Jump to content
JeanLucPicard

is it ok to run antiblackness if you're not black?

Recommended Posts

Teams will for sure call you out for "using the oppression of the black community to win debates, not to actually solve the problem". Also you being asian you probably haven't felt the negative bias on the black community. That's what I would say at least. 

 

But you should definitlely cut it for the sake of being more literate, and maybe someone on your team could benefit from it.

Edited by EyeOfSauron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is very possible that you will be called out for not actually being black, it is also very possible to pre-cut a response for that scenario. You might be inclined to say that the argument still has value, whether you are being personally affected by it or not - you could even consider it an action of roleplay if you really wanted to go deep with that strategy.

 

Is it, "wrong," to do this? That's your call. I recommend exploring the literature and deciding for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking about cutting some kind of wilderson aff-- given I'm not black (specifically Asian), is it wrong for me to run antiblackness?

 

 

Teams will for sure call you out for "using the oppression of the black community to win debates, not to actually solve the problem". Also you being white you probably haven't felt the negative bias on the black community. That's what I would say at least. 

 

But you should definitlely cut it for the sake of being more literate, and maybe someone on your team could benefit from it.

???

 

Also, model minority studies pair really well w/ antiblackness studies, not so sure about wilderson but there are definitely things like coalition building given the two are often stereotyped as contrasting minorities within the schematics of whiteness, i.e. that of order and that of criminality, both of which are detrimental to the individuals they affect. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you could most definitely run an antiblackness Kritik, but I would probably steer clear of Wilderson, he's not the most forgiving author when it comes to nonblack people commodifying black struggles (which is what you may be called out on. However, there are several authors the write about the interrelated nature of the Asian and black identities. I will pm you an excerpt from a card I found from backfiles last year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much do you fight anti-blackness outside of debate? That question is pretty important in deciding whether reading antiblackness kritiks in debate is "commodifying" or furthering a legitimate political strategy?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everyone else here: It's often a personal opinion on whether or not it's okay to run, but even then you'll run into some speaking for others arguments.

 

The arguments will usually be entirely premised around the alternative, or in the case of an Affirmative, the solvency mechanism. I think you should be fine as long as you steer away from a few particular arguments like Paradigmatic Analyses, which can get you into trouble if you and your partner are not black.

 

I also agree with Ted Cruz: Modern minority operates really well with most anti-blackness ideas, particularly Chinese binary arguments. Otherwise, just prep out answers to speaking for others and you just be fine.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea that only Black debaters should be able to say anti-Blackness is bad is bad because it polarizes the community but I also think a non-Black debater saying they are the victim of anti-Blackness is bad because it co-opts and commodifies violence.

 

So my view is to argue it structurally or not at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea that only Black debaters should be able to say anti-Blackness is bad is bad because it polarizes the community but I also think a non-Black debater saying they are the victim of anti-Blackness is bad because it co-opts and commodifies violence.

 

So my view is to argue it structurally or not at all.

I don't necessarily agree with you here. In my opinion, a kritik is not commodification when the kritik specifically affects your body. To the point when you run a kritik such as antiblackness, and you cannot prove that you are SPECIFICALLY hurt by it, I as a judge would consider it a commodification and would likely vote for the aff if they made that argument. I don't know, as a black debater I may be a little biased on this specific Kritik, but I think all kritiks ought to specifically affect your body.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a podcast interview that was done w/ Frank B. WIlderson III stated their views on the matter. They had said that *in theory* there was no issue w/ white people advocating the positions that authors think we should advocate. That being said, they also continued to say that they are not sure why a white person would want to advocate for them. Why would a white person want to advocate for an end to civil society if that included ending themselves? --> see podcast here: https://hsimpact.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/michigan-k-lab-podcast-afro-pessimism/
 

In the context of anti-blackness studies and model minority studies in debate, I would take a look at Centennial KK's wiki from back in the day (http://hspolicy13.debatecoaches.org/bin/Centennial+MD/Koo-Koo+Neg.htm) (or any Centennial wiki since 2013 for that matter) and see how they are reading in within the confines of debate. There are also tons of videos on youtube of them debating, if you wanted to see the actual performance of them debating.

 

Edit: I really think that this whole debate about whether or not white people should be allowed to read the position is summed up by a Tamara Nopper article (http://racetraitor.org/nopper.html). Definitely worth the read.

Edited by CodyGustafson
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  You shouldn’t be reading this

Evans 15 [Rashad Former debate coach @ Emporia State U, “On White Afro-Pessimism,” http://fivefouraff.com/2015/08/21/on-white-afro-pessimism/, tony]

One important move of afro-pessimism is to focus on anti-blackness as opposed to or in addition to white supremacy. The idea is that the world is anti-black and that anti-blackness is: (1) bigger than individual acts, (2) about more than white people and (3) foundational to humanity and civil society. In other words, all white people are implicated no matter how good or nice they are and so are non-white, non-Black people and no good can come of this world. However, that focus on anti-blackness and what makes the Black experience unique has also become an excuse for non-Black debaters to only focus on how “the Black body” is positioned by violence without theorizing about who is doing the positioning. In addition, if the world is always already anti-black then it can be difficult to see how any individual debater, judge or coach might be actually participating in anti-blackness, particularly as they engage with each other on the everyday. And, that humanity and civil society is fundamentally anti-black is merely an opportunity to explain why it has always sucked to be Black and not an opportunity to explain that the only way to affirm Blackness is to upend the entire world and at least includes a violent war against white people. Afropessimism is nothing if not an affirmation of blackness. It includes a negation of the world, but it is principally an affirming argument. For Black people. A white afropessimist makes no sense. White afropessimism is just anti-blackness. If you are a white afro-pessimist you should understand that your existence is complicit in violence against Black people and/or that your non-existence is a necessity to Black liberation. Under no circumstances should you understand your role to be to spread the gospel of pessimism further. Your engagement with the argument will always be theoretical (you have no relevant experience), redundant (you can never be additive to this conversation) and objectifying (reducing black people to objects of study). Afropessimism is an argument about why Black people should be the subjects of the debate. It is about how Black people are always already the subject of all debates but excluded from them as such. It is not about white people. All of this assumes that we are taking the argument seriously and not speaking in metaphorical terms, something Eve Tuck warns against in the context of settler colonialism. Both the Settler Colonialism and Black Nihilism arguments rely significantly on Fanon. And Fanon’s main point is that the native/colonialist and/or black/white cannot coexist. In practical terms, this meant that Black liberation in Africa required a violent war to the end. It’s an either/or life or death choice for both sides. But, understanding that anti-black violence is foundational is to understand that you have to fight back in literal terms. To end the world is to end the world. I am not certain that debaters fully understand the implications of such. If the students in my lab understood this they would have found the Black Nihilism argument as difficult as the Settler Colonialism argument. But they did not, partially because they were introduced to the argument from the perspective of Gramsci and a theory of civil society and not from Fanon and everyday anti-Black violence, but also because I didn’t take the time to explain the argument fully. Under no circumstances should non-Black debaters be taught to advocate for afro-pessimism from a non-Black person. And under no circumstances should two white boys think they have a better shot flipping negative and running afropessimism than reading their own Aff (something I had to explain before a quarters debate at the camp tournament). When that happens something has gone wrong.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a podcast interview that was done w/ Frank B. WIlderson III stated their views on the matter. They had said that *in theory* there was no issue w/ white people advocating the positions that authors think we should advocate. That being said, they also continued to say that they are not sure why a white person would want to advocate for them. Why would a white person want to advocate for an end to civil society if that included ending themselves? --> see podcast here: https://hsimpact.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/michigan-k-lab-podcast-afro-pessimism/

 

wilerson also goes on to say that there's a difference between non-black folks being engaged in a debate with it and them actually running it, specifically "we're reaching an era where afro pess is edgy and sexy yet people prefer to hear it from an asian or white candidate...i think afro pess in the hands of non blacks is a new form of critique." (not sure i perfectly transcribed it).

 

It's up to you to interpret what that means but I would generally steer clear from reading wilderson, especially against a team where one/both members are black. Also, why do you want to read this aff? like why specifically choose an afropessimism/antiblackness aff?

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...