Jump to content
SimonSays

Answers to Set Col (Red Pedagogy) K Aff

Recommended Posts

Hey yall, 

 

In my league there's a team currently destroying other teams on a Set Col aff and I was wondering if anyone knew what were some good answers to this -- any advice is highly appreciative :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could do a RAISE CP or TVA because the 2016 proposed RAISE act did quite a bit to solve for Grande's thesis. My team and I ran it with red pedagogy and you can find it on Sioux Falls Roosevelt Wells-Wong Aff page from westside. If you could post a 1AC though I could help more

*edit: spelling oops

Edited by sfrpeterm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This aff is pretty good, but I have a few things.

1. Their advocacy is kind of odd because it's a k advocacy and isn't topical but they try to frame the second half of it like a topical advocacy. Also, their advocacy doesn't really seem to solve that much of their 1AC. The judge affirming red pedagogy as a a lens doesn't connect to the regulation of primary and secondary education very well. Also, regulating education systems through red pedagogy doesn't really mean that much, because it isn't clear what that regulation looks like or who does it. The whole aff is about how US education is bad, but the advocacy maintains the system of US education. Their Matthews card says that US education is built on colonization, but the advocacy doesn't dismantle this system, it simple reframes the judge's view towards it. Pressure the advocacy really hard.

2. Matthews says decolonization is key but I'm not sure if the aff decolonizes so it might lose solvency. 

 

 

You could maybe read

1. Ballot fails. 

2. University K. The aff solvency is positioned on the judge acting as a member of power and the university to affirm native pedagogies which recreates a power imbalance that is rigged in favor of the University. By appealing to the judge as a force to validate nativeness, systems criticized by the 1AC are merely reproduced.

3. Cede the political

4. Cruel optimism

5. Theft DA/K and consult natives pic/pik.

    a. Ask their relation to the pedagogy and usual procedurals. If they are nonnative, you can read this. What it basically says is that their affirmation of red pedagogy is simply the settler state stealing native knowledge for its benefit. Their use of red pedagogy to get ballots is a misuse of stolen native knowledge that domesticates it and makes everything worse. The pic/pik would be to consult native over the use of red pedagogy. You could also read saviordom stuff with this.

6. Some sort of victimization or victim images k.

7. FW and usual stuff against k affs like a heg da

 

This is a tricky aff to go against, but there are definitely options. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One possibility is a state PIK. Affirm Red pedagogy as an epistemological framework, not a means of regulation or anything that can be made a malleable tool of governance.

 

Here's a "decolonization as metaphor bad" turn. I was looking at the Grande 8 card which says "Red pedagogy promotes an education for decolonization. Within Red pedagogy, the root metaphors of decolonization are articulated as equity, emancipation, sovereignty, and balance. "

 

Decolonization is not metaphorical or symbolic--treating it that way re-entrenches settler futurity.

Tuck and Yang 12

Eve Tuck is an assistant professor of educational foundations at the State University of New York at New Paltz. Her writing, which has been concerned with Indigenous theories, qualitative research, research ethics, and theories of change, has appeared in the Harvard Educational Review, the Urban Review and several edited volumes, including Ethical Futures in Qualitative Research and the Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. and K. Wayne Yang is an assistant professor at UC San Diego. Ph.D., 2004, Social and Cultural Studies, University of California, Berkeley. 2012 [“Decolonization is not a metaphor”, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, pp. 1-­‐40, http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/download/18630/15554]

Our goal in this article is to remind readers what is unsettling about decolonization. Decolonization brings about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life; it is not a metaphor for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools. The easy adoption of decolonizing discourse by educational advocacy and scholarship, evidenced by the increasing number of calls to “decolonize our schools,” or use “decolonizing methods,” or, “decolonize student thinking”, turns decolonization into a metaphor. As important as their goals may be, social justice, critical methodologies, or approaches that decenter settler perspectives have objectives that may be incommensurable with decolonization. Because settler colonialism is built upon an entangled triad structure of settler-native-slave, the decolonial desires of white, nonwhite, immigrant, postcolonial, and oppressed people, can similarly be entangled in resettlement, reoccupation, and reinhabitation that actually further settler colonialism. The metaphorization of decolonization makes possible a set of evasions, or “settler moves to innocence”, that problematically attempt to reconcile settler guilt and complicity, and rescue settler futurity. In this article, we analyze multiple settler moves towards innocence in order to forward “an ethic of incommensurability” that recognizes what is distinct and what is sovereign for project(s) of decolonization in relation to human and civil rights based social justice projects. We also point to unsettling themes within transnational/Third World decolonizations, abolition, and critical spaceplace pedagogies, which challenge the coalescence of social justice endeavors, making room for more meaningful potential alliances.

 

This ensures the harms of the 1AC and, eventually, the complete destruction of Native Americans.

Tuck and Yang 12

Tuck, Toronto, Critical Race and Indigenous Studies, Associate Professor, and Yang, University of California, Department of Ethnic Studies, Associate professor, 12

[Eve and K. Wayne, 2012, “Decolonization is not a metaphor,” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Vol. 1, No.1, pg. 1-40, Accessed 7/10/17, GDI-GFerrer-Falto]

Everything within a settler colonial society strains to destroy or assimilate the Native in order to disappear them from the land - this is how a society can have multiple simultaneous and conflicting messages about Indigenous peoples, such as all Indians are dead, located in faraway reservations, that contemporary Indigenous people are less indigenous than prior generations, and that all Americans are a “little bit Indian.” These desires to erase - to let time do its thing and wait for the older form of living to die out, or to even help speed things along (euthanize) because the death of pre-modern ways of life is thought to be inevitable - these are all desires for another kind of resolve to the colonial situation, resolved through the absolute and total destruction or assimilation of original inhabitants.

Numerous scholars have observed that Indigeneity prompts multiple forms of settler anxiety, even if only because the presence of Indigenous peoples - who make a priori claims to land and ways of being - is a constant reminder that the settler colonial project is incomplete (Fanon, 1963; Vine Deloria, 1988; Grande, 2004; Bruyneel, 2007). The easy adoption of decolonization as a metaphor (and nothing else) is a form of this anxiety, because it is a premature attempt at reconciliation. The absorption of decolonization by settler social justice frameworks is one way the settler, disturbed by her own settler status, tries to escape or contain the unbearable searchlight of complicity, of having harmed others just by being one’s self. The desire to reconcile is just as relentless as the desire to disappear the Native; it is a desire to not have to deal with this (Indian) problem anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this book review of Red pedagogy makes some good points, like, Grande calls for the incorporation of indigenous epistemology, but doesn't incorporate indigenous epistemology into that call.

 

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qp8c635

Edited by TheSnowball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PIK out of decolonizing the mind w/ Tuck Yang net benefit is the way to go, plus a bunch of reformism bad case turns/arguments + maybe TuckYang suffering reps k.

 

You could also read a soft T/case takeout shell about having concrete plans b/c the 1AC as-is is pretty vague. Here's one such file https://www.dropbox.com/s/ffapese4x1i9hge/soft%20fwk.docx?dl=1 that I made while debating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PIK out of decolonizing the mind

What exactly is the PIK advocating? Like, what's left of the 1AC if you take out symbolic decolonization?

 

Also, does this mean advocating literal, material decolonization? Or just, affirming Red pedagogy without the assumption that it alone is sufficient to solve the harms of the 1AC?

 

What do you think about a fiat/normativity style argument that it's unethical to performatively demand decolonization in exchange for the ballot because fiat means you never have to follow through on those demands and you can go back to settler futurity land when the 2AR timer beeps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is the PIK advocating? Like, what's left of the 1AC if you take out symbolic decolonization?

 

affirming Red pedagogy without symbolic decolonization-- the net benefit would be tuck and yang's arguments about decolonization as a metaphor being bad

 

What do you think about a fiat/normativity style argument that it's unethical to performatively demand decolonization in exchange for the ballot because fiat means you never have to follow through on those demands and you can go back to settler futurity land when the 2AR timer beeps?

This would be a nice solvency deficit to read on case or it could be turned into a ballot PIK--affirm red pedagogy, but deny the power of the ballot because that affirms settler futurity when the round ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One possibility is a state PIK. Affirm Red pedagogy as an epistemological framework, not a means of regulation or anything that can be made a malleable tool of governance.

 

Here's a "decolonization as metaphor bad" turn. I was looking at the Grande 8 card which says "Red pedagogy promotes an education for decolonization. Within Red pedagogy, the root metaphors of decolonization are articulated as equity, emancipation, sovereignty, and balance. "

 

Decolonization is not metaphorical or symbolic--treating it that way re-entrenches settler futurity.

Tuck and Yang 12

Eve Tuck is an assistant professor of educational foundations at the State University of New York at New Paltz. Her writing, which has been concerned with Indigenous theories, qualitative research, research ethics, and theories of change, has appeared in the Harvard Educational Review, the Urban Review and several edited volumes, including Ethical Futures in Qualitative Research and the Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. and K. Wayne Yang is an assistant professor at UC San Diego. Ph.D., 2004, Social and Cultural Studies, University of California, Berkeley. 2012 [“Decolonization is not a metaphor”, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, pp. 1-­‐40, http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/download/18630/15554]

Our goal in this article is to remind readers what is unsettling about decolonization. Decolonization brings about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life; it is not a metaphor for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools. The easy adoption of decolonizing discourse by educational advocacy and scholarship, evidenced by the increasing number of calls to “decolonize our schools,” or use “decolonizing methods,” or, “decolonize student thinking”, turns decolonization into a metaphor. As important as their goals may be, social justice, critical methodologies, or approaches that decenter settler perspectives have objectives that may be incommensurable with decolonization. Because settler colonialism is built upon an entangled triad structure of settler-native-slave, the decolonial desires of white, nonwhite, immigrant, postcolonial, and oppressed people, can similarly be entangled in resettlement, reoccupation, and reinhabitation that actually further settler colonialism. The metaphorization of decolonization makes possible a set of evasions, or “settler moves to innocence”, that problematically attempt to reconcile settler guilt and complicity, and rescue settler futurity. In this article, we analyze multiple settler moves towards innocence in order to forward “an ethic of incommensurability” that recognizes what is distinct and what is sovereign for project(s) of decolonization in relation to human and civil rights based social justice projects. We also point to unsettling themes within transnational/Third World decolonizations, abolition, and critical spaceplace pedagogies, which challenge the coalescence of social justice endeavors, making room for more meaningful potential alliances.

 

This ensures the harms of the 1AC and, eventually, the complete destruction of Native Americans.

Tuck and Yang 12

Tuck, Toronto, Critical Race and Indigenous Studies, Associate Professor, and Yang, University of California, Department of Ethnic Studies, Associate professor, 12

[Eve and K. Wayne, 2012, “Decolonization is not a metaphor,” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Vol. 1, No.1, pg. 1-40, Accessed 7/10/17, GDI-GFerrer-Falto]

Everything within a settler colonial society strains to destroy or assimilate the Native in order to disappear them from the land - this is how a society can have multiple simultaneous and conflicting messages about Indigenous peoples, such as all Indians are dead, located in faraway reservations, that contemporary Indigenous people are less indigenous than prior generations, and that all Americans are a “little bit Indian.” These desires to erase - to let time do its thing and wait for the older form of living to die out, or to even help speed things along (euthanize) because the death of pre-modern ways of life is thought to be inevitable - these are all desires for another kind of resolve to the colonial situation, resolved through the absolute and total destruction or assimilation of original inhabitants.

Numerous scholars have observed that Indigeneity prompts multiple forms of settler anxiety, even if only because the presence of Indigenous peoples - who make a priori claims to land and ways of being - is a constant reminder that the settler colonial project is incomplete (Fanon, 1963; Vine Deloria, 1988; Grande, 2004; Bruyneel, 2007). The easy adoption of decolonization as a metaphor (and nothing else) is a form of this anxiety, because it is a premature attempt at reconciliation. The absorption of decolonization by settler social justice frameworks is one way the settler, disturbed by her own settler status, tries to escape or contain the unbearable searchlight of complicity, of having harmed others just by being one’s self. The desire to reconcile is just as relentless as the desire to disappear the Native; it is a desire to not have to deal with this (Indian) problem anymore.

actually, what would be a good answer to settler innocence? I've seen it run as a DA to a perm i read against a set col k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, what would be a good answer to settler innocence? I've seen it run as a DA to a perm i read against a set col k

Your advantage to the perm (the impacts and scholarship of the 1AC) outweigh the DA and the perm solves the DA because it incorporates decolonization into your policy-making orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This aff is pretty good, but I have a few things.

1. Their advocacy is kind of odd because it's a k advocacy and isn't topical but they try to frame the second half of it like a topical advocacy. Also, their advocacy doesn't really seem to solve that much of their 1AC. The judge affirming red pedagogy as a a lens doesn't connect to the regulation of primary and secondary education very well. Also, regulating education systems through red pedagogy doesn't really mean that much, because it isn't clear what that regulation looks like or who does it. The whole aff is about how US education is bad, but the advocacy maintains the system of US education. Their Matthews card says that US education is built on colonization, but the advocacy doesn't dismantle this system, it simple reframes the judge's view towards it. Pressure the advocacy really hard.

2. Matthews says decolonization is key but I'm not sure if the aff decolonizes so it might lose solvency. 

 

 

You could maybe read

1. Ballot fails. 

2. University K. The aff solvency is positioned on the judge acting as a member of power and the university to affirm native pedagogies which recreates a power imbalance that is rigged in favor of the University. By appealing to the judge as a force to validate nativeness, systems criticized by the 1AC are merely reproduced.

3. Cede the political

4. Cruel optimism

5. Theft DA/K and consult natives pic/pik.

    a. Ask their relation to the pedagogy and usual procedurals. If they are nonnative, you can read this. What it basically says is that their affirmation of red pedagogy is simply the settler state stealing native knowledge for its benefit. Their use of red pedagogy to get ballots is a misuse of stolen native knowledge that domesticates it and makes everything worse. The pic/pik would be to consult native over the use of red pedagogy. You could also read saviordom stuff with this.

6. Some sort of victimization or victim images k.

7. FW and usual stuff against k affs like a heg da

 

This is a tricky aff to go against, but there are definitely options. 

I've heard of this argument (specifically Berlant) -- what is it saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuck and Yang's argument is that a focus on metaphorical decolonization can allow people to evade the more important task of literal decolonization, whether by alleviating guilt or by distracting from more important issues. There are a few ways you can answer it.

Most obviously, you can argue that literal decolonization is bad, though this might have tension with other arguments you're reading or feed the other team additional links. Similarly, you can argue that literal decolonization is a bad policy goal. There's literature criticizing the fetishization of land as critical to indigenous identity, that might be a good place to start researching this.

Tuck and Yang frame emancipatory consciousness as secondary to emancipatory action, but you can challenge that idea if you want. Maybe a colonized mind or soul is dramatically worse than anything else. Maybe Friere's model of emancipation as Plato's cave is right and Lorde's model of freedom as ancient black women's felt soul wisdom is wrong (as well as racist).

You can also argue that the other team is interpreting Tuck and Yang in too hardline a fashion, because the paper makes concessions here and there about the importance of social justice generally. The paper also makes it clear that decolonization is going to require enacting specific projects relative to the conditions of various colonized groups. The paper even talks about how we can see things like heteronormativity or war in general as a consequence of colonialism. Frankly, I think this verges on a contradiction given that the paper criticizes specious interpretations of various oppressions as "colonialist" and takes pains to clarify that not all social justice is decolonization, but you might as well exploit it - argue the authors' examples mean that there's room for actionable strategies for decolonization other than the broadest and most straightforward.

You can argue against leaning on guilt as a motivator, or argue that alleviating white people's feelings of discomfort actually does work as an emancipatory strategy. This idea that we should deny anxious white people the possibility of making settler moves to innocence seems to require either that we view white people feeling guilty as intrinsically good (probably for non-consequentialist reasons like deservingness) or that guilt and anxiety will make white people more productive in opposing decolonization, both can be challenged.

Finally, you can flip the distraction argument by asserting that if we always interrupt conversations about specific, marginal changes we can make to social systems or people's mindsets with an insistence that we need to focus on literal decolonization of land first and foremost, we'll never achieve anything at all. The problem of winning causing decreased attention to the other team's concerns is symmetric and unavoidable; if the other team wins on Tuck and Yang's argument all the time they'll be less likely to properly engage with the more specific literature on problems like those the affirmative solves.

  • Upvote 3

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...