Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Randomly Laughing

K of the word Native?

Recommended Posts

i'm thinking about writing a K critiquing the use of the word Native for its negative connotations (i.e. savage, brutal) for use against LSA 'native languages' cases. so, i was wondering if anyone knew if anyone's published much on this. cites, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I have seen a Tribes K in my backfiles which criticises the word tribes in the same way you wish to kritik the word natives. You could easily gt a link to this K because most of the evidence talks about stuff like tribal elders and stuff. I think that a natives K would be a little weaker because natives stemms from the word native which is accociated with the origin of things, thus native americans. I havent seen the natives cards so that is just my thoughts so take that with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason that 'native' has a negative connotation is because society gave it that label.

 

Doing a K that runs away from the problem doesn't really solve. Also, I'm almost sure any remotely critical Natives (yes, I said it) Aff would have very good claims to solvency, especially considering the case revolves around societal views towards Native Americans in the public sphere, and indeed, towards languages.

 

Also, how does the negative prefer we refer to them? As American Indians? No doubt somebody would criticize that too.

 

Finally, if the negative's alternative is to dbreak down difference and make everybody the same, the Aff automatically has offense on it. The current system in the status quo is one of assimilation, and inherently, racism. "White Man's Burden", anybody?

 

That's just from me, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of literature on which term is preferable to another. You can probably use whichever term you are most comfortable defending as your alternative, and criticize whichever phrase the aff used. "Native" is a very loaded term, I'm sure there's plenty you can find on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, how does the negative prefer we refer to them? As American Indians? No doubt somebody would criticize that too.

 

The negative would prefer the use of the term 'first americans' this term besides being without the negative connotation that may be percieved with the use of native is also historically accurate. those refered to as native americans did not originate here, they crossed a land bridge.

 

the whole point of the K would be that the aff can't solve for the cultural harms they claim because they perpetuate them by essentially damning those they claim to help to always being the natives and therefore inferior to the white man and dependent.

 

and 'white man's burden'? that definitly isn't the idea of the K, in fact it's the opposite, that is the idea central to the aff. instead of teaching them english, we are of course, teaching indiginous languages but who are we to decide what these people learn. that is the idea of a white man's burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The negative would prefer the use of the term 'first americans' this term besides being without the negative connotation that may be percieved with the use of native is also historically accurate. those refered to as native americans did not originate here, they crossed a land bridge.

 

the whole point of the K would be that the aff can't solve for the cultural harms they claim because they perpetuate them by essentially damning those they claim to help to always being the natives and therefore inferior to the white man and dependent.

 

and 'white man's burden'? that definitly isn't the idea of the K, in fact it's the opposite, that is the idea central to the aff. instead of teaching them english, we are of course, teaching indiginous languages but who are we to decide what these people learn. that is the idea of a white man's burden.

 

The Aff has the duty to engage the face of the Other; adressing them in an evasive and politically-correct term only perpetuates the status quo, wherein the 'Natives' are ignored by semantics and trivial discussions that distract from the real problem.

 

Furthermore, undermining the societal impression of what a 'Native' really is would be, if anything, key to solvency.

 

Also, by your logic, aren't all people just native Africans? What does the Negative define a 'native' as?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not quite sure how refering to them in a non-offensive way perpetuates the status quo, when the s.q. is that we call them native americans.

 

how does the aff undermine the current interpretation of natives? all this aff says is that "natives are too stupid to know that they need to speak their original languages. we need to send white men in there to set them straight' this perpetates the 17th century assumption of natives' wisdom/brain power/ knowledge: that they need someone else to teach them what they 'need to know'

 

and the negative would not define native, that is what dictionaries are for. but furthermore, the neg would not define it because we don't advocate its use under standard pretenses- according to the k its use would be racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive thought about making this K myself because st. john's runs this and their in my state, but i dont think there is enough offense and ultimately the debate will go aff because what they are arguing is actually true and will actually work (especially if the 1ac is critical). aside from this, there are other alternatives and better ways to get a TON of offense against this case and different ways to get around the native/american indian discourse you just have to look for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not quite sure how refering to them in a non-offensive way perpetuates the status quo, when the s.q. is that we call them native americans.

 

how does the aff undermine the current interpretation of natives? all this aff says is that "natives are too stupid to know that they need to speak their original languages. we need to send white men in there to set them straight' this perpetates the 17th century assumption of natives' wisdom/brain power/ knowledge: that they need someone else to teach them what they 'need to know'

 

and the negative would not define native, that is what dictionaries are for. but furthermore, the neg would not define it because we don't advocate its use under standard pretenses- according to the k its use would be racist.

 

1. I don't think the affirmative is quite that "they're too stupid to know they need to save their languages". I think that this argument that white men have to save them is a different K, not necessarily a language kritik. Perhaps you are thinking more along the lines of Romanticism?

 

2. Again, I think if you are K'ing the word "native" you need some sort of feasible alternative because otherwise how would you identify the group of people you are helping/wouldn't you just be using the same language as the aff? Again, the K you are talking about doesn't sound like a language K, although it's certainly a definite possibility against this case. While you can probably tie some of this "we associate the word native with primitive and savage" in with a romanticism or other sort of "white man saving the natives" kritik, I think you have to either commit to language or to a non-language kritik. I think this is why some people on this thread have been saying which term you would use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question here is how this K would answer back the Perm... i mean, "Do Plan and change all instances of 'Natives' to 'X'" solves all of the K and gets all aff solvency... then you are just stuck to a silly theory debate about how you cannot let the aff apologize for what they said.

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how one would do that. Maybe they could do what they normally do with all other language K's ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i made a dope K for this word, "native" specifically for the indigenous LSA language case. hit me up maybe we can work something out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i made a dope K for this word, "native" specifically for the indigenous LSA language case. hit me up maybe we can work something out.

 

What is it? I thought earlier in this thread you said you didn't have a K.

 

And Jeff- wouldn't the perm technically be severance? Not that anyone really cares but I'm pretty sure the neg will try and stick you with any and all language you used in the 1AC. Especially in a case devoted to languages, the way you phrase things is probably important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perm is severence, but big deal...

 

Like, the answers that the nag could make to the perm would be purely theory, and all of the weak... Like, the link isnt even to representations, its to one word...

 

If the aff articulates the theoretical legitamacy of the perm as 1- BPO and 2- still functionally the same plan, then there is little for the neg to do... they will have to proove that language Ks are a good thing basically, and then the aff can drop the BOMB here: the terms Native Americans, First Nations, American Indians, etc. all have baggage attached to them. If you legitamize voting down aff like this because they use the wrong word, then you kill all real world education about what is actually hurting these groups... basically, in this case language K's would kill all education bc the terminology is so fucked up...

 

Also, case will always outweigh... always...

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perm is severence, but big deal...

 

Like, the answers that the nag could make to the perm would be purely theory, and all of the weak... Like, the link isnt even to representations, its to one word...

 

If the aff articulates the theoretical legitamacy of the perm as 1- BPO and 2- still functionally the same plan, then there is little for the neg to do... they will have to proove that language Ks are a good thing basically, and then the aff can drop the BOMB here: the terms Native Americans, First Nations, American Indians, etc. all have baggage attached to them. If you legitamize voting down aff like this because they use the wrong word, then you kill all real world education about what is actually hurting these groups... basically, in this case language K's would kill all education bc the terminology is so fucked up...

 

Also, case will always outweigh... always...

 

-G.

Ideally, any self-respecting kritik will also function as a case turn - i.e., the root of indigenous Americans' problems lies in the fashion they are addressed in.

 

Personally, I think some of the above stuff is right, though - perm solves, and the alternative is going to be a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ideally, any self-respecting kritik will also function as a case turn - i.e., the root of indigenous Americans' problems lies in the fashion they are addressed in.

 

Good luck finding warranted evidence that is comparative to the aff's claims that learning language and culture is most important... like seriously, the chances of you winning "the word 'Native' is more racist than Western notions of cultural assimilation inherent to schools" is practically nil...

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those damn Negatives will do anything to try to stop an Aff that links to nothing, eh, Jeff?

 

Maybe if someone realized that this case links so fucking hard to Zizek multiculturalism and that the capitalism impact turns all of case and that solving capitalism totally solves the root of the aff harms...

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all this shit is irrelavant if u run it right as a floating pik to do the plan but reject their retoric of native u solve the aff and the k which is key to solviong the aff for watever reasons u like 2 claim...also thats y u run it as a self forfilling proficy k...there languages are becoming extinct b/c we call them natives kind of thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all this shit is irrelavant if u run it right as a floating pik to do the plan but reject their retoric of native u solve the aff and the k which is key to solviong the aff for watever reasons u like 2 claim...also thats y u run it as a self forfilling proficy k...there languages are becoming extinct b/c we call them natives kind of thing

 

Abusive much?

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abusive much?

 

-G.

 

yes...and y is that a bad thing...if u do the research and ur evidence says so...y should u not run it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes...and y is that a bad thing...if u do the research and ur evidence says so...y should u not run it...

 

Because theory debates suck... and losing theory debates for trying to screw over the aff with hella abusive pics and stupid kritiks sucks even more...

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...