1NC for Dustin

8/7/2019 1NC for Dustin

1/19

First Priority Ferguson1NC Page 1/19

Dustin quotes how the World Health Organization's definition of Mental

Illness is incorrect because it's descriptive of only a physical disablement

and not a social disablement. But how does he go beyond these binaries?In fact his performance of dancing is EXACTLY what his evidence says

is wrong: focusing on physical violence versus a so-called culturalviolence. The one group of people who will be disadvantaged by this is

Native Americans: through Culture change, marginalization, and

absorption into a global climate that has no regard for their autonomy.This has resulted in what can only be described as a cultural extinction.

The US Surgeon General reports that Mental Illness, Substance Abuseand Suicide is around 50% higher for Native Americans in North America

than among any other culture, race or ethnicity in the U.S. The question

must be posed then: what IS the result of the affirmative? Asentertaining as the affirmative is they still miss the crux of the problem:

no matter WHAT the question is we must draw a line in the sand: How doyou address the issue of Native American genocide and Land Rights.

Churchill1996 /Ward, From a Native Son: Selected Essays on Indigenism,

1985-1995 Professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado.

Govering Council of the Colorado pg. 519-528/

Ill debunk some of this nonsense in a moment, but first I want to take up theposture of self-proclaimed leftist radicals in the same connection. And Ill do so on

the basis of principle, because justice is supposed to matter more to progressivesthan to rightwing hacks. Let me say that the pervasive and near-total silenceof the Left in this connection has been quite illuminating. Non-Indian

activists, with only a handful of exceptions, persistently plead that they cantreally take a coherent position on the matter of Indian land rights because

unfortunately, theyre not really conversant with the issues (as if these were

tremendously complex). Meanwhile, they do virtually nothing, generationafter generation, to inform themselves on the topic of who actually owns

the ground theyre standing on. The record can be played only so manytimes before it wears out and becomes just another variation of hear no

evil, see no evil. At this point, it doesnt take Albert Einstein to figure outthat the Left doesnt know much about such things because its neverwanted to know, or that this is so because its always had its own plans for

utilizing land it has no more right to than does the status quo it claims tooppose. The usual technique for explaining this away has always been a sort

of pro forma acknowledgement that Indian land rights are of coursereally important stuff (yawn), but that one really doesnt have a lot of

All Monkey's go to heaven....


2/19


time to get into it (Ill 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, whatthey consider to be more important issues). Typically enumerated are sexism,

racism, homophobia, class inequities, militarism, the environment, orsome combination of these. Its a pretty good evasion, all in all. Certainly,

theres no denying any of these issues their due; they are all important,

obviously so. But more important than the question of land rights?Thereare some serious problems of primacy and priority imbedded in the

orthodox script. To frame things clearly in this regard, lets hypothesize for amoment that all of the various non-Indian movements concentrating on

each of these issues were suddenly successful in accomplishing their

objectives . Lets imagine that the United States as a whole were somehowtransformed into an entity defined by the parity of its race, class, and

gender relations, its embrace of unrestricted sexual preference, itsrejection of militarism in all forms, and its abiding concern with

environmental protection (I know, I know, this is a sheer impossibility, butthats my point). When all is said and done, the society resulting from this

scenario is still, first and foremost, a colonialist society, an imperialist

society in the most fundamental sense possible with all that this implies. This istrue because the scenario does nothing at all to address the fact that

whatever is happening happens on someone elses land, not only withouttheir consent, but through an adamant disregard for their rights to the land.

Hence, all it means is that the immigrant or invading population hasrearranged its affairs in such a way as to make itself more comfortable atthe continuing expense of indigenous people. The colonial equation

remains intact and may even be reinforced by a greater degree ofparticipation, and vested interest in maintenance of the colonial order

among the settler population at large. The dynamic here is not very different

from that evident in the American Revolution of the late 18th century, is it? Andwe all know very well where that led, dont we? Should we therefore begin to

refer to socialist imperialism, feminist imperialism, gay and lesbianimperialism, environmental imperialism, African American, and la Raza

imperialism? I would hope not. I would hope this is all just a matter ofconfusion, of muddled priorities among people who really do mean welland whod like to do better. If so, then all that is necessary to correct the

situation is a basic rethinking of what must be done., and in what order.Here, Id advance the straightforward premise that the land rights of First

Americans should serve as a first priority for everyone seriouslycommitted to accomplishing positive change in North America. But before



3/19


I suggest everyone jump off and adopt this priority, I suppose its 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 Americainevitably perpetuates the internal colonial structure of the United States, does

the reverse hold true? Ill state unequivocally that it does not. There is noindication 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 (SixNations 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 essenceofenlightened egalitarianism and democracy. Every imagined example to the

contrary brought forth by even the most arcane anthropologist can be readilyoffset by a couple of dozen other illustrations along the lines of those I just

mentioned. Would sexism be perpetuated? Ask one of the Haudenosaunee clanmothers, 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 womanor man, for that matterabout who it was that owned all real property in

traditional society, and what that meant in terms of parity in gender relations. Aska 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 powerin 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 theinvading, dominating culture. Insofar as restoration of Indian land rights is tied

directly to the reconstitution of traditional indigenous social, political, andeconomic 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. Howabout a restoration of native land rights precipitating some sort of environmentalholocaust? Lets get at least a little bit real here. If youre not addicted to the

fabrications of Smithsonian anthropologists about how Indians lived, or GeorgeWeurthners Eurosupremacist Earth First! Fantasies about how we beat all the

wooly mammoths and mastodons and saber-toothed cats to death with sticks,then this question isnt even on the board. I know its become fashionable among



4/19


Washington Post editorialists to make snide references to native people strewing

refuse in their wake as they wandered nomadically about the prehistoric North

American landscape. What is that supposed to imply? That we, who were mostly sedentary agriculturalists in any event. Were dropping plastic and aluminum

cans as we went? Like I said, lets get real. Read the accounts of early Europeanarrival, despite the fact that it had been occupied by 15 or 20 million people

enjoying a remarkably high standard of living for nobody knows how long: 40,000

years? 50,000 years? Longer? Now contrast that reality to whats been done tothis continent over the past couple of hundred years by the culture Weurthner,

the Smithsonian, and the Post represent, and you tell me about environmentaldevastation. 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 frequentlyadopted both children and adults from other groups. This occurred in pre- contact

times between Indians, and the practice was broadened to include those of bothAfrican and European originand ultimately Asian origin as wellonce contact

occurred. Those who were naturalized by marriage or adoption were consideredmembers of the group, pure and simple. This was always the Indian view. The

Europeans and subsequent Euroamerican settlers viewed things rather

differently, however, and fostered off the notion that Indian identity shouldbe determined primarily by blood quantum, an outright eugenics code

similar to those developed in places like Nazi Germany and apartheid SouthAfrica. Now thats a racist construction if there ever was one. Unfortunately, a lot

of Indians have been conned into buying into this anti-Indian absurdity,and thats something to be overcome. But theres also solid indicationthat quite a number of native people continue to strongly resist such

things as the quantum system. As to militarism, no one will deny that Indiansfought wars among themselves both before and after the European invasion

began. Probably half of all indigenous peoples in North America maintained

permanent warrior societies. This could perhaps be reasonably construed as militarism, but not, I think, with the sense the term conveys within the

European/Euro-American tradition. There were never, so far as anyone candemonstrate, 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 principleof indigenous warfare not to kill, the object being to demonstrate personalbravery, something that could be done only against a live opponent. Theres no

honor to be had in killing another person, because a dead person cant hurt you.Theres 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 sportslike football and boxing. Actually, these kinds of Euro-American games are what I



5/19


would take to be the closest modern parallels to traditional inter-Indian warfare.

For Indians, it was a way of burning excess testosterone out of young males, and

not much more. So, militarism in the way the term is used today is as alien tonative tradition as smallpox and atomic bombs. Not only is it perfectly reasonable

to assert that a restoration of Indian control over unceded lands within the UnitedStates 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, itcan be said that the process should have a tangible impact in terms of

diminishing such oppressions elsewhere. The principles is this: sexism, racism,and all the rest arose here as a concomitant to the emergence and consolidation

of the Eurocentric nation-state form of sociopolitical and economic organization.

Everything the state does, everything it can do, is entirely contingent on itsmaintaining 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 nation-

state inherent to Indian land recovery correspondingly reduces theability 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 aracist, sexist, classist, homophobic, militaristic order on non-Indians.



6/19


We should be suspect of not only their argument but their discourse:

rhizomatic thought is inevitably co-optedall avenues of scholarship

function as either an endorsement of our discourse or silently producesand supports the necessary tools for the Eurocentric discourse embedded

in the Academy to maintain the status quo. You are WITH us or AGAINSTusthere is NO middle ground.

Churchill1996 /Ward, From a Native Son: Selected Essays on Indigenism,1985-1995 Professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado.

Govering Council of the Colorado pg. 78/

At this juncture, the entire planet is locked, figuratively, in a room with the

sociocultural equivalent of Hannibal Lecter. An individual of consummatetaste and refinement, imbued with indelible grace and charm, he distracts

his victims with the brilliance of his intellect, even while honing his

blade. He is thus able to dine alone upon their livers, his feast invariablycandlelit, accompanied by lofty music and a fine wine. Over and over the

ritual is repeated, always hidden, always denied in order that it may becontinued. So perfect is Lecter's pathology that, from the depths of his

scorn of the inferiors upon whom he feeds, he advances himself as their safe

and therapist, he who is in comparably endowed with the ability to explain theirinnermost meanings, who professes to be their savior. His success depends

upon being embraced and exalted by those upon whom he preys. Ultimately,

so long as Lecter is able to retain his mask of omnipotent gentility, hecan never be stopped. The sociocultural equivalent ofHannibal Lecter is th e

core of an expansionist European civilization which has reached out toengulf the planet. In coming to grips with Lecter, it is of no useful

purpose to engage in sympathetic biography, to chronicle the nuances ofhis childhood and catalog his many and varied achievements, whether

real or imagined. The recounting ofsuch information is at best diversionary,allowing him to remain at large just that much longer. More Often, it

inadvertently serves to perfect his mask, enabling him not only to

maintain his enterprise, but also to pursue it with ever more arrogance

and efficiency. At worst, the biographer is aware of the intrinsic evillurking beneath the subject's veneer of civility, butbecause of morbidfascination and desire to participate vicariouslydeliberately obfuscates

the truth in order that his homicidal activities may continue unchecked.

The biographer thus reveals not only a willing complicity in the subject'scrimes, but also a virulent pathology of his or her own. Such is and has

always been the relationship of responsible scholarship to expansionist Europe



7/19


and its derivative societies. The Sole legitimate function of information

compiled about Lector is that which will serve to unmask him and

thereby lead to his apprehension. The purpose of apprehension is not to visitretribution upon the psychopathhe is, after, by definition mentally ill and

consequently not in control of his more lethal impulsesbut to put an end to hisactivities. It is even theoretically possible that, once he is dis empowered, he

can be cured. The point, however, is to understand what he is and what he

does well enough to stop him from doing it. This is the role which mustbe assumed by scholarship vis-a-vis Eurosupremacy, if scholarship itself

is to have any positive and constructive meaning. Scholarship is never'neutral' or 'objective'; it always works either for the psychopath or

against him, to mystify sociocultural reality or to decode it, to make

corrective action possible or to prevent it. It may well be that there arebetter points of departure for intellectual endeavors to capture the real form and

meaning of Eurocentrism than the life, times, and legacy of ChristopherColumbus. Still, since Eurocentrists the world over have so evidently clasped

hands in utilizing him as a (perhaps the) preeminent signifier of their collectiveheritage, and are doing so with such an apparent sense of collective jubilation,

the point has been rendered effectively moot. Those who seek to devote their

scholarship to apprehending the psychopath who sits in our room thushave no alternative but to use him as a primary vehicle of articulation. In

order to do so, we must approach him through deployment of theanalytical tools which allow him to be utilized as a medium of

explanation, a lens by which to shed light upon a phenomena such as themass psychologies of fascism and racism, a means by which to searEurocentrisism of its camouflage, exposing its true contours, revealing the

enduring coherence of the dynamics which forged its evolution. Perhaps throughsuch efforts we can begin to genuinely comprehend the seeminly

incomprehensible fact that so many groups are presently queuing up to associate

themselves with a man from whose very memory wafts the cloying stench oftyranny and genocide. From there, it may be poissible at last to crack the real

does of meaning underlying the sentiments of the Nureemberg rallies, thosespectacles of the plazas of Rome during which fealty was pledged to Mussolini,

and that amazing red-white-and-blue, tie-a-hello-ribbon frenzy gripping the USpublic much more lately. If we can understand, we can apprehend. If wecan apprehend, perhaps we can stop the psychopath before he kills again.

We are obligated to try, from a sense of sheer preservation, if nothing else.Who knows, we may even succeed. But first we must stop lying to ourselves,

or allowing others to do the lying for us, about who it is with whom wenow share our room.



8/19




9/19


Remaining silent in the face of genocide and violence is what results in

violence elsewhere. Progressive change is carries a heavy burden but the

'lets not talk about it' mindset is what has given the green-light tomillions of deaths worldwide.

Schwab2006 /Gabriele, Writing against memory and forgetting Literature

and Medicine 25.1 (2006) 95-121/

Human beings have always silenced violent histories. Some histories,

collective and personal, are so violent we would not be able to live our daily livesif we did not at least temporarily sileonce them. A certain amount of splitting is

conducive to survival. Too much silence, however, becomes haunting. Abraham

and Torok link the formation of the crypt with silencing, secrecy, and thephantomatic return of the past. While the secret is intrapsychic and indicates an

internal psychic splitting, it can be collectively deployed and shared by a people ora nation. The collective or communal silencing of violent histories leads to

the transgenerational transmission of trauma and the specter of an involuntaryrepetition of cycles of violence. We know this from history, from literature,

and from trauma studies. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, for example, Hannah

Arendt writes about the "phantom world of the dark continent."5Referring to the adventurers, gamblers, and criminals who came as luck

hunters to South Africa during the gold rush, Arendt describes them as"an inevitable residue of the capitalist system and even the

representatives of an economy that relentlessly produced a superfluity ofmen and capital" (189). "They were not individuals like the old adventurers,"she continues, drawing on Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, "they were the

shadows of events with which they had nothing to do" (189). They foundthe full realization of their "phantomlike-existence" in the destruction of

native life: "Native life lent these ghostlike events a seeming guarantee

against all consequences because anyhow it looked to these men like a'mere play of shadows. A play of shadows, the dominant race could walk

through unaffected and disregarded in the pursuit of incomprehensibleaims and needs'" (190). When European men massacred these indigenous

peoples, Arendt argues, they did so without allowing themselves tobecome aware of the fact that they had committed murder . Like Conrad'scharacter [End Page 100] Kurtz, many of these adventurers went insane. They

had buried and silenced their guilt; they had buried and silenced theirhumanity. But their deeds came back to haunt them in a vicious cycle of

repetition. Arendt identifies two main political devices for imperialist rule:race and bureaucracy. "Race . . . ," she writes, "was an escape into an

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/literature_and_medicine/v025/25.1schwab.html#FOOT5http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/literature_and_medicine/v025/25.1schwab.html#FOOT5


10/19


irresponsibility where nothing human could any longer exist, and

bureaucracy was the result of a responsibility that no man can bear for

his fellow-man and no people for another people" (207). While thegenocide of indigenous peoples under colonial and imperial rule was

silenced in a defensive discourse of progressing civilization, it returnedwith a vengeance. Race and bureaucracy were the two main devicesused

under fascism during the haunting return to the heart of Europe of the

violence against other humans developed under colonial and imperialrule. The ghosts of colonial and imperial violence propelled the Jewish

holocaust, Arendt shows. In a similar vein, in Discourse on Colonialism, AimeCesaire talks about the rise of Nazism in Europe as a "terrific boomerang

effect."6 He argues that before the people in Europe became the victims of

Nazism, they were its accomplices, that "they tolerated that Nazismbefore it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it,

legitimized it, because, until then, it [had] been applied only to non-European peoples" (36). Cesaire continues, "Yes, it would be worthwhile to

study clinically, in detail, the steps taken by Hitler and Hitlerism and to reveal tothe very distinguished, very humanistic, very Christian bourgeois of the twentieth

century that without being aware of it, he has a Hitler inside him, that Hitler

inhabits him, that Hitler is his demon" (36, Cesaire's italics). This is as closeas we can come to the argument that, until they face the ghosts of their

own history and take responsibility for all the histories of violencecommitted under their rule, Europeans encrypt the ghost of Hitler in their

psychic life. Cesaire's statement also contains an argument about what AshisNandy calls "isomorphic oppressions," that is, about the fact that histories ofviolence create psychic deformations not only in the victims but also in

the perpetrators.7No one colonizes innocently, Cesaire asserts, and no onecolonizes with impunity either. One of the psychic deformations of the perpetrator

is that he turns himself into the very thing that he projects onto and tries to

destroy in the other: "[T]he colonizer, who in order to ease his consciencegets into the habit of seeing the other man as an animal, accustoms

himself to treating him like an animal, and tends objectively to transformhimself into an animal. It is this result, this boomerang effect of colonization

that I wanted to point [End Page 101] out" (41, Cesaire's italics).8 WhatCesaire calls the "boomerang effect" emerges from a dialectics ofisomorphic oppression that as a rule remains largely unacknowledged

and relegated to the cultural unconscious. Together with the ghost effectthat emerges from the silencing of traumatic memories, this boomerang

effect increases the danger of the repetition and ghostly return of violenthistories. What do we have to offset such a vicious circle of violent returns?

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/literature_and_medicine/v025/25.1schwab.html#FOOT6http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/literature_and_medicine/v025/25.1schwab.html#FOOT7http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/literature_and_medicine/v025/25.1schwab.html#FOOT8http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/literature_and_medicine/v025/25.1schwab.html#FOOT6http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/literature_and_medicine/v025/25.1schwab.html#FOOT7http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/literature_and_medicine/v025/25.1schwab.html#FOOT8


11/19


Many victims emphasize testimony, witnessing, mourning, and reparation. Many

theories, including psychoanalysis, concur with this assumption.



12/19


Our alternative: Vote negative as an endorsement of First Americans,

First Priority.

We must embrace the call for impossible realism of first priority to first

Americans. In order to call of liberation from the colonial yoke ofimperialist thought we must start by decolonizing our own minds. It is

our call of the US out of Indian Country which allows us to imagine a

better world which is what we must take serious. Any change andsolvency the affirmative has is temporary without a world in which we

kick the US off the Rock.

Churchill1996 /Ward, From a Native Son: Selected Essays on Indigenism, 1985-1995 Professor of AmericanIndian Studies at the University of Colorado. Govering Council of the Colorado pg. 86-09/

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 arent. Further, no form ofdecolonization has ever been realistic when viewed within the construct

of a colonialist paradigm. It wasnt realistic at the time to expect GeorgeWashingtons rag-tag militia to defeat the British military during the

American Revolution. Just ask the British. It wasnt realistic, as theFrench 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 wasnt reasonable to predict that FidelCastros pitiful handful of guerillas would overcome Batistas regime in Cuba,

another U.S. client, after only a few years in the mountains. And the Sandinistas,to be sure, had no prayer of attaining victory over Somoza 20 years later.Henry

Kissinger, among others, knew that for a fact. The point is that in each case, in

order to begin their struggles at all, anti-colonial fighters around the worldhave had to abandon orthodox realism in favor of what they knew to be

right. To paraphrase Bendit, they accepted as their agenda, a redefinition ofreality in terms deemed quite impossible within the conventional wisdom

of their oppressors. And in each case, they succeeded in their immediate quest

for liberation. The fact that all but one (Cuba) of the examples used subsequentlyturned out to hold colonizing pretensions of its own does not alter the truth of this

or alter the appropriateness of their efforts to decolonize themselvesin theleast. 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 ongoingexistence as discernible peoples, from the grip of U.S. (and Canadian)



13/19


internal colonialism are plainly part of this process of liberation. Given

that their very survival depends upon their perseverance in the face of all

apparent odds, American Indians have no real alternative but to carry on. Theymust struggle, and where there is struggle here is always hope. Moreover,

the unrealistic or romanticdimensions of our aspiration to quite literallydismantle 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 interestsbetween prevailing governmental/corporate elites and common non-

Indian citizens. Herein lies the prospect of long-term success. It is entirelypossibly that the consensus of opinion concerning non-Indian rights to

exploit the land and resources of indigenous nations can be eroded, and

that large numbers of non-Indians will join in the struggle to decolonizeNative North America.Few non-Indians wish to identify with or defend

the naziesque characteristics of US history. To the contrary most seek todeny it in rather vociferous fashion. All things being equal, they are

uncomfortable with many of the resulting attributes of federal posturesand 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 eventthe Indians get their land back, or even if the extent of present federal

domination is relaxed, native people will do unto their occupiers exactlyas has been done to them; mass dispossession and eviction of non-Indians, especially Euro-Americans is expected to ensue. Hence even

progressives who are most eloquently inclined to condemn US imperialismabroad 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 mostfundamental of all issues the more sophisticated among them seek to

divert discussions into higher priority or more important topics likeissues of class and gender equality in which justice becomes

synonymous with a redistribution of power and loot deriving from theoccupation of Native North America even while occupation continues.Sometimes, Indians are even slated to receive their fair share in the

division of spoils accruing from expropriation of their resources. Always, suchthings are couched in terms of some greater good than decolonizing

the .6 percent of the U.S. population which is indigenous. Some Marxistand environmentalist groups have taken the argument so far as to deny that



14/19


Indians possess any rights distinguishable from those of their conquerors. AIM

leader Russell Means snapped the picture into sharp focus when he observed n

1987 that: so-called progressives in the United States claiming that Indians areobligated to give up their rights because a much larger group of non-Indians

need their resources is exactly the same as Ronald Reagan and Elliot Abramsasserting that the rights of 250 million North Americans outweigh the rights of a

couple million Nicaraguans. Leaving aside the pronounced and pervasive

hypocrisy permeating these positions, which add up to a phenomenon elsewheredescribed as settler state colonialism, the fact is that the specter driving even

most radical non-Indians into lockstep with the federal government on questionsof native land rights is largely illusory. The alternative reality posed by native

liberation struggles is actually much different: While government propagandists

are wont to trumpetas they did during the Maine and Black Hills land disputes ofthe 1970sthat an Indian win would mean individual non-Indian property owners

losing everything, the native position has always been the exact opposite.Overwhelmingly, the lands sought for actual recovery have been governmentally

and corporately held. Eviction of small land owners has been pursued only ininstances where they have banded togetheras 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 thefact that all non-Indian title to any portion of North America could be called into

question. Once the dike is breached, they argue, its just a matter of timebefore everybody has to start swimming back to Europe, or Africa or wherever.

Although there is considerable technical accuracy to admissions that all non-Indian title to North America is illegitimate, Indians have by and large indicatedthey would be content to honor the cession agreements entered into by their

ancestors, even though the United States has long since defaulted. This wouldleave 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 Statesnever 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 forunceded lands, or their equivalent, to be returned. In fact, the government itself

still directly controls more than one-third of the total U.S. land area, about 770million acres. Each of the states also owns large tracts, totaling about 78 millionacres. It is thus quite possibleand always has beenfor 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 million-odd acres of the privately held total are

now in the hands of major corporate entities, the real dimension of the threat tosmall land holders (or more accurately, lack of it) stands revealed. Government



15/19


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 indigenousnations 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 forumsuch as anew bilateral treaty processwith which to proceed. In fact, numerous native

peopleshave, 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 willstill 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 Indianness 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 oflanded 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 jurisdictionother than that of the United States, they would obviously have the right to leace,

and they should have the right to compensation from their own government(which got them into the mess in the first place). Finally, and one suspects this is

the real crux of things from the government/corporate perspective, any such

restoration of land and attendant sovereign prerogatives to native nations wouldresult in a truly massive loss of domestic resources to the United States,

thereby impairing the countrys economic and military capacities (seeRadioactive Colonialism essay for details). For everyone who queued up to wave

flags and tie on yellow ribbons during the United States recent imperialadventure 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 ofnon-Indians in North Americareally have much to gain and almost nothing to lose, from the success of

native people in struggles to reclaim the land which is rightfully ours. The

tangible diminishment of US material power which is integral to ourvictories in this sphere stands to pave the way for realization of most

other agendas from anti-imperialism to environmentalism, from AfricanAmerican liberation to feminism, from gay rights to the ending of class

privilege pursued by progressive on this continent. Conversely,succeeding with any or even all of these other agendas would stillrepresent an inherently oppressive situation in their realization is

contingent upon an ongoing occupation of Native North America withoutthe consent of Indian people. Any North American revolution which failed

to free indigenous territory from non-Indian domination would be simplya continuation of colonialism in another form. Regardless of the angle from



16/19


which you view the matter, the liberation of Native North America,

liberation of the land first and foremost, is the key to fundamental and

positive social changes of many other sorts. One thing they say, leads toanother. The question has always been, of course, which thing is to the

first in the sequence. A preliminary formulation for those serious aboutachieving radical change in the United States might be First Priority to

First Americans Put another way this would mean, US out of Indian

Country. Inevitably, the logic leads to what weve all been so desperatelyseeking: The United States at least what weve come to know it out of

North America altogether. From there it can be permanently banishedfrom the planet. In its stead, surely we can join hands to create something

new and infinitely better. Thats our vision of impossible realism. Isnt

it time we all worked on attaining it?



17/19


Inherency!

The problem with Deleuze is that of fidelity: either the affirmative is anethicotheoritical act and betrays the letter of Deleuze to remain faithful

and betrays the spirit of his argument OR they remain faithful to histhought and argument and actually betray the core of his thought: the

creative impulse to create new fluid identities. Either way the affirmative

creates a master-thinker mentality that makes their position apoliticaland clean depriving it of all critical potential. Voting negative is truly the

only revolutionary option!

Sinnerbrink

-2006 /Robert, Nomadology or Ideology? Zizeks Critique of Deleuze, www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia01/parrhesia01_sinnerbrink.pdf(copy+paste forarticle)/

Zizeks critique ofDeleuze begins by drawing attention to the well-known conceptualcouples

of virtual and actual, becoming and being, claiming that these repeat the instability of

the traditional philosophical opposition between idealism andmaterialism. This opposition was definitively superseded by post-Kantian idealism, above all byHegel; but Zizek also points to the relevance of the contemporary virtualisation of matter in quantum

physics as a sign of the overcoming of this traditional philosophical opposition (OwB, 21-26). Relying

on Manuel de Landas account,9 Zizek draws attention to a central tension or even

contradiction between Deleuze I (of the Logic of Sense andDifference and Repetition), and Deleuze II (the Deleuzo-Guattarian duo of Anti-Oedipus and A

Thousand Plateaux). For Deleuze I, the virtuality of becoming as the sense-

event is the passive, causally sterile effect of actual bodily-materialcauses and processes. For Deleuze II, the domain of virtual singularities and

flux of pure becoming now becomes the productive cause of individuated

bodies and subjects within diverse concreteassemblages. So it seems that the domain of virtuality, or pure flux of

becoming, is on the one hand an impassive effect, and on the other agenerative process, which suggests the need for some mediating figure

or theoretical account to explain the precise relationship between thesecentral aspects of Deleuzes thought (OwB, 20-21 ff.). This tension or unresolvedopposition between virtual becoming and actual being recalls the way in which post-Kantian idealism

sought to overcome the Kantian dualism between

phenomenal and noumenal aspects of experience, notably through Schellings

complementarity between philosophy of nature and philosophy of spirit, which was then taken over andtransformed in Hegelian speculative idealism (OwB, 23-24). Deleuze Is resolution of the apparent

http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia01/parrhesia01_sinnerbrink.pdfhttp://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia01/parrhesia01_sinnerbrink.pdf


18/19


deadlock between virtual and actual or becoming and being is to posit a third mediating figure, thequasi-cause or pure agency of transcendental causality (OwB, 27)that which remains excessive

in the causes effect, the surplus otherness irreducible to precedent causal conditions. The quasi-causedesignates the advent of the New, in the sense of the unforeseeable, the incalculable, the singular; it

represents the metacause of the very excess of the effect over its (corporeal) causes (OwB, 27). Theclaim is that, over and above corporeal causes, which can never be complete, we must posit a

transcendental causality to account for the unforeseeable excess of the effect (the New) over its causal

conditions and determinations. Deleuzes example, which in some ways raises more questions that itanswers, is the

emergence of Italian neo-realism after World War IIan instance of how the Event of the New

outstrips the historical conditions that provide its context.10 We cant explain neo-realism, Deleuzeclaims, just by reference to these attendant historical circumstances; hence Deleuze posits the concept

of quasi-cause as a transcendental causality that might account for the unforeseeable excess of the

effect over its antecedent causalconditions. One might object that the fact that the effect outstrips itsapparent cause maypoint to multiple complex chains of causality, something that outstrips ourknowledge of the causal network rather than the causal network itself. Be that as it may, _i_ek takesDeleuzes move here as an opportunity to neatly couple him with Lacan, notingtriumphantly that theDeleuzian quasi-cause parallels the Lacanian objet petit a, thepure, immaterial, spectral entity thatserves as the object-cause of desire (OwB, 27)a point Deleuze and Guattari themselves

acknowledge in Anti-Oedipus.11The important issue, for Zizek, is that Deleuzes unrepentant

dualism generates a number

of unfortunate consequences. The fundamental dualism between virtual and actual,

becoming and being, is transposed into a multiplicity of further dualismsthat repeat the essential good/bad dichotomy that Deleuze, as a good

Nietzschean, is otherwise at pains to deconstruct: active versus reactiveforces, nomadic versus sedentary distribution, molecular versus molar

processes, body without organs versus organised body,

deterritorialisation versus reterritorialisation, and so on. Moreover, Deleuzes

ontological dualismthe logic of pure becoming as sterile effect versus the logic of pure

becoming as productive processis then translated into two different political

logics and practices. On the one hand, the ontology of productive becomingleads to a Leftist Deleuzo- Guattarian politics of the self-organisation of the

multitude of molecular groups that resist and undermine the molar,totalising systems of power (OwB, 32). On the otherhand, Zizek observes, Deleuze Is

ontology of the sterile sense-event appears to remain apolitical, withouta corresponding political logic or practice. Here one is tempted topoint to

Alain Badious attempt to construct precisely that kind of politics ofuniversality

based upon an ontology of pure multiplicity, of fidelity to the Event of the New,

whether in art, thought, politics, or love.12 Zizek, however, while relying onBadious critique of Deleuze, argues that the seemingly apolitical Deleuzian



19/19


ontology of the sterile sense- event harbours a more radical Deleuzian

politics than the vulgar Deleuzo-Guattarian politics of the molecular

multitude (as developed further in Hardt and Negris Empire, thetarget of Zizeks political critique of Deleuze).


Documents

1NC for Dustin