they wore their warfare on their sleeves. More importantly for conceptual purposes, along
with this exoteric representation of combat biographies,
Aztec society also wore its ontology on its
sleeve.
Although it was certainly the case that some of Aztec warfare was strategic and predatory inasmuch as it
involved territorial conquest, the taking of captives, which provided the basis for the society's paramount military
The enemy/Other seemed to have been there less to

provide a managed space to be taken over than to provide bodies as a resource for
collective ritual as well as individual status striving. Captured enemy soldiers
became slaves who served not only as workers but also as iconic tributes to their
captors. In addition, after rendering labor service and symbolic capital, they became
the sacrifices for feast days and other religious observances. Accordingly, they were
the adversaries against whom the Aztecs could develop not only their individual
martial skills and prestige but also their collective identity, their location in a
cosmos occupied by the spirits nourished by the sacrifices .
sign system, was primarily ontological.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
389
Indian = Bad Term

The use of the word Indian is the logic of colonialism
Toronto Star 09Canadian media companies. She currently serves on the Canadian
Journalism Association Ethics Panel and on the executive committee of the Canadian
Journalism Foundation.She holds a Masters degree in Canadian
history.http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2009/01/24/is_indian_a_derogatory_word.html
As artistic director of Native Earth Performing Arts, a theatre company dedicated to "artistic expression of the
Aboriginal experience in Canada," Yvette Nolan well understands the power of words to both harm and to heal. On
the wall above her desk hangs a photo published in the Star in October 2006. Taken at a Caledonia rally to protest
the occupation by those from the Six Nations reserve who claim that land slated for a housing development belongs
to native people, the photo shows a protester holding a sign that reads, "Get a job, you filthy Indians." Nolan, an
"Indian" to be an outdated and derogatory word for which to label

Canada's aboriginal peoples and was incensed by the sign's crude message . Still, she
Algonquin, considers
ordered a copy of the photo and hung it above her desk as a vivid reminder of the importance of the theatre
company's mission to "communicate to our audiences the experiences that are unique to Native people in
contemporary society."
Public education about language, labels and the right to selfidentify is an ongoing role for this theatre company. For last month's debut of A Very Polite Genocide or
The Girl Who Fell to Earth, an exploration of aboriginal identity and the "scar tissue" of the residential school
system, Native Earth provided reviewers with an "education guide." That guide clearly articulated the company's
"Indian" is "archaic and offensive. "To use the term Indian when referring to
Aboriginal people is considered derogatory, " it states. So how come, despite that information, the
view that
Star's Dec. 11 review twice used the word "Indian" to reference aboriginal people, not surprisingly causing much
outrage within this theatre company and the wider aboriginal community? It's important to note that there was no
intent to offend here. Still, I understand why offence was taken. Though freelance theatre critic Mark Selby, mindful
of Native Earth's guidance, used the word "aboriginals" in the review he wrote, a Star copy editor changed that to
"Indians." That editor, who had not seen the theatre company's education guide, did so in line with a long-time Star
style dictum that tells journalists here "to avoid the terms First Nations, natives and aboriginals as nouns" and
further adds that, "The word Indian, while objectionable to some is still perfectly useable." When informed of this,
the theatre group called on the Star to find "more respectful ways to refer to Aboriginals," saying that it considers
usage
of "Indian" and whether we are now out of step with current sensitivities is a matter
the Star's policy on this to be, "as educated as Christopher Columbus was an expert navigator." The Star's
that's concerned me for some time. Though I know the newsroom has given this much thought in the past,
whenever "Indian" is used in the paper or on the website, it triggers numerous complaints from readers who do
indeed find it offensive. The newsroom style committee met this week to reconsider this. Though we generally
agreed that "Indian" is outdated, we also concurred that since "Indian" has legal meaning under Canada's
Constitution and our Indian Act, it's not a word that can or should be banned outright in the Star. The style
committee will now seek input from the major organizations that represent Canada's estimated 1 million aboriginal
peoples (legally comprised of Indians, Inuit and Mtis) to determine if there is consensus that "Indian" is now
considered offensive (as even the website of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada suggests).For me, a clear case can
be made that, given that so many Star readers do indeed seem to find "Indian" offensive, its usage should be
carefully considered and used only when applicable in a legal context. We simply must consider the strong
sensitivities here. The Star, in line with the style guide of The Canadian Press, should respect aboriginal peoples'
"Use Indian with

discretion" and "In all references be guided by the preferences of those concerned."
I'll give the last words here to Nolan who finds it "mindboggling" that the Star has
not come to realize that "Indian" has become offensive to many and that aboriginal
peoples' right to self-identification matters greatly here. "When I saw us called
Indian in the Star's play review, it reminded me of that photo in the paper and some
white guy telling me to 'get a job,' " she told me. "To me, that's who we are all trying to talk to and
preferences about how they wish to be identified. According to CP, writers should,
that's how big the abyss still is. "The play itself is about how the naming of things gives or takes away their power,"
she said. "There is power in naming, in every tradition."
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
390
The term Indian still used today is Internalized colonialism

Schmidt 10 Rob Schmidt has worked as a full-time freelance writer since 1993.
He's published hundreds of business and computer articles, political and cultural
essays, and his first book, The National Jobline Directory (Bob Adams, Inc., 1994).
He earned an MBA and an MA in Library Science from the University of Chicago in
1983. He has a BA in Mathematics from Occidental College, where he graduated
cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. He has studied multicultural and Native American
issues on his own for
decades.http://newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2010/03/indian-and-tribe-aremisnomers.htmAs a writer in the Indian and gaming fields, he works part-time on
Pechanga.net, the Internet news source. He has written for Casino Journal, Indian
Gaming Business, and Indian Country Today. He's a regular contributor to other
websites and blogs and is active on Facebook and Twitter.
The
word "Indian" is a European classification and evidence of a serious

geographical mistake. "American Indian," "Native American" and the use of the term "Mixed-Blood"
are also classifications that are invalid and historically incorrect and misleading.
According to Indian rights activist, Russell Means, these governmentally designated
terms are used to describe Native Americans as ".. .all the prisoners of the U.S.
government" and that the idea of a Native American Heritage Month is a
"...subterfuge to hide the ongoing daily genocide being practiced against my people
by this United States of America." Still, many indigenous people continue to use the
word Indian to describe themselves as a result of internalized colonialism . And: As
opposed to "White," Indian is a racist term. The "I" category was created to cause the ultimate
vanquishing of the Indian through racial classification when all else failed to make
Indians extinct. The category White is self-imposed to promote a social hierarchy of superior and inferior
types. The real persons of this continent knew themselves by names that translated to "the people" or "the human
beings" in relation to their physical location. Before the word "tribe" was obligatory, these differentiated people in
respect to bands, clans and nations, had distinct territories, and were independent political entities with the
inherent right to self-govern. Within these groups identity was based on community and society, and not race. Of
the small amount of human genetic variation, eighty-six percent exists within a local population. There is more
variation within a particular race than there is between different races. Race is not biological, but racism is real.
These perceived "racial" differences justified colonial control, slavery and social inferiority today. And: Tribe is
another misnomer to signify one stage of cultural development in human evolution, thus the etymological origins
must be understood. "Historically, the term tribe in Roman colonial expansion was referred to as "tribus," meaning a
conquered people away from the centers of "civilization" at the peripheries of empire. Prior to the rise of
colonialism, many of today's tribes were "nations" or "kingdoms" with whom the Europeans and Americans
negotiated on a state to state basis only after these people were subjugated was tribe applied to them" (Lobban et
al.). With the concomitant rise in racist ideology, tribal people came to be stereotyped as "inferior, backward,
heathen and uncivilized" from the loftiness of European and colonial perspectives .
I think everyone agrees

we should call Indians by their tribal affiliation whenever possible. But everyone also
agrees that we need a collective name for the original inhabitants of the Americas.
Without such a name, we'd have no way of talking about the collective past,
present, and future of these people. For instance, try describing the significance of
the phrase "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" without using the word "Indian."
So we need a collective term for these people . The alternatives commonly used include Indians,
Native Americans, First Americans, First Nations, Aboriginals, and Amerindians. You can find problems with all these
terms, but Indians (including Russell Means) have settled on the term "Indian." It's by far the most common term
Jennings is correct that "Indian" isn't a distinct racial category. It's

more of an indistinct ethnic category with racial and cultural attributes. As we've
seen, the dividing line between Indian and non-Indian often isn't clear. But at the
used in Indian country.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
391
core, Indians have a set of traits and beliefs that set them apart from non-Indians . As
for "tribe" vs. "nation," the main difference may be size. Tribes were small enough that people could have kinship
ties with each other. The larger nations relied on less personal bonds such as a common language, culture, or
history. But now Indians tend to use "nation" in official or political circumstances and "tribe" in social or personal
ones. It's become something like the distinction between "Indian" and "Native American." People will refer to
"Native Americans" and "nations" formally and "Indians" and "tribes" informally. For more on the subject, see
"Actual Indian" Defined and "American Indian" vs. "Native American."
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
392
Churchill Indicts
Churchill is a wackjob who said the people killed in 9/11
deserved it, he committed multiple counts of academic
misconduct while at UC Boulder and was fired.
Deb, political blogger and contributer to Before its News, 2014 (Nice Deb,
Ward Churchill Still Crazy After All These Years 9/8/2014,
https://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/ward-churchill-still-crazy-after-all-theseyears-video/) CQF
Im sure you remember the little Eichmanns comment made by the nutty
professor in Colorado right after 9/11 while the bodies were still smoldering . Before
Marxist faux indian academic Elizabeth Warren hit the public scene, there was Marxist faux indian
Ward Churchill. Megyn Kelly does a great job critiquing his obnoxious and hateful
words, and keeping her cool as the pompous windbag berates her for being too
dense to appreciate his brilliance. Churchill was finally cut loose from the University
of Colorado Boulder in 2007 after a long career there that began in 1978. In January
2005, during the controversy over his 9/11 remarks, Churchill resigned as chairman
of the ethnic studies department at the University of Colorado his term as chair
was scheduled to expire in June of that year. [22] On May 16, 2006, the Investigative Committee of
the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado concluded that
Churchill had committed multiple counts of academic misconduct, specifically
plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. [3] On July 24, 2007, Churchill was fired for
academic misconduct in an eight to one vote by the University of Colorados Board
of Regents. Think of all of the young, impressionable minds he filled with his poisonous anti-American swill.
Chruchill said that the people killed in 9/11 deserved it, and
called the terrorists gallant and brave
Coulter, Received J.D. at Michigan Law and edited the law review while there,
2005 (Ann, Not Crazy Horse, Just Crazy, 2/17/2005,
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2005-02-17.html) CQF
University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has written that "unquestionably,
America has earned" the attack of 9/11. He calls the attack itself a result of "gallant
sacrifices of the combat teams" by which he means the terrorists who hijacked
commercial airplanes and flew them into skyscrapers, killing thousands of
Americans. That the "combat teams" killed only 3,000 Americans, he says, shows
they were not "unreasonable or vindictive ." He says that in order to even the score with America,
Muslim terrorists "would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the
order of 7.5 million people." To grasp the current state of higher education in America, consider that if Churchill is at
Churchill poses as a radical living on the

edge, supremely confident that he is protected by tenure from being fired . Tenure was
any risk at all of being fired, it is only because he smokes.
supposed to create an atmosphere of open debate and inquiry, but instead has created havens for talentless
Rather than fostering a climate of open inquiry,

college campuses have become fascist colonies of anti-American hate speech,
hypersensitivity, speech codes, banned words and prohibited scientific inquiry.
cowards who want to be insulated from life.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
393
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
394
Churchill was fired because of academic misconduct

Jaschick, graduated from Cornell University in 1985 and has been published in
NYT and WSJ, 2007 (Scott, Ward Churchill Fired, 7/25/2007,
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/07/25/churchill)CQF
More than two and a half years after Ward Churchill's writings on 9/11 set off a furor,
and more than a year after a faculty panel at the University of Colorado at Boulder
found him guilty of repeated, intentional academic misconduct, the University of
Colorado Board of Regents voted 8-1 Tuesday evening to fire him. The vote followed
a special, all-day meeting of the board, in which it heard in private from Churchill, a
faculty panel and from Hank Brown, president of the University of Colorado System,
who in May recommended dismissing Churchill from his tenured post. The regents
emerged from their private deliberations at around 5:30 p.m. Colorado time and voted to fire Churchill, but they did
not discuss their views and they quickly adjourned. A small group of Churchill supporters in the audience shouted
While the firing is effective immediately, Churchill is

entitled under Colorado regulations to receive one year's salary, which for him is
just under $100,000.
"bullshit" as the board vote was announced.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
395
Churchill Indicts Not a Native American

Churchill claimed to he Native American so he could get a job--but he isnt
CPP, Colorado Peak Politics an unbiased news organization covering Colorado
news, 2012 (Colorado Peak Politics, FAKE INDIANS, REAL PLAGIARISM: Scandals
Of Professors Ward Churchill And Elizabeth Warren Overlap, 5/31/2012,
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2012/05/31/fake-indians-real-plagiarism-scandalsof-professors-ward-churchill-and-elizabeth-warren-overlap/)CQF
Churchill and Warren claimed to be members
of the Cherokee tribe, when in fact, neither are. Churchill claimed varying degrees of
Native American ancestry, but a Rocky Mountain News investigation identified 142
direct forebears of Churchill and turned up no evidence of a single Native American
ancestor among them. Likewise, Elizabeth Hunts At Whole Foods Warren claimed to be 1/32 Cherokee,
Lets start with the Fake Native American aspect. Both
but the Boston Globe reports she has not proven she has a Native American ancestor, instead saying she based
her belief on family lore, and she has no official tribal affiliation. Worse yet for Warren, an investigation found that
not only does she not have Native American blood, but a relative of hers was actually involved in rounding up
Native Americans to be killed in the Trail of Tears. So we guess its fair to say she has Native American bloodon
her hands. Not only did both Churchill and Warren falsely claim to be Native American, but both appear to have
Churchill was hired under a special opportunity

position based on his claimed Native American heritage. Similarly, Warren benefited from her
enjoyed professional benefits from doing so.
fake ancestry, with her being promoted as a woman of color by Harvard many times throughout the 1990s, as
well as listing herself as a Native American in a professional law directory in the 1980s.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
396
Smith Indict
Andrea Smiths false claims of indigeneity are a form of
appropriation and colonialism, this turns the criticism.
Barker, Byrd, et al. 7/7 (Joanne Barker, Jodi A. Byrd, Jill Doerfler, Lisa
Kahaleole Hall, LeAnne Howe, J. Khaulani Kauanui, Jean OBrien, Kathryn W.
Shanley, Noenoe K. Silva, Shannon Speed, Kim TallBear, Jacki Thompson Rand.
Open Letter From Indigenous Women Scholars Regarding Discussions of Andrea
Smith July 7, 2015. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/07/07/openletter-indigenous-women-scholars-regarding-discussions-andrea-smith. KLB)
We write to respond to widespread public discussion of well-known scholar-activist
Andrea Smiths history of contradictory claims to Cherokee identity through both
enrollment and lineal descent. While concerns about her claims have been known and discussed within
various indigenous womens circles for years, many people are hearing details about them for the first time. The
news has provoked a variety of responses from those committed to antiracist, antisexist, and anticolonial analyses
and actions, including shock, incredulity, fear, anger, denial, and great sadness. Thus, differing and sometimes
conflicting assumptions about the meanings and intentions of this discussion are circulating on social media. A
prominent fear is that the discussion is motivated by a desire to undermine, police or ostracize an individual;
another is that the work people find important in developing their understandings of colonization and sexual
violence might now have to be jettisoned. We hope to reframe this discussion and to collectively clarify what we
We are indigenous women scholars from a number of

different indigenous nations, communities, academic disciplines, and geographies
who are committed to working for gender, sexual, and racial justice in the context of
decolonization. We write with the intention to open up discussion. We hope to elicit productive dialogues
believe to be core issues at stake.
about deeply fraught and painful issues, and to suggest paths forward for continued and complex analysis of the
roles identity plays in the work we do. We do not claim to represent all indigenous women in Native American and
Indigenous Studies (NAIS) or a monolithic indigenous feminism. There is diverse work within NAIS and
Native/Indigenous gender, sexuality, and feminist studies, and also diverse perspectives within Native/Indigenous
academic and activist communities about feminism. We respect that diversity. Additionally, we want to
acknowledge the kinds of professional vulnerabilities that NAIS scholars are subject to, especially
intergenerationally, through the politics of race, gender, and sexuality. Therefore, we did not invite untenured or
We call first and foremost for accountability to the

communities in which we claim membership. This is not a call for the punitive or the
exclusionary. This case evokes peoples fears and vulnerabilities about very
real histories of disenfranchisement, expulsion, discrimination, and
normative policing in Indian Country and beyond. Thus it bears repeating: our
concerns about Andrea Smith do not emerge from statist forms of enrollment or
non-enrollment, federal recognition or lack thereof. They are not about blood
quantum or other biologically essentialist notions of identity. Nor are they about
cultural purity or authenticity, or imposing standards of identification that those who
would work for or with indigenous communities must meet. Rather, our concerns
are about the profound need for transparency and responsibility in light of
the traumatic histories of colonization, slavery, and genocide that shape
the present. Andrea Smith has a decades-long history of self-contradictory stories
of identity and affiliation testified to by numerous scholars and activists, including
her admission to four separate parties that she has no claim to Cherokee ancestry
at all. She purportedly promised to no longer identify as Cherokee, and yet in her
subsequent appearances and publications she continues to assert herself as a nonspecific Native woman or a woman of color scholar to antiracist activist
adjunct faculty to sign this statement.
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
397
communities in ways that we believe have destructive intellectual and political

consequences. Presenting herself as generically indigenous, and allowing others to
represent her as Cherokee, Andrea Smith allows herself to stand in as the
representative of collectivities to which she has demonstrated no
accountability, and undermines the integrity and vibrancy of Cherokee
cultural and political survival. Her lack of clarity and consistency in her
self-presentation adds to the vulnerability of the communities and
constituents she purports to represent, including students and activists she mentors and who
cite and engage her work. This concerns us as indigenous women committed to opening spaces for scholars and
activists with whom we work and who come after us. Asking for accountability to our communities and collectivities
is not limited to Andrea Smith. Asking for transparency, self-reflexivity, and honesty about our complex histories
and scholarly investments is motivated by the desire to strengthen ethical indigenous scholarship by both
indigenous and non-indigenous scholars. This is one of the core guiding values of indigenous feminisms, and we
believe that the long history of indigenous feminisms cannot and should not be reduced to Smiths work as
representative or originary, even as we recognize that her work on sexual violence and colonialism has had a
profound impact on a wide range of constituencies. Though some express fear that the power of indigenous
feminist critique might be undermined by raising these concerns, such fear is a reflection of the urgent need for
scholars in and beyond indigenous studies to extend their reading and citational practices to include the length and
breadth of indigenous womens writings and activism over the years. Indigenous women have always been at the
forefront of their communities in naming and combatting colonization, genocide, and gendered violence. Looking at
the US and Canada alone, work by Paula Gunn Allen, Kim Anderson, Beth Brant, Chrystos, Sarah Deer, Ella Deloria,
Jennifer Denetdale, Mishuana Goeman, Joy Harjo, Sarah Hunt, E. Pauline Johnson, Winona LaDuke, Emma LaRoque,
Lee Maracle, Bea Medicine, Dian Millon, Deborah Miranda, Dory Nason, Melissa K. Nelson, Jessica Bissett-Perea,
Kimberly Robertson, Luana Ross, Priscilla Settee, Audra Simpson, Leanne Simpson, Lina Sunseri, Elle-Maija
Tailfeathers, and Melanie Yazzie to name only some, demonstrates the vitality and richness of indigenous womens
voices that speak against the racial, gendered, and sexualized violences of colonialism. Given the intellectual and
emotional labor that Andrea Smiths silence and lack of accountability has required us allsupporter or criticto
undertake, we would like to also ask for reflection and care in the stories generated to make sense of her
contradictions and her silences. The history of Cherokee removal and dispossession is deeply woven into the same
southeastern landscapes shaped by slavery and anti-black racism, and the Cherokee Nations disenfranchisement
of the Freedmen must continue to be ethically addressed and challenged. So too must efforts to expunge the rolls of
histories of
playing Indian have gone hand in hand with dispossession of land in Indian
Territory during allotment. Playing Indian is enabled by and supports the
dominant narrative that indigenous peoples are vanishing or already
vanished. The material consequences of that narrative includes ongoing
claims by the state, by science, and by non-indigenous individuals to
indigenous lands, sacred sites, remains, and both individual and group
representations of us. Our concerns are grounded in these histories, and we challenge both individual
entire families in indigenous nations across this continent. At the same time, we recognize that
and structural forms of indigenous erasure. Smiths self-acknowledged false claims and lack of clarity on her own
identity perpetuate deeply ingrained notions of raceblack, white, and Indianthat run counter to indigenous
When she and others continue to produce

her as Cherokee, indigenous, and/or as a woman of color by default, they reinforce
a history in which settlers have sought to appropriate every aspect of
indigenous life and absolve themselves of their own complicity with
continued dispossession of both indigenous territory and existence. The
modes of kinship, family, and community connection.
stories we tell have consequences, and the harm that some stories produce goes beyond their individual context.
One of the devastating consequences of Smith having served as the often singular representative of indigeneity in a
variety of academic and activist social justice contexts is damage to strategic alliance building, especially between
indigenous and non-indigenous women of color. Accountability to communities, kinship networks and multiple
histories is part of the difficult work scholars of indigenous and critical race studies must be willing to undertake to
ensure that our work combats rather than reinforces or leaves untouched the intricate dynamics of
heteropatriarchal racist colonialism. Our desire here is to help move forward productive conversations surrounding
the specific case of Andrea Smith and to also contextualize them within larger discussions long held in NAIS, a
crucial field of inquiry. We hope that this current moment can provide scholars and activists involved with NAIS,
critical ethnic studies, gender, sexuality and queer studies, and multiple activist communities an opportunity to
UTNIF 2015
Baez and Masterson
398
expand their methodologies, citational practices, pedagogies, curriculum, advising/mentoring, and political
organizing. We hope to foster collaboration across our fields and communities that builds our solidarity with LGBTQ,
women of color, and all progressive anti-racist and decolonial scholars and activists, and that contributes to our
ethical, integral, and accountable relations with one another. We do not ask anyone to step back from dialogue and
disagreement, only that all proceed thoughtfully, with awareness of the often conflictual histories of dispossession,
oppression and loss that underpin these conversations. Respectfully, Joanne Barker (Lenape [Delaware Tribe of
Indians]), Professor of American Indian Studies, San Francisco State University Jodi A. Byrd (Citizen of the Chickasaw
Nation), Associate Professor of American Indian Studies, English, and Gender and Womens Studies, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Jill Doerfler (White Earth Ojibwe), Associate Professor, American Indian Studies
University of Minnesota-Duluth Lisa Kahaleole Hall (Kanaka Maoli), Associate Professor of Womens and Gender
Studies, Wells College LeAnne Howe (Enrolled citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma), Eidson Distinguished
Professor in American Literature, University of Georgia, Athens J. Khaulani Kauanui (Kanaka Maoli), Associate
Professor of American Studies and Anthropology, Wesleyan University Jean OBrien (White Earth Ojibwe),
Distinguished McKnight University Professor, History, University of Minnesota Kathryn W. Shanley (Nakoda),
Professor of Native American Studies, University of Montana Noenoe K. Silva (Kanaka Hawaii), Professor of
Hawaiian and Indigenous Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Hawaii at Mnoa Shannon Speed
(Citizen of the Chickasaw Nation), Associate Professor of Anthropology and Director of Native American and
Indigenous Studies, University of Texas at Austin Kim TallBear (Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate), Associate Professor of
Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin Jacki Thompson Rand (Citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma),
Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Iowa

Critical Geography Critique - UTNIF 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Geography Critique - UTNIF 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UTNIF 2015

Baez and Masterson

Privacy/Welfare Link......................................................................................... 130

Root of Borders................................................................................................ 189

AT Debate on the Aff Leads to Real Change.....................................................241

AT US too Oppressive for Nonviolence to Work................................................296

The least interesting

internal mechanism of the modern body politic would grind to a halt of

sovereignty is power to order a domestic arena, (the word

The domestic/international distinction allows unlimited

specifically in Europe, one traditional

the use of information

are inscribing identities on bodies as well, but with

Statism and nationalism make extinction inevitable.

global business-as-usual will simply perpetuate a

The alternative is grassroots resistance against the

University, 2015(Arun Kundnani and Deepa Kumar, Spring 2015, Race,

Surveillance practices themselves

Those concerns began to be swept aside in the 1980s

it points to the ways that

racialized populations and political dissenters continue to experience

The fastgrowing and sprawling

was widely described by US security personnel as the development of USstyle

the imaginations of urban life in colonized zones interact

International surveillance techniques are imported and used

Given the twoway movement of the

In both domains, efforts to identify urban

In such a context one wonders whether urban securitization might

International surveillance strategies are paralleled in the U.S.

Programmes of organized, political violence have always been legitimized and

They operate by multiplying partitions and enclosures that

the discursive construction of the war on terror

Driver, 2001). In fact, they

boundaries has been associated

research into such divergent topics as cognition,

These practices, in which national (spatial)

and reflect power relations (Campbell, 1992; Tickner, 1995).

boundaries will normally raise dramatic questions on such themes as citizenship,

Borders turn the case.

In the US and Europe the shift from securing

colonial models were brought back to the

The sociology of security

The concept of citizenship has an intricate historical

draw boundaries between those included as membersof the community and

whiteness but masculine whiteness that was being constructed in the

American republicans identified citizenship with material self-reliance, participation in public

Citizenship is a way of ethnically cleansing the nation state.

the historical development of passport controls as a way of

THE INVENTION OF THE PASSPORT is, their development as states

Citizenship Biopower Internal Link

Agambens pointwhich takes him beyond a familiar critique

Agamben seems to be suggesting

immigration procedures that is dependent on bounded membership

The citizens become members of the bodynation, members to

immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers can be considered as limit concepts

(e.g., see Agamben, 1994)

Preferential Treatment Link

From the adoption of

The problem we face

The current academic

the colonized of the

neither effected emancipation and equality nor provided new wealth or

departing colonizers and the newly freed to be a historically