Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


agl125 last won the day on October 3 2015

agl125 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

218 Excellent

About agl125

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
  1. Their argument that conscientization can actually solve anything is a settler move to innocence that avoids concrete action towards decolonization. Tuck and Yang, 12 Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, State University of New York at New Paltz; University of California, San Diego; “Decolonization is not a metaphor,” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, Vol. 1., No. 1, 2012, pg. 19 //bghs-ms Fanon told us in 1963 that decolonizing the mind is the first step, not the only step toward overthrowing colonial regimes. Yet we wonder whether another settler move to innocence is to focus on decolonizing the mind, or the cultivation of critical consciousness, as if it were the sole activity of decolonization; to allow conscientization to stand in for the more uncomfortable task of relinquishing stolen land. We agree that curricula, literature, and pedagogy can be crafted to aid people in learning to see settler colonialism, to articulate critiques of settler epistemology, and set aside settler histories and values in search of ethics that reject domination and exploitation; this is not unimportant work. However, the front-loading of critical consciousness building can waylay decolonization, even though the experience of teaching and learning to be critical of settler colonialism can be so powerful it can feel like it is indeed making change. Until stolen land is relinquished, critical consciousness does not translate into action that disrupts settler colonialism. So, we respectfully disagree with George Clinton and Funkadelic (1970) and En Vogue (1992) when they assert that if you “free your mind, the rest (your ass) will follow.” Second it turns the case – causes net more oppressionTuck and Yang 12 (Eve-professr at State University of New York at New Paltz, K. Wayne- University of San Diego, “Decolonization is not a metaphor”, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, Vol 1,No. 1, PP. 1-40, decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/download/18630/15554) For the past several years we have been working, in our writing and teaching, to bring attention to how settler colonialism has shaped schooling and educational research in the United States and other settler colonial nation-states. These are two distinct but overlapping tasks, the first concerned with how the invisibilized dynamics of settler colonialism mark the organization, governance, curricula, and assessment of compulsory learning, the other concerned with how settler perspectives and worldviews get to count as knowledge and research and how these perspectives - repackaged as data and findings - are activated in order to rationalize and maintain unfair social structures. We are doing this work alongside many others who - somewhat relentlessly, in writings, meetings, courses, and activism - don’t allow the real and symbolic violences of settler colonialism to be overlooked. Alongside this work, we have been thinking about what decolonization means, what it wants and requires. One trend we have noticed, with growing apprehension, is the ease with which the language of decolonization has been superficially adopted into education and other social sciences, supplanting prior ways of talking about social justice, critical methodologies, or approaches which decenter settler perspectives. Decolonization, which we assert is a distinct project from other civil and human rights-based social justice projects, is far too often subsumed into the directives of these projects, with no regard for how decolonization wants something different than those forms of justice. Settler scholars swap out prior civil and human rights based terms, seemingly to signal both an awareness of the significance of Indigenous and decolonizing theorizations of schooling and educational research, and to include Indigenous peoples on the list of considerations - as an additional special (ethnic) group or class. At a conference on educational research, it is not uncommon to hear speakers refer, almost casually, to the need to “decolonize our schools,” or use “decolonizing methods,” or “decolonize student thinking.” Yet, we have observed a startling number of these discussions make no mention of Indigenous peoples, our/their1 struggles for the recognition of our/their sovereignty, or the contributions of Indigenous intellectuals and activists to theories and frameworks of decolonization. Further, there is often little recognition given to the immediate context of settler colonialism on the North American lands where many of these conferences take place. Of course, dressing up in the language of decolonization is not as offensive as "Navajo print" underwear sold at a clothing chain store (Gaynor, 2012) and other appropriations of Indigenous cultures and materials that occur so frequently. Yet, this kind of inclusion is a form of enclosure, dangerous in how it domesticates decolonization. It is also a foreclosure, limiting in how it recapitulates dominant theories of social change. On the occasion of the inaugural issue of Decolonization: Indigeneiiy. Education, & Society, we want to be sure to clarify that decolonization is not a metaphor. When metaphor invades decolonization, it kills the very possibility of decolonization; it recenters whiteness, it resettles theory, it extends innocence to the settler, it entertains a settler future. Decolonize (a verb) and decolonization (a noun) cannot easily be grafted onto pre-existing discourses/frameworks, even if they are critical, even if they are anti-racist, even if they are justice frameworks. The easy absorption, adoption, and transposing of decolonization is yet another form of settler appropriation. When we write about decolonization, we are not offering it as a metaphor; it is not an approximation of other experiences of oppression. Decolonization is not a swappable term for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools. Decolonization doesn't have a synonym. Our goal in this essay is to remind readers what is unsettling about decolonization - what is uasettling and what should be unsettling. Clearly, we are advocates for the analysis of settler colonialism within education and education research and we position the work of Indigenous thinkers as central in unlocking the confounding aspects of public schooling. We, at least in part, want others to join us in these efforts, so that settler colonial structuring and Indigenous critiques of that structuring are no longer rendered invisible. Yet, this joining cannot be too easy, too open, too settled. Solidarity is an uneasy, reserved, and uasettled matter that neither reconciles present grievances nor forecloses future conflict. There are parts of the decolonization project that are not easily absorbed by human rights or civil rights based approaches to educational equity. In this essay, we think about what decolonization wants. There is a long and bumbled history of non-Indigenous peoples making moves to alleviate the impacts of colonization. The too-easy adoption of decolonizing discourse (making decolonization a metaphor) is just one part of that history and it taps into pre-existing tropes that get in the way of more meaningful potential alliances. We think of the enactment of these tropes as a series of moves to innocence (Malwhinney, 1998), which problematically attempt to reconcile settler guilt and complicity, and rescue settler futurity. Here, to explain why decolonization is and requires more than a metaphor, we discuss some of these moves to innocence: i. Settler nativism ii. Fantasizing adoption iii. Colonial equivocation iv. Conscientization v. At risk-ing / Asterisk-ing Indigenous peoples vi. Re-occupation and urban homesteading Such moves ultimately represent settler fantasies of easier paths to reconciliation. Actually, we argue, attending to what is irreconcilable within settler colonial relations and what is incommensurable between decolonizing projects and other social justice projects will help to reduce the frustration of attempts at solidarity; but the attention won’t get anyone off the hook from the hard, unsettling work of decolonization. Thus, we also include a discussion of interruptions that unsettle innocence and recognize incommensurability
  2. can't tell if sarcasm or not...
  3. debate is a game. anyone who says otherwise is fundamentally wrong imo
  4. you're just opening yourself up to countless turns of legal systems and the privilege required to use these legal structures. I'm sure the average highschooler has the means to follow up on a violation of the contract.
  5. how about the fact that there is 0 solvency that you actually have a speech after the round? them signing the contract doesnt mean shit because you can just refuse to actually carry out the speech, especially considering the fact that actually giving the speech requires the successful maneuvering of many variables out of your control such as permission from principles, scheduling, availability, etc. If i randomly solicited my principles to let me give a speech on ______ to my entire school, i promise you it wouldn't happen. Way to abuse your privilege to silence opposing voices.
  6. you need to have a warrant somewhere embedded within your evidence in order to make the claim and stake the round on it (ie. go for it in your 2nr). But you don't need to make the tag of one of your 1nc cards "moral obligation/pre-req." in order to explain the argument in your 2nc overview. Introna K's are notorious for this type of strategy. Introna 9 is a commonly read card that has a shit ton of great warrants in it, including a moral obligation warrant, and many teams will save that warrant for the 2nc overview and make a big deal out of the fact that the moral obligation 'went completely conceded'.
  7. offense in the overview frequently will set up a cake-walk 2nr against inexperienced teams, teams that are poor at flowing, or teams that aren't good against ks. Honestly, when strategically placed, even good teams can easily concede key pieces of offense in the overview.
  8. on the real though, I've won on an RVI on T when i was on aff multiple times. In an isolated round, with a good line-by-line judge, I am of the camp that it is a viable argument. If it is answered at all, it basically becomes useless, but when dropped, I see no logical reason why it shouldn't/can't be a round winner. People dismiss it out of a bias, not unlike the way some judges are predisposed to vote on theory against process cp's, or judges who will flat-out say before the round that they won't vote on theory unless it literally gets dropped the entire debate. The actual standards debate of an unreciprocal time skew is highly convincing in my opinion. Also, considering how easy it is to answer, i find it inexcusable to simply dismiss when its dropped. If the aff drops a standard on the T debate, they will likely lose (assuming the neg can win their link and impact). I think that an RVI can be seen the same way, as an offensive standard for the aff. If they can mitigate the link, it serves as offense. shoutout to my man D Zing for voting me up on RVI's twice - you the real MVP
  • Create New...