Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So I'm familiar with Wilderson and his work on Afro-Pessimism, but I watched a round where the negative team went for the wilderson turtle island alternative, and centered the K on both anti-redness and blackness. 

 

"return Turtle Island to the savage. Repair the demolished subjectivity of the slave." 

 

I've heard of the turtle island k, and have a few files, but I'm not sure I completely understand the thesis of the alt.

 

What actually is Turtle Island? Or WHEN was Turtle Island?
How does the alt function, I'm assuming it's obviously not fiating giving back the land?

Does Wilderson say that Anti-Redness is worse/same than Anti-Blackness?

Which comes first?

Is it a matter of ontology?

 

Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm familiar with Wilderson and his work on Afro-Pessimism, but I watched a round where the negative team went for the wilderson turtle island alternative, and centered the K on both anti-redness and blackness. 

 

"return Turtle Island to the savage. Repair the demolished subjectivity of the slave." 

 

I've heard of the turtle island k, and have a few files, but I'm not sure I completely understand the thesis of the alt.

 

What actually is Turtle Island? Or WHEN was Turtle Island?

Turtle Island is the Native name for what was understood to be the entire world, but references specifically to North America.

How does the alt function, I'm assuming it's obviously not fiating giving back the land?

Lots of different authors advocate varying degrees of returning land so it's really card-specific.

 

Does Wilderson say that Anti-Redness is worse/same than Anti-Blackness?

Wilderson would say that they function differently because the Native or Red body was forced out and nearly wiped out but the black body was placed under ontological enslavement since the middle passage. I don't know which he would say is worse for sure, but I would guess he would argue Anti-Blackness is worse because he tends to be fairly flippant in his analysis of the Native body and colonization's role in the Native's transition from the Native to the Savage.

 

Which comes first?

What do you mean?

 

Is it a matter of ontology?

Is what a matter of ontology?

 

Thanks

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I'm familiar with Wilderson and his work on Afro-Pessimism, but I watched a round where the negative team went for the wilderson turtle island alternative, and centered the K on both anti-redness and blackness. 

 

"return Turtle Island to the savage. Repair the demolished subjectivity of the slave." 

 

I've heard of the turtle island k, and have a few files, but I'm not sure I completely understand the thesis of the alt.

 

What actually is Turtle Island? Or WHEN was Turtle Island?

Turtle Island is the Native name for what was understood to be the entire world, but references specifically to North America.

How does the alt function, I'm assuming it's obviously not fiating giving back the land?

Lots of different authors advocate varying degrees of returning land so it's really card-specific.

 

I'm talking about the Wilderson '10 card where he talks about how demanding a return of turtle island and repairing the demolished subjectivity of the slave, "12 simple words" could restructure the antagonisms of America or something like that. Does Wilderson advocate for LITERALLY GIVING BACK THE LAND, or is it a metaphor for something within debate [for example, burning down the state is more metaphorical for refusing anti-black modes of knowledge production/affirmation, in favor of a radical critique of the system].

 

Does Wilderson say that Anti-Redness is worse/same than Anti-Blackness?

Wilderson would say that they function differently because the Native or Red body was forced out and nearly wiped out but the black body was placed under ontological enslavement since the middle passage. I don't know which he would say is worse for sure, but I would guess he would argue Anti-Blackness is worse because he tends to be fairly flippant in his analysis of the Native body and colonization's role in the Native's transition from the Native to the Savage.

 

Which comes first?

What do you mean?

 

Is blackness a prior question to redness? But I guess you covered this above, like as he probably prioritizes blackness as the ontological zero point.

 

Is it a matter of ontology?

Is what a matter of ontology?

 

Is anti-redness ontological?

 

Thanks

 

Edited by ConsultVerminSupreme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilderson says the red body is half socially dead because while they have a history of being under genocide, they aren't natally alienated (because of things like tribal heritage and land and so on).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What actually is Turtle Island? Or WHEN was Turtle Island?

Turtle Island is the Native name for what was understood to be the entire world, but references specifically to North America.

 

How does the alt function, I'm assuming it's obviously not fiating giving back the land?

Lots of different authors advocate varying degrees of returning land so it's really card-specific.

I'm talking about the Wilderson '10 card where he talks about how demanding a return of turtle island and repairing the demolished subjectivity of the slave, "12 simple words" could restructure the antagonisms of America or something like that. Does Wilderson advocate for LITERALLY GIVING BACK THE LAND, or is it a metaphor for something within debate [for example, burning down the state is more metaphorical for refusing anti-black modes of knowledge production/affirmation, in favor of a radical critique of the system].

I think that people who don't read Wilderson as calling for the literal destruction of the state read him wrong, and I think that he would say to literally give back the land. Read the article "Decolonization is Not A Metaphor." I think it's called that anyway, but it talks about how it has to be a literal deconstructionof colonial hierarchies of power including giving the land back to those who it belongs to. 

 

Which comes first?

What do you mean?

Is blackness a prior question to redness? But I guess you covered this above, like as he probably prioritizes blackness as the ontological zero point.

Read Byrd, she's very good about how Redness is the actual ontological zero point. She and I would argue that the colonial transformation of the Native to the Savage is prior to anti-blackness ontologically. 

 

Is it a matter of ontology?

Is what a matter of ontology?

Is anti-redness ontological?

Yeah.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a call to end the world, an impossible demand that would destroy the fundamental antagonisms of civil society.

Wilderson is not literally saying "give back the land" because that's impossible, and he knows it. That's the point.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants this  k's masterfile or a  white philosophy k  pm me

Same I will trade heavily for either.

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...