Jump to content
thefrozenone

Answering Give Back the Land

Recommended Posts

Start with a couple of impact turns. Read Appadurai for sure. Also probably the Gupta and Ferguson evidence (look for camp files called "Identity K" or something like that). Maybe speaking for others. After that, perm. The argument is also the worst kind of essentialism in its most basic premise, which is probably a bad thing. And,a lot of people disagree with the notion that "indigenous" Americans are really indigenous, and those people tend to believe that the real genocide went the other direction (there is some decent anthropological evidence that suggests that European peoples were here first but were wiped out by the American Indian peoples once they arrived). This is really just another impact turn, but I didn't include with those other ones because it's not nearly as true, it's a big risk in reading, and it's a lot harder for them to respond to. Indicting Mr. Churchill as an author is probably a waste of time.

 

Having run a number of natives cases over two years in high school and having debated against this argument several times, this is my best advice. Take it with a grain of salt; afterall it's just my $.02. If your coaches/varsity debaters disagree, they're probably way smarter than me anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all the above posters are dancing around the argument instead of just answering it. We hit this argument in college a few times and it wasn't some tricky framework question, it was sheerly to give back the land which is what I'm assuming everyone would say. If it was some tricky indict of your epistemology or methodology than they wouldn't constrain themselves to defending giving back the land.

 

Just impact turn this argument like crazy. If you are reading anything besides a true blue K aff, then just take the far right road. Giving back the land would destroy america as we know it. That means no more economy, no more hegemony, no more military, no more western technology, etc. Cross-x by itself should kill this argument.

Where would current US citizens go? Back to their home countries? (if yes then what if they came here for asylum i.e. Rwanda, Christian Arabs, etc?) Would we just occupy another nation?

Who would own what land? Would Native Americans just fight over different areas? What about 1/4 Natives, 1/2, 1/8 and so on, can they stay?

What about US troops overseas?

Do you fiat citizen and government compliance? (You get either your backlash turns or utopian fiat args)

 

The only framing question they may ask is about performing actions based on unethical presumptions (I.e. the US acting for itself/others while ignoring that they're not a legitimate nation). This is easily beat by both simple utilitarian calculus as well as proving their action is equally unethical in a number of ways (cross-x should be easy to prove that). They would displace people even worse than the original act.

 

(If they do read Churchill you could point out that he refused to submit blood proof that he is a Native, so who would he define as who can stay and who can go)

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any suggestions? I'm not quite sure where to start.

 

if it is a k aff we're talking about...

 

(sing Woody Guthrey's this land is our land)

question what it means to be a native amurikkan, ask about the obvious outcomes of voting negative... if they have a fiated cp action then it is ball game...(read form and content turns, i'd start with like bleiker or someone like that)

 

what we usually do is talk about the things that the negative often forgets such as cultures that where forcefully put onto this land that probably are just as important to the criticism as well I.E. the folks who where captured and forcefully put on boats during the transatlantic slave trade. To say that they don't have anything to do with the lineage of this land is absurd,it is just as important to acknowledge the position of those who where forced onto this land... that this land belongs to them just as much historically.

 

also i've read a card that talks about the ritualistic notions of time that are ignored in the process of the criticism, i.e. the fact that the criticism itself remains caught in the linear time frame that was used in order to dominate those cultures. i believe the card is located somewhere in spurlock's bison file #available on Evazon -

 

oh and, perm do both... pitting liberatory movements against each other is horrible, we should acknowledge that both movements are reasons why colonial nature is bad, and it isn't a matter of choosing which rejection of colonialism comes first, it's about rejecting colonialism all together.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get some stuff about Ward Churchill and how he plagiarized... also find something on giving back the land is bad.. Im at camp and im trying to find this stuff

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get some stuff about Ward Churchill and how he plagiarized... also find something on giving back the land is bad.. Im at camp and im trying to find this stuff

 

 

 

Can majority sue minority - 

or is it but a one-way court? 

Are Indians minorities, and 

why are they  incarcerated? 

Is Indian segregation legal? 

Can an Indian be president? 

Where are Indian newscasters?

 

but seriously I cut mine from Linda Bishai, her book is called.

 

Forgetting Ourselves: Secession and the (Im)Possibility of Territorial Identity 

 

 

P.S. good job picking up a thread 2 years later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it is a k aff we're talking about...

 

(sing Woody Guthrey's this land is our land)

question what it means to be a native amurikkan, ask about the obvious outcomes of voting negative... if they have a fiated cp action then it is ball game...(read form and content turns, i'd start with like bleiker or someone like that)

 

what we usually do is talk about the things that the negative often forgets such as cultures that where forcefully put onto this land that probably are just as important to the criticism as well I.E. the folks who where captured and forcefully put on boats during the transatlantic slave trade. To say that they don't have anything to do with the lineage of this land is absurd,it is just as important to acknowledge the position of those who where forced onto this land... that this land belongs to them just as much historically.

 

also i've read a card that talks about the ritualistic notions of time that are ignored in the process of the criticism, i.e. the fact that the criticism itself remains caught in the linear time frame that was used in order to dominate those cultures. i believe the card is located somewhere in spurlock's bison file #available on Evazon -

 

oh and, perm do both... pitting liberatory movements against each other is horrible, we should acknowledge that both movements are reasons why colonial nature is bad, and it isn't a matter of choosing which rejection of colonialism comes first, it's about rejecting colonialism all together.

#colonialhybridity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

 

What is the specific argument you see the article making?  Is is consistent with the aff? (assuming usual aff assumptions)

 

Quite interesting rhetorically--and conceptually.

 

The homeland argument at the top of page 14 of the article (not of the digital document)--the first 2 full paragraphs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is all u need  

 

First. Backlash will erase any progress and result in genocide.

Bradford 05 – William is a Chiricahua Apache and Associate professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law. (“Beyond Reparationsâ€, Ohio State Law Journal, 2005, HeinOnline)
*JAR = Justice as Restoration = GBTL*

Still, while JAR is the most normatively attractive of the three theoretical clusters, JAR theory is not the final stop on the theoretical journey to justice for Indians. JAR theory is susceptible to criticism on several grounds. As compelling as the argument that non-Indian land owners are obligated to vacate their entitlements in favor of the descendants of their Indian predecessors-in-title may be, principles of equity, as JAS theory is quick to assert, should proscribe the wholescale evacuation of millions of acres of land and the forced relocation of innocent and newly-homeless non-Indians to places uncertain. Even if equity alone is not sufficient to counsel prudence, the prospect that non-Indians threatened in the security of their property interests might organize to induce political action resulting in further abridgement of Indian resources and rights° must be accounted for in any theory of Indian justice. If the only remedy for a past injustice is a present injustice, a perpetual cycle of bloody conflict over land is inevitable 341 However, the most radical of JAR theorists are practically oblivious to the broad externalities the restorative clement of their philosophy might spawn: despite warnings that it is now much too late to “give back Manhattan,†some insist that nothing short of the dissolution of the U.S. will suffice if we are to “takfc] seriously. . . morality and justice.†If politics is the art of the possible, a theory that insists on the dismemberment of the modem-day U.S. or other forms of “radical social surgery†is too fantastic to be given serious consideration as a political proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my advice is do not say:

 

- Heg/economy...etc...your impacts are non-unique

-Backlash .... its a form of genocide denial

- Indian identity bad ... you must be able to distinguish between the colonized and the colonizer

- Ward bad....he's not..and there are many other authors that say the same thing..

 

Also, there are many different ways this argument can be deployed..

 

a. give back the land --- 1/3 of all unceded treaty lands

b. US Off the planet..... impossible realism..

c. Colonialism bad ..makes our impacts non unique, your colonialist

d. White philosophy crowd out..if you read critical arguments....

 

If affirmative, you need to cut some cards on why you are ant-colonialist...or why you are a negative action....if you say right wing/war/US leadership good things, then you need to defend genocide good.....

 

If negative..common arguments/and large debates that happen is capitalism vs. colonialism.....or anti-redness crowds out anti-blackness....

 

I hope this helps...

 

Jackie

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are good Ks of tying identity to land, this falls into all the other Ks that also criticize the idea of national identity/borders too which are often ran as colonialism. There are also indigenous Ks of the idea of land 'belonging' to somebody. Wilderson has a card somewhere in Red, White, and Black that says the sheer idea of owning land/people/things is the logic of colonialism/slavery itself.

 

If their argument is about criticizing the frame of US colonialism and those things (decolonizing our mind, etc.), perm and pragmatism arguments are your friend. You want to make arguments that fall under 'using the state to combat it's own colonial legacy' and etc.. A lot of the recent answers to the Colonialty Ks work here.

 

If their argument is literally to abolish the USFG through a fiated CP, then you have a fairly easy debate ahead.

 

Natives/Indigenism was a big aff for the college topic last year so there are a lot of cites you can look up

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are good Ks of tying identity to land, this falls into all the other Ks that also criticize the idea of national identity/borders too which are often ran as colonialism. There are also indigenous Ks of the idea of land 'belonging' to somebody. Wilderson has a card somewhere in Red, White, and Black that says the sheer idea of owning land/people/things is the logic of colonialism/slavery itself.

 

---There are better K's of people who say "identity tied to land"....the reason indians dont have the land is because white people (USFG) thinks they "own" it...........wilderson would say vote negative if you were aff and read any wilderson card against the K....

 

 

If their argument is about criticizing the frame of US colonialism and those things (decolonizing our mind, etc.), perm and pragmatism arguments are your friend. You want to make arguments that fall under 'using the state to combat it's own colonial legacy' and etc.. A lot of the recent answers to the Colonialty Ks work here.

 

--- each and every action by the state reifies the state....not sure what a coloniality K is....

 

 

If their argument is literally to abolish the USFG through a fiated CP, then you have a fairly easy debate ahead.

 

--no one ever says abolish USFG..

 

Natives/Indigenism was a big aff for the college topic last year so there are a lot of cites you can look up

 

just so you have answers to answers... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


There are good Ks of tying identity to land, this falls into all the other Ks that also criticize the idea of national identity/borders too which are often ran as colonialism. There are also indigenous Ks of the idea of land 'belonging' to somebody. Wilderson has a card somewhere in Red, White, and Black that says the sheer idea of owning land/people/things is the logic of colonialism/slavery itself.

 

---There are better K's of people who say "identity tied to land"....the reason indians dont have the land is because white people (USFG) thinks they "own" it...........wilderson would say vote negative if you were aff and read any wilderson card against the K....

 

People who think identity is performative and relational (read: the whole left) would say that a static determinant of identity is simplistic, misguided, and ultimately harmful to those who don't subscribe to it. For example, if indigenous identity is "tied to the land", and I am a Native American whose experience with culture is not tied to the land, am I not really an indigenous person? Your "tied to the land" marker becomes a means of exclusion.

 

Also - even if USfg ownership of the land is bad, it doesn't mean the alt is good - replacing one form of bad ownership with another, when the problem is the concept of ownership of the land - is just as bad, if not worse.

 

If their argument is about criticizing the frame of US colonialism and those things (decolonizing our mind, etc.), perm and pragmatism arguments are your friend. You want to make arguments that fall under 'using the state to combat it's own colonial legacy' and etc.. A lot of the recent answers to the Colonialty Ks work here.

 

--- each and every action by the state reifies the state....not sure what a coloniality K is....

 

If every action (re)constitutes the state, then actions that favor the negative's cause reconstitute the state on the negative's terms. Put another way; if Ward Churchill was president, the US would be significantly nicer to Native Americans. Ganondorf's point was to combine these with pragmatism arguments, which shape the way the judge should approach progress (incrementally, rather than through revolution). If you win pragmatism (which is not a hard debate / something policy 1ACs should be good at) then you've won the crux of the debate.

 

I don't know what Gannondorf meant by "Coloniality answers", but if he's thinking of Gaytri Spivak/Homi Bhaba/post-colonialism hybridity style answers, then he's spot on. Identity can be part colonized and part colonizer; what happens to mixed-race (or mixed-culture) people in the world of the alt? Are they the bad guy or the good guy, or some third thing? Spivak (who debate is not unfamiliar with) argues that its wrong to treat "the oppressed" (or in this case, "the indigenous") as homogenously constituted with homogenous desires. The constitution of culture that the neg necessarily subscribes to is dualistic in its thinking, and therefore innacurate and affirmatively harmful. This is not dissimilar from the way many college teams criticize the black/white binary when fighting off Wilderson.

 

If their argument is literally to abolish the USFG through a fiated CP, then you have a fairly easy debate ahead.

 

--no one ever says abolish USFG..

 

Well DDI, ENDI, and a variety of successful HS and college teams probably aren't "no one".

Just so you have answers to answers to answers :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think those are good answers?....lol...

That's what I felt like saying to your post, but I thought it better to be nice :)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Give Back the Land teams are hard to beat because they've encountered all of the above arguments and have tricky ways of answering all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partna and I have read Churchill before. My first suggestion is that you don't read stupid arguments like "Churchill plagiarized" or "natives raped colonial women". I also believe that attacking the act of "impossible realism" is key to beating Churchill. Look, all he says is that it's necessary to embrace the notions that are contrary to those of our oppressors, because the act of giving back the land is impossible under the mindset of our oppressors. I call this "sticking it to the man" alternative.  Embracing impossible realism is as simple as just saying. Give back the land. The alternative itself is a personal aesthetic ( by aesthetic I mean an aesthetic described by Foucault- an act of personal change rather than an attempt to change everything around us). That makes a really good perm argument. All the affirmative has to do is agree that land rights are important and think about it. Perm do the alternative then the plan. Churchill says that issues of the environment, militarism, class inequities, etc. are all very important but we just need to affirm that land rights need to be addressed first. 

 

Also, I have heard arguments that resemble "they over romanticize the situation- identity isn't tied to the land". But I am not really conversant with the issue <- did anyone catch that?

 

Also most teams don't read impacts with Churchill except "we control root cause". Good teams will read silence DA's (the one I have read is Schwabb in 2006) in their shell or they might read Kato in the shell. If they just claim root cause you can answer that efficiently and articulate that case is a major DA to the alternative. 

Even if you don't win that they have root cause, I think spending a good amount of time on the perm/alt debate then you can come out of the round a winner.

  • Upvote 2

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...

×
×
  • Create New...