(De) Coloniality Affirmative - JDI 2014

(De)Coloniality AFF JDI 2014 Kaut/Johnson Lab
(DE)COLONIALITY AFF
****Affirmative****................................................................................................................. 3
1AC............................................................................................................................................... 4
2AC Ext: Colonialism Root Cause of Violence...............................................................12
2AC Ext: Rhetoric Proceeds Action.................................................................................. 14
2AC Ext: Alt Epistemic Disobedience..............................................................................16
2AC Ext: Colonialism Root Cause of Genocide..............................................................18
2AC Ext: Colonialism Root Cause of Warming..............................................................21
2AC Ext: Development=Colonialism...............................................................................23
2AC Ext: Development=Deforestation............................................................................25
2AC Ext: Coloniality destroy society...............................................................................27
2AC Ext: Colonialism Causes Poverty.............................................................................. 29
2AC Ext: Colonialism=Structural Violence....................................................................31
2AC Ext: Exploration means changes in mindset........................................................35
2AC Ext: Rhetoric proceeds action..................................................................................36
AT: Imperialism Root Cause.............................................................................................. 39
AT: Imperialism Good.......................................................................................................... 41
AT: Cap...................................................................................................................................... 43
AT: Anthro............................................................................................................................... 45
AT: Biopolitics Root Cause.................................................................................................. 47
AT: Natives............................................................................................................................... 49
AT: Gender K........................................................................................................................... 51
AT: Root Cause Debate Bad/ Root Cause Debate Good.............................................54
AT: Colonialism Good........................................................................................................... 55
AT: Race K................................................................................................................................ 59
AT: Framework/Topicality................................................................................................. 66
AT: Limits................................................................................................................................. 67
****Negative****.................................................................................................................... 69
NEG: Colonialism Good........................................................................................................ 70
NEG: Colonialism Not Root Cause.................................................................................... 73
NEG: Colonialism=Better Education............................................................................... 76
1
NEG: Victimization Bad....................................................................................................... 77

NEG: Speaking for others bad........................................................................................... 80
NEG: Globalization root Cause of structural violence...............................................83
NEG: Imperialism Good....................................................................................................... 85
NEG: Colonialism key to Democracy............................................................................... 88
NEG: Eurocentrism Good.................................................................................................... 90
NEG: Alt BAD........................................................................................................................... 92
NEG: Vague Alts Bad............................................................................................................. 94
NEG: Modernity good........................................................................................................... 95
NEG: Pragmatism key to Solve.......................................................................................... 99
NEG: Pragmatism bad....................................................................................................................... 100
2
****Affirmative****
3
1AC
THE IMPERIALISTIC BEHAVIOR IN HOMO SAPIENS HAS BEEN HARD-WIRED
INTO OUR GENES SINCE THE DAWN OF EVOLUTION. WITH THE OCEAN BEING
THE NEW FRONTIER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, HUMAN INQUIRY IN OCEAN
HAS EXEMPLIFIED A COLONIALIST APPROACH TOWARDS OCEANIC
ENGAGEMENT BY POSITING THEM AS A STANDING RESERVE.
Steiner, 12Steiner, Richard. "On Columbus Day, It's Time to Rethink Our 'Manifest Destiny'."The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 8 Oct. 2012. Web. 24 June 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-steiner/on-columbus-day-
its-time-_b_1943442.html>.
Today is Columbus Day, celebrating the "discovery of the New World." As this event set off a wave of conquest, environmental
devastation, and empire building that continues today, this seems a good time to reflect on this history, and discuss a better
way forward for 21st century humanity.
In today's clamor to develop our final frontiers -- the Arctic, the deep sea, and
outer space -- it's easy to hear echoes of voices from centuries past calling for
the westward expansion of "civilization" as a divinely ordained "Manifest
Destiny." The only thing missing is the covered wagons.The term "Manifest Destiny" was first
used by Journalist John Sullivan in 1845 writing that it was: "the right of our
manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent
which Providence has given us." The phrase captured the expansionist fervor and messianic vision that had
been in play for centuries, and was perhaps the first expression of the jingoistic "American exceptionalism" heard in American
politics today.This
imperialistic behavior in Homo sapiens had been hard-wired
into our genes at the dawn of human evolution, and played out in the competitive replacement of
Neanderthals by Cro Magnon 30,000 years ago. At that time, Cro Magnon's behavioral traits -- violence, aggression,
competition, greed, and domination -- prevailed. But what may have been adaptive in the upper Paleolithic is clearly not today,
as these same traits may be our ultimate undoing. Despite this troubled history, there have been glimmers of hope. Out of the
Although there were pre-existing territorial
ashes of WWII, the United Nations was born.
claims in one of the last untouched regions of the world -- Antarctica -- the U.S.
proposed to manage the area as a U.N. Trusteeship, as the "common heritage of
mankind." The 1959 Antarctic Treaty reserved the region exclusively for
peaceful, non-extractive, scientific purposes, a model for global cooperation.
Unfortunately, this goodwill was short-lived as humanity looked toward its
next frontiers. The next frontier today is the deep ocean. The vast abyssal
plain, covering 60% of the Earth surface, is intersected by deep ocean
trenches, the longest mountain range on Earth, and rare hydrothermal vent ecosystems.
Marine ecologist Fred Grassle says that the deep-sea may rival tropical
rainforests in terms of species present, with perhaps 10 million species.
Presently, large hydrocarbon reservoirs are being developed in the deep
waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, and West Africa. A dozen state/private consortia, interested
in mining polymetallic (manganese) nodules, hold seabed exploration leases between Baja and Hawaii and the Indian Ocean.
Companies are interested in mining cobalt-rich crusts on Pacific seamounts, and Nautilus Minerals is set to begin the first ever
we now have the stampede
commercial mining of deep-sea hydrothermal vents off Papua New Guinea. And
to develop the Arctic, where global carbon emissions have caused a
catastrophic loss of Arctic sea ice. Oil and gas projects are underway in Greenland,
Norway, Russia, Canada, and Alaska, with many more planned. There are projects across the Arctic to mine
uranium, coal, diamonds, gold, copper, nickel, zinc, and other minerals. Arctic shipping is steadily increasing as sea ice melts.
4
Current U.S. Arctic policy, issued in the last week of the Bush administration, is essentially an industrial development
manifesto, with only cursory mention of environmental protection. After asserting that "high levels of uncertainty remain
concerning the effects of climate change and increased human activity in the Arctic," the policy states that "the United States
may exercise its sovereign rights over natural resources such as oil, natural gas, methane hydrates, minerals, and living marine
species" on the Arctic seabed. It calls for the U.S. to join the land grab for more continental shelf seabed, to "assert a more
active and influential national presence to protect its arctic interests and project sea power throughout the region," and that an
there is a better way to
Arctic Treaty, similar to that for the Antarctic, is "not appropriate or necessary."Clearly,
govern our last frontiers. The first thing we need is a "timeout." We need a lot
more science, and more deliberate thinking about whether this frontier
development will help, or hinder, our quest for a sustainable future. We need to
rekindle that cooperative spirit with which the Antarctic was protected 50 years ago. To better manage development in outer
space, the United Nations should establish a U.N. Outer Space Environment Commission to oversee all human activity in space,
and a specific Environmental Protocol to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty .For the deep sea, we need a moratorium
on all mineral development, within national and international waters, until we have a better understanding of
the risks and impacts; large protected areas of the deep ocean permanently
free from any commercial development; and an Independent Environmental Commission to oversee all
exploration and development. For the Arctic, we need an Arctic Treaty (similar to the Antarctic) protecting the region for
peaceful, non-extractive purposes, and as the "common heritage of all humankind." All waters outside of current 200-mile
jurisdictions of the coastal states should be protected as a global sanctuary, where oil and gas, mineral, and fishery
development are prohibited. As well, many sensitive areas within national jurisdictions should be contributed to the Arctic
sanctuary. The U.N. should convene an Arctic Council including not just the eight coastal states currently represented, but also
The Arctic
Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic and other governments with interests in the Arctic as equal voting members.
is too important to global climate regulation and biodiversity to leave to the
parochial whims of the coastal states or industrialists. And instead of exploiting
the energy and mineral resources in these frontier areas, we can simply
increase the efficiency with which we use energy and materials, and switch to
sustainable alternatives, thereby eliminating the need to exploit these non-
renewable, frontier resources altogether. Our 21st century challenge is
whether we can transcend our aggressive, domineering Paleolithic
programming, or not. In approaching our final frontiers, we should carefully
consider our motivations, needs, and goals, and make sure we approach these
frontiers in a cooperative, sustainable manner, or not at all.
WITHIN THE LAST TWO DECADES, U.S. EXPLORATION OF THE OCEAN HAS
INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY. THIS INCREASED INQUIRY OF THE OCEAN ALONG
WITH OTHER HUMAN ACTIVITIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO EXPLOITATION OF
THE OCEAN AND ITS NATURAL RESOURCES. THIS EXPLOITATION LEADS TO
CLIMATE CHANGE, OCEAN ACIDIFICATION AND FURTHER ATMOSPHERIC DEPLETION.
Hermione ’12, HERMIONE is a Collaborative Project funded under the European Commission's Framework Seven Programme
at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. Accessed 6/25/14 http://www.eu-hermione.net/learning
Deep-sea exploration over the last two decades has shown that the deep-sea environment
has already been impacted by man. Resources from the deep are increasingly
exploited and clear signs of direct and indirect anthropogenic impacts are now
visible in many deep-sea ecosystems. Direct impacts of human activities relate to existing
or future exploitation of deep-sea resources (e.g. fisheries, hydrocarbon extraction, mining,
bioprospecting), to seabed uses (e.g., pipelines, cable laying, carbon sequestration) and to pollution (e.g.
contamination from land-based sources/activities, waste disposal, dumping, noise, impacts of shipping and maritime
Indirect impacts relate to climate change, ocean acidification and
accidents).
atmospheric ozone depletion. This raises a series of concerns because deep-sea
processes and ecosystems are not only important for the marine web of life but
they also fundamentally contribute to global biogeochemical patterns that
5
support all life on Earth. Moreover they provide direct goods and services that are of growing economic
significance. Most of today’s understanding of the deep oceans comes from the natural sciences, supplemented by data from
socio-economic research in support of the sustainable use and conservation of
industry. But
deep-sea resources is lagging behind. There is a clear need to identify the
societal and economic implications of human activities and impacts, and to
investigate the key socioeconomic and governance issues related to the
conservation, management and sustainable use of the deep-seas.
THE TOPIC IN IT OF ITSELF RE-CREATES THE HISTORICAL COLONIAL

EPISTOMOLOGY BY DEPLOYING THE OCEAN AS A RESOURCE FOR HUMAN’S TO
EXPLOIT AND BENEFIT.
HISTORICALLY THE LANGUAGE OF DEVELOPMENT SETS THE PRECEDENT FOR

COLONIAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ESSENTIAL TO REJECT
COLONIAL IDEOLOGY BY INTERROGATING HOW DEVELOPMENT AND
EXPLOITATION ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED.
Barker 1998[Dr. Drucilla Barker is the Women’s Studies Chair at Hollins University. “Dualisms, Discourse, and
Development.” Hypatia 13.3]
The language of development economics reads like a chapter in the Enlightenment
dream, a dream that promised an orderly progress from poverty and ignorance to
prosperity and modernity. It is a discourse infused with the Enlightenment ideal of innocent knowledge, an
ideal that masks the instrumental role that development has played in maintaining global
structures of neocolonialism and dependency. Instead of progress and
prosperity, much of the world has experienced profound poverty, growing
income inequality, high debt burdens, and environmental degradation. By the
1980s, even the proponents of development had agreed that their policies had
been largely unsuccessful. Policy interventions designed to foster economic growth and alleviate poverty were
abandoned in favor of neoliberal orthodoxies (Escobar 1995, 73-94). Privatization, trade liberalization,
and fiscal austerity were the new strategies that would enable free-market
capitalism to work its magic. Missing from this analysis, however, was any awareness of
the role that development rhetoric and policies played in producing
underdevelopment, exploitation, and oppression.(1)
THE LANGUAGE OF THE TOPIC, UNDER THE GUISE OF “EXPLORE AND

DEVELOP” ENCOURAGES COLONIALISM. THESE EUROPEAN CONCEPTS OF
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ENCOURAGES AND REQUIRES
COLONIALISM.
Nayar, Jayan. "SYMPOSIUM: RE-FRAMING INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: Orders of Inhumanity." Hein
Online SW 9.2 (1999): n. pag. Web. 26 June 2014. University of Warwick School of Law
Since the demise of the colonial legitimization of the "civilizing" mission, "development"
has come to express the contemporary challenge of bringing the benefits of
"civilization" and human progress to the populations of the world. It is, it appears, the
primary purpose of human endeavor to be collectively undertaken by all and
sundry within the context of a humanity-embracing, "new," post-colonial, "world-
order"-- another "new beginning." Through many ups and downs, through many failures and too few successes, the
spirit of development as a great human cause has been kept alive. Now we
6
must do everything we can to 'turn that spirit into practical, visible progress
for people in Africa, and people everywhere. Development is everyone's job. No more fundamental cause exists
today. I believe that we stand at the start of a time of unique achievement.19 So many possible audiences
stand to be identified by this appeal of the former Secretary-General of the United Nations for the
"job" of "development." To the leaders of the world is made the plea to
revitalize efforts toward the implementation of development initiatives. To the doubters of the
"development" project is made the reassurance that now, despite the "many ups and downs," the spirit and vision of
development still rings true and firm. To himself and his staff of the development-related institutions of the UN, perhaps the
audience for which the statement is truly intended, is made the reassertion that this work of development is an important one.
They, the development workers, have the historic role of ensuring the
realization of this vision of human progress, and so much futility and even failure may be erased or
forgotten through a renewed commitment to carry on persistently with their tasks. All this expression of angst and hope is, of
course, nothing new. Like a social ritual played out with consistent regularity, we have become familiar with these gatherings
of "developmentalists," at which they administer healthy measures of both admonishments for past failures and
encouragements for future hope. And like in all rituals, processes of "remembering," which are the public face of proceedings,
are accompanied by the equally important processes of "forgetting." Repeated and remembered are the "failures," the
commitments to "humanity," the conditions of suffering that are deemed "intolerable," and the articulations of hope in future
"action." Ignored and forgotten are the violence of the failures, the fraudulence of the commitments, the processes of inflicted
suffering deemed necessary, and the articulations of despair about past actions. Still, the ritual performs a regenerative
purpose. It recasts anew the project of development with all its civilizational importance and reassures its practitioners of
their historic mission to "order" society. But what is the message given to the "victims" of development-those who, although
intended as the beneficiaries of this universal project, have had to suffer the "many failures and too few successes" as these
rituals are enacted? 20 To them is made a plea for patience and a rearticulation of a vision for tomorrow. For them, however,
perhaps a different experience of developmental (mis)orderings persists, one which bears a striking resemblance to the earlier
phase of colonial ordering. While once colonialism was blatant in its dehumanizing of social relationships, notwithstanding the
dehumanization takes place under the
claims of the "civilizing mission," now that same
acceptable, if not desirable, guise of globalized development. The "poor" has come to
replace the "savage/native;" the "expert consultant," the "missionary;" "training seminars," mass "baptizing;" the
handphone in the pocket, the cross on the altar. But some things-the foreigner's degree, attire, consumer items, etc.- don't
change. And what of the "comprador elites," that band of minority mercenaries who symbolized to the colonialist all that was
good about what it meant to be the servile "civilized," who served as the faithful mouthpieces of the master? Today, many go by
the names of "government functionaries" and "entrepreneurs ."
Regenerated by these contemporary
ideological weapons of the desired human condition, the processes of
ordering, of creating orders of inhumanity, carry on with violence intact. Contrary to assumptions of a
lack of order and non-inclusion, many of the "conditions" of human suffering that justify
developmental interventions¶ result from a very considerable amount of
ordering and forced inclusion. Processes of ordering, as coercive command, are visible
in the perpetuation and exacerbation of food insecurity resulting from structures
instituted during the colonial period and carried through to the globalizing
practices of international agri-business (the globalization of hunger),21 the impact of the
invasion of transnational corporations on the environmental and social
fabric¶ of communities (the globalization of ecocide),22 the societal disintegration¶ resulting
from structural adjustment policies and the imperatives of the¶ transnational economic
system (the globalization of impoverishment),23 and the resulting destruction
of social diversity through the homogenization of "pop" and consumer culture
(the globalization of social alienation). These have all contributed to the marginalization of
populations following half a century of (violent) "development."24 How many more "new
beginnings" of "development" are necessary before the embodied "world" that is the result of¶ all this ordering is recognized
After five decades of "development," the following description by
as a familiar one from earlier times?
the colonial condition still rings true of the contemporary "post-
Frantz Fanon of
colonial," "globalized" neighborhood, and of its inhabitants: The settler's town is a strongly-built
town, all made of stone and steel. It is a brightly-lit town; the streets are covered with asphalt, and the garbage cans swallow all
the leavings,¶ unseen, unknown and hardly thought about. The settler's feet are never visible, except perhaps in the sea; but
7
there you're never close enough to see them. His feet are protected by¶ strong shoes although the streets of his town are clean
and even, with no holes or stones. The settler's town is a well-fed town, an easy-going town; its belly is always full of good
things.... The town belonging to the colonized people, or at least the native town, . . . is a place of ill fame, peopled by men of evil
repute. They are born there, it matters little where or how; they die there, it matters not where, nor how. It is a world without
spaciousness; men live there on top of each other, and their huts are built one on top of the other. The native town is a hungry
town, starved of bread, of meat, of shoes, of coal, of light. The native town is a crouching village, a town on its knees, a town
wallowing in the mire. It is a town of niggers and dirty arabs. The look that the native turns on the settler's town is a look of
lust, a look of envy; it expresses his dreams of possession-all manner of possession: to sit at the settler's table, to sleep in the
settler's bed, with his wife if possible. The colonized man is an envious man. And this the settler knows very well; when their
there is no
glances meet he ascertains bitterly, always on the defensive, "They want to take our place." It is true, for
native who does not dream at least once a day of setting himself up in the
settler's place.25
CHANGING LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICIES WILL NOT CHANGE OUR ORIENTATION
TOWARDS OCEANS. WE MUST FIRST RE-EVALUATE AND CHANGE/DEVELOP
OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH OCEANS AND OTHER RESOURCES BEFORE WE CAN
CREATE ANY PUBLIC POLICY THAT ENCOURAGES INTERACTIONS WITH THE
OCEAN. BY PARTICIPATING IN EPISTEMIC DISOBEDIENCE
Mignolo 2006 [Walter D. Mignolo, Professor of Cultural Studies at Duke University, Citizenship, Knowledge, and the
Limits of Humanity American Literary History 18.2 (2006) 312-331]
I will describe the veiled connections as the logic of coloniality, and the surface that covers it I will describe as the rhetoric of
The rhetoric of modernity is that of salvation, whereas the logic of
modernity.
coloniality is a logic of imperial oppression. They go hand in hand, and you
cannot have modernity without coloniality; the unfinished project of modernity carries over its
shoulders the unfinished project of coloniality. I will conclude by suggesting the need to decolonize "knowledge" and "being"
and advocating that the (decolonial) "humanities" shall have a fundamental role to play in this process. Truly, "global
citizenship" implies overcoming the imperial and colonial differences that have mapped and continue to map global racism and
global patriarchy.Changing the law and public policies won't be of much help in this
process. What is needed is that those who change the law and public policy
change themselves. The problem is how that may take place if we would like to avoid the missionary
zeal for conversion; the liberal and neoliberal belief in the triumphal march of
Western civilization and of market democracy; and the moral imperatives and forced behavior
imposed by socialism. As I do not believe in a new abstract universal that will be good for the entire world, the question
is how people can change their belief that the world today is like it is and that
it will be only through the "honest" projects of Christians, liberals, and
Marxist-socialists that the world could be better for all, and citizenship will be
a benediction for all. The changes I am thinking about are radical
transformations in the naturalized assumptions of the world order. The naturalized
assumptions I am thinking about are imperial–colonial, and they have shaped the world in which we live in the past five
hundred years when Christianity and capitalism came together and created the conditions for the self-fashioned narrative of
"modernity." Hence, the transformations I am thinking about require an epistemic decolonial
shift. Not a "new," a "post," or a "neo," which are all changes within the same
modern colonial epistemology, but a decolonial (and not either a "deconstruction"), which
means a delinking from the rules of the game (e.g., the decolonization of the mind, in Ngugi Wa
Th'iongo's vocabulary) in which deconstruction itself and all the "posts-" for sure are caught. Delinking doesn't
mean to be "outside" of either modernity or Christian, Liberal, Capitalist, and
Marxist hegemony but to disengage from the naturalized assumptions that
make of these four macronarratives "une pensee unique," to use Ignacio Ramonet's expression.2 The
decolonial shift begins by unveiling the imperial presuppositions that
maintain a universal idea of humanity and of human being that serves as a
8
model and point of arrival and by constantly underscoring the fact that oppressed and racialized subjects do
not care and are not fighting for "human rights" (based on an imperial idea of humanity) but to regain the "human dignity"
(based on a decolonial idea of humanity) that has and continues to be taken away from them by the imperial rhetoric of
modernity (e.g., white, Eurocentered, heterosexual, and Christian/secular).
PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY

DEVELOP ITS EXPLORATION OF THE OCEAN
WE MUST EXPLORE EVERY INSTANCE OF COLONIAL EXPLORATION THROUGH

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS IN ORDER TO ENGAGE IN A DE-COLONIAL THINKING
THAT SHIFTS THE WAY WE ENGAGE WITH REAL WORLD ISSUES. THIS
EPISTEMIC DISOBEDIENCE ALLOWS A REFRAIMING OF INTERACTION WITH
THE OCEAN.
Mignolo (Professor of Literature in Duke University, Joint Appointments in Cultural Anthropology and Romance Studies)
2012
Walter, “Epistemic Disobedience and the Decolonial Option: A Manifesto,”
Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 62-63, NDW //DDI13
We could continue the argument by including Mahatma Gandhi among the figures who are central to the decolonial turn. To
mention him here is important for the following reason: Cugoano and Gandhi are united, at distinct points on the planet, by the
British Empire. Waman Puma and Cugoano are united by the continuity of Western European imperialisms in America. We
could continue with Frantz Fanon, and connect him to Cugoano through the imperial wound of the Africans and also through
the imperial complicity between Spain, England, and France (in spite of their imperial conflicts). With this, I would like to
the genealogy of decolonial thinking is structured in the
highlight the following:
planetary space of colonial/imperial expansion, contrary to the genealogy of
European modernity that is structured in the temporal trajectory of a reduced
space, from Greece to Rome, to Western Europe and to the United States. The common element between
Waman Puma, Cugoano, Gandhi, and Fanon is the wound inflicted by the
colonial difference (e.g., the colonial wound). The decolonial turn (i.e., the
epistemic disobedience) of Waman Puma and of Cugoano took place on the horizon of
monarchies, prior to the emergence of the modern (bourgeois) state and the emergence
of the three secular imperial ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and socialism/Marxism.27 They opened
up the decolonial option, and on the horizon of both, theology was the queen
of knowledge. A second part of this manifesto (in progress) explores the decolonial horizon (Gandhi, Cabral, Du Bois,
Fanon, Anzalduú a, Indigenous social movements in Bolivia and Ecuador, Afro social movements in Colombia and Ecuador, the
World Social Forum and the Social Forum of the Americas, etc.) on the horizon of the imperial modern state .
The
genealogy of decolonial thinking is pluri-versal (not uni-versal). As such, each knot on
the web of this genealogy is a point of de-linking and opening that re-
introduces languages, memories, economies, social organizations, and at least double
subjectivities: the splendor and the miseries of the imperial legacy, and the
indelible footprint of what existed that has been converted into the colonial
wound; in the degradation of humanity, in the inferiority of the pagans, the
primitives, the under-developed, the non-democratic. Our present situation
asks, demands a decolonial thinking that articulates genealogies scattered
throughout the planet and offers “other” economic, political, social, subjective
modalities. This process is in progress and we see it every day, in spite of the bad news that arrives from the Middle
East, from Indonesia, from Katrina, and from the interior war in Washington.
ACTS OF EPISTEMIC DISOBEDIENCE UNCOVER THE INVISIBLE VOILENCE OF

MODERNITY AND CREATE SPACE FOR ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES AND
9
ETHICAL ENGAGEMENT. BEFORE WE DIRECTLY ENGAGE WITH OCEANS WE

MUST SITUATE OURSELVES ETHICALLY.
Mignolo (Professor of Literature in Duke University, Joint Appointments in Cultural Anthropology and Romance Studies
Walter, “Epistemic Disobedience and the Decolonial Option: A Manifesto,” Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural
Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 45-46, NDW //DDI13) 2012
But the basic formulation of decolonial delinking (e.g., desprendimiento) was advanced by Aníúbal Quijano in his ground-
breaking article “Colonialidad y modernidad/racionalidad” (1991) [Coloniality and modernity/rationality]. The argument was
that, on the one hand,
an analytic of the limits of Eurocentrism (as a hegemonic
structure of knowledge and beliefs) is needed. But that analytic was considered
necessary rather than sufficient. It was necessary, Quijano asserted, “desprenderse de las
vinculaciones de la racionalidad-modernidad con la colonialidad, en primer teú rmino, y en definitiva con todo poder no
constituido en la decisioú n libre de gentes libres” “It
is necessary to extricate oneself from the
linkages between rationality/modernity and coloniality, first of all, and definitely
from all power which is not constituted by free decisions made by free people”].4
“Desprenderse” means epistemic de-linking or, in other words, epistemic disobedience. Epistemic disobedience
leads us to decolonial options as a set of projects that have in common the
effects experienced by all the inhabitants of the globe that were at the
receiving end of global designs to colonize the economy (appropriation of land
and natural resources), authority (management by the Monarch, the State, or the Church), and
police and military enforcement (coloniality of power), to colonize knowledges
(languages, categories of thoughts, belief systems, etc.) and beings (subjectivity).
“Delinking” is then necessary because there is no way out of the coloniality of
power from within Western (Greek and Latin) categories of thought. Consequently, de-linking
implies epistemic disobedience rather than the constant search for “newness” (e.g., as if Michel Foucault’s
concept of racism and power were “better” or more “appropriate” because they are “newer”—that is, post-modern—within the
chronological history or archaeology of European ideas). Epistemic disobedience takes us to a different
place, to adifferent “beginning” (not in Greece, but in the responses to the “conquest and colonization” of
America and the massive trade of enslaved Africans), to spatial sites of struggles and building rather
than to a new temporality within the same space (from Greece, to Rome, to Paris, to London, to Washington DC).
I will explore the opening up of these spaces—the spatial paradigmatic breaks of epistemic disobedience—in Waman Puma de
Ayala and Ottabah Cugoano. The basic argument (almost a syllogism) that I will develop here is the following :
if
coloniality is constitutive of modernity since the salvationist rhetoric of modernity presupposes the
oppressive and condemnatory logic of coloniality (from there come the damneú s of Fanon), then this oppressive
logic produces an energy of discontent, of distrust, of release within those who
react against imperial violence. This energy is translated into decolonial
projects that, as a last resort, are also constitutive of modernity. Modernity is a three-headed hydra,
even though it only reveals one head: the rhetoric of salvation and progress.
Coloniality, one of whose facets is poverty and the propagation of AIDS in Africa, does not
appear in the rhetoric of modernity as its necessary counterpart, but rather as
something that emanates from it. For example, the Millennium Plan of the United
Nations headed by Kofi Anan, and the Earth Institute at Columbia University headed by Jeffrey Sachs, work
in collaboration to end poverty (as the title of Sach’s book announces).5 But, while they question
the unfortunate consequences of modernity, never for a moment is the
ideology of modernity or the black pits that hide its rhetoric ever questioned:
the consequences of the very nature of the capitalist economy—by which such ideology
is supported—in its various facets since the mercantilism of the sixteenth century, free trade of the following centuries, the
Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century, and the technological revolution of the twentieth century. On the other hand,
despite all the debate in the media about the war against terrorism, on one side, and all types of uprisings, of protests and
social movements, it is never suggested that the logic of coloniality that hides beneath the
10
rhetoric of modernity necessarily generates the irreducible energy of

humiliated, vilified, forgotten, or marginalized human beings. Decoloniality is
therefore the energy that does not allow the operation of the logic of coloniality
nor believes the fairy tales of the rhetoric of modernity. Therefore, decoloniality
has a varied range of manifestations—some undesirable, such as those that Washington today
describes as “terrorists”— and decolonial thinking is, then, thinking that de-links and
opens (de-linking and opening in the title come from here) to the possibilities hidden (colonized and
discredited, such as the traditional, barbarian, primitive, mystic, etc.) by the modern rationality that is
mounted and enclosed by categories of Greek, Latin, and the six modern imperial European
languages.
11
2AC Ext: Colonialism Root Cause of

Violence
EXPROPRIATION LEADS TO VIOLENCE, HISTORY PROVES
Sargeson 11/7/13
(“Violence as Development: land expropriation and China’s urbanization”,
Sally Sargeson, independent writer focused on Chinese history with 2 other publications, 7 November, 2013, Accessed on
6/25/14, http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/cap-events/2013-11-07/violence-development-land-expropriation-and-china’s-
urbanization#.U6pjXhapqagJWH)
Explanations of the violence occurring during land expropriation in China

predominantly centre on competing actors’ efforts to capture, redistribute or
defend income from land development, or violence as a differentiator of
political ecology and a catalyst of villagers’ politicization. These explanations
assume a) instrumental antagonism between rational, unitary collective actors and b) that violence is of
limited temporal duration and spatial and social reach.¶ To conceptualize violence
in a way that is not solely instrumental, or epiphenomenal and discrete , I build on
Escobar’s proposition that violence is constitutive of development to argue for an alternative view: Violence authorizes and
constitutes an inclusive, ongoing project of urban development in China. It authorizes development, because the rural spaces
surrounding urban centres are characterized as institutionally insecure, disorderly, economically under-productive and
It constitutes development, because it involves an
incompatible with urban modernity.
ideology of urban improvement, the government-directed transformation of
property rights and land use, the reorganization of governing organizations
and changes in villagers’ political and economic subjectivity. The concluding
section of the seminar briefly demonstrates the generalizability and analytical
and methodological utility of the concept of violence as development by
applying it to three ‘most different’ cases of land expropriation in China:
Wukan and the ‘urban villages of Guangzhou, in Guangdong province, and
Zhejiang’s Tongxiang
COLONIALITY ENSURES A PARADIGM OF VIOLENCE AND WAR. THIS

VIOLENT NATURE OF COLONIALITY CREATES A NEVER
ENDING OPPRESIVE US-THEM DICHOTOMY.
Nelson Maldonado-Torres, associate professor of comparative literature at Rutgers, ‘8 [Against
War: Views from the Underside of Modernity, p. 237-8] //DDI13
In this work I have attempted to make explicit the subtle complicities between dominant epistemological and anthropological ideals and the
called a paradigm of violence and

exercise of violence. The works of Levinas, Fanon, and Dussel oppose what I have
war . This dominant paradigm is characterized by making invisible or insignificant the

constitutive force of inter human contact for the formation of subjectivity, of
12
knowledge, and of human reality in general. The relation with objects ,

whether practical or theoretical, takes primacy over the relation between
human beings. The first motivation for this way of thinking is to attain
knowledge, truth, comprehension, or adequate understanding. The self is
thereby taken to be primarily a monad, a transcendental ego, or an
autonomous and free human being for whom the relation with the Other tends
to represent only an undesirable detour in the project of adequately
representing the world. The self becomes allergic to the Other , and the
intersubjective contact is then accounted for either in epistemological
categories or in concepts tied to a theoretical approach. This philosophical
anthropology ends up legitimating the superiority of theory over praxis and
contemplation over liberation. One of my central points is that once a civilization begins to
conceive the humanity of the human in these terms it will either commit violence
with good conscience, find itself incapable of opposing violence , or legitimize
ideals of peace that are complicit with violence. I trace dominant themes surrounding the discussion of
the crisis or so-called malaise of Europe back to the allegiance of Western civilization to practices that obey the logics opened up by a
skewed vision of the human. Such a vision combines claims for autonomy and
freedom with the production of the color line or the systematic differentiation
between groups taken as the norm of the human and others seen as the
exception to it. The so-called discovery of the New World became a crucial
point in the establishment of this vision: it oriented Western humanism in a
radically dehumanizing direction. From then on, Western humanism argued for the
glory of Man and the misery of particular groups of human beings
simultaneously. Indeed, Man became the most glorious as he was able to claim
relative independence from God and superiority over the supposedly less than
human others at the same time. The relationship between (imperial) Man and
God has been ambiguous for the most part, but not so the relation between
Man and his inferior sub-others. It is as if the production of the " less than
human " functioned as the anchor of a process of autonomy and self-assertion.
The paradigm of war , at first reconciled to and to some extent promoted by imperial Christendom, legitimates
war against God, nature, and, particularly, the less than human others . The
relationship with God and nature, however, can vary. What typically remains constant for the warring
paradigm is the assertion of the color line. The distinction between God, Man,
and the non-human precedes the reduction of subjectivity to a totality or its
naturalization. And it was the colonized and the modern slave who
experienced the systematic negation of her and his subjectivity, long before
positivism, naturalism, or philosophies of history subsumed subjectivity in
larger frameworks or anonymous mechanisms. In modernity, the racialized
others take the place of enemies in a perpetual war out of which modern
ideals of freedom and autonomy get their proper sense . This is the foundation
of modernity as a paradigm of war and the source of many of its pathologies,
crises, and evils .
13
2AC Ext: Rhetoric Proceeds Action

RHETORIC IS KEY TO ACTION. RHETORIC INFLUENCES THE
DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE BY IDNIVIDUALS. BY
UNDERSTANDING THE EPISTOMOLOGY OF THE MODERN, WE
CAN LEARN HOW TO COMBAT OUR CURRENT IDEALOGY
THAT JUSTIFIES COLONIALISM.
Grosfoguel in 2005 [Ramon, associate professor in the department of ethnic studies at the university of
California at Berkeley, Critical Globalization Studies, edited by Richard Appelbaum and William Robinson 288-89 ]
So far, the history of the modern—colonial capitalist patriarchal world-system has privileged
the culture, knowledge, and epistemology produced by the West (Spivak, 1988; Mignolo, 2000). No
culture in the world remained untouched by European modernity. There is no absolute outside to this system. The
monologism and mono-topic global design of the West relates to other cultures and
peoples from a position of superiority and is deaf toward the cosmologies and
epistemologies of the non-Western world. The imposition of Christianity in
order to convert the so-called savages • and barbarians in the sixteenth century, followed by the
imposition of "white man's burden" and "civilizing mission" in the eighteenth and nineteenth
century, the imposition of the "developmentalist project " in the twentieth century and, more
recently, the imperial project of military interventions under the rhetoric of democracy and human
rights in the twenty-first century, have all been imposed by militarism and violence . Two
responses to the Eurocentric colonial imposition are Third World nationalisms and
fundamentalisms. Nationalism provides Eurocentric solutions to a Eurocentric
global problem. It reproduces an internal coloniality of power within each nation-state and reifies the nation-state as
the privileged location of social change (Grosfoguel, 1996). Struggles above and below the nation-state
are not considered in nationalist political strategies. Moreover, nationalist responses to
global capitalism reinforce the nation-state as the political institutional form per
excellence of the modern—colonial capitalist patriarchal world-system. In this sense, nationalism is
complicit with Eurocentric thinking and political structures. On the other hand, Third
World fundamentalisms of different kinds respond with an essentialist "pure outside
space" or "absolute exteriority" to modernity. They are antimodern forces that reproduce the binary oppositions of
Eurocentric thinking. They respond to the imposition of Eurocentric modernity with an antimodernity that is as hierarchical,
authoritarian, and antidemocratic as the former. A plausible solution to the Eurocentric vs.
fundamentalist dilemma is what Walter Mignolo, following Chicana thinkers such as Gloria Anzaldua (1987), calls
"critical border thinking" (Mignolo, 2000). Critical border thinking is the epistemic
response of the subaltern to the Eurocentric project of modernity. Instead of
rejecting the institutions of modernity and retreat into a fundamentalist absolutism,
border epistemologies redefines modernity from the cosmologies and
epistemologies of the subaltern, located in the oppressed and exploited side of the
colonial difference. What border thinking produces is a redefinition of citizenship,
democracy, human rights, and humanity, beyond the narrow definitions imposed by
14
European modernity. Border thinking is not antimodern; it is the modern response

of the subaltern to Eurocentric modernity
15
2AC Ext: Alt Epistemic Disobedience

EPISTEMIC DISOBEDIENCE IS A DELINKING PARADIGM THAT SEPERATES
INDIVIDUALS FROM COLONIAL EPISTOMOLOGY AND MODERNITY BY RE-
EVALUTING HEGEMONIC RELATIONSHIPS. DELINKING AS A MODE OF
THINKING, OPENS UP VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES TO ETHICALLY ENGAGE
WITH OCEANS.
Mignolo (Professor of Literature in Duke University, Joint Appointments in Cultural Anthropology

and Romance Studies) 2012
Walter, “Epistemic Disobedience and the Decolonial Option: A Manifesto,” Transmodernity: Journal of
Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 45-46, NDW //DDI13
But the basic formulation of decolonial delinking (e.g., desprendimiento) was advanced by
Aníúbal Quijano in his ground-breaking article “Colonialidad y modernidad/racionalidad” (1991)
[Coloniality and modernity/rationality]. The argument was that, on the one hand, an analytic
of the limits of Eurocentrism (as a hegemonic structure of knowledge and beliefs) is
needed. But that analytic was considered necessary rather than sufficient . It was necessary,
Quijano asserted, “desprenderse de las vinculaciones de la racionalidad-modernidad con la
colonialidad, en primer teú rmino, y en definitiva con todo poder no constituido en la decisioú n
libre de gentes libres” [“It is necessary to extricate oneself from the linkages between
rationality/modernity and coloniality, first of all, and definitely from all power which
is not constituted by free decisions made by free people ”].4 “Desprenderse” means
epistemic de-linking or, in other words, epistemic disobedience. Epistemic disobedience
leads us to decolonial options as a set of projects that have in common the effects
experienced by all the inhabitants of the globe that were at the receiving end of
global designs to colonize the economy (appropriation of land and natural resources),
authority (management by the Monarch, the State, or the Church), and police and military
enforcement (coloniality of power), to colonize knowledges (languages, categories of
thoughts, belief systems, etc.) and beings (subjectivity). “Delinking” is then necessary
because there is no way out of the coloniality of power from within Western (Greek
and Latin) categories of thought. Consequently, de-linking implies epistemic
disobedience rather than the constant search for “newness” (e.g., as if Michel Foucault’s
concept of racism and power were “better” or more “appropriate” because they are “newer”—
that is, post-modern—within the chronological history or archaeology of European ideas).
Epistemic disobedience takes us to a different place, to a different “beginning” (not in
Greece, but in the responses to the “conquest and colonization” of America and the massive
trade of enslaved Africans), to spatial sites of struggles and building rather than to a new
temporality within the same space (from Greece, to Rome, to Paris, to London, to
Washington DC). I will explore the opening up of these spaces—the spatial paradigmatic breaks
of epistemic disobedience—in Waman Puma de Ayala and Ottabah Cugoano. The basic argument
(almost a syllogism) that I will develop here is the following : if coloniality is constitutive of
modernity since the salvationist rhetoric of modernity presupposes the oppressive and
condemnatory logic of coloniality (from there come the damneú s of Fanon), then this
oppressive logic produces an energy of discontent, of distrust, of release within
those who react against imperial violence. This energy is translated into
decolonial projects that, as a last resort, are also constitutive of modernity. Modernity is a
16
three-headed hydra, even though it only reveals one head: the rhetoric of
salvation and progress. Coloniality, one of whose facets is poverty and the
propagation of AIDS in Africa, does not appear in the rhetoric of modernity as its
necessary counterpart, but rather as something that emanates from it. For
example, the Millennium Plan of the United Nations headed by Kofi Anan, and the Earth
Institute at Columbia University headed by Jeffrey Sachs, work in collaboration to end
poverty (as the title of Sach’s book announces).5 But, while they question the unfortunate
consequences of modernity, never for a moment is the ideology of modernity or
the black pits that hide its rhetoric ever questioned : the consequences of the very
nature of the capitalist economy—by which such ideology is supported—in its various facets
since the mercantilism of the sixteenth century, free trade of the following centuries, the
Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century, and the technological revolution of the
twentieth century. On the other hand, despite all the debate in the media about the war against
terrorism, on one side, and all types of uprisings, of protests and social movements, it is never
suggested that the logic of coloniality that hides beneath the rhetoric of modernity
necessarily generates the irreducible energy of humiliated, vilified, forgotten, or
marginalized human beings. Decoloniality is therefore the energy that does not
allow the operation of the logic of coloniality nor believes the fairy tales of the
rhetoric of modernity. Therefore, decoloniality has a varied range of
manifestations—some undesirable, such as those that Washington today describes as
“terrorists”—and decolonial thinking is, then, thinking that de-links and opens (de-
linking and opening in the title come from here) to the possibilities hidden (colonized and
discredited, such as the traditional, barbarian, primitive, mystic, etc.) by the modern
rationality that is mounted and enclosed by categories of Greek, Latin, and the six modern
imperial European languages.
17

Genocide
COLONIALISM IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF COLONIALISM. COLONIALISM STRIPS
BODIES OF THEIR INTRENSIC VALUE AND MARKS THEM IN TERMS
OF UTILATRIAN PURPOSE. ONCE THIS PROCESS OF DEVALUATION
HAS HAPPENED AND MADE CERTAIN BODIES EXPENDABLE,
EXTERMINATION OF THESE BODIES IS INEVITABLE.
Mignolo and Tlostanova 9 [Walter D., Doctor of semiotics and literary theory, prof of decoloniality at Duke
University, Madina, Doctor of literature and postcolonial studies, professor at People’s Friendship University of Russia, “Times
for re-thinking, re-learning and networking, February, Interview, http://kristinabozic.wordpress.com/decolonization-
interview/]
What if any is the difference between colonization and genocide? Prof Mignolo: There is a difference, though I never really
thought of it. The first thing that comes to mind is that genocide is a consequence of colonialism. Another
question is can this be claimed for all genocides? Prof Tlostanova: Holocaust, for example. Prof Mignolo: Ooh. Let’s start the
other way round. One
of the features of coloniality is its connection to economy based on
dispensability of human life, which is seen as a commodity: you sell sugar or you sell
slaves. Genocide means we do not care. Therefore, genocide is possible because
certain human lives are dispensable . Iraqi lives are more dispensable than American lives. Holocaust,
however was based on stripping human life of legal rights, as Hannah Arendt writes. So it was not about the dispensability of
human life in terms of economy but it presented bareness of life in relation to the state and law. For
white European
bourgeoisie Christians the really horrible part of holocaust was not the crime itself
but the fact that it was committed against white people using the technique Europe
learned in its colonies. Economic dispensability of human life that build the system of
the economy liberals and Marxists call capitalism came back on the level of the state .
Jews were internally inferior. I will not say that all genocides have been a consequence of coloniality, but I would make these
two connections. The third one could be Rwanda. There colonialists,
especially of the second wave after
the Enlightenment created the idea of national identity. Before there existed
communities of faith, not of birth. Genocide there was therefore a consequence of
conditions colonialists left behind. We could think of other genocides … How can we think Stalin’s genocide?
Prof Tlostanova: I was just thinking about it. It was not framed in racial terms, though many scholars today question this. They
ask if Stalin’s genocides were connected with people’s ethnic origins and race or only with class. There was no racial discourse
in Soviet Union but crimes were often committed on racial grounds – nobody has ever put Russian in jail for nationalistic
reasons while all other nationals were imprisoned, if their belief in the Soviet idea was not strong enough. I think it was based
on race although it was masked as a class fight. Prof Mignolo: So there is the underlying notion of
dispensability of human life as an economic category, while genocide on the level of
the state also includes the idea of elimination of an enemy. Be it Hitler’s Aryan state or
Stalin’s communist state. Prof Tlostanova: But Hitler tried to make Jews economically
efficient as well. In concentration camps there was the McDonald’s logic – before Jews
were killed they took everything of use and value from them – clothes, hair, teeth …
Stalin made enemies build things, sometimes useless. They have built the Moscow
State university. What about the genocide as a tool for eradication of culture or religion? Prof Mignolo: I think this
in included in the notion of dispensability of the human life – be it organs or something else. Another thing is if
these are used to present the enemy you want to eradicate. Islam or the criminal
18
inside the society, or the Communists in the US during the Cold War. There seem to be
two types of genocide – one motivated by economics – and here we do not have the
notion of an enemy … it is just a tool. Prof Tlostanova: You do not kill on purpose, it is a consequence of use.
Prof Mignolo: Yes, you have a horse to work or you have a slave to work. He is not your enemy – on the contrary, it is useful – it
is a tool. You buy it, sell it, use it. A different kind of genocide is when you have to eradicate. However, eradication does not
necessarily imply genocide. In colonial Peru there was eradication of ideology. They did not kill, they just converted to
Christianity. They wanted to conquer souls. Prof Tlostanova: That
is why I think coloniality is wider and
deeper than genocide. You can leave people alive but you wipe everything out of their
minds to put something else there. In a way this is also a genocide – you leave them
their physical lives but you take away their inside … Prof Mignolo: We call it epistemic
lobotomy. Now that I think of, the cleaning of ideology might had been a fore-runner
of Hitler’s work. Except that Indians of the time were not the menace for Christian
theologians like Jews were for Hitler. Christians are very clear of who their enemies are – at that moment in
history it was Islam and Protestants. Catholics controlled the game but they wanted a dangerous enemy eager to destroy them
– this was also the Bush discourse after the 9/11. Prof Tlostanova: This is a very American discourse. It is the only way how to
keep America together and form its national identity. To be together against someone. In Europe I think there is bigger
common base of religion, roots, culture …
GENOCIDE IS A NECESSARY PROCESS OF COLONIALISM BY WIPING OUT

NATIVE POPULATIONS AND COLONIZING FOREIGN SPACES.
Ahmed 4/11
(“Colonial Dynamics of Genocide Imperialism, Identity and Mass Violence”, Journal
of Conlict Transformation & Security, Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, British author, an
investigative journalist, and an international security scholar, Accessed on 6/26/14,
April 2011)
Conventional definitions of genocide, in particular the United Nations Convention

standard, are state-oriented and primordialist. Genocide is seen primarily as the
outcome of extremist ideology linked to undemocratic modern bureaucratic nation-
states, whose homogenizing structures generate conflict with pre-existing minority
groups. The UN definition of genocide imposes unwarranted politicized constraints on Lemkin’s wider original sociological
conceptualization of genocide as a colonial form. For Lemkin , perpetrators of genocide could be states as
well as decentralized and-dispersed groups such as settler-colonists. The need for a return to
Lemkin’s Historical Sociological theory of genocide, now increasingly recognized
among genocide scholars, demonstrates not merely that specific cases of European
imperial violence can potentially be understood as genocidal, but that this is precisely
because genocide can best be understood as an extreme form of colonization .
Several scholars have now made a strong case that while this does not mean that all colonialism is genocidal, it is unequivocally
These colonial dynamics
clear that genocides are comprised of distinctively colonial dynamics.
emerge due to the radicalization of identity politics in the context of historically

specific socio-political contestations leading to major social crises, which drive the
construction of new bifurcated “inside” and “outside” group identities. This
speaks to the need for a new research agenda in Genocide Studies, focusing
specifically on the dynamics that link socio-political crisis with exclusionary identity
constructions and regressive political programs, which legitimize mass violence. By
identifying how and when social crises can lead to the ‘Otherization’ of communities,
it may become possible to develop more robust early warning systems for genocide
prevention.
19
COLONIZATION OF THE AMERICAS SHOWS THE GENOCIDAL LOGIC OF

COLONIALISM
Wolfe 06 (Patrick, La Trobe Research Fellow in History at La Trobe University, Australia and author of Settler
Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event , "Settler
colonialism and the elimination of the native", hawaii.edu, December 2006, pg 3,
http://www.hawaii.edu/amst/pwolfe/PWolfeArticles/PWolfe_EliminationNative.pdf, CH)
The logic of elimination not only refers to the summary liquidation of

Indigenous people, though it includes that. In common with genocide as Raphae¨l
Lemkin characterized it,6 settler colonialism has both negative and positive dimensions. Negatively, it
strives for the dissolution of native societies. Positively, it erects a new colonial
society on the expropriated land base—as I put it, settler colonizers come to stay:
invasion is a structure not an event. 7 In its positive aspect, elimination is an organizing
principal of settler-colonial society rather than a one-off (and superseded)
occurrence. The positive outcomes of the logic of elimination can include officially
encouraged miscegenation, the breaking-down of native title into alienable
individual freeholds, native citizenship, child abduction, religious conversion,
resocialization in total institutions such as missions or boarding schools, and a
whole range of cognate biocultural assimilations. All these strategies,
including frontier homicide, are characteristic of settler colonialism. Some of them
are more controversial in genocide studies than others.
20

Warming
IGNORING THE BASIS OF COLONIALISM IN THE CLIMATE CRISIS DOOMS

MANAGERIAL SOLUTIONS TO SERIAL POLICY FAILURE – EPISTEMIC
ENGAGEMENT THROUGH DELINKING IS CRUCIAL TO SOLVE
ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS
Manuel-Navarrete 10 [David, Research Staff, King’s College, London. BA, Environmental Sciences, ecological
economics, and geography. “Power, realism, and the ideal of human emancipation in a climate of change” WIREs Climate
Change Vol. 1, November/December 2010]
Climate change is often portrayed as a management and policy problem.10 This
positioning outside the evolution of sociopolitical structures has the advantage of
discussing mitigation and adaptation as unproblematically carried out from, and by,
these structures, without challenging them in any significant fashion. This implies an
abstraction of climate change as an external threat to social stability, and an object of
study that can then be elegantly compartmentalized into different types of risk. In
addition, mitigation and adaptation can be neatly defined as strategies to reduce overall
threat and cope with risks so that humanity’s development can continue unaffected.
Leaving the messiness of politics outside the equation allows for the emphasis on technologies, targets, indexes, accounting
schemes, and strategies that can be translated into explicit policies or actions. The ‘human dimension’ of climate change can
then be studied by singling-out the parts of the social fabric that need to be ‘adapted’ or ‘proofed’, so that the system as a
whole, more or less in its current state, can weather climate challenges. Unfortunately, this simplistic
view fails to
acknowledge the increasing penetration of climate change into all the dimensions of
human life.11 In fact, a growing body of empirical work reveals a more complicated
picture than that portrayed by apolitical policy approaches.12 WILL POLITICAL REALISM DO THE
JOB? A realist agenda to study climate change politics is consolidating around the
notions of global environmental governance and regimes. 13 Governance refers to the wielding of
power and authority by both government institutions, and other social actors in order to influence and enact public decisions
and actions. Indeed, the notion of governance stretches Montesquieu’s ‘checks-and-balances’ thesis beyond
the three powers of democratic government (executive, legislative, and judiciary) to include the role of
private actors or markets, and civil society. These ‘new’ political actors are then
reified as ‘stakeholders’ who have particular interests, resources, values, and
cultures. Accordingly, politics can be conveniently represented as stakeholders’ negotiation and accommodation toward
solving specific problems such as emission reductions or shielding development from disasters. This approach to accounting
for politics may advocate adjustments of governance structures and the emergence of new regimes, but these adjustments are
justified in terms of problem-solving performance. Thus, the ethical
dimension of power distribution is
brought to the background, so that attention can be directed toward goal setting,
problem solving, and policy outcomes. As noted above, political realism assumes a pessimistic stance of
human nature. Authority is needed to control people’s egoistic nature and prevent the
harming of others and the environment. As a consequence, coercion, and/or
legitimation through consent are preconditions for order and security. The success of
political systems is measured in terms of stability and consensus between rulers and ruled, rather than ideals of fairness,
justice, or freedom. Corruption and oppression from rulers can be avoided through appropriate ‘checks and balances’, or good
governance. This realist position is particularly convenient in validating the liberal state, law, and the institution of property as
21
grantors of order. In fact, in

the present historical moment, this realist stance often leads to
neoliberal economic rationalities, which are commonly assumed to provide the basis
for co-ordinating conflicting interests in modern capitalist societies . At the core of realism is
the assumption that society is politically in a ‘close to equilibrium’ state, orbiting around a liberal democratic attractor. The
notion of an attractor evokes a sense of final destination, the end of political history toward which Western societies perceive
themselves to have been tending during the last centuries. This semi-equilibrium politics allows for the conceptualization of
power as an intrinsic quality of prototypical actors and institutions, rather than an outcome of unstable historical processes
and social struggles. As a result climate
politics can be represented as the negotiation between a
given set of social actors who, in the light of new scientific findings and technological
breakthroughs, rearrange markets, norms, institutions, regulations, or decision-
making procedures. Justice and fairness belong to the policy process, rather than being intrinsic to social structures.
Thus, ‘unrealistic’ idealist aspirations for universal justice or emancipation can be reoriented toward pragmatic targets such as
the implementation of transparent, inclusive, and accountable policies, even if carried out in a context of inequality and mere
representative democracy. The staging of international climate negotiations is a case in point. Developed
countries,
developing countries, corporations, scientists, and nongovernmental organizations
are to follow pre-assigned roles and bargain our way out, without even discussing the
possibility of altering power or pursuing any form of social transformation. Instead, the
debate is centered on national emission targets, technological incentives, setting a price for carbon, and the transfer of
economic resources to compensate those who will bear the highest costs.
22
2AC Ext: Development=Colonialism

THE DISCOURSE OF “DEVELOPMENT” ENCOURAGES COLONIALISM.
HISTORICALLY DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN USED TO CREAT
COLONIAL CONDITIONS THAT PERPETUATE VIOLENCE SUCH
AS DEHUMANIZATION BY ERADICATING DIFFERENCE AND
EXPLOITING RESOURCES.
Nayar, Jayan. "SYMPOSIUM: RE-FRAMING INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: Orders of Inhumanity." Hein
Online SW 9.2 (1999): n. pag. Web. 26 June 2014. University of Warwick School of Law
Since the demise of the colonial legitimization of the "civilizing" mission, "development" has
come to express the contemporary challenge of bringing the benefits of "civilization" and
human progress to the populations of the world. It is, it appears, the primary purpose of
human endeavor to be collectively undertaken by all and sundry within the context of a
humanity-embracing, "new," post-colonial, "world-order"-- another "new beginning." Through many
ups and downs, through many failures and too few successes, the spirit of development as a great human
cause has been kept alive. Now we must do everything we can to 'turn that spirit into
practical, visible progress for people in Africa, and people everywhere. Development is everyone's job. No
more fundamental cause exists today. I believe that we stand at the start of a time of unique achievement.19 So many possible
audiences stand to be identified by this appeal of the former Secretary-General of the United Nations for
the "job" of "development." To the leaders of the world is made the plea to revitalize
efforts toward the implementation of development initiatives. To the doubters of the "development" project is made
the reassurance that now, despite the "many ups and downs," the spirit and vision of development still rings true and firm. To himself and his
staff of the development-related institutions of the UN, perhaps the audience for which the statement is truly intended, is made the reassertion
They, the development workers, have the historic role
that this work of development is an important one.
of ensuring the realization of this vision of human progress, and so much futility and even failure may
be erased or forgotten through a renewed commitment to carry on persistently with their tasks. All this expression of angst and hope is, of
course, nothing new. Like a social ritual played out with consistent regularity, we have become familiar with these gatherings of
"developmentalists," at which they administer healthy measures of both admonishments for past failures and encouragements for future hope.
And like in all rituals, processes of "remembering," which are the public face of proceedings, are accompanied by the equally important processes
of "forgetting." Repeated and remembered are the "failures," the commitments to "humanity," the conditions of suffering that are deemed
"intolerable," and the articulations of hope in future "action." Ignored and forgotten are the violence of the failures, the fraudulence of the
commitments, the processes of inflicted suffering deemed necessary, and the articulations of despair about past actions. Still, the ritual performs
a regenerative purpose. It recasts anew the project of development with all its civilizational importance and reassures its practitioners of their
historic mission to "order" society. But what is the message given to the "victims" of development-those who, although intended as the
beneficiaries of this universal project, have had to suffer the "many failures and too few successes" as these rituals are enacted? 20 To them is
made a plea for patience and a rearticulation of a vision for tomorrow. For them, however, perhaps a different experience of developmental
(mis)orderings persists, one which bears a striking resemblance to the earlier phase of colonial ordering. While once colonialism was blatant in
dehumanization
its dehumanizing of social relationships, notwithstanding the claims of the "civilizing mission," now that same
takes place under the acceptable, if not desirable, guise of globalized development. The
"poor" has come to replace the "savage /native;" the "expert consultant," the "missionary;" "training seminars," mass
"baptizing;" the handphone in the pocket, the cross on the altar. But some things-the foreigner's degree, attire, consumer items, etc.- don't
change. And what of the "comprador elites," that band of minority mercenaries who symbolized to the colonialist all that was good about what it
meant to be the servile "civilized," who served as the faithful mouthpieces of the master? Today, many go by the names of "government
Regenerated by these contemporary ideological weapons of the
functionaries" and "entrepreneurs."
desired human condition, the processes of ordering, of creating orders of inhumanity, carry on
with violence intact. Contrary to assumptions of a lack of order and non-inclusion, many of the "conditions" of
23
human suffering that justify developmental interventions¶ result from a very

considerable amount of ordering and forced inclusion. Processes of ordering, as coercive
command, are visible in the perpetuation and exacerbation of food insecurity resulting from
structures instituted during the colonial period and carried through to the
globalizing practices of international agri-business (the globalization of hunger),21 the impact of
the invasion of transnational corporations on the environmental and social fabric ¶ of
communities (the globalization of ecocide),22 the societal disintegration¶ resulting from structural adjustment
policies and the imperatives of the¶ transnational economic system (the globalization of
impoverishment),23 and the resulting destruction of social diversity through the

homogenization of "pop" and consumer culture (the globalization of social alienation). These have all
contributed to the marginalization of populations following half a century of (violent)
"development."24 How many more "new beginnings" of "development" are necessary before the embodied "world" that is the result
of¶ all this ordering is recognized as a familiar one from earlier times? After five decades of "development," the
following description by Frantz Fanon of the colonial condition still rings true of the contemporary
"post-colonial," "globalized" neighborhood, and of its inhabitants: The settler's town is a strongly-built town, all
made of stone and steel. It is a brightly-lit town; the streets are covered with asphalt, and the garbage cans swallow all the leavings, ¶ unseen,
unknown and hardly thought about. The settler's feet are never visible, except perhaps in the sea; but there you're never close enough to see
them. His feet are protected by ¶ strong shoes although the streets of his town are clean and even, with no holes or stones. The settler's town is a
well-fed town, an easy-going town; its belly is always full of good things.... The town belonging to the colonized people, or at least the native town,
. . . is a place of ill fame, peopled by men of evil repute. They are born there, it matters little where or how; they die there, it matters not where,
nor how. It is a world without spaciousness; men live there on top of each other, and their huts are built one on top of the other. The native town
is a hungry town, starved of bread, of meat, of shoes, of coal, of light. The native town is a crouching village, a town on its knees, a town wallowing
in the mire. It is a town of niggers and dirty arabs. The look that the native turns on the settler's town is a look of lust, a look of envy; it expresses
his dreams of possession-all manner of possession: to sit at the settler's table, to sleep in the settler's bed, with his wife if possible. The colonized
man is an envious man. And this the settler knows very well; when their glances meet he ascertains bitterly, always on the defensive, "They want
there is no native who does not dream at least once a day of
to take our place." It is true, for
setting himself up in the settler's place.25
24
2AC Ext:
Development=Deforestation
COLONIALISM CAUSED DEFORESTATION THROUGH EXPLOITATIVE
POLICIES AS IT RELATES TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL
WARMING. FOR EXAMPLE, THE MADAGASCAR’S DOMESTIC
ECONOMY HAS BEEN TAILORED TOWARDS CONSUMPTION
FOR WESTERN EXPANSION AND BENEFIT.
WRM ‘03
WRM is the World Rainforest Movement, Madagascar: Colonialism as the historical root cause of deforestation, (WRM), 6-25-
14 http://www.wrm.org.uy/oldsite/bulletin/66/Madagascar.html#top
Madagascar's historic problem of deforestation can be linked to the

detrimental policies of the colonial state in terms of land use and agriculture.
The deforestation problem in Madagascar began when it was annexed as a
French colony in 1896. An uncertain political climate and famine followed this
annexation, and many of the Malagasy fled to the woods for survival. These farmers started practicing the
method of shifting cultivation as a means of survival. Madagascar's domestic economy, from the
beginning of colonial times, has been geared toward export promotion. Exports consisted
primarily of coffee, but rice and beef were sold abroad as well . Coffee was originally planted on
only the east coast, but expanded across the island when it became apparent that producers were able to
generate large profits. Because of this expansion of coffee, the island's economic development was uneven. Rice
shortages resulted as early as 1911 because of the excess demand for labor in the coffee sector, and the nation's
"food security" began to erode. Rice was also more vulnerable to changes in the weather and cyclones, which
exacerbated the shortages. Peasants that once worked cultivating the nation's rice moved into
regions where they were able to cultivate coffee because of the higher wages. These
peasants would then clear additional land so that they could practice shifting cultivation and
generate enough food to subsist. In response to the increasing shifting cultivation, or tavy as it is called
locally, the Governor General prohibited it's practice in 1909. The state's objective of this ban was to try and save
what was left of the nation's forest as well as impose "rational forest resource management". However, the land
set aside by the state for the nation's rice cultivation was inefficient because of soil problems. The policy was
therefore ineffective in erasing Madagascar's rice production problem. The government also thought that the ban
would give them a greater ability to collect taxes because it would be easier to locate citizens if they were forced
to remain in one place. The Malagasy interpretation of the ban was almost entirely opposite of the state's
intentions. They viewed wage work as equivalent to enslavement and many revolts took place. Not only did the
Malagasy ignore the ban, but they illegally burned many acres of forest in protest. "The ban elevated the practice
of tavy to a symbol of independence and liberty from colonial rule." The Malagasy viewed shifting cultivation as a
sacred means of survival that they were taught by their ancestors. The forest degradation problem
became even more serious when the state decided to open up the island's forests to logging
concessions in 1921. Many viewed it as ironic that the state allowed massive clear cutting on
concessions while the ban on shifting cultivation was still in effect. More than just the
claimed lands were ruined however, because many owners clear-cut lands beyond their
concessionary limits. The Forest Service was unable to regulate the concessions because of
shortages in labor and "a lack of political will." Much of the illegal felling of trees was
25
completely overlooked and the fines that were levied for violation of the permits were far
lower than the actual damages. The combination of these detrimental government policies
meant that "roughly 70% of the primary forest was destroyed in the 30 years between 1895
and 1925". It is interesting to note that the much publicized "population growth" issue didn't become a factor
in forest degradation in Madagascar until 1940 when vaccines were introduced that lowered the death rate.
During the next 40 years the population increased rapidly from 4.2 million to 9.2 million, and some 4 million
hectares of forests were cleared during this 40 year period, as compared to between 3 and 7 million hectares in
the 40 year period from 1900 through 1940. Much of this deforestation was, however, still linked to concessions,
export promotion, and insecure land tenure, rather than on population growth in itself. Even more interestingly,
much of the process described above can be easily mirrored with what has happened in many other former
European colonies throughout the tropics, where the historical root causes of deforestation are clearly linked to
the expropriation and exploitation of natural resources for the benefit of the colonial powers. Most of those
colonies have now become formally independent, but not much seems to have changed in the unsustainable
economic model inherited from colonial rule, which continues producing cheap and abundant raw materials at
the expense of people and their environment for the benefit of the North.
26
2AC Ext: Coloniality destroy society

COLONIALITY MEANS A WORLD OF ABSOLUTE DOMINATION AND
TOTAL VIOLENCE. ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT IS JUST
ANOTHER TOOL OF GENOCIDE UNLESS WE FIRST ADDRESS
THE BRUTALITY OF COLONIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Cesaire 55 (Aimeú Ceú saire, politician from Martinique, 1955, Discourse on
Colonialism, Discours sur le colonialism)
I see clearly what colonization has destroyed: the wonderful Indian civilizations - ¶ and
neither Deterring nor Royal Dutch nor Standard Oil will ever console me for the ¶
Aztecs and the Incas. ¶ I see clearly the civilizations; condemned to perish at a future
date, into which it has ¶ introduced a principle of ruin: the South Sea islands, Nigeria,
Nyasaland. I see less clearly ¶ the contributions it has made. ¶ Security? Culture? The
rule of law? In the meantime, I look around and wherever ¶ there are colonizers and
colonized face to face, I see force, brutality, cruelty, sadism, ¶ conflict, and, in a parody
of education, the hasty manufacture of a few thousand ¶ subordinate functionaries,
"boys," artisans, office clerks, and interpreters necessary for the ¶ smooth operation
of business. ¶ I spoke of contact. ¶ Between colonizer and colonized there is
room only for forced labor, intimidation, ¶ pressure, the police, taxation, theft,
rape, compulsory crops, contempt, mistrust, ¶ arrogance, self-complacency,
swinishness, brainless elites, degraded masses. ¶ No human contact, but
relations of domination and submission which turn the ¶ colonizing man into a
class-room monitor, an army sergeant, a prison guard, a slave ¶ driver, and the
indigenous man into an instrument of production. ¶ My turn to state an equation:
colonization = "thing-ification." ¶ I hear the storm. They talk to me about progress,
about "achievements," diseases ¶ cured, improved standards of living. ¶ I am talking
about societies drained of their essence, cultures trampled underfoot, ¶ institutions
undermined, lands confiscated, religions smashed, magnificent artistic ¶ creations
destroyed, extraordinary possibilities wiped out. ¶ They throw facts at my head,
statistics, mileages of roads, canals, and railroad ¶ tracks. ¶ I am talking about
thousands of men sacrificed to the Congo-Ocean2¶ . I am talking ¶ about those who, as
I write this, are digging the harbor of Abidjan by hand. I am talking ¶ about millions
of men torn from their gods, their land, their habits, their life-from life, from ¶ the
dance, from wisdom. ¶ 2¶ A railroad line connecting Brazzaville with the port of
Pointe-Noire. (Trans.)¶ - 6 - I am talking about millions of men in whom fear has been
cunningly instilled, who ¶ have been taught to have an inferiority complex, to tremble,
kneel, despair, and behave ¶ like flunkeys. ¶ They dazzle me with the tonnage of
cotton or cocoa that has been exported, the ¶ acreage that has been planted with olive
trees or grapevines. ¶ I am talking about natural economies that have been disrupted
- harmonious and ¶ viable economies adapted to the indigenous population - about
food crops destroyed, ¶ malnutrition permanently introduced, agricultural
27
development oriented solely toward the ¶ benefit of the metropolitan countries,

about the looting of products, the looting of raw ¶ materials.
28
2AC Ext: Colonialism Causes Poverty

COLONIALISM CAUSES POVERTY. WHEN COLONIAL POWERS ENTER
FOREIGN NATIONS, THEY DESTROY NATIVE ECONOMIES
THAT ARE DERIVED FROM THOSE SPECIFIC CULTURES.
THESE COLONIZED NATIONS FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
BOUNCE BACK.
Poverties ‘13
Poverties.org is an informational website about poverty in Africa and how it occurred, Causes of Poverty Origins of a
Worldwide Plague, (Poverties), 6-26-14
http://www.poverties.org/causes-of-poverty.html
The causes of poverty are quite overwhelming at first glance: from colonialism
to industrialization, from political institutions to geography, corruption and so
on. But they are extremely interesting to look at if you want to better
understand how so many countries are where they are today. Each cause is rooted in a
radically different phenomenon and each needs a specific solution. Heritage is unquestionably an essential factor
among the causes of poverty. Most countries that started their modern history with
great inequalities evolved into societies that often maintained such pattern of
biased wealth distribution. And conversely for countries that began with more
or less equal societies. So, countries that experienced colonization and slavery
often had trouble getting rid of the inherited institutions and discrimination.
Others like Canada or the US on the other hand have been doing much better
since then. In the case of colonized countries such as Brazil, South Africa or the
Caribbean islands, the remaining white population often inherited ownership
of capital and means of production once the country became independent. The
former colonies in Latin America were exploited to export their fancy mineral
(e.g. gold & iron ore) and agricultural resources. They have suffered large-scale injustice as both land
and “manpower” were seized by the spanish and portuguese empires . In North America, the people
started out more or less from the same point which created the grounds for
less inequality in the first 100 years. That is, if we forget for a minute about the "reduction" (read
"massacre") of the Native American population to a more manageable size . In Canada and the
Northern part of the US, there was also no particular activity that was suited
for major exports (limited economies of scale) and therefore there was no need for
huge amounts of workers. This in turn reduced the appeal of slavery and thus
erased from the start one of the common causes of poverty that countries
often inherit. It’s interesting to realize how politics, geography and economics
are intertwined and influence the evolution of a country (rather than humanistic
ideals…) Apart from New Zealand and Australia , European colonies generally involved only a
few number of Europeans that were needed to take care of administrative,
military and political affairs. They were not really building any ideal country,
29
nor working together towards some common goal. The segregation between
Europeans and locals (or mixed communities) has often remained thus far one of the
main causes of poverty and inequalities. The long lasting system created by
the Europeans, giving all the power (economic and political) to a small minority, was
passed on for centuries and into the 20th century. The newly formed nations
then had great trouble getting rid of mechanisms and institutions that limited
access to social ascension and were reticent to fund public services (school,
hospitals,…) that were essential to the growth of the nation as a whole. For an
example of pre-existing inequalities in the Americas, you can just have a look
at land ownership per household in 1900 and realize that in Mexico only 2.5%
of households owned all of the land in the country. On the Northern side of the
border, at the same year, 75% of households owned land in the US and more
than 85% in Canada.
30
2AC Ext: Colonialism=Structural

Violence
COLONIALITY RESULTS IN A PROCESS OF SOCIALIZATION THAT

CODIFIES BODIES IN A SYSTEM OF DEVALUATION THAT
LABELS CERTAIN BODIES AS VALUABLE AND OTHERS AS
INVALVUABLE. THIS CODIFICATION ALLOWS FOR THE
EXPENDABILITY OF CERTAIN BODIES WHICH JUSTIFIES
VARIOUS ATROCITIES SUCH AS MURDER, RAPE, AND
GENOCIDE.
Maldonado-Torres 2007 [Nelson, Professor of Comparative Literature at Rutgers, PhD in Religious Studies
“ON THE COLONIALITY OF BEING¶ Contributions to the development of a¶ Concept” 2007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162548]
Ideas of war, conquest, and genocide here bring up another fundamental ¶ aspect of
coloniality.28 The question about whether the indigenous peoples of ¶ the Americas had
soul or not was framed around the question of just war . In¶ the debates that took place in Valladolid in the sixteenth century
Sepu´lveda¶ argued against Las Casas that the Spanish had the obligation to engage in a just ¶ war against subjects who, in their inferiority, would not adopt by themselves ¶ the superior Christian religion
just like it happens¶ in respect to the question about the humanity of the
and culture.29 Once more,
so called Amerindians, the¶ outcome of the discussion is not as important as the

question itself. The¶ ‘discovery’ and conquest of the Americas was no less than an
ontological event¶ with many implications, the most dramatic of which were established by the ¶ attitudes and questions that emerged in the
context. By the time when the ¶ question about engaging in a just war against the Amerindians was answered ¶ the conquerors had already established a particular way of relating to the ¶ peoples that
they encountered. And the way in which they pursued such ¶ relations did not correspond to the ethical standards that were followed in ¶ their countries of origin. Indeed, as Sylvia Wynter argues,
Columbus’s¶ redefinition of the purpose of land as being one for us, whereby for us
meant for us who belong to the realm of Man vis-a`-vis those outside the human ¶
oecumene, already introduces the exceptional character that ethics is going to ¶ take in
the New World.30 As we know, such exceptional situation gradually¶ lost its exceptionality and
became normative in the modern world. But before¶ it gained such a widespread acceptance and became constitutive of a new ¶ reigning episteme,
the exceptionality was shown in the way in which ¶ colonizers behaved in relation to
the indigenous peoples and black slaves .¶ And this behavior coincided more with the
kind of actions shown at war, than ¶ with the ethics that regulated live with other
European Christians.¶ When the conquerors came to the Americas they did not
follow the code¶ of ethics that regulated behavior among subjects of the crown
in their¶ kingdom.31 Their actions were regulated by the ethics or rather the
non-ethics¶ of war. One cannot forget that while early Christians criticized slavery in the ¶ Roman Empire, later Christians considered that vanquished enemies in war ¶ could
legitimately be enslaved.32 Indeed, in the Ancient world and the Middle ¶ Ages it was for the most part legitimate to enslaved some people, particularly ¶ prisoners of war and the vanquished.
What happens in the Americas is a ¶ transformation and naturalization of the non-

ethics of war, which represented a¶ sort of exception to the ethics that regulate
normal conduct in Christian¶ countries, to a more stable and long-standing reality
ofdamnation. Damnation,¶ life in hell, refers here to modern forms of
31
colonialism which constitute a¶ reality characterized by the naturalization of

war by means of the naturalization ¶ of slavery, now justified in relation to the
very physical and ontological¶ constitution of people by virtue of ‘race’ and
not to their faith or belief .33¶ That human beings become slaves when they are
vanquished in a war translates¶ in the Americas to the suspicion that the conquered
people, and then nonEuropean peoples in general, are constitutively inferior and
that therefore they¶ should assume a position of slavery and serfdom . Sepu´lveda draws on Aristotle¶ to
justify this position, but he was more than anything translating into ¶ categories ideas that were already becoming common sense. Later the idea was ¶ going to be solidified in respect to the slavery of
Coloniality , I am suggesting here, can be

people from Africa and ¶ become stable until today under the tragic reality of different forms of racism. ¶
understood as a radicalization and ¶ naturalization of the non-ethics of war .

This non-ethics included the practices¶ of eliminating and slaving certain subjects
e.g., indigenous and black as¶ part of the enterprise of colonization . The hyperbolic
expression of coloniality¶ includes genocide, which is the paroxysm of the ego cogito a world in which ¶ the ego cogito exists alone. War,
however, is not only about killing or ¶ enslaving. War includes a particular treatment
of sexuality and of feminity: ¶ rape . Coloniality is an order of things that put people of
color under the¶ murderous and rapist sight of a vigilant ego . And the primary targets
of rape¶ are women. But men of color are also seeing through these lenses. Men of¶
color are feminized and become for the ego conquiro fundamentally
penetrable subjects.34 I will expand more on the several dimensions of murder and rape ¶ when I elaborate the existential aspect of the analytics of the coloniality
racialization works through¶ gender and sex and that the ego
of¶ Being. The point that I want to make here is that
conquiro is constitutively a phallic ego as¶ well.35 Enrique Dussel, who submits the thesis of the phallic character of the¶ ego cogito, also
makes links, albeit indirectly, with the reality of war. ¶ And thus, in the beginning of modernity, before Descartes discovered...a terrifying anthropological dualism in Europe, the Spanish ¶ conquistadors
The phallic conception of the¶ European-medieval world is now added to the

arrived in America.
forms of submission of¶ the vanquished Indians. ‘Males’, Bartolome´ de las Casas writes, are¶ reduced
through ‘the hardest, most horrible, and harshest serfdom’; but ¶ this only occurs with
those who have remained alive, because many of¶ them have died; however, ‘in war typically they only leave
alive young¶ men (mozos) and women.¶ 36¶ Joshua Goldstein complements this account by depicting conquest as an ¶ extension of the rape and exploitation of
women in wartime.37 He argues that ¶ to understand conquest one needs to examine: (1) male sexuality as a cause of ¶ aggression; (2) the feminization of enemies as symbolic domination, and (3) ¶
dependence on exploiting women’s labor. My argument is that these three¶ things come together in the idea of race that
began to emerge in the conquest ¶ and colonization of the Americas. Misanthropic
skepticism posits its targets as¶ racialized and sexualized subjects . Once vanquished,
they are said to be¶ inherently servants and their bodies come to form part of an
economy of¶ sexual abuse, exploitation, and control . The ethics of the ego conquiro
ceased to¶ be only a special code of behavior for periods of war and becomes in the ¶
Americas and gradually the modern world by virtue of misanthropic ¶ skepticism, the
idea of race, and the coloniality of power , a standard of¶ conduct that reflects the way things are a way of things whose
naturalization¶ reaches its climax with the use of natural science to validate racism in
the¶ nineteenth century. The way things supposedly are emerge from the idea of ¶ how a world is conceived to be in conditions of war and the code of behavior ¶ that is
part of it. What happens in modernity is that such a view of the world ¶ and code of conduct is transformed
through the idea of race and becomes ¶ naturalized. Thus, the treatment of vanquished
peoples in conditions of war is¶ perceived as legitimate long after war is over . Later on, it
won’t be their¶ aggression or opposition, but their ‘race’ which justifies continued serfdom, ¶ slavery, and rape . This
represents a break with the European medieval ¶ tradition and its ethical codes. With the initial exploitation of Africa and the ¶ colonization of the Americas in the fifteenth century, the
emerging modernity¶ comes to be shaped by a paradigm of war.38 ¶ Building on the work of Dussel, Gordon,
Quijano, and Wynter I articulated ¶ in this section what I see as three contributions to the understanding of ¶ coloniality and race: (1) the understanding of race as misanthropic skepticism, ¶ (2) the
The lived
interrelation of race and gender, and (3) the understanding of race and ¶ gender conceptions in modernity as the result of the naturalization of the ethics ¶ of war.
experience of racialized people is deeply touched by the ¶ encounter with

misanthropic skepticism and by the constant encounter with¶ violence and death . The
32
language that they use has also already being shaped by ¶ understanding of the
world as a battle field in which they are permanently ¶ vanquished. Now that we have
an idea about the basic conditions of life in the¶ colonial side of the modern world or in the dark side of the color-line we can
try¶ to find a more precise philosophical articulation of these experiences and thus to¶ lay out the fundamentals for a
discourse about the coloniality of being. But,¶ while we have explored to some extent the meaning of the idea of
coloniality,¶ we haven’t done the same with the idea of ‘being’. We shall do that next.¶ What is being?¶ As I made clear at
the outset, Heidegger’s fundamental ontology informs the¶ conception of Being that I want to elaborate here. His work,
particularly his¶ 1927 magnus opus, Being and Time is not the point of departure to think about¶ the coloniality of Being but it
is, at least when spelled out in the context of the¶ phenomenological tradition and its heretic expressions, an inescapable¶
reference point. I do not think that Heidegger’s conception of ontology and ¶ the primacy that he gives to the question of
being necessarily provide the best ¶ basis for the understanding of coloniality or decolonization, but his analyses of ¶
being-in-the-world serve as a starting point to understanding some key ¶ elements of existential thought, a tradition
that has made important insights ¶ into the lived experience of colonized and racialized peoples.39 Returning to¶
Heidegger can provide new clues about how to articulate a discourse on the¶ colonial aspects of world making and lived
experience.¶ Heidegger’s ontology is characterized by the idea that Being is not a being,¶ an entity, or a thing, but the Being of
beings, that is, something like the general¶ horizon of understanding for all beings.40 He refers to the distinction between¶
Being and beings as the ontological difference.¶ 41 According to Heidegger,¶ Western philosophy, particularly Western
metaphysics, is characterized by the¶ forgetfulness of Being and by a denial of the ontological difference. Western¶
metaphysics has equally betrayed the understanding of Being by conceiving¶ Being in terms of the godhead or divinity. He calls
this tendency ontotheology, which is for him what fundamental ontology needs to overcome.42¶ In addition to arguing for the
crucial importance of the ontological¶ difference, Heidegger makes the point that the answer to the question of the meaning of
Being necessitates a new radical point of departure. God cannot¶ stand as the beginning of ontology anymore. Things as such
are of not much¶ help either, since their meaning is partly independent of them, and surely they¶ do not grasp their own
meaning. In fact there is only one being for whom the¶ question of Being is significant: the human being. Since Heidegger’s aim
is to¶ begin philosophy anew, he does not want to use Man or any known concept¶ to refer to human beings. They all carry the
trace of metaphysics and of¶ epistemologically-centered philosophy, which would vitiate his efforts to¶ escape from them. The
concept that he uses to refer to human beings-quabeings for whom their own being is in question is Dasein. Dasein literally¶
means ‘being there’. Thus, Dasein is simply the being who is there. For¶ Heidegger, fundamental ontology needs to elucidate
the meaning of ‘being¶ there’ and through that, articulate ideas about Being itself.¶ Heidegger’s first reflection about Dasein is
that it ek-sist, which means that it¶ is projected to the future.43But Dasein is also ‘thrown there’. Dasein ek-sist in a¶ context
which is defined by a history and where there are laws and established¶ conceptions about social interaction, subjectivity, the
world, and so on. Now,¶ through the analysis of Dasein, Heidegger discovers that for the most time its¶ subjectivity takes the
shape of a collective anonymous figure: the One or the¶ They. The They could be compared to what Nietzsche referred to as the
herd or¶ the mass of people.44Once Heidegger has elaborated his view of the They the rest¶ of part I of Being and Time takes
on the question of how can Dasein relate¶ authentically to itself by projecting its ownmost possibilities not those defined¶ by
the They. Heidegger’s response is that authenticity can only be achieved by ¶ resoluteness, and that resoluteness can
only emerge in an encounter with the¶ possibility which is inescapably one’s own, that is, death. In death one is fully ¶
irreplaceable: no one can die for one, or one for another. Death is a singular ¶ individualizing factor. The anticipation
of the death and the accompanying ¶ anxiety allow the subject to detach herself from the They, to determine her ¶
ownmost possibilities, and to resolutely define her own project of ek-sistence.45 ¶ While the anticipation of death
provides the means for the achievement of¶ authenticity at an individual level, a Fuhrer or leader became for Heidegger the¶
means to achieve authenticity at a collective level. Resoluteness at a collective¶ level could only emerge by virtue of a leader.
From here that Heidegger came¶ to praise Hitler’s role in Germany and became an enthusiastic participant in the¶ Nazi
administration. War in some way provided a way to connect these two¶ ideas: the wars of the volk (people) in the name of
their leader provide the¶ context for a confrontation with death, and thus, to individual authenticity.¶ The possibility
of dying for the country in a war becomes a means for ¶ individual and collective
authenticity.46 This picture, to be sure, seems to ¶ reflect more the point of view of the victor in war, than that of the vanquished. ¶ But it could be said that the
vanquished can also achieve authenticity through ¶ the confrontation with death in
war. Anybody can. Yet, the missing factor here is the following: if the previous account of coloniality in relation to the nonethics of war is plausible then it must be admitted that the
encounter with¶ death is no extra-ordinary affair, but a constitutive feature of
the reality of¶ colonized and racialized subjects . The colonized is thus not
ordinary Dasein,¶ and the encounter with the possibility of death does not have the
same impact¶ or results than for someone whose mode of alienation is that of ¶
depersonalization by the One or They . Racialized subjects are constituted in¶ different
ways than those that form selves, others, and peoples . Death is not so¶ much an
individualizing factor as a constitituve feature of their reality . It is the¶ encounter
with daily forms of death , not the They, which afflicts them . The¶ encounter with death
always comes too late, as it were, since death is already ¶ beside them. For this reason, decolonization,
deracialization, and des-generaccioń (in sum, decoloniality) emerge not through an encounter with one’s ¶ own
mortality, but from a desire to evade death , one’s own but even more ¶ fundamentally that of others. In short, while a vanquished people in war
33
For some subjects modernity

could¶ achieve authenticity, for subjects who are not considered to be part of ‘the ¶ people’ the situation is different.
changed the¶ way of achieving authenticity: they already live with death and
are not even¶ ‘people’. What Heidegger forgot is that in modernity Being has a colonial side, ¶ and that
this has far-reaching consequences. The colonial aspect of Being, that ¶ is, its tendency to submit everything to the light of understanding and ¶
signification, reaches an extreme pathological point in war and its naturalization through the idea of race in modernity. The colonial side of Being sustains ¶
the color-line. Heidegger, however, looses from view the particular¶ predicament of subjects in the darker side of this line and the significance of¶ their lived experience for
theorization of Being and the pathologies of ¶ modernity. Ironically, Heidegger recognizes the existence of what he calls ¶ ‘primitive Dasein’, but in no way he connected it with colonized
Dasein.47¶ Instead, he took European Man as his model of Dasein, and thus the colonized ¶
appeared as a ‘primitive’ . He forgot that if the concept of Man is a problem, is ¶ not only
because it is metaphysical, but also because it does away with the idea ¶ that, in
modernity, what one finds is not a single model of human being, but ¶ relations
of power that create a world with masters and slaves. He needed to¶ break with the idea of Europe and the European
as models, in order to uncover ¶ the complex dynamics of Dasein in the modern period both of European and ¶ colonized Dasein, to which we will refer here as the damne´. But we are already ¶ in the
territory of discourse on the coloniality of being.
34
2AC Ext: Exploration means changes

in mindset
DEVELOPMENT REFERS TO DEVELOPING OUR VIEWS AND
THOUGHT PROCESS
Dickson, 10
Dickson, Leanne. "Principals of Developmental Psychology ." Sage Pub. Rutgers University , n.d. Web. 26 June 2014.
<http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/9397_008824ch1.pdf>.
When we speak of development, to what, in fact are we referring? One frequently

used definition refers to development as patterns of change over time , which begins at
conception and continues through the life span. Development occurs in domains, such as the biological
(changes in our physical being), social (changes in our social relationships), emotional
(changes in our emotional understanding and experiences), and cognitive
(changes in our thought processes). Some developmental psychologists prefer to restrict the notion of
development only to changes, which lead to qualitative reorganizations in the structure of a behavior, skill or ability (Grain,
2000). For example, Heinz
Werner (1957) argued that development refers only to changes,
which increase the organization of functioning within a domain. Werner believed that
development consisted of two processes: integration and differentiation. Integration
refers to the idea that development consists of the integration of more basic,
previously acquired behaviors into new, higher-level structures. For example, according to
Piaget ([952), the baby who learns to successfully reach for objects has learned to Coordinate a variety of skills such as
maintaining an upright posture, moving their arm, visually coordinating the position of the hand and the object, and grasping
the object under an integrated structure called a scheme. New developments build on and incorporate what has come before.
Differentiation refers to the idea that development also involves the progressive
ability to make more distinctions among things, for example, learning to adjust one's grasp to pick up
small objects (which requires the me of the fingers and fine motor control) versus larger objects (which only require closing
Werner defined development as a combination of these two
the hand around the object and less fine motor control).
saw development as a process of increasing
processes of integration and differentiation; he
hierarchical integration and increasing differentiation. Of course, Werner’s view of development is
by no means universally accepted within developmental psychology. Many developmentalists argue that anything, which
evidences change over time, is relevant to the study of development (Grain, 2000). Thus, this debate remains a tension within
the study of human development.
35
2AC Ext: Rhetoric proceeds action

RHETORIC IS THE PREREQUISITE TO ANY ACTION. ANY INTERACTION WITH
THE OCEAN REQUIRES A THOUGHT PROCESS THAT INFLUENCES THAT ACTION.
BEFORE ENGAGING WITH THE OCEAN WITH A FLAWED RHETORIC, WE MUST
FIRST RESITUATE OUR RHETORIC WITHIN DECOLONIALITY.
Tota '11
Tota, Matt was the ENL 257th Best Essay in Rhetorical Theory winner. "Rhetoric: The Language of Action" Retrieved from
'Corridors' November 2011. (Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.)
When we think of war or unrest, we often picture stern-looking soldiers holding

Kalashnikovs, frenzied dissidentsmarching through streets, and armytanks
lumbering into war-torn cities. Such images come to mind because we are
concerned only with theseaspects of the equation. In other words, we do not bother
with what occurs in the abstract: We care about the answers circled on the
chalkboard, not the work scribbled around it. But before the soldiers collect their
rifles, protestors take to the streets, and tanks enter the warzones, there is rhetoric,
language that calls individualsto arms, galvanizes nations, and shapes movements
through the power of persuasion. Because wars and protests do not simply
materialize from the ether, and behind every soldier or dissident is an ideology,
powerless without rhetoric.
In 2003, the power of rhetoric led America to invade Iraq, initiating a bloody
campaignthat, though waning, continues today. It began when then president,
George W. Bush, connected our rising fear of terrorism to Saddam Hussein’s
despotism. This strategy entailed connecting one thing with another as a means to
further discourse. Roderick Hart and Suzanne Daughton remark in their
book Modern Rhetorical Criticism, that this brand of rhetoric functions like a math
equation: “Rhetoric operates…like a kind of intellectual algebra, asking us to equate
things we had never before considered equitable” (16). When we see something in
relation to another, even if there is no clear connection, we often react differently
than if the connection had not been made, especially when dealing with subjects that
stimulate pathos. To garner support for his war, Bush equated terrorism – something
all of America both despises and fears – to Iraq and its oppressive leader. Though the
two subjects had close ties, there was no hard evidence linking Hussein to terrorist
activities. For added appeal, Bush stated that “experts” had unearthed caches
containing weapons of mass destruction in secret locations throughout Iraq, used,
he argued, for terrorist activities. Hart and Daughton note that such comparisons
“are the workhorses of persuasion” (16). Bush aimed to convince both congress and
the American people that a war against Hussein’s regime was necessary to protect
America against terrorism. And his linkage, formed as an emotional appeal, worked
flawlessly. He ultimately gained widespread support. Indeed, other countries – 35
nations in total –were persuaded by rhetoric to supporthis plea for war. It did not
36
matter, of course, that there were no weapons found in Iraq. By that time, Bush’s
rhetorical bombshad already flattened most of Baghdad. Rhetoric played a crucial
role in laying the groundwork for war, and language came before the Humvees and
the tanks.
As mentioned before, rhetoric excels in fosteringthe ideals that inevitablylead to
action, be it toward war or peace, good or evil. It leads with words and impregnates
minds with ideas, whichare exceedingly more powerful than actions. But it is rhetoric that
carries ideas on its back, lugging them into fruition. “Grand ideas, deeply felt beliefs, and unsullied ideologies,” Hart and
Daughton remark, “are sources of power…none of these factors can be influential without a delivery system, without rhetoric”
(18). In the end, these “sources of power” are what trigger nations, even individuals, to wage wars or support causes. A rhetor’s
potential to sway minds is determined, in part, by his ethos, which varies by audience. What does this mean? Well, the line
between an “unsullied ideology” and a sullied one becomes harder to discern. What we perceive as sullied ideologies will
invariably differ from whatother nations consider sullied. Rhetoric is, of course, blind to taboos. The rise of Al Qaeda’s
perceived “holy war” against the United States, for example, was fueled by Osama Bin Laden’s crooked ideologies. Video after
video depicting his psychotic rants, comprised of hate speech and bogus accusations, appealed, specifically, to poor, hopeless,
Arab youths, some of whom, persuaded by his rhetoric, joined his jihad without giving any thought as to what they were
joining. His ideals initiated Al Qaeda’s rise to power, providing the organization with vital men and funds to pursue their
misguided war. Bin Laden stood as a figurehead for the organization and his followers viewed him as a hero because of his
powerful rhetoric. He managed to take an idea and turn it into one of the most feared organizations on the planet simply
through speeches and appeals. As he is now dead, there are questions as to how strong Al Qaeda will be going forward without
his rhetoric.
I would like to focus, now, on a specific aspect of rhetorical power known as symbolism. In fact, if you examined rhetoric under
a microscope, you would see symbolism as its nucleus. In The History and Theory of Rhetoric, James Herrick calls a symbol “a
form of psychological power,” remarking further that “symbols and the structure of human thought are intricately connected”
(19). Indeed, symbols dictate the way we perceive ourselves in relation to the world around us. A rhetor employs symbolism in
order to changethe dynamic of his discourse. Because a symbol abandons preconceived notions and timeworn theories and
stands for something greater – more abstract – than what it represents, this tactic is effective in connecting people of varying
backgrounds to one ideology. Symbols, therefore, hold more power than rigidly structured ideas, which tend only to appeal to
certain groups.
Of course the ultimate goal of rhetoric is to, as Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee remark in Ancient Rhetorics for
Contemporary Students, move “people to action” (23), which requires not just symbolism but every other weapon in the
rhetor’s arsenal as well. During the 1960’s, for instance, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,one of the greatest American rhetors,
spearheaded the social war against racism, moving thousands of people to march against inequality. Dr. King was indeed a
master of language; his speeches were extraordinary examples of style, employing the artful use of words, instead of force,
peace instead of violence, to persuade.Ancient rhetoricians knew all too well about the power of language and were using
words to stimulate action long before Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech(one of the greatest examples of rhetorical
style).Crowley and Hawhee point to an ancient rhetorician called Gorgias, who instructed young minds on language’s
persuasive power: “Gorgias went so far as to say that language could work on a person’s sprit as powerfully as drugs worked
on the body” (23). Moreover, the rhetor noted that “language could bewitch people” and “jolt them out of their everyday
awareness” (2). Dr. King had to “jolt” Americans into altering their racist treatment of black people by forcing them to abandon
erroneous ideologies of the past. Thus, he geared his speeches toward reshaping white America’s racist suppositions, drawing
more and more individuals to his cause. For Dr. King, rhetoric functioned like a microphone, in that it amplified his discourse,
helping it to reach more minds. It worked, also, like a mirror in that it showed white America its dark side. Once they saw the
evils of racism, they changed their ways and marched toward a better outlook. Dr. King’s control of rhetoric was the primary
reason why the civil rights movement was as a success.
Finally, the most intriguing aspect of rhetorical power is the way it empowers
marginalized or subjugated individuals, all of whom lack or, in some cases, are
stripped of a voice to speak out against their mistreatment. In truth, it only takes one person’s
rhetoric to incite a revolution, and, after thousands of years, the formula for dissent has remained relatively unchanged. It
begins, generally, with an ideology – typically that of the controlling class – that rules over the lower classes. That is, it
dominates all other ideologies, keeping them marginalized. Herrick notes, however, that the controlling ideology can actually
bring in significant ideologies– what he calls “unexamined ideologies” (20) – out of obscurity. What is rhetoric’s role in all of
this? It essentially acts to assist the oppressed in developing their unexamined ideology. Usually, it is at this point when the
tumult begins .The government in power reacts with attempts to quell the uprisings. But Herrick argues that its attempts to
suppress the newly empowered voices often have the opposite effect: “When rhetoric is employed to advocate ideas, but its
capacity to test ideas is subverted, the reign of the unexamined ideology becomes a real possibility” (20). The subversion is
seen in the government’s actions against the dissidents. In other words, think of the oppressed group as hydra’s heads: You cut
off one and two more spring up behind it. The unexamined ideology gains more power every time the controlling government
attempts to squash it. Eventually, the revolution succeeds in overthrowing the powers that be. We saw this process in Egypt,
where Hosni Mubarakwas ousted because, over many years, he kept the ideology of the people suppressed. The protestors’
rallies grew stronger and stronger every time he tried to subvert their rhetoric. This example displays that anyone, regardless
of social standing, can harness rhetoric’s power.
37
In sum, we should not toss rhetoric aside as powerless empty-talk to focus solely on the images appearing on the nightly news.
We must always remember that rhetoric is the reason behind all action, similar to how every flame requires a spark. Rhetoric
holds more power than the gun or the sword because it controls the men wielding both. Dictators, moreover, may believe they
are in power; they may look at the peons below them as worthless, yet those peons, though they may never have wealth, will
always have rhetoric. Thus, they will always have the power to rise against their oppressor and demand their respect .
So, it
is time we refocus our attention on language and embrace the power it possesses –
time to arm ourselves with words, not weapons, and alter our understanding of
persuasion.
38
AT: Imperialism Root Cause

COLONIALISM AND IMERIALISM BUT GOES BEYOND THEM.
COLONIALITY EXPRESSES ITSELF IN THE OFRM OF
MATERIAL VIOELNCE THAT ENSURES THE CODIFICATION OF
OTHERS.
Escobar 8 (Arturo, Kenan Distinguished Professor at UNC Chapel Hill, Ph.D, University of Calfornia, Berkeley,
“Beyond the Third World: Imperial Globality, Global Coloniality, and Anti-Globalization Social Movements”,
www.nd.edu/~druccio/Escobar.pdf)
Eurocentered modernity can be seen as the imposition of a global design by a

The seeming triumph of
particular local history radical alternatives

, in such a way that it has subalternized other local histories and designs. If this is the case, could one posit the hypothesis that
to modernity are not a historically foreclosed possibility ? If so, how can we articulate a project around this notion? Could it be that it is possible
one may envision alternatives to the totality imputed

to think about, and to think differently from, an “exteriority” to the modern world system? That
to modernity, and adumbrate not a different totality leading to different global

designs, but networks of local/global histories constructed from the perspective of a politically enriched alterity? This is precisely the possibility that may be gleaned from the work of a group of Latin American theorists that in
refracting modernity through the lens of coloniality engage in a questioning of the

character of modernity, a conception of eurocentrism as the knowledge form of
modernity/coloniality –a hegemonic representation and mode of knowing that claims
universality for itself, “derived from Europe’s position as center” (Dussel, 2000: 471; Quijano, 2000: 549). In sum, there is a re-
reading of the “myth of modernity” in terms of modernity’s “underside” and a new denunciation of the assumption that Europe’s development must be followed unilaterally by every other culture, by force if necessary –what Dussel terms “the
that the proper analytical unit of analysis is

developmentalist fallacy” (e.g., 1993, 2000). The main conclusions are, first,
modernity/coloniality -- in sum, there is no modernity without coloniality, with the

latter being constitutive of the former the colonial difference” is a privileged . Second, the fact that “
epistemological and political space . In other words, what emerges from this alternative framework is the need to take seriously the epistemic force of local histories and to think theory
through the political praxis of subaltern groups. ¶ Some of the key notions that make up the conceptual corpus of this research program include: the modern colonial world system as a structurally heterogeneous ensemble of processes and social
. Coloniality of power a global hegemonic model of power

formations that encompass modern colonialism and colonial modernities (Quijano),
in place since the Conquest that articulates race and labor, space and peoples,
according to the needs of capital and to the benefit of white European peoples.
Colonial difference and global coloniality refer to the knowledge and cultural (Mignolo) which
dimensions of the subalternization processes effected by the coloniality of power; the

colonial difference brings to the fore persistent cultural differences, which today exist
within global power structures Coloniality of being as the . (more recently suggested by Nelson Maldonado-Torres, 2003)
ontological dimension of colonialty, on both sides of the encounter; it points at the

“ontological excess” that occurs when particular beings impose on others; it also addresses critically the
Eurocentrism, as the knowledge model of the

effectivity of the discourses with which the other responds to the suppression as a result of the encounter.
European historical experience which became globally hegemonic since the

seventeenth century ); hence the possibility of non-eurocentric thinking and
(Dussel, Quijano
epistemologies. ¶ modernity is a project,

Here is a further, and enlightening, characterization of coloniality by Walter Mignolo (e-mail correspondence, May 31, 2003): Since
the triumphal project of the Christian and secular west, coloniality is--on the one
hand--what the project of modernity needs to rule out and roll ove r, in order to implant itself as modernity and --on the
¶ ¶ coloniality is the site of

other hand-- the site of enunciation were the blindness of the modern project is 11 revealed, and concomitantly also the site where new projects begin to unfold. In other words,
enunciation that reveals and denounces the blindness of the narrative of modernity
from the perspective of modernity itself , and it is at the same time the platform of pluri-versality, of diverse projects coming from the experience of local histories touched by
39
coloniality is not a new abstract universal Coloniality

western expansion (as the Word Social Forum demonstrates); thus (
incorporates colonialism and imperialism but goes beyond them; this is why
coloniality did not end with the end of colonialism New coloniality regime is still .
difficult to discern. Race, class and ethnicity will continue to be important , but new, or newly prominent, areas
the single most prominent

of articulation come into existence, such as religion (and gender linked to it, especially in the case of Islamic societies, as we saw for the war on Afghanistan). However,
vehicle of coloniality today seems to be the ambiguously drawn figure of the

“terrorist.” Linked most forcefully to the Middle East, and thus to the immediate US
oil and strategic interests in the foreign regions that obtain it
40
AT: Imperialism Good

CONTINUED IMPERIALISTIC CONQUEST LEADS TO EXTINCTION
AND DESTRUCTION OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD
Rossi 7
Rossi, Ugo. "David Harvey. A Critical Reader Edited by Noel Castree and Derek Gregory and Spaces of Global Capitalism.
Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development by David Harvey." Area 39.4 (2007): 553-55. Web. 28 June 2014.
At times of savage devaluation, interregional rivalries typically degenerate into struggles over who is to bear the burden of
devaluation. The export of unemployment, of inflation, of idle productive capacity become the stakes in the game.
Trade wars, dumping, interest rate wars, restrictions on capital flow and foreign exchange, immigration
policies, colonial conquest, the subjugation and domination of tributary economies,
the forced reorganization of the division of labour within economic empires, and,
finally, the physical destruction and forced devaluation of a rival's capital through war
are some of the methods at hand. Each entails the aggressive manipulation of some aspect of economic, financial or
state power. The politics of imperialism, the sense that the contradictions of capitalism can be cured through
world domination by some omnipotent power, surges to the forefront. The ills of capitalism cannot so easily be
contained. Yet the degeneration of economic into political struggles plays its part in the long-run stabilization of capitalism,
provided enough capital is destroyed en route. Patriotism and nationalism have many functions in the contemporary world
and may arise for diverse reasons; but they frequently provide a most convenient cover for the devaluation of both capital and
labour. We will shortly return to this aspect of matters since it is , I believe, by far the most serious threat ,
not only to the survival of capitalism (which matters not a jot), but to the survival of the human race .
Twice in the twentieth century, the world has been plunged into global war through inter-imperialist rivalries. Twice in
the space of a generation, the world
experienced the massive devaluation of capital through
physical destruction, the ultimate consumption of labour power as cannon fodder. Class
warfare, of course, has taken its toll in life and limb, mainly through the violence daily visited by capital upon labour in the
work place and through the violence of primitive accumulation (including imperialist wars fought against
other social formations in the name of capitalist 'freedoms' ). But the vast losses incurred in two
world wars were provoked by inter-imperialist rivalries. How can this be explained on the basis of a theory that appeals to
the class relation between capital and labour as fundamental to the interpretation of history? This was, of course, the problem
with which Lenin wrestled in his essay on imperialism. But his argument, as we saw in chapter 10, is plagued by ambiguity. Is
finance capital national or international? What is the relation, then, between the military and political deployment of state
power and the undoubted trend within capitalism to create multinational forms and to forge global spatial integration? And if
monopolies and finance capital were so powerful and prone in any case to collusion, then why could they not contain
capitalism's contradictions short of destroying each other? What is it, then, that makes inter-imperialist wars necessary to the
survival of capitalism? The 'third cut' at crisis theory suggests an interpretation of inter-imperialist wars as constitutive
moments in the dynamics of accumulation, rather than as abberations, accidents or the simple product of excessive greed. Let
us see how this is so. When the 'inner dialectic' at work within a region drives it to seek external resolutions to its problems,
then it must search out new markets, new opportunities for capital export, cheap raw materials, low-cost labour power, etc. All
such measures, if they are to be anything other than a temporary palliative, either put a claim on future labour or else directly
entail an expansion of the proletariat. This expansion can be accomplished through population growth, the mobilization of
latent sectors of the reserve army, or primitive accumulation. The insatiable
thirst of capitalism for fresh
supplies of labour accounts for the vigour with which it has pursued primitive
accumulation, destroying, transforming and absorbing pre-capitalist populations
wherever it finds them. When surpluses of labour are there for the taking, and capitalists have not, through
competition, erroneously pinned their fates to a technological mix which cannot absorb that labour, then crises are typically of
short duration, mere hiccups on a general trajectory of sustained global accumulation, and usually manifest as mild switching
crises within an evolving structure of uneven geographical development. This was standard fare for nineteenth-century
capitalism. The real troubles begin when capitalists, fating shortages of labour supply and as ever urged on
by competition, induce unemployment through technological innovations which disturb
the equilibrium between production and realization , between the productive forces and their
accompanying social relations. The closing of the frontiers to primitive accumulation, through sheer exhaustion of possibilities,
increasing resistance on the part of pre-capitalist populations, or monopolization by some dominant power, has, therefore, a
41
tremendous significance for the long-run stability of capitalism. This was the sea-change that began to be felt increasingly as
capitalism moved into the twentieth century. It was the sea-change that, far more than the rise of monopoly or finance forms of
capitalism, played the crucial role in pushing capitalism deeper into the mire of global crises and led, inexorably, to the kinds of
primitive accumulation and devaluation jointly wrought through inter-capitalist wars. The mechanisms, as always, are intricate
in their details and greatly confused in actual historical conjunctures by innumerable cross-currents of conflicting forces. But
we can construct a simple line of argument to illustrate the important points. Any regional alliance, if it is to continue the
process of accumulation, must maintain access to reserves of labour as well as to those 'forces of nature' (such as key mineral
resources) that are otherwise capable of monopolization. Few problems arise if reserves of both exist in the region wherein
most local capital circulates. When internal frontiers close, capital has to look elsewhere or risk devaluation. The regional
alliance feels the stress between capital embedded in place and capital that moves to create new and permanent centres of
accumulation elsewhere. Conflict between different regional and national capitals over access to labour reserves and natural
resources begins to be felt. The themes of internationalism and multilaterialism run hard up against the desire for autarky as
the means to preserve the position of some particular region in the face of internal contradictions and external pressures -
autarky of the sort that prevailed in the 193Os, as Britain sealed in its Commonwealth trade and Japan expanded into
Manchuria and mainland Asia, Germany into eastern Europe and Italy into Africa, pitting different regions against each other,
each pursuing its own 'spatial fix'. Only the United States found it appropriate to pursue an 'open door' policy founded on
internationalism and multilateral trading. In the end the war
was fought to contain autarky and to open up the
whole world to the potentialities of geographical expansion and unlimited uneven
development. That solution, pursued single-mindedly under United States's
hegemony after 1945, had the advantage of being super-imposed upon one of the
most savage bouts of devaluation and destruction ever recorded in capitalism's
violent history. And signal benefits accrued not simply from the immense destruction of capital, but also from the
uneven geographical distribution of that destruction. The world was saved from the terrors of the great
depression not by some glorious 'new deal' or the magic touch of Keynesian
economics in the treasuries of the world, but by the destruction and death of global
war.
42
AT: Cap
COLONIALISM NECESSITATES THE CREATION OF A STRUCTURE TO
CONTROL LABOR AND PRODUCTION—THIS SYSTEM
NATURALIZES SUBORDINATION AND DOMINATION
Quijano 2000 (Aníúbal, professor of the Department of Sociology at Binghamton
University, New York, “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America”)
In the historical process of the constitution of America ,
all forms of control and exploitation of labor
and production, as well as the control of appropriation and distribution of products,
revolved around the capital-salary relation and the world market. These forms of
labor control included slavery, serfdom, petty-commodity production, reciprocity, and wages. In
such an assemblage, each form of labor control was no mere extension of its historical
antecedents. All of these forms of labor were historically and sociologically new : in the
first place, because they were deliberately established and organized to produce
commodities for the world market; in the second place, because they did not merely exist simultaneously in
the same space/time, but each one of them was also articulated to capital and its market . Thus
they configured a new global model of labor control, and in turn a fundamental element of a new
model of power to which they were historically structurally dependent. That is to say, the place and function, and therefore the
historical movement, of all forms
of labor as subordinated points of a totality belonged to the
new model of power in spite of their heterogeneous specific traits and their discontinuous relations with that totality.
In the third place, and as a consequence, each form of labor developed into new traits and historical-structural configurations.
Insofar as that structure of control of labor, resources, and products consisted of the joint
articulation of all the respective historically known forms, a global model of control of work was
established for the first time in known history. And while it was constituted around and in the service of
capital, its configuration as a whole was established with a capitalist character as well. Thus emerged a new,
original, and singular structure of relations of production in the historical experience
of the world: world capitalism.
The logic of the colony perpetuates inferiority—posits native

populations and resources as standing reserve to be used to
further institutional means.
Quijano 2000 (Aníúbal, professor of the Department of Sociology at Binghamton
University, New York, “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America”)
Europeans associated nonpaid or nonwaged labor with
The fact is that from the very beginning of the colonization of America,
the dominated races because they were “inferior” races. The vast genocide of the
Indians in the first decades of colonization was not caused principally by the violence
of the conquest nor by the plagues the conquistadors brought, but took place because so many American Indians were used as
disposable manual labor and forced to work until death . The elimination for this colonial practice did not end until the defeat
of the encomenderos in the middle of the sixteenth century. The subsequent Iberian colonialism involved a new politics of
population reorganization, a reorganization of the Indians and their relations with the colonizers. But this did not advance American Indians as free and waged
laborers. From then on, they were assigned the status of unpaid serfs . The serfdom of the American Indians could not, however, be compared
43
since it included neither the supposed protection of a feudal lord nor,

with feudal serfdom in Europe,
necessarily, the possession of a piece of land to cultivate instead of wages . Before independence, the
Indian labor force of serfs reproduced itself in the communities, but more than one hundred years after independence, a large part of the Indian serfs was still obliged to reproduce the labor force on its
slavery, was assigned exclusively to the “black” population

own. The other form of unwaged or, simply put, unpaid labor,
brought from Africa. The racial classification of the population and the early
association of the new racial identities of the colonized with the forms of control of
unpaid, unwaged labor developed among the Europeans the singular perception that
paid labor was the whites’ privilege. The racial inferiority of the colonized
implied that they were not worthy of wages. They were naturally obliged to work
for the profit of their owners. It is not difficult to fund, to this very day, this attitude spread out among the white property owners of any place in the world.
Furthermore, the lower wages “inferior races” receive in the present capitalist centers for the same work as done by whites cannot be explained as detached from the racist social classification of the
world’s population—in other words, as detached from the global capitalist coloniality of power.
44
AT: Anthro
.
PERM DO THE AFF: WE OPEN OURSELVES UP TO THE UNIVERSE THROUGH

DELINKING EPISTOMOLOGY THAT ALLOWS US TO BE OPEN TO ANIMALITY
INSTEAD OF TRYING TO CONTAIN OR DESTROY IT.
Yusoff 10 (Kathryn Yusoff, Lecturer in Human (and Non-human) Geography, and Director of the
MA in Climate Change at the University of Exeter, “Biopolitical Economies and the Political Aesthetics
of Climate Change,” Theory Culture Society, 2010, 27: 73, (Sage))
The implications of this thinking are that we must attend to Rancieè re’s distribution of the sensible, to attack the a priori forms
that govern what is visible in experience and politics, and to reconstitute our political aesthetics of climate change with figures
that make visible both the play of the world and the evacuation of that play from the world. In order to make this argument of
continually unworking restricted categories of experience, Bataille descends into the archival orders to bring to thought those
experiences that are excluded, and are crucial to the parceling out of the visible and invisible. What is at issue in Bataille’s
archival forays is the ‘double use’ of everything: an elevated use and a low use, which throws into relief the topology of the
archive through this ‘de-class(ify)ing’ operation (Bataille, 1997: 47). The de-classification both interrupts the archive, because
there is literally no place for these experiences, and signals the limits of such modes of accounting. In his refusal of the stable
Bataille opens
order of destructive things (collections of natural history have always been collections of the dead),
knowledge up to the wound that can connect us to the immanence of the universe, be
that through earthworms or spit, wild beasts or our own animality . While we might acknowledge
our co-evolution with lots of non-humans as an important step in understanding various forms of cohabitation and forms of
historical indebtedness and inheritance (Clark, 2005, 2007: 63; Diprose, 2002: 42), in the end (and in the experience) this is
what opens before us in animality is
not what is at stake in losing the play of the world. As Bataille argued,
both interior and external to us – it is a line of communication between two worlds .
He says: ‘We calculate our interests, but this situation baffles us: The very word interest
is contradictory with the desire at stake under these conditions ’ (1991a: 30). Desire, for
Bataille, is bound to and by the intimacy of that experience – it must be bound to
experience as a possibility of politics and it must be bound by the form of that
aesthetic experience which forces a rethinking of the dominant pre-ordered forms of
experience. In short, categories of experience must be faithful to those experiences. Climate change must force new
images full of loss and rage that scream through our aesthetic orders to break with the stockpiling of nature in neat categories
of extinction.At a time when so much is at stake, a thinking that does not shy away from
the limits of an exchange with animality, both exuberant and violent, is surely needed. This
desire to endlessly accumulate and fend off loss and destruction ultimately inflates the
likelihood and magnitude of catastrophe and loss . This is what is so paradoxical
about strategies that exude care, but return to a ledger of accounting so stultified that
they imprison loss in a restricted economy, endlessly suppressing the force of that
biopolitical exchange (be that with polar bears or the long-dead animal fossils that have
fuelled our carbon-climate experiment). The restricted economy, which Bataille
articulates, shares everything with the logic of industrial capitalist modernity that has
been so destructive to other forms of life , and nothing with the intimacy of experience that can open up
possibility in a politics of biopolitical living. What is crucial here in the constant ‘bringing down in the world’ of accumulative
categories is an attack on conservation itself as a practice that ignores the limits of the biosphere (for Bataille these are the
only real limits). How the biopolitical is ordered through archival principles is key to the possibilities of intimacy and ethics. As
Grosz asks: ‘what would an ethics be like that did not rebound with echoes of an exchange dictated by the past?’ (1999: 11). By
conserving and accumulating our archives of destruction, we continue ordering and spending destruction without ever
transgressing the limits (to transgress the limit is to become aware of the limit) in ways that bring catastrophic loss and
wholesale destruction, because violence and generosity are systematically repressed. The blindspot in archives of extinction is
that they use the very same machinations and forms of thought to rank and discipline loss as those practices that are part of
the destruction – the slow accumulated loss and encroachment of late capitalism that sees no limits to its accumulative
45
capacity. As Stoekl comments in his discussion of Bataille and energy politics: ‘The qualified mechanized destruction of the
Earth becomes the quantified, mechanized preservation of the Earth’ (2007a: 133).
46
AT: Biopolitics Root Cause

Theories of Biopolitics are still centered on European
understanding of the state and mechanisms of control.
Decoloniality escapes the Eurocentric trap and provides a
better knowledge base for developing countries to escape
modernity.
Mignolo 2011 (Walter D., is William H. Wannamaker Professor of Literature and Romance Studies and Director of
the Center for Global Studies and the Humanities, at Duke University, “Geopolitics of Sensing and Knowing On (De)Coloniality,
Border Thinking, and Epistemic Disobedience,” eipcp.net, 2011, http://eipcp.net/transversal/0112/mignolo/en) RQ
(De)Coloniality[1] is, in the first place, a concept whose point of origination was the Third World. Better yet, it emerged at the
very moment in which the three world division was collapsing and the celebration of the end of history and a new world order
was emerging. The nature of its impact was similar to the impact produced by the introduction of the concept of
“biopolitics,” whose point of origination was Europe. Like its European counterpart, “coloniality”
moved to the center of international debates in the non-European world as well as in
“former Eastern Europe.” While “biopolitics” moved to center stage in “former
Western Europe” (cfr., the European Union) and the United States, as well as among some intellectual minorities of the
non-European followers of ideas that originated in Europe, but who adapt them to local circumstances, “ coloniality”
offers a needed sense of comfort to mainly people of color in developing countries,
migrants and, in general, to a vast quantitative majority whose life experiences, long
and short-term memories, languages and categories of thoughts are alienated to life
experience, long and short-term memories, languages and categories of thought that
brought about the concept of “biopolitics” to account for mechanisms of control and
state regulations.[2] Modernity, postmodernity and altermodernity have their historical
grounding in the Enlightenment and the French Revolution . Decoloniality has its
historical grounding in the Bandung Conference of 1955, in which 29 countries from Asia and Africa
gathered. The main goal of the conference was to find a common ground and vision for
the future that was neither capitalism nor communism. That way was
“decolonization.” It was not “a third way” aè la Giddens, but a delinking from the two major
Western macro-narratives. The conference of the Non-Aligned countries followed suit in 1961, and took place in
Belgrade. On that occasion, several Latin American countries joined forces with Asian and African countries. Frantz Fanon’s
Thus, the political and epistemic foundations of
The Wretched of the Earth was also published in 1961.
decoloniality had been established in fifty-five years. From then until now and from now to the
future, it will be decoloniality all the way down – not as a new universal that presents itself as the right one that supersedes all
the previous and existing ones, but as an option. By presenting itself as an option, the decolonial opens up a way of thinking
that delinks from the chronologies of new epistemes or new paradigms (modern, postmodern, altermodern, Newtonian
science, quantum theory, the theory of relativity, etc.). Epistemes and paradigms are not alien to decolonial thinking. They
cannot be, but are no longer the point of reference and of epistemic legitimacy. While
the Bandung Conference
pronounced itself in the political terrain as neither capitalism nor communism but
as decolonization, today, thinking decolonially is concerned with global equality and
economic justice, but it also asserts that Western democracy and socialism are not
the only two models to orient our thinking and our doing. Decolonial arguments
promote the communal as another option next to capitalism and communism. In the
spirit of Bandung, Aymara intellectual, Simon Yampara, makes clear that Aymaras
are neither capitalist nor communist. They promote decolonial thinking and
47
communal doing.[3] Because decoloniality’s point of origination was the Third World, in its diversity of local
histories and different times and Western imperial countries that first interfered with those local histories – be it in
Tawantinsuyu in the sixteenth century, China in the nineteenth century or Iraq from the beginning of the twentieth (France and
England) to the beginning of the twenty-first century (the US) – border thinking is the epistemic singularity of any decolonial
project. Why? Because border epistemology is the epistemology of the anthropoi, who do not want to submit to humanitas, but
at the same time cannot avoid it. Decoloniality and border thinking/sensing/doing are then strictly interconnected since
decoloniality couldn’t be Cartesian or Marxian. In other words, decoloniality’s point of origination in the Third World connects
to “immigrant consciousness” in Western Europe and the US today. “Immigrant consciousness” is located in the routes of
dispersion of decolonial and border thinking.
48
AT: Natives
COLONIALISM AND COLONIAL EPISTOMOLOGY IS THE ROOT CUASE OF NATIVE
GENOCIDE AND CONTINUED OPPRESSION. BY EMBRACING THE AFFIRMATIVE
METHOD OF DE-LINK WE CAN LOOK CRITICALLY AT HOW WE ENGAGE WITH
COLONIZED PEOPLES AND STRUCTURALLY CHANGE OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH
THEM.
PERM: DO AFF
Alfred 2009
(Gerald Taiaiake Alfred, PhD, School of Indigeous Governance, University of
Victoria, 11/ 2009, Accessed on 6/25/14,
http://web.uvic.ca/igov/uploads/pdf/GTA.Colonialism%20and%20State
%20Dependency%20NAHO%20V5_I2_Colonialism_02.pdfJWH)
Ongoing indigenous struggles against colonialism consist mainly of efforts to redress

the fundamental injustice of being forcibly removed from the¶ land or being denied
access to the land to continue traditional cultural activities. Yet there is another
aspect to colonialism which is often ignored in the public discourse, and certainly
does not form a major focus of either First Nation organization or Canadian
government policy efforts. This aspect is the colonially-generated cultural disruption affecting First Nations that
compounds the effects of dispossession to create near total psychological, physical¶ and
financial dependency on the state. The cumulative¶ and ongoing effects of this crisis
of dependency form the living context of most First Nations existences today. This
complex relationship between the effects of social suffering, unresolved
psychophysical harms of historical trauma and¶ 42 Journal de la santé autochtone,
novembre 2009¶ cultural dislocation have created a situation in which the
opportunities for a self-sufficient, healthy and autonomous life for First Nations
people on individual and collective bases are extremely limited .¶ As is typical in all colonial
societies, First Nations today are characterized as entrenched dependencies, in physical, psychological and financial terms, on
the very people¶ and institutions that have caused the near erasure of our existence and who have come to dominate us.¶
When one considers the material consequences of Canada’s century-long policy of
state-sponsored, forcible assimilation, a simple fact emerges: for generations,
opportunities to live well as an Aboriginal person have been actively frustrated. Successive
governments, committed to the notion that Aboriginal¶ ¶ cultures belong only to the past, have made no provision for
the well-being of these cultures in the present and future. In the arrangement of Canada’s social affairs, only the assimilated
Indian has been offered even the prospect of wellness .
For those who resisted or refused the benefits of
assimilation, government policies assured a life of certain indignity. That is the
essence of life¶ in the colony: assimilate and be like us or suffer the consequences
(Kirmayer & Valaskakis, 2009, p. xi).¶ Beyond the effects on the individual, it is a real¶ tragedy that First Nations people are
generally wanting¶ of the inspiration and support that healthy and cohesive communities provide. Cultural
dislocation has led to despair, but the real deprivation is the erosion of an ethic¶ of
universal respect and responsibility that used to be the hallmark of indigenous
societies. The material conditions of First Nations life, pressures exerted on Indigenous people from settler society and
this state of overall dependency¶ has created a reality characterized by discord and violence experienced as daily facts of life in
most First Nation communities.¶ The
self-hating inward turn of this negative energy in reaction
to colonization is one of the most damaging aspects of the problem , what Lee Maracle has
49
Colonialism, as it is
called the “systemic rage” so common among colonized peoples (Maracle,¶ 1996, p. 12).
understood by most people, consists in such things as the resource exploitation¶ of
indigenous lands, residential school syndrome, racism, expropriation of lands,
extinguishment of rights, wardship, and welfare dependency. And while all of this is
certainly colonialism, Indigenous people don’t experience colonialism as theories or
as analytic categories. Colonialism is made real in the lives of First Nations people
when these things go from being a set of imposed externalities to becoming causes of
harm to them as people and as communities, limitations placed on their freedom, and
disturbing mentalities, psychologies, and behaviours .¶ In order to get to the root
of the colonial problem ¶ in Canada, it is necessary to understand that oppression
experienced over such a long period of time effects people’s minds and souls in
seriously negative ways. Meaningful discussions on the subject of alleviating the
harms that colonization has wrought requires seeing beyond colonialism as
historical process of societal changes or a set of legal and military events . It means
recognizing that colonial injustices and oppression have had effects on both
individuals and collectivities, and that addressing these effects necessitates
perspectives and strategies that situate First Nations people not simply as
individuals within Canada, but as members¶ of cultured communities on the
land. Understanding this history of colonialism – the political and economic aspects of the changing relationship between
Indigenous peoples and European which resulted in the subjugation of First Nations to European powers – is, in a fundamental
sense, less important than appreciating the damage to the cultural integrity and mental and physical health of the people and
communities who make up those nations. As Eduardo Duran has characterized the problem:¶ Once
a group of
people have been assaulted in a genocidal fashion, there are psychological
ramifications. With the victim’s complete loss of power comes despair, and the psyche
reacts by internalizing what appears¶ to be genuine power—the power of the
oppressor.¶ The internalizing process begins when First Nation American people
internalize the oppressor, which is merely a caricature of the power actually taken
from First Nation American people. At this point, the self- worth of the individual
and/or group has sunk to a level of despair tantamount to self-hatred . This self-
hatred can be either internalized or externalized (Duran & Duran, 1995, p. 29; See also Trexler, 1995).¶ In particular,
Indigenous men’s difficulties in comprehending and dealing effectively with the source¶ of their own disempowerment has led
to a compounding¶ of the problem for Indigenous women and children, who¶ are frequently the targets of men’s raging
manifestations¶ of internalized self-hatred. This problem exists in various forms and intensities across the entire economic
and social spectrum in First Nations, and in spite of other recent politico-legal advances in the empowerment of First Nations
enterprises and governments. Women express colonized mindsets as well, but mainly through self-destructive behaviour. Men
tend to channel their rage externally, and¶ as a consequence gendered violence has become endemic within First Nations
communities.¶ The gradual transformation of First Nations communities from violent and discordant environments cannot be
accomplished by conceptualizing the harm¶ as dysfunction or by isolating problem behaviours. It is becoming clear, as this
paper will argue, that without¶ the foundation provided by a connection to land-based cultural practices and the
reestablishment of authentic indigenous community life, individualizing efforts actually work to compound the problems by
promoting further alienation from proven sources of strength and healing on the individual level, and the social-cultural
atomization of indigenous communities. This
paper advocates a radical¶ Journal of Aboriginal
Health, November 2009 43¶ Colonialism and State Dependency¶ ¶
Colonialism and State Dependency¶ approach to change, consisting in the effort
to reintegrate the essential features and benefits of a reconnection to homeland and
of “traditional” indigenous land-based cultural practices that have proven in many
cases to be key to the reclamation of spiritual, physical and psychological health and
to the restoration of communities characterized by peace and harmony and strength.
50
AT: Gender K
COLONIALISM CAUSES BINARIES, IN SPECIFIC, GENDER. BY SOLVING
FOR COLONIAL EPISTOMOLOGY WE CAN TAKE ETHICAL
STEPS TOWARD CREATING PRAGMATIC UN-GENDERED
ACTIONS.
Lind 12 [Amy Lind, Mary Ellen Heintz Endowed Chair and Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality
Studies, University of Cincinnati “Intimate Governmentalities, the Latin American Left, and the Decolonial Turn.”
feminists@law, Vol 2, No 1 (2012) https://journals.kent.ac.uk/kent/index.php/feministsatlaw/article/view/43/115]
The second disjuncture I see draws from the above scenario and speaks to how the
governance of intimacy – or intimate governmentalities – and biopolitics are (or are not)
understood as part of this process. Thus far much of the emphasis has been on competing
modernities among the hegemonic Euromodernity and indigenous and Afro-modernities. Less has
been done to understand how notions of life and intimacy comparatively figure into
these competing accounts, and how this shapes current political processes. Rather, these issues – which scholars such
as Arturo Escobar (1995) have noted are central to modern, colonial, developmentalist
governmentalities – continue to be sidelined and/or compartmentalized. While of course there are exceptions,
debates on life or intimacy pertaining to indigeneity follow one trajectory (e.g., an emphasis on sustainability and overcoming
the nature/culture dualism); debates
on these same issues as they pertain to sexuality or gender
typically follow another trajectory (e.g., an emphasis on citizen rights or the right to bodily integrity and
debates on modernity/coloniality, capitalism and states
autonomy). And generally speaking,
invoke a kind of heteronormativity that is left unexamined by most analysts, despite

the fact that by now many scholars and activists have pointed out the central
significance of heterosexuality as a social institution in shaping

modern/colonial economies and social life (see Lugones 2010 for a discussion of this topic). Some refer
to “men” and “women,” including in discussions of gender complementarity vs. gender
(in)equality, without questioning the construction of these categories themselves (beyond the obvious dualism). Moreover
there is no doubt that narratives of reproduction, gender, heteronormativity, sexuality, intimacy, kinship, life, death, etc.
continue to be central to both right-wing and leftist forms of governance, to both neoliberal and “post-neoliberal” forms of
production, and to the alternative modernities being sought by indigenous and Afro-Latin American social movements.
Categories of “the family,” “gender,” “sexuality” are no more or less “modern” than categories of “race” or “ethnicity.” Yet
scholars tend to under-theorize the former categories and write them off as “simply modern,” as solely “reformist,” or as a “side
issue” and therefore uninteresting for a discussion of alternative modernities or “another world.”¶ However
some of
the most interesting examples of post-liberal, post-capitalist and anti-neoliberal practices have
come out of “modern/colonial” social movements such as the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and queer movement in both Ecuador and Bolivia – movements that are mostly
ignored by scholars of global justice studies and Latin American cultural studies. These movements, while perhaps
small in comparison to indigenous movements when seen through the Eurocentric lens of visibility/invisibility (on this topic,
see Horn 2010), are deeply
significant for understanding how both capital and states
structure and govern people’s intimate lives , including how they think, feel, express love, desire, seek
forms of attachment, understand themselves and their “communities.” Capital defines how love itself is or is not valued, as well
as constructed (Wesling 2012). Likewise, state practices institutionalize modern/colonial notions
of intimacy, kinship, sexual practice, etc., thus attributing value to some intimate
arrangements while rendering others invisible, undeserving or deviant – a phenomenon institutionalized as well
through arenas of global governance, most notably the development industry (Lind 2010b). Colonial/modern states
51
have long governed reproduction, including through miscegenation laws banning

interracial marriage, prostitution laws, laws criminalizing sodomy and/or homosexuality, and laws concerning
biological reproduction itself (e.g., abortion, birth control). In many cases new left governments have
opposed reproductive rights and same-sex marriage – two current hot button issues – converging
more with right-wing ideologies than with the various social movements that supported them, including the feminist and
LGBTI movements (Lind in press; Viterna in press). Why, for example, is there
no discussion of how “the
family” is being disputed in various kinds of modernities? How does this play out in
indigenous contexts, as former Bolivian Director of Cultural Patrimony, David Arequipa, also a founding member of
the well-known La Paz-based political drag community, Familia Galan, set out to do as part of Morales’ MAS administration?
And likewise, how does this play out within largely mestizo/a and/or urban contexts, such that we see fissures in identity
politics that also deeply challenge the colonial architecture of Latin American states? I have found that leftist activists and
academics often will say, “oh, you’re talking about biopolitics,” without theorizing how biopolitics
itself, including
the governance of intimacy, is wrapped up in their own theories of “another world .”
Indeed, this kind of epistemological and political disjuncture seems to be at the heart of what
Breny Mendoza refers to when she speaks of the Feminists in Resistance coalition’s own quandary
about whether to continue working with the male-dominated left in Honduras. While this type of quandary is by no means
new, it is fascinating to see the disjuncture in intellectual thought about the governance of
intimacy and biopolitics as it shapes all kinds of modernities/colonialities, structures or “geometries” of power (as
Venezuelan Hugo Chaú vez calls its, drawing from Doreen Massey’s work – see Escobar 2010), and epistemic
communities and forms of knowledge. From a feminist perspective, to truly do this would
require intersectional thinking, and the ability to think across and from the perspectives of various epistemic,
cultural, social, economic and political “communities” (Richards in press; Lugones 2010).
Coloniality is the vehicle that enables gendered violence to persist –

Lugones 10 (Maria, Argentine scholar, philosopher, feminist, and an Associate
Professor of Comparative Literature and Philosophy, Interpretation, and Culture and
of Philosophy and of Women's Studies at Binghamton University, "Toward a
decolonial feminism." Hypatia 25.4, 742-759)
beginning with the colonization of the Ameri- cas and the Caribbean, the
With colonial modernity,
modern hierarchical dichotomous distinction between men and women became

known as characteristically human and a mark of civilization Indigenous peoples of .
the Americas and enslaved Airicans were understood as not human, as animals, as
monstrously and aberrantly sexual, wild The dichotomous gender distinction became .
a mark of civilization: Only the civilized are men or women European bourgeois man . The
is a subject, fit for rule, for the public, a being of civilization, heterosexual, Christian, a
being of mind and reason . The European bourgeois woman is not his complement, but the one who reproduces race and capital. This is tightly bound to her sexual purity, passivity, home-
Being gendered in this dichotomous manner makes being

boundedness. The bourgeois white Europeans are civilized; they are fully human.
a mana mark of humanity Women are human in their relation to white, bourgeois,
.
European men The hierarchical dichotomy as a mark of the human becomes also a
.
normative tool to damn the colonized . As the behavior and personalities/ souls of the colonized are judged as bestial, of animals, the colonized are nongendered, promiscuous,
animals were differentiated since the conquest and

grotesquely sexual, sinful. Though at this time the understanding of sex was not dimorphic,
colonization of the Americas as males and females, the male being the perfection, the
female, the inversion, deformation of the male As . Hermaphrodites, sodomites, viragos were all understood as deviations from male perfection.
primitive, wild, not quite human, the colonized were also understood sexually as
males and females, the female the inferior, inverted male. But to the extent that the civilizing mission and conversion to Christianity has been
always present in the ideological conception of conquest and colonization, colonized “males” are also judged from the normative understanding of “man,” and colonized “females” are judged from the normative understanding of “woman.”’ The priests and
the church overtly presented their mission as transforming the colonized animals into human beings through conversion. From this point of view, colonized people became males and females. Males became not-human-as- not-men, the human trait, and
Consequently, though sexually colonized females’ lack was

colonized females became not-human-as- not-women.
understood in relation to male perfection, her human lack compared her only to
women. Colonized females were never understood as' lacking because they were not
52
men-like. Colonized men were not understood to be lacking as not being women-like. Notice the important distinction between sex and gender at this time, which is conilated later as sexual dimorphism becomes the companion of the
. What has been understood as the feminization of colonized men seems

dichotomous understanding of gender
rather a gesture of humiliation, attributing sexual passivity to the threat of rape. This
tension between hypersexuality and sexual passiv- ¶ ity defines one of the domains of
masculine subjection of the colonized. The colonial civilizing mission was the
euphemistic mask of brutal access to people’s bodies through unimaginable
exploitation, violent sexual violation, control of reproduction, and systematic
terror , which included, for example, feeding living people to dogs and making
pouches¶ and hats from the vaginas of brutally killed indigenous females civilizing . The
mission used the hierarchical gender dichotomy as a judgment, ¶ though the

attainment of dichotomous gendering was not the point of¶ the normative judgment .
the colonizing mission included the profound transformation

Tuming the colonized into human beings was not a colonial goal. Rather,
of the colonized into men and women-a transformation not in identity but in nature-
in its repertoire of justifications for abuse Christian confession, sin, and the .
Manichean division between good and evil served to imprint female sexuality as evil .
There is an important separation in this respect between the treatment of comuneros, commu- ¶ nity members, subjects of empires, and the treatment of the indigenous nobility that needs exploration from the point of view of the coloniality of gender.
The civilizing
Here I am highlighting the most direct and brutal conception and treatment of those whose labor and sexuality were clearly understood in terms of the coloniality of gender. ¶
transformation justified the colonization of memory and thus of one’s sense of

self intersubjective relations, and relation to the¶ spirit world, to land, to the
very fabric of one’s conception of reality, identity, social, ecological, and
cosmological organization as Christianity became the most powerful instrument . Thus
in the transformative mission, the normativity that tied gender and civilization
became involved in the erasure of community, of ecological practices, knowledges of
planting, weaving, and the cosmos, and not only in changing and controlling
reproductive and sexual practices. ¶ One can begin to appreciate the tie between the colonial introduction of the instrumental modern concept of nature central to capitalism and the
One can recognize the dehumanization

colonial introduction of the modern concept of gender and appreciate it as macabre and heavy in its impres- sive ramifications. also
constitutive of what Nelson Maldonado-Torres calls “ the coloniality of being” in the

scope of the modem colonial gender system ¶ ! I use the term “coloniality” following Anibal Quijano’s analysis of the capitalist world system of power in
terms of coloniality of power and of modernity, two inseparable axes in the workings of this system of power.” Quijano’s analysis provides a historical understanding of the in- separability of racialization and capitalist exploitation as constitutive of the
capitalist system of power as anchored in the colonization of the Americas. In thinking of the coloniality of gender I complicate his understanding of the capitalist global system of power, but I also criticize his understanding of gender only in terms of
. In using the term “coloniality” I mean not just classification of people in

sexual access to women
terms of the coloniality of power and gender but also the process of active
reduction of people , the dehumanization that fits them for the classification, the
attempt to turn the colonized into less than human beings. This is in stark contrast to the public aim of conversion, which constitutes the
Christianizing mission.
53
AT: Root Cause Debate Bad/ Root

Cause Debate Good
ROOT CAUSE DEBATES GOOD FOR SOLVING REAL WORLD
PROBLEMS
Pavey NODATE
(“Root Cause Analysis¶ Tracing a Problem to its Origins¶ A powerful five-step
problem-solving process”, Sarah Pavey, editor Mind Tools, Mind Tools, Date
Accessed: 6/23/14,
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_80.htmJWH)
In medicine, it's easy to understand the difference between treating symptoms and
curing a medical condition. Sure, when you're in pain because you've broken your wrist,
you WANT to have your symptoms treated – now! However, taking painkillers won't
heal your wrist, and true healing is needed before the symptoms can disappear for
good. But when you have a problem at work, how do you approach it? Do you jump in and start treating the symptoms? Or
do you stop to consider whether there's actually a deeper problem that needs your attention?¶ If you only fix the symptoms –
what you see on the surface – the problem will almost certainly happen again... which will lead you to fix it, again, and again,
and again.¶ If, instead, you look deeper to figure out why the problem is occurring, you
can fix the underlying systems and processes that cause the problem.¶ Root Cause
Analysis (RCA) is a popular and often-used technique that helps people answer the
question of why the problem occurred in the first place.¶ Root Cause Analysis seeks to
identify the origin of a problem. It uses a specific set of steps, with associated tools, to
find the primary cause of the problem, so that you can:¶ Determine what happened .¶
Determine why it happened.¶ Figure out what to do to reduce the likelihood that it
will happen again.¶ RCA assumes that systems and events are interrelated. An action in one area triggers an action in
another, and another, and so on. By tracing back these actions, you can discover where the
problem started and how it grew into the symptom you're now facing.¶ You'll usually
find three basic types of causes:¶ Physical causes – Tangible, material items failed in some way (for
example, a car's brakes stopped working).¶ Human causes – People did something wrong, or did not
do something that was needed. Human causes typically lead to physical causes (for
example, no one filled the brake fluid, which led to the brakes failing).¶ Organizational causes – A system, process, or policy
that people use to make decisions or do their work is faulty (for example, no one person was responsible for vehicle
maintenance, and everyone assumed someone else had filled the brake fluid).¶ Root Cause Analysis looks at all
three types of causes. It involves investigating the patterns of negative effects, finding
hidden flaws in the system, and discovering specific actions that contributed to the
problem. This often means that RCA reveals more than one root cause.
54
AT: Colonialism Good

THE POWERFUL IDEAS OF FEAR AND TERROR COME IN THE OCNTEXT OF THE
DESTRUCTION, THAT COMES FROM COLONIZATION-ESPECIALLY
AMERICA
Dei and Kempf ’06, “Anti-colonialism and education: the politics of resistance page 76-77” George Jerry Sefa Dei
is a professor of sociology at the University of Toronto, Arlo Kempf is an instructor and program coordinator at UT,
http://books.google.com/books?
id=HyupVZD5SzwC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=colonialism+creates+negative&source=bl&ots=V3eyZcmT6_&sig=uqaXV812yKs
tDLPIN8x2fsHELnE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=koGsU_e-IYaKqga6oICQAw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Underlying the main arguments presented in this study is the idea that colonialism
creates negative
destructive emotions, notably fear and anxiety associated with exposure to
colonialist thoughts imagery and actions that are then transformed into
unconscious referents that give rise to implicit, yet observable and measurable
racist attitudes. Obviously at a more fundamental level, colonialism is based on concrete material social
relationships built on unequal social relations that allow a colonizer to extract
the resources (both human and material) from colonized lands and impose
their own dominant ideas and forms of economic and social relations on a colonized
people privileging their own knowledge and technology over those of others .
According to Hazel Waters (2004. p. I). the latest wave of colonization is occurring within a
historical conjuncture where “The occasion is terror, the instrument, fear and its
delivery mechanism, racism". In a recent article, William Schroder (2005) has accurately
captured the operative logic of colonialism and imperial domination today, carried out by the most
powerful colonizer in the history of the world, the United States:
Like the great imperialists of bygone days. America‘s rulers share a long history of creating
fear - one “evildoer” or another always threatens the destruction of “the American
way of life". Then, while the frightened population huddles gratefully under the
umbrella of power, the government pursues an agenda calculated to transfer vast
sums of public wealth into the hands of the corporate and political elite.
Colonialism plunges violence, terror and fear onto society

Arhundmti Roy has compared colonialism to rape . 0n
(2004) using a very appropriate metaphor,
countless occasions, the dominant white culture has portrayed land as open to
penetration willing, and needing conquest. This metaphor pits femininity (with
its associated concepts of passivity, nature, emotion and purity) Arhundmti Roy (9.004% using a very appropriate metaphor
has compared colonialism to rape. On countless occasions, the dominant white culture has portrayed land as open to
penetration, willing, and needing conquest. This metaphor pits femininity) with its associated concepts of passivity nature.
55
against the masculinity of calculative logic and conquering

emotion and purity)
reason. Indeed, this narrative of colonial conquest in the form of sexual

domination, permeates the culture of Euro-American colonial expansion. And
the fixation with sexualizing colonized bodies is reflected today in literature,
movies, television, and advertising. A very recent manifestation of this is the now infamous imagery of
sexual domination and abuse of Iraqi prisoners carried out by US soldiers at Abu Ghmih prison. As argued in other works in
this volume, colonialism unleashes a torrent of negative emotions as a result of its perverse logic -
it is rape committed on a mass scale. Indeed, the greatest tolls of colonialism are its emotional ones.
Colonialism plunges entire societies into cycles of terror, dependency and
continued violence as it sucks out the spirits of people, crushing bodies and minds in the process. Colonialism
takes up the narrative of race with a vengeance and transforms it into a weapon conquest.
Establishing minority rule over the majority by creating divisions that are built into cultural space and
buttressed by the practice of class and gender inequalities. Finally, colonialism

plunges colonized people into a perpetual state of fear which is eventually
replicated in the colonizer's own society.
Colonialism invokes fear into the colonized, it spreads violence and

hate
Finally,colonialism plunges colonized people into a perpetual state of fear which
is eventually replicated in the colonizer's own society. Brain research has revealed a great
deal about the negative impact of the fear response and what it can do to the human body-mind axis. When the
amygdala is activated by images that invoke fear, it initiates a chemical cascade. One of
the more important chemicals in this cascade is acetylcholine. This chemical activates other regions of
the cortex, pulling the brain in a state of arousal and facilitating memory formation to create
vigilance against future negative stimuli .5 Increased levels of acetylcholine from the
emotional centers of the brain signal the adrenal glands located just above the kidneys to release
more chemicals, including norepinephrine and adrenaline (epinephrine) into the blood stream. These chemicals
cause an accelerated heart rate, increased respiration, and a tightening of the muscles. When these chemicals
reach the nervous system, they provoke spontaneous automatic behaviour to

facilitate escape or engage in combat. If neither option is available, the brain
goes into a general state of hypervigilance or anxiety that carries the negative
emotions forward in time, creating stress and wreaking havoc on the body-mind axis,
leading to the long term expression of violent and defensive moods. As we all know, if
permitted to continue, continual stress results in an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, high
blood pressure cancer and autoimmune disorders. These chemicals work at the intersections
of the bodymind axis, providing the actual “feeling” or sensation of our experiences, but they also have the potential to harm
56
the body-mind. These processes also represent some of the neurobiological

correlates of colonization . Though I have made it sound like all these chemical reactions happen outside of an
individual’s control in the simple sketch provided above, this is definitely not the whole story. The automatic
learning of fears only represents one form of learning — a very basic form that causes
“spirit injury". It is necessary to confront and come to terms with the negative
emotions being perpetuated by us and by society, or else they become, as we have seen,
virulent automatic unconscious afflictions that spread violence and hate. This
requires a different type of learning — one that is more disciplined and focused on the mind, a process of learning that
questions the way our mind-body axis produces reality. [I is based on the idea that the current reality we perceive, based on
the perpetuation of negative emotions, is not right and that we have the power to transform this situation.
COLONIAL VIOLENCES CROSSES GENERATIONS AND ITS EFFECTS ARE

LONG-LIVED
Before concluding, it is necessary to ask what studies of the human brain can tell us about racism. Western scientists have
Brain studies are reaffirming the
recently begun to learn a lot about the functioning of the human brain.
negative effects of colonization on the colonized. Brain research has provided us with
information regarding the mechanisms through which racism continues to be exhibited in the
mind of the colonizer over the centuries as the dominant social forces giving
rise to colonialism have changed themselves and also adjusted the operative logic
of modern-day politics of colonialism . Yet current research has a long way to go in understanding the
hidden mysteries of this highly complex process. More research is required and the arguments presented in this paper must be
regarded with some skepticism, for it is misleading to assume that a few regions of the brain are responsible for, or is
predictive of a highly complex behaviour such as racism. In the final analysis, brain research seems to yield more questions
than answers regarding racism. The questions we choose to address will determine the approach we take to combating racism
at the level of education. What is education if not (at some level) the active “rewiring” of the brain? The problem with rewiring,
knowledge we have
as with education must necessarily be the unpredictability of the outcome. This aside, the
accumulated about brain function over the centuries stresses the necessity for
social transformation to be carried out alongside the transformation of minds in

order to create a system of social relations free of bias and prejudice in any of their
forms. A deeper understanding of the interactive nature of the functions of the cerebral cortex would allow us to form
pedagogical strategies appropriate for combating racism more effectively. We know that repetitive images
provoking strong negative emotions gives way to rapid unconscious
categorizations of information in the mind. We also now are beginning to find out that these
categorizations become automatic referents working beneath the level of
conscious awareness to activate certain regions of the brain in response to
stimuli. Hearing the words “the suspect has been identified as a black male ...”
and having the image associated with this line reproduced in movies, music and in other
cultural outlets over and over again creates a situation where the human
amygdala (responsible for fear response, anger, etc.). In this case, as described above, the ACC (regulating attention), and
the PFC (responsible for higher level emotional processing) are automatically activated and may arouse some sort
of defensive emotional posture (such as fear) when white subjects see a black face
57
even in the isolated and relatively safe environment of the laboratory. White
subjects thus perceive a socially constructed and mediated threat and respond
with a survival-mode response that in the evolutionary schema of our species did not
originally develop for this purpose. Furthermore, in face-to-face interactions, studies have shown that
white subjects in conversations with black subjects perform badly on a Stroop test, requiring higher executive function
immediately after their interaction. Scientists point to the drain of resources caused by whites checking their responses and
the brain changes with time,
inhibiting their inherent biases from emerging. Moreover, we have also learned that
going through several 80 crucial periods of rapid change (periods of high plasticity). And finally,
as we age, our average abilities to recall detailed information decreases,
leading to more stereotyping and generalizing to compensate for declining
functionality in certain memory systems ‘ Studies have also shown that people are more likely to
engage in stereotyping activity as they attain higher degrees of situational (social) power, which is likely to also occur with age.
WE CANNOT EXPAND IDEALS OF COLONIALISM. WE MUST STEP

BACK AND DEVELOP OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE OCEAN-
OTHERWISE COLONIALISM WILL PERPETUATE AND EXTEND
PASS AMERICAN BOUNDARIES
All of this evidence points to the need for what Memmi (l999) has described as a “lifelong pedagogy” to combat racism. This
paper has argued thatscience findings reveal the need for a struggle geared towards
social and spiritual transformation waged at the multiple levels of individual human minds (through
mindfulness techniques described above) alongside collective action in various forms, such as introducing
more anti-colonial and anti-racist literature into the curriculum. In addition, it

is necessary to launch an assault on the automatism created by the social forces that
compel us to accept and internalize social values without questioning them, leading to
the formation of automatic frames of reference that operate in the background of our
minds. From an early age, we must teach children how to take control of their minds
and direct it in ways that expand positive emotional states in earnest, while taking
responsibility and devoting our lives to make right the wrongs of the past and the
present. This is why anti-colonial , anti-racist literature and imagery to counter colonial
narratives must become a part of our lived experience. Finally, as the fields of cognitive
neuropsychology, developmental neurobiology, and brain imaging techniques continue to develop and expand the emerging
research will have a profound impact on education - just as it has already on clinical psychology. And as we have seen, the
parts of the brain , like the parts of the Earth, can be claimed as territory by colonial
powers and relationships. It is therefore absolutely necessary for anticolonial,
critical pedagogy to establish the brain as a part of the interdisciplinary and complex terrain of
anti-colonial struggle.
58
AT: Race K
COLONIAL MODERNITY IS PREDICATED UPON RACIAL
DIFFERENCES THAT MARKS NON-WHITE KNOWLEDGE AS
USELESS AND CROWDS OUT EFFECTIVE NATIVE, NON-
WESTERN SOLUTIONS. THESE SOLUTIONS COULD BE KEY TO
ETHICAL ENGAGEMENT WITH OCEANS.
Mignolo- 2010 (Walter D., Department of Romance Studies, Duke University, “The geopolitics of knowledge and the
colonial difference,” Praxis Publica, October 2010, http://praxispublica.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WALTER-
MIGNOLO-GEOPOLITICS-OF-KNOWLEDGE-DUKE-UNIVERSITY.pdf )
The irreducible colonial difference that I am trying to chart, starting from Dussel's dialogue with
Vattimo, was also perceived by Robert Bernasconi in the challenge that African Philosophy puts forward to Continental
Philosophy. Simply put, Bernasconi notes that "Western philosophy traps African philosophy
in a double bind: either African philosophy is so similar to Western philosophy that
it makes no distinctive contribution and effectively disappears; or it is so different
that its credentials to be genuine philosophy will always be i n doubt (Bernasconi 1998,
188)." This double bind is the colonial difference and it creates the condition for what I
have elsewhere called "border thinking". I have defined border thinking as an
epistemology from a subaltern perspective. Although Bernascon i describes the
phenomena in a different terminology, the problem we are dealing with here is the
same. Furthermore, Bernasconi makes his point with the support of Afro - American philosopher Lucius Outlaw in an article
entitled "African 'philosophy': decons tructive and reconstructive challenges". Emphasizing the sense in which Outlaw uses the
concept of "deconstruction", Bernasconi at the same time underlines the limits of Derrida's deconstructive operation and the
closure of Western metaphysics. Derrida, ac cording to Bernasconi, offers no space in which to ask the question about Chinese,
Indian, and especially African philosophy. Latin and Anglo - American philosophy should be added to this. After a careful
discussion of Derrida's philosophy, and pondering pos sible alternatives for the "extension" of deconstruction, Bernasconi
concludes by saying: "...even after such revisions, it is not clear what contribution deconstruction could make to the
contemporary dialogue between Western philosophy and African philosoph y" (1998, 187). Or, if a contribution could be
foreseen, it has to be from the perspective that Outlaw appropriates and which "denaturalizes" deconstruction of Western
metaphysics from inside (and maintains the totality, a la Derrida). That is to say, it h as to be a "deconstruction" from the
"exteriority" of Western metaphysics, from the Walter D. Mignolo perspective of the double bind that Bernasconi detected in
the interdependence (and power relations) between Western and African philosophy. However, if we invert the persp ective,
we are located in a particular deconstructive strategy that I would rather name the "decolonization of philosophy" (or of any
other branch of knowledge, natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities). Such a displacement of perspective was
already suggested by Moroccan philosopher Abdelkhebir Khatibi, which I have discussed at length elsewhere (Mignolo 1999a).
However, certainly Bernasconi will concur with Khatibi in naming decolonization as the type of deconstructive operation
proposed by O utlaw, thus maintaining and undoing the colonial difference from the colonial difference itself. " The
existential dimension of African philosophy's challenge to Western philosophy in
general and Continental philosophy in particular is located in the need to decolonize
the mind. This task is at least as important for the colonizer as it is for the colonized.
For Africans, decolonizing the mind takes place not only in facing the experience of
colonialism, but also in recognizing the precolonial, which established the
destructive importance of so - called ethnophilosophy (Bernasconi 1998, 191). The double
bind requires also a double operation from the perspective of African philosophy: an
appropriation of Western philosophy and at the same time a rejection of it grounded
in the colonial difference. Bernasconi recognizes that these, however, are tasks and issues for African philosophers.
What would be similar issues for a Continental philosopher? For Europeans, Bernasconi adds, "decolonizing the colonial mind
59
nece ssitates an encounter with the colonized, where finally the European has the experience of being seen as judged by those
they have denied. The extent to which European philosophy championed colonialism, and more particularly helped to justify it
through a philosophy of history that privileged Europe, makes it apparent that such a decolonizing is an urgent task for
European thought" (Bernasconi 1998, 192)
THE CODIFICATION OF COLORED BODIES IS ROOTED IN COLONIAL VIOLENCE.

COLONIZATION IS ROOTED IN AN US-THEM DICHOTOMY THAT SITUATES
COLONIZERS AS CLEAN RIGHTEOUS SUBJECTS AND CODED BODIES AS
INFERIOR.
Mignolo 2006 [Walter D. Mignolo, Professor of Cultural studies at Duke University, Islamophobia/Hispanophobia:
The (Re)Configuration of the Racial Imperial/Colonial Matrix, Human Architecture, 2006]
Thus, the
point of departure of my argument is that current debates about whether “race” is
an eighteenth and nineteenth-century discourse, or whether in the sixteenth century
“caste” was the proper system of classification, both assume that the classifications
concocted by Renaissance men of letters or Enlightenment “philosophies” were
universal. My point of departure is that the system of classification and hierarchies during the
Renaissance or during the Enlightenment was a local one in this precise sense: people
in India, China, Ottoman, Tawantinsuyu, Anahuac, etc., certainly were part of the
classification but none of them, except Christian theologians, had any say in the
classification. The only possibility to those who did not participate in the imperial
organization of knowledge was either to accept how they were classified or to
reclassify themselves for their own pride but with little effect on the organization of
world power that was at stake. Let me explain. Discourses of difference in the European Renaissance went hand
in hand with discourses of fear.1 There is plenty of evidence about Christians in Spain but also in England. British travelers to
the Hapsburg or Austro-Hungarian Empires expressed their strangeness and the discomfort vis-aè -vis the Turks. The
European Renaissance could be taken as a reference period in which several
“empires” (a general name extended after the name of the Roman Emperor instead, for example, of Sultan or Tzar)
coexisted; although the discourses of Christianity and later on of political theory and
political economy emerged as the dominant imperial discourses of Western capitalist
empires. Racism went hand in hand with the historical foundation of capitalism as we know it today. Take the Black
Legend as a good and early example of the propagation of the Muslim “menace” from
the Iberian Peninsula to the Atlantic countries, north of the Pyrenees. The Black
Legend is, first and foremost, an internal conflict in Europe and for that reason I will
describe it as the imperial internal difference. But the Black Legend, initiated and
propelled by England, shared with the Spaniards the Christian cosmology that
distinguished itself from the Muslim, the Turks and the Russian Orthodox. That is, the
Black Legend contributed to the reinforcement of an imperial divide that was already carried out by the Spanish Kingdom of
Charles I and the Spanish Empire under Philip II. We all knowit: in1492, the Moors and the Jews were
prosecuted in the Iberian Peninsula; Indians were “discovered” in the New World and
massive contingents of African slaves were transported through the Atlantic. The
“discovery” of the New World posed a different problem for Western Christians
dealing with Muslims, Jews and Turks: if Jews and Moors were classified according to
their belief in the wrong God, Indians (and later on Black Africans), had to be
classified assuming that they had no religions. Thus, the question of “purity of blood”
acquired in the New World a meaning totally different from the one it had in the
Iberian Peninsula. Nonetheless, the fact remains that with the double expulsion of Moors and Jews from the Iberian
Peninsula, the New World brought a different dimension to the classificatory and
hierarchical system. While in Spain Jews and Muslims identified themselves with those racialized labels, there were
no “Indians” in the New World. To become “Indian” was a long and painful process for the
diversity of peoples, the diversity of languages, and the diversity of memories and rituals from today’s Southern Chile
to Canada. And there were no “Blacks” either. Africans transported to the new World
60
from different regions of the continent had different languages, memories and
religions, but now all of them became Blacks in the New World. In other words, whatever
the system of classification in the Iberian Peninsula and in the New World, that
system of classification was controlled by Christian Theology as the overarching and
hegemonic frame of knowledge. Neither the “Turks,” nor the Mughal, nor the Christian Orthodox in Russia had
any say in it—even less, of course, Indians and Blacks
COLONIAL IDENTITY PRODUCTION HAS REDUCED NATIVES TO A CONSTANT

STATE OF NEAR-DEATH. THE ABILITY OF THE BIOPOLITICAL TO MANDATE
THE RELEVANCE OF NATIVE CULTURE PRODUCES A VIOLENT RACISM THAT
SEEKS TO ERASE NATIVE THOUGHT AND LIFE.
Smith 3 [Andrea, “Not an Indian Tradition: The Sexual Colonization of Native Peoples”, Hypatia, Volume 18, Number 2,
Spring, pp. 70-85]
Ann Stoler argues that racism, far from being a reaction to crisis in which racial others are scapegoated for social ills, is a
permanent part of the social fabric. “[R]acism is not an effect but a tactic in the internal fission of
society into binary opposition, a means of creating ‘biologized’ internal enemies,
against whom society must defend itself” (1997, 59). She notes that in the modern state, the
constant purification and elimination of racialized enemies within that state ensures
the growth of the national body. “Racism does not merely arise in moments of crisis,
in sporadic cleansings. It is internal to the biopolitical state , woven into the web of the social body, threaded
through its fabric” (1997, 59). Similarly, Kate Shanley notes that Native peoples are a permanent “present
absence” in the U.S. colonial imagination, an “absence” that reinforces at every turn
the conviction that Native peoples are indeed vanishing and that the conquest of
Native lands is justified. Ella Shoat and Robert Stam describe this absence as “an ambivalently
repressive mechanism [that] dispels the anxiety in the face of the Indian, whose very
presence is a reminder of the initially precarious g rounding of the American nation-
state itself . . . In a temporal paradox, living Indians were induced to ‘play dead ,’ as it
were, in order to perform a narrative of manifest destiny in which their role , ultimately, was
to disappear” (1994, 118–19). This “absence” is effected through the metaphorical
transformation of Native bodies into a pollution of which the colonial body must
purify itself. As white Californians described in the 1860s, Native people were “the
dirtiest lot of human beings on earth.” They wear filthy rags, with their persons
unwashed, hair uncombed and swarming with vermin” (Rawls 1984, 195). The following 1885
Proctor & Gamble ad for Ivory Soap also illustrates this equation between Indian bodies and dirt: We were once factious, fierce
and wild, In peaceful arts unreconciled Our blankets smeared with grease and stains From buffalo meat and settlers’ veins.
Through summer’s dust and heat content From moon to moon unwashed we went, But IVORY SOAP came like a ray Of light
across our darkened way And now we’re civil, kind and good And keep the laws as people should, We wear our linen, lawn and
lace As well as folks with paler face And now I take, wherever we go This cake of IVORY SOAP to show What civilized my squaw
and me And made us clean and fair to see. (Lopez n.d, 119) In
the colonial imagination, Native bodies are
also immanently polluted with sexual sin. Alexander Whitaker, a minister in Virginia, wrote in
1613: “They live naked in bodies, as if their shame of their sinne deserved no covering:
Their names are as naked as their bodies: They esteem it a virtue to lie, deceive and
steale as their master the divell teacheth them” (Berkhofer 1978, 19). Furthermore, according to
Bernardino de Minaya: “Their [the Indians’] marriages are not a sacrament but a sacrilege. They are idolatrous, libidinous, and
commit sodomy. Their chief desire is to eat, drink, worship heathen idols, and commit bestial obscenities” (cited in Stannard
1992, 211). Stoler’s
analysis of racism in which Native peoples are likened to a pollution
that threatens U. S. security is indicated in the comments of one doctor in his
attempt to rationalize the mass sterilization of Native women in the 1970s: “People
61
pollute, and too many people crowded too close together cause many of our social
and economic problems. These in turn are aggravated by involuntary and
irresponsible parenthood . . . We also have obligations to the society of which we are
part. The welfare mess, as it has been called, cries out for solutions, one of which is fertility
control” (Oklahoma 1989, 11). Herbert Aptheker describes the logical consequences of this sterilization movement: “ The
ultimate logic of this is crematoria; people are themselves constituting the pollution
and inferior people in particular, then crematoria become really vast sewerage
projects. Only so may one understand those who attend the ovens and concocted
and conducted the entire enterprise; those “wasted”—to use U. S. army jargon
reserved for colonial hostilities—are not really, not fully people” (1987, 144). Because
Indian bodies are “dirty,” they are considered sexually violable and “rapable.” That is,
in patriarchal thinking, only a body that is “pure” can be violated. The rape of bodies
that are considered inherently impure or dirty simply does not count. For instance,
prostitutes have almost an impossible time being believed if they are raped because
the dominant society considers the prostitute’s body undeserving of integrity and
violable at all times. Similarly, the history of mutilation of Indian bodies, both living
and dead, makes it clear to Indian people that they are not entitled to bodily
integrity, as these examples suggest: I saw the body of White Antelope with the privates cut off, and I heard a
soldier say he was going to make a tobacco-pouch out of them. (cited in Wrone and Nelson 1982, 113) Each of the braves was
shot down and scalped by the wild volunteers, who out with their knives and cutting two parallel gashes down their backs,
would strip the skin from the quivering [ esh to make razor straps of. (cited in Wrone and Nelson 1982, 90) One more
dexterous than the rest, proceeded to [ ay the chief’s [Tecumseh’s] body; then, cutting the skin in narrow strips . . . at once, a
supply of razor-straps for the more “ferocious” of his brethren. (cited in Wrone and Nelson 1982, 82) Andrew Jackson . . .
supervised the mutilation of 800 or so Creek Indian corpses—the bodies of men, women and children that he and his men
massacred—cutting off their noses to count and preserve a record of the dead, slicing long strips of [ esh from their bodies to
tan and turn into bridle reins. (Stannard 1992, 121) Echoing this mentality was Governor Thompson, who stated in 1990 that
he would not close down an open Indian burial mound in Dickson, Illinois, because of his argument that he was as much Indian
as are current Indians, and consequently, he had as much right as they to determine the fate of Indian remains.1 He felt free to
appropriate the identity of “Native,” and thus felt justified in claiming ownership over both Native identity and Native bodies.
The Chicago press similarly attempted to challenge the identity of the Indian people who protested Thompson’s decision by
stating that these protestors were either only “part” Indian or were only claiming to be Indian (Hermann 1990).2 The message
conveyed by the Illinois state government is that to be Indian in this society is to be on constant display for white consumers, in
life or in death. And in fact, Indian
identity itself is under the control of the colonizer, subject
to eradication at any time. As Aime Cesaire puts it, “colonization = ‘thingi> cation’” (1972, 21). As Stoler explains
this process of racialized colonization: “[T]he more ‘degenerates’ and ‘abnormals’ [in
this case Native peoples] are eliminated, the lives of those who speak will be
stronger, more vigorous, and improved. The enemies are not political adversaries,
but those identified as external and internal threats to the population. Racism is the
condition that makes it acceptable to put [certain people] to death in a society of
normalization” (1997, 85). Tadiar’s description of colonial relationships as an enactment
of the “prevailing mode of heterosexual relations” is useful because it underscores
the extent to which U. S. colonizers view the subjugation of women of the Native
nations as critical to the success of the economic, cultural, and political colonization
(1993, 186). Stoler notes that the imperial discourses on sexuality “cast white women as
the bearers of more racist imperial order” (1997, 35). By extension, Native women as
bearers of a counter-imperial order pose a supreme threat to the imperial order.
Symbolic and literal control over their bodies is important in the war against Native
people, as these examples attest: When I was in the boat I captured a beautiful Carib
women . . . I conceived desire to take pleasure . . . I took a rope and thrashed her well,
for which she raised such unheard screams that you would not have believed your
62
ears. Finally we came to an agreement in such a manner that I can tell you that she seemed to have been brought up in a
school of harlots. (Sale 1990, 140) Two of the best looking of the squaws were lying in such a position, and from the
appearance of the genital organs and of their wounds, there can be no doubt that they were first ravished and then shot dead.
Nearly all of the dead were mutilated. (Wrone and Nelson 1982, 123) One woman, big with child, rushed into the church,
clasping the alter and crying for mercy for herself and unborn babe. She was followed, and fell pierced with a dozen lances . . .
the child was torn alive from the yet palpitating body of its mother, first plunged into the holy water to be baptized, and
immediately its brains were dashed out against a wall. (Wrone and Nelson 1982, 97) The Christians attacked them with buffets
and beatings . . . Then they behaved with such temerity and shamelessness that the most powerful ruler of the island had to see
his own wife raped by a Christian officer. (Las Casas 1992, 33) I heard one man say that he had cut a woman’s private parts out,
and had them for exhibition on a stick. I heard another man say that he had cut the fingers off of an Indian, to get the rings off
his hand. I also heard of numerous instances in which men had cut out the private parts of females, and stretched them over
their saddle-bows and some of them over their hats. (Sand Creek 1973, 129–30) American Horse said of the massacre at
Wounded Knee: The fact of the killing of the women, and more especially the killing of the young boys and girls who are to go
to make up the future strength of the Indian people is the saddest part of the whole affair and we feel it very sorely. (Stannard
1992, 127)
COLONIALISM ESTABLISHES A FRAMEWORK OF RACISM TO JUSTIFY CULTURAL

INTERVENTION EXCLUSIVELY FOR DOMINATION AND SUBJUGATION
Miguel 9 (Vincius Valentin Raduan, holds a degree in Legal Sciences Faculty of

Humanities and a professor at the Federal University of Rondoô nia, “Colonialism and
Underdevelopment in Latin America” http://www.politicalaffairs.net/colonialism-
and-underdevelopment-in-latin-america/)
“Colonialism not only deprives a society of its freedom and its wealth, but of its very character, leaving its people intellectually
and morally disoriented ” (Franz Fanon, 1966). Introduction This essay is going to assess colonialism and the class structure inherited as a main
determinant of current development in Latin American countries. First of all, we must highlight statistics published by the World Bank: 1.4 billion
people in developing countries are living under the extreme poverty . These countries are, in the
majority, former colonies from different cycles of expansion of the major imperialist countries. Certainly, the
processes driven by and the legacies of colonialism are multiple and cannot be
understood if reduced to only the economic dimension . However, for the purpose of this paper, the effects of
economic colonization will be stressed. The economic heritages of colonization are the consequences of the process of conquering, controlling and possessing the
specified regions. I also avoid a discussion of the entire 20th century in order to focus on how the colonial occupation shaped various countries. This definition of
colonialism is imprecise and broad. In an effort to be more precise, I understand it as an external/foreign exploitation
assured through political control and dominance which led to a situation of
dependency on the colonial power by the exploited economy . However, there are other extra-economic
implications of colonialism: it is necessarily a violent conquest and violently maintained system for
the over-exploration of the conquered people. It is an inhuman system in itself,

destroying any attempt at real development of the colony . Economically, it confiscates and
reserves productive lands for the use of the colonizer. At a psychological level, it de-humanizes
the colonized, forcefully imposing a foreign culture. It is a system sustained by
a racist ideology where cultural space is developed exclusively for relations of
domination . This allows for suppression and subjugation of the colonized . Our main question
is to analyze how the low level of economic performance in colonized countries is a reflex of social structures generated by colonialism. Thus, the first question which
should be addressed is: Why do colonial powers established colonies? Secondly, how did they do it? Therefore, it will be possible to comprehend the current impacts and
colonies (17th to 19th centuries) were
consequences of their practices. Historical context and genealogy of the colonialism The recent
established as part of the expansion of the European capitalistic production following

the Industrial Revolution. European colonial powers aimed to incorporate territories which could provide raw materials and low-cost workforce,
and in the process de-structuring and unmaking solid pre-capitalistic social formations. Hence, the main goal was not the transference of the metropolitan population to
populate the colony, expanding their agriculture as practiced by the Roman (and earlier) Empire(s). The economies of the colonies
were designed to serve as source of inexpensive labor and natural resources , and never
planned to spark internal development. This situation led to monopolistic trade-relations in benefit of the economies of the colonial powers. To ensure
63
these monopolistic privileges, the colonial powers forcibly shaped the social and
economical dynamics of the colonies . In this sense, the colonized countries were forced to develop non-technologically
intensive monocultures (ironically celebrated as “specialization”), selling unprofitably their entire production for the dominant countries. This same agro-export oriented
dynamics outlined the land-owning structure, based in large properties under the (political and economical) control of non-modernizing oligarchies. The role of these
oligarchies is of fundamental importance. The local elites were major actors on political-economical scenario. Their agency cannot be ignored and their internal activity
defined, organized and settled the relations of exploitation which took place in the colonies. One of the most prominent Latin American economists, Celso Furtado,
effectively explained the patterns of colonialism. According to him, the foreign country worked in interrelation with the ruling classes in the region, using authoritarian
means to exclude large segments of the people from participating in political and economic control of their communities and countries with the intention of decreasing
The existence of
the cost of labor (when it not reduced drastically through the use of enslaved traditional populations). To sum up, Furtado states: 1.
vast non-utilized areas permitted new extensive occupations of land instead of establishing a modern
and intensive agriculture; 2. The profits accumulated by the local elites were wasted in the consumption of superfluous and luxurious goods for pure ostentation, rather
As consequence of the agrarian structure
than saving and investing in productive sectors of the national and nascent economy; 3.
which extremely centralized power and wealth, a harsh situation of inequality,

poverty and all sorts of privation for the majority of the society resulted. This
excluded a major part of the population from the basic means of subsistence . All these points,
maintained a vicious cycle of lower productivity in colonized regions and the flow of wealth to the dominant economies. The fate of the lest developed countries were
determined in this dialectical relation where internal factors (the role of the dominant classes based in a semi-feudal order) interacted with external causes (the colonial
power and its thirsty for resources and labor force). In this historic trap colonized regions were lately incorporated in the world-market as a result of the dissolution of
the direct control of metropolitan capital over the colonies and had to be accommodated according to the needs of the previous. The (historical and contemporary)
massive poverty in those specified regions saw its genealogy in the original privation
of access to land and housing and currently also determines the economic
performance of those countries where large majorities of the working classes are
unable to consume the products made in a society scarred by inequality . Strict laws
and other measures of social control were also established in the colonized
countries . Even the manufacture of minimal technological products such as nails were forbidden, artificially increasing the dependence of the colonies. This is
an important element of the colonial system, and it cannot be understood if its inherent contradictions are ignored: the development of the
colonial country comes at the expense of the underdevelopment of the

colonized . The markets and actual economies must be looked as historically
constituted. In this sense, production in the colony was determined by the colonial power’s demands. The establishment of a monopolistic relation between
the colonial power and the colony not only asphyxiated the nascent industrialization, but also strangled the benefits of competition. This historical
process left the former colonies economically subordinated and disabled . Though it is important
to bear in mind that the identity of the colonial power (and the type of the colonization) can be a different variable. For instance, the legacy in terms of cultural,
institutional and legal heritage of the colonial power can create slight differences. In the table below, a list of the GDP of former colonies (in South America; data in
American dollars) is contrasted with their Gini coefficients, or the statistical measure of inequality. [A low Gini number indicates a more equal distribution of wealth. By
comparison, the US has a Gini coefficient of about .40, while many social democratic European countries are in the .20s. – Ed.] Historically, this sample was subjected to a
the pattern of colonization was to establish centers for
similar kind of colonization. In other words,
supplying agricultural and non-industrialized products and minerals, such as gold and silver for the colonial
powers. Generally speaking, Latin America has shown economic growth, although the social structure imposed colonialism has been perpetuated. The region is
extremely unequal, with one of the worst income distributions of the world. The explanation for this is that the initial degree of inequality, initiated with the long process
of fragmentation of local pre-capitalist and autonomous societies, followed by the enslavement of traditional indigenous populations, the transference of African slaves to
the continent and, finally, the hyper-exploitation of the free (or recently liberated) working class is still affecting the actual development. The legacy of the colonial times -
the concentration of power, wealth and land - led to a stratified society with an extreme inequality. The discrimination and oppression present in those hierarchical
societies are the main inheritance of the former colonies and are a persistent tragedy, being part of the unsolved questions of the recent past.
RACISM IS A CONSTRUCT OF COLONIALISM USED TO LEGITIMIZE SOCIAL

CONQUEST—RELATIONS OF DOMINATION TRANSLATE INTO PHENOTYPIC
INFERIORITY
Quijano 2000 (Aníúbal, professor of the Department of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, “Coloniality
of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America”)
What is termed globalization is the culmination of a process that began with the constitution of America and colonial/modern Eurocentered
capitalism as a new global power. One of the fundamental axes of this model of power is the social
classification of the world’s population around the idea of race, a mental construction
that expresses the basic experience of colonial domination and pervades the more
important dimensions of global power, including its specific rationality:
Eurocentrism. The racial axis has a colonial origin and character, but it has proven to be more durable and stable than the colonialism
in whose matrix it was established. Therefore , the model of power that is globally hegemonic today
64
presupposes an element of coloniality. In what follows, my primary aim is too pen up some of the theoretically
necessary questions about the implications of coloniality of power regarding the history of Latin America.1 America and the New Model of Global
Power America was constituted as the first space/time of a new model of power of global vocation, and both in this way and by it
became the first identity of modernity. Two historical processes associated in the production of that space/time
converged and established the two fundamental axes of the new model of power. One was the codification of the
differences between conquerors and conquered in the idea of “race,” a supposedly
different biological structure that placed some in a natural situation of inferiority to
the others. The conquistadors assumed this idea as the constitutive, founding element of the relations of domination that the conquest
imposed. On this basis, the population of America, and later the world, was classified within the new model of
power. The other process was the constitution of a new structure of control of labor and its resources and products. This new structure was
an articulation of all historically known previous structures of control of labor, slavery, serfdom, small independent commodity production and
reciprocity, together around and upon the basis of capital and the world market.3 Race: A Mental Category of Modernity The idea of
race, in its modern meaning, does not have a known history before the colonization of
America. Perhaps it originated in reference to the phenotypic differences between conquerors and conquered.4 However, what matters is
that soon it was constructed to refer to the supposed differential biological structures
between those groups. Social relations founded on the category of race produced new
historical social identities in America—Indians, blacks, and mestizos— and redefined
others. Terms such as Spanish and Portuguese , and much later European, which until then
indicated only geographic origin or country of origin, acquired from then on a racial
connotation in reference to the new identities. Insofar as the social relations that were being configured
were relations of domination, such identities were considered constitutive of the
hierarchies, places, and corresponding social roles, and consequently of the model of colonial domination
that was being imposed. In other words, race and racial identity were established as
instruments of basic social classification. As time went by, the colonizers codified the
phenotypic trait of the colonized as color, and they assumed it as the emblematic characteristic of racial category. That category
was probably initially established in the area of Anglo-America. There so-called blacks were not only the most important exploited group,
since the principal part of the economy rested on their labor; they were, above all, the most important colonized race ,
since Indians were not part of that colonial society. Why the dominant group calls itself “white” is a story related to racial classification.5 In
America, the
idea of race was a way of granting legitimacy to the relations of domination
imposed by the conquest. After the colonization of America and the expansion of European colonialism to the rest of the world,
the subsequent constitution of Europe as a new identity needed the elaboration of a Eurocentric perspective of knowledge, a theoretical
perspective on the idea of race as a naturalization of colonial relations between Europeans 535 Quijano .
Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America and non-Europeans. Historically, this meant a new way of legitimizing
the already old ideas and practices of relations of superiority/inferiority between dominant and
dominated. From the sixteenth century on, this principle has proven to be the most effective and long-lasting instrument of universal
social domination, since the much older principle—gender or intersexual domination—was encroached upon by the inferior/superior racial
classifications. So the
conquered and dominated peoples were situated in a natural position
of inferiority and, as a result, their phenotypic traits as well as their cultural features
were considered inferior.6 In this way, race became the fundamental criterion for the
distribution of the world population into ranks, places, and roles in the new society’s structure of power.
65
AT: Framework/Topicality
THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY
DEVELOP ITS EXPLORATION OF THE OCEAN.
We meet
Dictionary.com, 14
Dictionary.com. "Exploration dictionary definition | exploration defined."Exploration dictionary definition | exploration
defined. N.p., 23 June 2014. Web. 23 June 2014. <http://www.yourdictionary.com/exploration>.
Notably penetrating,
or ranging over for purposes of (especially geographical) discovery
The exploration of 'unknown' areas often was the precursor to colonization.
The mindset of ocean exploration is to gain Products.

NOAA 13 Head government ocean administration, What Is Ocean Exploration and Why Is It Important? , NOAA,
6/26/14, http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/backmatter/whatisexploration.html,
While new discoveries are always exciting to scientists, information from ocean exploration is important to everyone.
Unlocking the mysteries of deep-sea ecosystems can reveal new sources for
medical drugs, food, energy resources, and other products. Information from deep-ocean
exploration can help predict earthquakes and tsunamis and help us understand how we are affecting and being affected by
changes in Earth’s climate and atmosphere. Expeditions to the unexplored ocean can help focus
research into critical geographic and subject areas that are likely to produce tangible benefits.
Standards:
Fairness: WE ARE A CRITICAL INTERROGATION OF WHAT IT MEANS TO
ENGAGE IN THE RESOLUTIONAL QUESTION OF OCEANIC EXPLORATION
HOWEVER WE ARE TOPICAL. WE SAY THAT THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY DEVELOP ITS EXPLORATION OF THE
OCEAN.
Predictability: THE NEGATIVE MUST PROVE EXACTLY WHY OUR AFF ISN’T
TOPICAL
 PREFER DISCUSSION OF THE TOPIC OVER TOPICAL DISCUSSION
 OUR AFF IS NECESSARY TO CHALLENGE COLONIALISTIC LOGIC
 WE STILL ENGAGE IN USFG ACTION TOWARDS THE DEVELOPENT OF
OCEANIC EXPLORATION
Voters:
Education: We do not impede education, rather we promote by talking about
the root of ocean exploration. The negs education voter is not viable because
you the judge is not voting for an aff that diminishes education.
66
AT: Limits
Limits are bad for education, they limit the amounts of knowledge that can be
produced in debate. The negative calls for limits that exclude productive
discussions about oceanic exploration that are key to oceanic development.
Furthermore, the aff encourages critical thinking as a way of engaging the

resolutional question of oceanic exploration and development. This does not
signal untopical aff but rather exemplifies the benefits of critical thinking.
Without necessary criticisms of the topic debate becomes an echo-chamber.
Critical thinking furthers education by eliminating narrow-minded

sociocentrism
Paul and Elder, 08’ (Richard Paul is the Director of Research and Professional Development at the Center for Critical
Thinking , The Benefits of Critical Thinking, Foundation for Critical Thinking, June 24 2014,
http://www.doane.edu/facstaff/resources/cetl-home/31812)
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It
presupposesassent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective
communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome
our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
Critical thinking good & is only way to solve injustice and promote liberty
Gabennesch, April 07’ (Howard Gabennesch is professor of sociology at the University of Southern Indiana,
Evansville, IN
47712. He suspects that multidimensional critical thinking is no more common in education than in religion or politics,
CriticalThinking: What is it good for?, The Comittie for Skeptical Inquiry, accessed June 26th 2014)
When academic textbooks come to resemble hymnals that celebrate a religious denomination’s theology, and when this
goes by the name of critical thinking, it is time for some definition adjustments. No one should pontificate a definition
of critical thinking, nor should we expect to achieve unanimity. But I offer the following definition for consideration:
Critical thinking is the use of rational skills, worldviews, and values to get as
close as possible to the truth. Here, critical thinking is conceived as consisting of three essential
dimensions: skills, worldview, and values. Is critical thinking worth the costs? Consider for a moment how costly
uncritical thinking can be. Stephen Jay Gould (1997, x, xii) calls attention to two precious human potentials that
together constitute “the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known”: Only
two
possible escapes can save us from the organized mayhem of our dark
potentialities-the side of human nature that has given us crusades, witch
hunts, enslavements, and holocausts. Moral decency provides one necessary
ingredient, but not nearly enough. The second foundation must come from the
rational side of our mentality. For, unless we rigorously use human reason . . . we will lose out to the
frightening forces of irrationality, romanticism, uncompromising “true” belief, and the apparent resulting inevitability
of mob action . . . Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism-and is therefore one of the keys to
human social and civic decency. According to this striking claim , critical
thinking is one of the most
important resources a society could develop. This is because bad things do not
emanate only from bad people. Bad things can also occur because of the mistaken thinking of
decent people. Even when a bad idea originates with a psychopath, the real danger occurs when it is accepted
by the gullible and condoned by the sincere who have little more than a child’s understanding of what intellectual due
process entails. It is likely that an important link exists between critical thinking, broadly defined, and democracy itself.
The American jurist Learned Hand (1952, 190) described this connection as follows: Liberty lies in the
67
hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court
can save it . . . . The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is
right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of
other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their
interest alongside its own without bias. So by cultivating genuine critical
thinking, we strengthen the crucial underpinnings of democracy (Kuhn 2003). People
who are careful about the truth are less likely to be fooled by the ideologies that justify illiberal practices or promise
simple solutions. Moreover, such people are more likely to recognize the value of intellectual and ideological diversity-
they understand that the truth comes in pieces and is unlikely to be found all in one place. They are the best
counterweight to true believers of all stripes. Ultimately, intellectual due process is no less integral to democracy than is
dueprocess of law.
68
****Negative****
69
NEG: Colonialism Good

Colonialism is good, colonialism in Africa proves
Lamprecht 01 APRIL 2007
(“Colonialism Was Good For Africa”, Jan Lamprecht, published author and publishes
a news article called Straight Talk, 01 APRIL 2007, Accessed on 6/25/14,
http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/newsflash/colonialism-was-good-for-
africa.htmlJWH)
Colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to Africa . Colonialism
brought peace to the 300 warring tribes of Africa. Colonialism for Africa meant more
development than it had ever known - before or after colonialism.¶ Colonialists
brought far more into Africa than took out of it. It is for that reason that most world
empires easily let go of the continent, with only white settlers opposing black rule.
From London, Lisbon and Brussels, Africa is totally useless. Local white settlers
understood the destruction the end of colonialism would bring into their lives, but for
Europeans, colonialism was a waste of money and resources. ¶ The standard of living in Africa
under colonialism has not been matched even despite billions of dollars of annual aid to the continent from white countries.¶
Why is South Africa the powerhouse of Africa? Answer: More whites lived in South Africa than any place else, and white rule
ended only 13 years ago.¶ As whites (and Asians) were kicked out, the continent's collapse accelerated. When Robert Mugabe
took away farms and other property from Zimbabwean whites, he pulled the rug from under his country's economy. This year,
inflation is expected to reach 4,000%.¶ Other excellent examples are: Mozambique and Angola.¶ Africais the richest continent
on Earth when it comes to natural resources. Parts of Africa have staggering fertility .
A friend of mine went to
Rwanda. He told me the ground there is so fertile, the climate so wet and warm you
can literally plant a stick anywhere and it will grow . ¶ The question that must, therefore, be asked is:
why are blacks starving in the land of milk and honey?¶ Why is Japan the 2nd richest nation on Earth and yet it has no natural
resources, and is far from its suppliers and markets? Answer: The Japanese people.¶ Intelligent people achieve great things.
Clever people,
That is why East Asia is doing so well (except for hardcore communist states such as North Korea).
even in unfavorable conditions, are capable of doing well.¶ Africa made two mistakes:
(1) Expelling whites; and (2) adopting Socialist type models.¶ (1) White people are
ingenious and hard-working. Their main contribution is ability to organize and that is
what brought prosperity to Africa. Whites contribute out of all proportion to their
small numbers. ¶ (2) Blacks have been adopted by communists, Marxist, socialists, leftists and liberals - and most of
these people believe in some form of government handouts and drive blacks towards socialism. Unfortunately communism
doesn't work anywhere in the world - so why should it work in Africa?¶ The
most successful experiment in
black capitalism I've ever seen occured in the mid-1980's in South Africa under
apartheid. President PW Botha changed laws and allowed a black taxi industry to
exist. In my view it is the single most successful experiment in black capitalism that
ever occurred on the face of this planet. That model, if expanded, upon could be the future of Africa and
could provide hope for black people everywhere.¶ The problem is that blacks prefer the dreams of a socialist government
giving them everything rather than working to improve their fate.¶ And whites are not the first to come here anyway. All across
southern Africa is evidence of (Southeast) Indians sailing here and mining gold, hundreds of years before whites came. Indians
came, mined gold and took it away. The Great Zimbabwe ruins is nothing more than an Indian temple built in Africa (as
propounded in a recent theory by an academic in South Africa and shown to be consist with similar temples in India). Evidence
of an Indian presence here is myriad. ¶ Colonialism worked. Foreign aid has not .¶ Handouts to
Africa achieved little or nothing and will continue to achieve little or nothng.
Colonialism did what foreign aid cannot - run Africa efficiently.¶ Instead of pumping
70
money into Africa, Europe pumped skilled people into Africa,who came and repeated
in Africa what was done in Europe. By having them build and organise, as well as bring science and
engineering, colonialists built Africa.¶ Anti-colonialism is leftist bunk that has now become agreed upon as the "politically
correct" version of history.
Colonialism Good. Better human rights, technologies, and social

structures. History proves.
Duke 2013
Selwyn Duke is a columnist, writer, traveler, and entrepreneur, Was
colonialism a positive force?, (The New American), 6-25-14
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/17194-was-colonialism-
a-positive-force
It’s hard to forget meeting a man who hated Mahatma Gandhi. I once did,
though. No, he wasn’t some erstwhile viceroy lamenting lost glory days, but an
Indian born and raised in the land of sati and saris. The reason for his ire? He
said that when Gandhi drove the British out, India lost everything: technicians,
engineers, expertise, bureaucratic integrity, etc. In the same vein, I have a Zambian friend
who has argued that colonialism had a positive impact, in that it brought civilization to the lands — such as his
— it touched. And, in fact, even that Kenyan Obama agrees. The president’s half-brother George Obama, that is.
He once told social commentator Dinesh D’Souza that it would have been better “if the whites had stayed longer”
in Kenya, as their premature expulsion caused his nation to descend into poverty. But what of the conventional
narrative that colonialism is responsible for Third World poverty? Economist Dr. Walter Williams addressed this
in 2011, writing: It turns out that countries like the United States, Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand were colonies; yet they are among the world’s
richest countries. Hong Kong was a colony of Great Britain until 1997, when
China regained sovereignty, but it managed to become the second richest
political jurisdiction in the Far East. On the other hand, Ethiopia, Liberia,
Tibet, and Nepal were never colonies, or were so for only a few years, and they
rank among the world’s poorest and most backward countries. Despite the
many justified criticisms of colonialism and, I might add, multinationals, both
served as a means of transferring Western technology and institutions,
bringing backward peoples into greater contact with a more-developed
Western world. A tragic fact is that many African countries have suffered
significant decline since independence. In many of those countries the average
citizen can boast that he ate more regularly and enjoyed greater human-rights
protections under colonial rule. The colonial powers never perpetrated the
unspeakable human rights abuses, including genocide, that we have seen in
post-independence Burundi, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Central African
Empire, Somalia, and elsewhere. Ah, colonialism cast as nation building. Such a characterization
can hit a nerve because many see colonialism as a phenomenon whereby white Western powers dominated
hapless “minority” nations, but this is an ahistorical view. Consider Britain, thought the quintessence of
At one time it was, along with most of Western Europe, a colony of sorts itself
colonial powers.
— of the Romans. And, no doubt, this inspired many of the same complaints from some early-first-
millennium Europeans that we had heard more recently from colonized Third Worlders: The colonizers were
trampling their culture. They were imposing their values. They were foreign interlopers. Yet the Romans
71
brought more advanced technology and higher culture to Britain; they built
aqueducts, bathhouses, and amphitheaters. The average Briton’s life arguably
was better under Roman rule than it had ever been before. And when the last
Roman troops had to leave Britain in 410 A.D. to defend Italy, it’s said that
their departure was lamented by no small number of natives. However the Romans’
exit was viewed, the results of their entrance are fairly clear. The fact is that no great civilization
develops in isolation; in accordance with the “two heads are better than one” principle ,
peoples can maximize their knowledge only when they learn from one
another, and this can happen only if they actually have contact. As economist Dr.
Thomas Sowell wrote in “Race, culture and equality”: When the British first crossed the Atlantic and confronted
the Iroquois on the eastern seaboard of what is today the United States, they were able to steer across that ocean
in the first place because they used rudders invented in China, they could navigate on the open seas with the help
of trigonometry invented in Egypt, their calculations were done with numbers invented in India, and their
general knowledge was preserved in letters invented by the Romans. And when two cultures do have contact, it’s
the less advanced that can learn more. Yet since it can also be dominated more, this sometimes comes at the cost
of colonization. Note that this isn’t an argument justifying colonization. In fact, it’s much as with a fellow I knew
who’d been hit by a truck but said that dealing with his infirmities had made him a better man. He certainly
wasn’t implying that getting hit by trucks was a good thing, but his experience illuminated a truth: Even
something bad in principle can have good outcomes in the particular. The fact is that colonization was part of the
inter-group-interaction phenomenon that spread civilization; the Romans learned from the Greeks’ triumphs
and built upon them, and then brought this knowledge to the lands they conquered, such as England, France, and
Spain. In turn, those nations built further, became colonial powers and carried the treasures (and trials) of
civilization to what we now call the Third World. Another common misconception is that colonialism robbed
people of freedom. But whether it was pre-Roman Britain; or pre-colonial Africa, South or Central America,
Mexico, or Asia, the peoples were governed by monarchs of some kind. The only difference upon being colonized
was that one unelected government was replaced with another — one that was often better. It wasn’t just the
technology offered by colonial powers, either, but also more “advanced” morality. For example, just as the
Romans came to outlaw human sacrifice in their conquered lands, so did the Spanish eliminate the human
sacrifice so rampant among the Aztecs. The Portuguese, Dutch, French, and British eventually outlawed sati
(widow burning) in areas of India they controlled. And it was colonial powers that ultimately ended slavery
(where they could) in Africa. As for freedom, insofar as representative government has taken hold in former
colonies — such as India, Kenya, and Botswana — is it conceivable that it could have happened without Western
influence? Democracy is a Western invention. The international language of business is English. In China and
Japan, people wear suits and ties, and the whole world wants the Western lifestyle, with its cars, computers,
refrigerators, advanced medicine and science, and other wonders of modernity. Of course, it won’t always be this
way. If man still walks the Earth in 2,000 years, the colonizers and colonized may be different, but the story
would still be the same. Man’s domination of man would be continuing, and many would complain about it, as
the legacy of civilization was passed on as it had always been.
72
NEG: Colonialism Not Root Cause

COLONIALISM NOT PROBLEM, REAL PROBLEM UNKNOWN BECAUSE
OF CENTURIES OF VIOLENCE.
Williams ‘11
Walter Williams is an author for FEE.org, Poverty is Easy to explain,
(FEE), 6-26-14
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/poverty-is-easy-to-explain
Academics, politicians, clerics, and others always seem perplexed by the

question: Why is there poverty? Answers usually range from exploitation and
greed to slavery, colonialism, and other forms of immoral behavior. Poverty is seen
as something to be explained with complicated analysis, conspiracy doctrines, and
incantations. This vision of poverty is part of the problem in coming to grips with it.
There is very little either complicated or interesting about poverty. Poverty has been
man’s condition throughout his history. The causes of poverty are quite simple
and straightforward. Generally, individual people or entire nations are poor
for one or more of the following reasons: (1) they cannot produce many things
highly valued by others; (2) they can produce things valued by others but they
are prevented from doing so; or (3) they volunteer to be poor. The true mystery
is why there is any affluence at all. That is, how did a tiny proportion of man’s
population (mostly in the West) for only a tiny part of man’s history (mainly in
the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries) manage to escape the fate of
their fellow men? Sometimes, in reference to the United States, people point to its
rich endowment of natural resources. This explanation is unsatisfactory. Were
abundant natural resources the cause of affluence, Africa and South America would
stand out as the richest continents, instead of being home to some of the world’s
most miserably poor people. By contrast, that explanation would suggest that
resource-poor countries like Japan, Hong Kong, and Great Britain should be poor
instead of ranking among the world’s richest places. Another unsatisfactory
explanation of poverty is colonialism. This argument suggests that third-world
poverty is a legacy of having been colonized, exploited, and robbed of its riches
by the mother country. But it turns out that countries like the United States,
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were colonies; yet they are among the
world’s richest countries. Hong Kong was a colony of Great Britain until 1997,
when China regained sovereignty, but it managed to become the second richest
political jurisdiction in the Far East. On the other hand, Ethiopia, Liberia,
Tibet, and Nepal were never colonies, or were so for only a few years, and they
rank among the world’s poorest and most backward countries. Despite the many
justified criticisms of colonialism and, I might add, multinationals, both served as a means of transferring Western technology
and institutions, bringing backward peoples into greater contact with a more-developed Western world. A tragic fact is that
73
many African countries have suffered significant decline since independence. In many of those countries the average citizen
can boast that he ate more regularly and enjoyed greater human-rights protections under colonial rule. The colonial powers
never perpetrated the unspeakable human rights abuses, including genocide, that we have seen in post-independence Burundi,
Uganda, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Central African Empire, Somalia, and elsewhere. Any economist who suggests he has a complete
answer to the causes of affluence should be viewed with suspicion. We do not know fully what makes some societies richer
than others. However, we can make guesses based on correlations. Start out by ranking countries according to their economic
systems. Conceptually we could arrange them from more capitalistic (having a larger free-market sector) to more communistic
(with extensive State intervention and planning). Then consult Amnesty International’s ranking of countries according to
human-rights abuses. Then get World Bank income statistics and rank countries from highest to lowest per capita income.
COLONIALISM IS NOT THE ROOT CAUSE OF VIOLENCE. NECESSARY FOR

DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION
Easterly and Levine ‘12
Bill Easterly and Ross Levine are lawyers, Was colonialism good for
growth?, (Cris Blattman), 6-25-14
http://chrisblattman.com/2012/07/03/was-colonialism-good-for-growth/
I read hastily, but see important new data and patterns. I don’t really buy the instrumental variables (sorry, Bill)
but then again I don’t really buy any of the historical instruments people use to get around thorny causality
issues. That doesn’t make me a total party pooper–I just think we have to take all the causal claims and
mechanisms pretty cautiously. Some people rankle over any rosy glow put on colonialism. Most of the
authors of the long run growth papers know this acutely, but it bears repeating
that “good for growth” necessarily applies to peoples not exterminated. If you are
still angry about the rosy glow, it’s also helpful to put in colonialism perspective:
Development in most places in most of history has basically been a process of
violence and coercion, either by your own elites or invading ones. When
historical events are “good for growth” they are often very bad for the
generation that experienced them, in Africa or elsewhere. So “good for growth” does not
necessarily mean “good”. This leads me to think: What is interesting about modern growth policy is that it is one
of the first to try to respect human rights. I wonder to what extent growth take-offs require a trade-off between
welfare of people alive today versus welfare of future generations. There are reasons to think there are some
win-win solutions (e.g. education investments) but I am not so sure it is true generally. I think a lot of
development policy requires trickier trade-offs between those alive today and unborn future generations than is
commonly appreciated. More on that on that elusive day when I have more time to write.
COLONIALISM NOT THE PROBLEM, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS

STARTED WITH COUNTRIES AND EXIST TODAY
Spillius ‘09
Alex Spillius is a diplomatic correspondent and a newspaper reporter,
Barack Obama tells Africa to stop blaming colonialism for problems,
(Telegraph), 6-25-14
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/5778804/Ba
rack-Obama-tells-Africa-to-stop-blaming-colonialism-for-problems.html
Ahead of a visit to Ghana at the weekend, he (Obama) said: "Ultimately, I'm a

big believer that Africans are responsible for Africa. "I think part of what's
hampered advancement in Africa is that for many years we've made excuses
about corruption or poor governance, that this was somehow the consequence
74
of neo-colonialism, or the West has been oppressive , or racism – I'm not a big – I'm not a
believer in excuses. Mr Obama, the son of a Kenyan, added: "I'd say I'm probably as
knowledgeable about African history as anybody who's occupied my office.
And I can give you chapter and verse on why the colonial maps that were
drawn helped to spur on conflict, and the terms of trade that were uneven
emerging out of colonialism. "And yet the fact is we're in 2009," continued the US
president. "The West and the United States has not been responsible for what's
happened to Zimbabwe's economy over the last 15 or 20 years. "It hasn't been
responsible for some of the disastrous policies that we've seen elsewhere in
Africa. And I think that it's very important for African leadership to take
responsibility and be held accountable." Mr Obama told AllAfrica.com that he chose Ghana for
his first trip to the continent as president to highlight the country's development as a democracy. Providing
glimpses of a speech to be delivered in Accra on Saturday, he explained: "Ghana has now undergone a couple of
successful elections in which power was transferred peacefully, even a very close election." Mr Obama made it
clear that Kenya's ongoing instability had ruled out his father's homeland as an initial destination, despite the
euphoria it would have produced.
75
NEG: Colonialism=Better Education

COLONIALISM KEY TO GOOD EDUCATION-AFRICA PROVES
Byerris 5/11
(Byerris, writer for StudyMode, “Positive Effects of Colonialism”, StudyMode, May 2011, Accessed on 6/26/14,
http://www.studymode.com/essays/Positive-Effects-Of-Colonialism-685144.htmlJWH)
Colonialism is a system in which a state claims sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries; or a system
of rule which assumes the right of one people to impose their will upon another. During the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, rich, powerful states, including Britain and other European countries, owned third world colonies. ‘Third world’
originally referred to countries that did not belong to the democratic, industrialized countries of the West (the First World) or
the state-socialist, industrializing, Soviet Bloc countries (the Second World). This paper uses specific third world examples to
summarize the main positive impacts of nineteenth and twentieth century colonialism, when colonial powers reached their
peak. It focuses on European colonialism in Africa.¶ One
view of development is that, at the level of
the individual, it implies increased skill and capacity, greater freedom,
creativity, self-discipline, responsibility and material well being, which
European colonial powers achieved through economic growth , by exploiting the natural
and human resources of their colonies. Education¶ In Africa this is considered to be one of
the positive impacts of colonization and that was beneficial to both the
Europeans and the Africans in general. It was meant to enlighten Africans so
that they would be able to work efficiently under the Europeans regime
without any difficulties. Mostly the 3Rs method of learning was used i.e.
Reading, writing and Arithmetic’s. E.g. in Kenya they were schools set aside for
European kids in the white Kenyan Highlands and for Africans in the other
areas. Example; Lenana School (Duke of York 1949) and Nairobi School (Prince of Wales 1910) etc.
76
NEG: Victimization Bad

THE AFF’S POSITION ON DEVELOPMENT IS CLEARLY DEPENDENT ON THE
NARRATIVE POSED THROUGH VICTIMIZATION- WHICH IS A BAD AND
DOESN’T TRULY DEFINE DEVELOPMENT.
de Vries 7 [Pieter, Department of Rural Development Sociology at Wageningen University, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28,
No. 1, “Don’t Compromise Your Desire for Development! A Lacanian/Deleuzian rethinking of the anti-politics machine”, p. 27-
30]
In the literature we find manifold explanations for the shortcomings of development
and the disjuncture between goals and expectations, and real outcomes. Those who follow
a modernisation perspective take a benevolent position towards the project of
development, arguing that, for all its shortcomings and disappointing results, academics
and practitioners should keep united in their search for better strategies of
intervention. In this view there is simply no alternative for alleviating the fate of the poor. The very existence of a body of
international agencies working on the promotion of new forms of expertise is viewed as a heroic (if quixotic) modernist
endeavour, or as the expression of the culture of modernity as manifested in the belief in planning and its symbolic
paraphernalia.1 In this view it is important to acknowledge that there is no alternative to development, that development in
spite of its failures is the only game in town. Here we see a predilection for the identification of constantly new approaches, as
manifested in the popularity of notions such as social capital, civil society development, participation, good governance, etc.
This is the position of institutions such as the World Bank, which are ready to engage in thoroughgoing forms of self-criticism
and to reinvent themselves by embracing new approaches and methodologies so as to salvage the idea of development.¶
Radical political economists, on the other hand, see donor-funded development projects as vehicles for the penetration
of capitalist relations of production through the imposition of structures that enhance market dependence via
commoditisation processes.2 They argue that the rationales put forward by liberal academics for development
interventions—in the sense of programmes aiming at the opening up of local economies to larger markets—are nothing but
ideological justifications for the process whereby non-capitalist modes of production are subordinated to global
economic forces, thus making their autonomous reproduction unfeasible. Commoditisation leads to the destruction of
traditional livelihoods, and their subsumption to the logic of capital for the sake of global forms of capitalist accumulation.
Planned development without thoroughgoing forms of socio-economic transformation cannot but operate as a handmaiden to
facilitate such processes of capitalist penetration. According to this view, development interventions are not good or bad
in themselves but must be analysed in terms of their role in wider processes of social change, the question being what
kinds of interests they stand for. Are they those of transnational corporations, national capitalists, an emerging rural
bourgeoisie, or those of popular social classes, such as the peasantry, urban working classes, the landless, etc? Development in
this way is an arena of political negotiation between different social classes, leading to different types of political economy.¶
Since the late 1980s modernisation theory and radical political economy have been joined by several other
perspectives, which have in common a critical stance towards development. The post-
structuralist perspective of ‘post-development’ criticises development by demonstrating its dependence on patriarchal,
positivist and ethnocentric principles which derive from the modernist project of the Enlightenment.3 Modernity,
according to post- structuralist thinkers, is predicated on the idea that objects and subjects of knowledge are
constituted through the will to power as materialised through practices of classification and representation (mappings
of territory, classifications of nature, of sexuality, etc). Putting it in a somewhat charged way, in this view development is
seen as a constellation of power-knowledge. This constellation is geared at controlling Third World populations
through forms of governmentality in which what is at stake is nothing less than the disciplining of bodies through the
imposition of epistemic structures that condition the ways in which ‘the Other’ (in this case Third World people) relate to
their own bodies and to nature. Many of these authors have developed their analysis following a Foucauldian perspective.¶
Finally, the reflexive modernisation perspective rejects what it labels as the utopianism/vanguardism of past notions of
progress and development.4 Reflexive modernisation is a social theory that purports to engage in wider social debates about
the future of society while breaking with notions of development as an emancipatory collective project aimed at making an end
to poverty and injustice at a planetary level. The argument here is that, in an era of post-scarcity, social struggles revolve
around the acknowledgement of all sorts of risks brought about by modernity. What modern citizens therefore have in
common is not a collective, transformative social project but an awareness of shared vulnerability to low-probability, high
consequences types of risk. Reflexivity, then, is about the perceptions, fears and expectations that the consequences of
modernity produce in individuals. The questions posed in theories of reflexive modernisation can be posed as: how does
reflexivity look like in societies that have never made a transition from a first to a second modernisation, that exhibit a ‘lack’
rather than an excess of development? How does it look in societies that experience both all the disadvantages of development
(environmental degradation, all sorts of risks, ranging from the emergence of new types of wars to AIDS, to droughts, etc),
without enjoying their erstwhile advantages (material well-being, health services, stable bureaucracies, the existence of a
public sphere, etc)? From having been a promise, modernity becomes a risky challenge and accordingly a matter of risk
77
management. This is basically a European social-democratic perspective purporting to design a ‘third way’ between dogmatic
socialism and savage neoliberalism, which is gaining currency among policy makers within the Third World.5 Later I explain
the role that a reflexive modernisation stance can play in the reinvention of development as a radical programme for dealing
with the irrationalities of the South.¶ Though poles apart, from my point of view, all these
approaches suffer
from a serious shortcoming . They all focus on the actuality of development, on the
effects of development interventions on people’s lives. My argument, however, is that the actuality of
development is supplemented by a virtual dimension, as manifested in the desire for,
and imagination of, development. Of course, current debates have produced diverse and
interesting positions, some taking extreme anti-development positions, others weighing the merits and disadvantages
of ‘development alternatives’ or alternatives for development’. The literature on this debate is huge and this is not the
revolves around the question of the extent to
place to review it, but it suffices to point out that it all
which development is a foreign and ethnocentric construct. Labels such as ‘alternative’,
‘endogenous’, ‘bottom-up’, ‘grassroots’ or ‘autonomous’ development are but different ways of answering this
question. There is also a vast body of work on indigenous and local knowledge that sets out to propose ‘bottom-up’ or
‘grassroots’ development alternatives. Much recent work on ‘globalisation from below’ is reminiscent of these discussions.
However,
they rarely touch upon the work of imagination involved in the thinking on
development, and if they do they centre on individual aspirations or expectations, not
on collective dreams and desires as manifestations of a collective unconscious. As I
argue later, this is not merely a theoretical question, as it raises important ethical issues.¶ A case in point is the debate
among post-structural critiques of development, especially concerning the right of development thinkers to
legislate on the relevance of development to poor people’s lives. Many authors have pointed
out that it is poor people themselves who want development and that arguing against it amounts to assuming
that they are under the spell of ‘false consciousness’. Much of the debate has thus come to revolve
around semantic questions about the diverse meanings of development for various actors. Of course, post-structuralists may
answer that the task of the critical thinker is that of deconstructing the discourse of development and of developing
new languages for thinking about ‘alternative modernities’.6 Such a reconstructive agenda involves redeeming
subaltern people’s notions and practices of community solidarity and hope. Although it strongly concur with these views,
the argument I develop here is that thedesires for, and imaginations of , development stand for
an ‘impossible’, utopian world. My point is that the utopian promise of development
involves a negative dialectics that goes further than imagining (a) different world(s)
— or for that matter alternative modernities—in the precise sense that it points to the possibility of
a radical break with the present. I argue in the concluding section of the article that such utopian,
‘impossible’, desire for development has important ethical implications, as it harbours the
promise of such a radical break.¶ Thus my point is that development has a virtual or
fantastic side, as manifested in particular ways of desiring that are part of the
collective unconscious. Thus the above-mentioned perspectives do not acknowledge the fact that development
generates the kinds of desires that it necessitates to perpetuate itself, that it is a self-propelling apparatus that
produces its own motivational drives, that the development industry is parasitic on the beliefs and dreams of the
subjects it creates. In other words, development lies at the same plane of immanence as the subjects it produces.7¶ As
argued, the idea of development relies on the production of desires, which it cannot fulfil. In
other words—following a Lacanian perspective— there is a certain ‘excess’ in the concept of development that is central
to its functioning. Development thus points to a utopian element that is always already out of place. Since it is
constitutively impossible, it functions as its own critique. The question to be answered therefore is why people in the
Third World persist in desiring development in spite of all its failures. My answer to this question is that the desire
for development fills the gap between the promises and their meagre actual
realisations, thus giving body to a desiring machine that also operates in between the
generation and banalisation of hope.
MINORITY NARRATIVES ESTABLISH VICTIM POLITICS—DEPICTIONS OF THE

MINORITY STRUGGLE CONSTRUCT IMAGES OF MINORITIES AS HELPLESS
VICTIMS
Jodi Dean (Editor, “Cultural Studies and Political Theory”. Lauren Berlant, “The Subject of true
feeling: pain privacy, and politics” 2000) [Gunnarsdottir]
78
The central concern of this essay is to address the place of painful feeling in the making of
political worlds. In this I affiliate with Wendy Brown's concern about the overvaluation of the
wound in the rhetoric of contemporary U.S. identity politics. Brown argues that the
identification of minority identity with a wound-a conventional story about the
particular and particularizing injuries caused by domination-must lead to the wound
becoming fetishized evidence of identity, which thereby awards monumentality and
value to the very negativity that would also be overcome. As a result, minority
struggle can get stuck in a groove of self-repetition and ha bituated resentment
while from the outside it would appear vulnerable to the charge of "victim
politics." In my view, however, what Brown locates in minority discourse generally has a
longer: more specific, and far more privileged genealogy than she suggests. In particular, I would
like to connect it to something I call national sentimetality, a liberal rhetoric of promise history
which vows that a nation can best be built across fields of social difference through channels of
affective identification and empathy
79
NEG: Speaking for others bad

Speaking from a position of privilege props up power relations—the speaker relies on
the assumption that less privileged cannot speak for them selves
Nako, Nontsasa. "(“Possessing the Voice of the Other: African Women and the ‘Crisis of Representation’ in Alice
Walker’s Possessing Secret of Joy." A Journal of Culture and African Women Studies (2001): n. pag. Web. 27
June 2014
In her essay, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Linda Alcoff identifies two widely accepted claims relating to
speaking for others (1994). The first one concerns the relationship between location and speech; that
the position from which one speaks affects the meaning of his or her speech. Therefore where one speaks from “has an
epistemically significant impact on that speaker’s claim and can serve either to authorize or disauthorize one’s
speech”(Alcoff 1994, 287). This is perhaps the reason why most critics tend to leave their identities and locations visible.
One example is Chandra Mohanty in her introduction to a volume of essays by Third World women, where she writes: “I
[also] write from my own particular political, historical, and intellectual location as a third world feminist trained in the
U.S., interested in questions of culture, knowledge production, and activism in an international context” (1991,
3).Whether such acts of self-identification are always possible is debatable, as it is now commonly understood
that identities are fluid and always shifting. But it is clear that such acts are necessary, because for instance, in
Mohanty’s case, by foregrounding her position within the category Third World women she ensures that the meaning of
what she says is not separated from the conditions which produced it. She also acknowledges the difference within Third
World women, and this anticipates her definition of Third World women as “imagined communities of women with
power
divergent histories and social locations”(Mohanty 1991, 4).The second claim that Alcoff identifies is that
relations make it dangerous for a privileged person to speak for the less privileged
because that often reinforces the oppression of the latter since the privileged person is
more likely to be listened to. And when a privileged person speaks for the less
privileged, she is assuming either that the other cannot do so or she can confer
legitimacy on their position. And such acts, do “nothing to disrupt the discursive hierarchies that operate in
public spaces” (Ibid).
Speaking for others oppresses them—we must stop the impulse to speak to allow the
organic intellectual to rise up
Marinio, Lauren. "Speaking for Others." Malacester Journal of Philosophy 14.1 (2005): n. pag. Print.
What then is the solution? I agree with bell hooks that the oppressed must celebrate their position on the
margins. The oppressed should not try to move into the center but appreciate their
counterculture. The oppressed must produce intellectuals so that the dominated can speak
to the dominating. The idea goes back to Antonio Gramsci’s concept of the organic intellectual.7 The elites are
indoctrinated in the ruling ideology and have an investment in the current order. No matter how progressive their
politics may be, the elite will always be the elite. Their investment in the current social order precludes offers
of true systemic change. Gramsci writes of the need for the working class to develop its own intellectuals who are organically
tied to their class. This argument is similar to hooks’ argument. The margin must produce organic intellectuals. It might be
thought that these organic intellectuals should translate between language games. But as hooks points out, using “the
oppressor’s language” is not adequate because it cannot articulate the experience of the oppressed. Yet, it is the only language
game the oppressing can play. Organic intellectuals affect the center from the margins if they are able to incorporate multiple
voices in the texts they create. The goal of the organic intellectual according to hooks is to “identify the spaces where we begin
a process of revision” to create a counter-ideology.8 Hooks relates this agency to language. “Language is also a place of
struggle.”9 The counterculture can produce a counter-language, which is able to produce a new language to mediate between
the margins and the center. Necessarily the new game must include portions of both old language games or no one will
understand it. It must use old understandings to create new meanings. These counter-languages can function as the
intermediary language games that the oppressed and the elites can be initiated simultaneously. A new language game must be
created. A good example of this is Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. He used concepts of freedom and democracy
familiar to the center to explain the experience of the oppressed within in the mainstream language game, as well as created
new metaphors and linguistic form, i.e. the preacher’s sermon, to bring the voice of the oppressed and the oppressors into a
realm of communication. (bell hooks uses the preachers sermon form in her refrain ‘language is also a place of struggle’).10
80
One famous metaphor is freedom as a bounced check to African Americans. This created a new understanding of the situation.
It worked between the language of oppression understood by African Americans and the center’s understanding of freedom
and the promises of democracy. King was able to include multiple voices, building a bridge between the margin and the center.
The conclusion of hooks is that the margin can be more than a place of oppression and alienation. It can be “a site of radical
possibility, a space of resistance,” that is not open to those in the center. It is the space to produce counter-hegemonic culture
The oppressed can retell their story, and if we accept Rorty’s argument
that the organic intellectual is looking for.
that the self is contingent ,
the oppressed create themselves in the process . To speak for the
oppressed is to silence them. Moreover, in their absence of voice, we define them. We can define them in many
ways, but they will always be a “they” and not an “us.” They will be the other. We must have faith in the
margins to produce new language games to communicate with us.
Speaking for others is wrong—it’s an act of commodification and colonial

domination,
Linda Martíún Alcoff (Department of Philosophy at Syracuse University. “The Problem of Speaking
For Others” Cultural Critique Winter 1991- 92, pp. 5-32.)
Feminist discourse is not the only site in which the problem of speaking for others has been
acknowledged and addressed. In anthropology there is similar discussion about whether it is
possible to speak for others either adequately or justifiably. Trinh T. Minh-ha explains the grounds for
skepticism when she says that anthropology is "mainly a conversation of ùs' with ùs' about `them,' of the white man
with the white man about the primitive-nature man...in which `them' is silenced. `Them' always stands on the other side
of the hill, naked and speechless...`them' is only admitted among ùs', the discussing subjects, when accompanied or
introduced by an ùs'..."4 Given this analysis, even ethnographies written by progressive anthropologists are a priori
regressive because of the structural features of anthropological discursive practice.
The recognition that there is a problem in speaking for others has followed from the widespread acceptance of two
claims. First, there has been a growing awareness that where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of
what one says, and thus that one cannot assume an ability to transcend her location. In other words, a speaker's location
(which I take here to refer to her social location or social identity) has
an epistemically significant
impact on that speaker's claims, and can serve either to authorize or dis-
authorize one's speech. The creation of Women's Studies and African American Studies departments were
founded on this very belief: that both the study of and the advocacy for the oppressed must come to be done principally
by the oppressed themselves, and that we must finally acknowledge that systematic divergences in social location
between speakers and those spoken for will have a significant effect on the content of what is said. The unspoken
premise here is simply that a speaker's location is epistemically salient. I shall explore this issue further in the next
section. The second claim holds that not only is location epistemically salient, but certain privileged locations are
discursively dangerous.5 In particular, the
practice of privileged persons speaking for or on
behalf of less privileged persons has actually resulted (in many cases) in increasing
or reenforcing the oppression of the group spoken for. This was part of the argument
made against Anne Cameron's speaking for Native women: Cameron's intentions were never in
question, but the effects of her writing were argued to be harmful to the needs of Native authors
because it is Cameron rather than they who will be listened to and whose books will be bought
by readers interested in Native women. Persons from dominant groups who speak for others are
often treated as authenticating presences that confer legitimacy and credibility on the demands
of subjugated speakers; such speaking for others does nothing to disrupt the
discursive hierarchies that operate in public spaces. For this reason, the work of privileged
authors who speak on behalf of the oppressed is becoming increasingly criticized by members of those oppressed
groups themselves.6 As social theorists, we are authorized by virtue of our academic positions to develop theories that
express and encompass the ideas, needs, and goals of others. However, we must begin to ask ourselves whether this is
is it ever valid to
ever a legitimate authority, and if so, what are the criteria for legitimacy? In particular,
speak for others who are unlike me or who are less privileged than me? We might
try to delimit this problem as only arising when a more privileged person speaks for a less privileged one. In this case,
we might say that I should only speak for groups of which I am a member. But this does not tell us how groups
themselves should be delimited. For example, can a white woman speak for all women simply by virtue of being a
woman? If not, how narrowly should we draw the categories? The complexity and multiplicity of group identifications
could result in "communities" composed of single individuals. Moreover, the concept of groups assumes specious
notions about clear-cut boundaries and "pure" identities. I am a Panamanian-American and a person of mixed ethnicity
and race: half white/Angla and half Panamanian mestiza. The criterion of group identity leaves many unanswered
questions for a person such as myself, since I have membership in many conflicting groups but my membership in all of
them is problematic. Group identities and boundaries are ambiguous and permeable, and decisions about demarcating
81
identity are always partly arbitrary. Another problem concerns how specific an identity needs to be to confer epistemic
authority. Reflection on such problems quickly reveals that no easy solution to the problem of speaking for others can be
found by simply restricting the practice to speaking for groups of which one is a member .
Speaking for others is a tautology—the assertion that the oppressed have no voice makes
that a reality when the privileged constantly speak for them
Jeanne Perreault (Professor of English at the University of Calgary, “Chain Gang Narratives And
The Politics Of ‘Speaking For’” Biography 24.1 (2001) 152-171, Biographical Research Center)
[Gunnarsdottir]
The problem of "speaking for" has become a problem since the spoken for have
begun, publicly, to examine the unconscious or unspoken assumptions of superior knowledge,
insight, and solutions of well-meaning speakers for. The assumption of the speakers for
is that the oppressed have no voice, and thus intervention is required . This belief
is a kind of tautology: to be oppressed is to have no voice / to have no voice is to
be oppressed. The figuring of oppressed peoples as without voice is no longer
accurate, however, if it ever was. We understand, as Canadian Meú tis writer Emma LaRocque
says, that the issue is not of speaking, but of being heard (xv ). Some of the earliest
challenges to speaking for came from African American feminists like Audre Lorde
and bell hooks in the 1970s and 1980s. They raised an impassioned double assertion: that
when white feminists made general references to "women," they were not
speaking about them; and that no one could speak for them. When those understood
to be the disenfranchised or marginalized challenged those understood to have greater privilege
to look to their own histories and identities, the guilt for having socially designated privilege
was at least as pronounced as the fruitful examinations of responsibility inhering to their own
subject positions.
82
NEG: Globalization root Cause of

structural violence
THE GLOBALIZED ECONOMY UNDER IMPERIALISM PROMOTES
STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE
Demenchonok and Peterson ‘09
Demenchonok, Edward, and Richard Peterson. "1. Globalization and Violence: The Challenge to Ethics." American Journal of
Economics and Sociology 68.1 (2009): 51-76. Web. 28 June 2014.
DESPITE its many benefits, globalization has proven to harbor a good deal of violence. This is not
only a matter of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction inaugurated by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima,
of indirect or “structural violence” resulting from the routine of
but includes many forms
economic and political institutions on the global scale. In this essay, the multifaceted phenomena of
violence are approached from the standpoint of ethics. The prevailing political thinking associated with “realism” fails to
address the problems of militarism and of hegemonic unilateralism. In contrast, many philosophers are critically rethinking
the problem of global violence from different ethical perspectives. Despite sharing similar concerns, philosophers nevertheless
differ over the role of philosophical reflection and the potentials of reason. These differences appear in two contrasting
approaches associated with postmodern philosophy and discourse ethics. In the analysis of discourse ethics, attention is paid
to Karl-Otto Apel’s attempt of philosophically grounding a macroethics of planetary co-responsibility. At the heart of the essay
is the analysis of the problem of violence, including terrorism, by Juü rgen Habermas, who explains the phenomenon of violence
in terms of the theory of communicative action as the breakdown of communication. Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction of the
notion of “terrorism” also is analyzed. According to the principle of discourse ethics, all conflicts between human beings ought
to be settled in a way free of violence, through discourses and negotiations. These philosophers conclude that the reliance on
force does not solve social and global problems, including those that are the source of violence. The only viable alternative is
the “dialogical” multilateral relations of peaceful coexistence and cooperation among the nations for solving social and global
problems. They emphasize the necessity of strengthening the international rule of law and institutions, such as a reformed
United Nations. THE IMPORTANCE OF the global dimension has emerged on almost every level of social experience, from the
economic and political to the cultural and psychological. One can view globalizing phenomena and the problems they raise
through a variety of lenses, including those of social justice. These reveal questions of inequality, power, and recognition.
Closely related to each is an issue that can become a distinctive lens of historical perception on its own—the question of
violence. Indeed, the question of violence is inescapable once one attends to the actual conflicts that the many aspects of
globalization and issues of justice have brought to the fore. In
a nuclear age ushered in by the bombing of
Hiroshima, war has become a global danger. The toll taken by the many regional wars
and neocolonial conflicts during the Cold War itself show, further, that the nuclear
stalemate was no solution to this recurring danger facing human society. The problem of
violence is itself extremely difficult to untangle, in part because what some thinkers treat as a matter of human nature has been
shown by others not to be a constant of human societies, and by still others to be something that evolves dramatically with
historical change.1 Nevertheless, within this multifaceted problem, two aspects are becoming more obvious and disturbing:
one is the globalization of violence; the other is the spread of structural violence. First, the complex of change associated with
the idea of globalization, despite all its benefits and promise, is itself frequently a very violent business. One may think, indeed,
that the underside of globalization is itself a host of old and new kinds of violence. We can see this in the new kinds of wars
that accompany structural change pushed forward by global economic pressures,2 in the new weapons of destruction that flow
through global networks that often mix together the movement of arms and illegal drugs,3 as well as in the new kinds of
terrorist violence associated with the idea of a global network.4 One can think also of new kinds of weapons systems
associated with space weapons, including not just missiles but satellite technology, laser-operated devices, and so on.5 And
these observations only consider violence in the familiar sense of actual or threatened harms imposed on bodies and
populations. In addition to its direct manifestations, violence in a broader sense has many indirect and subtle forms. If we
think of structural violence, for example, we can see that many of the economic and environmental changes taking place raise
questions of violence as well.6 The term “structural violence” does not refer to all the kinds of physical and psychological
suffering caused by the workings of social institutions. Rather, it refers to those institutionally caused harms that are not only
predictable but have been predicted and debated, and for which preventive measures could be taken. The moral force of the
notion of violence is preserved in the case of structural violence when we see that agents have knowingly permitted
predictable harms, even though they have not intended them, as is the case with direct violence. Structural violence
in this somewhat restricted sense includes the poverty that has expanded with the
dramatic increases of inequality that globalization has caused, both on the global
83
scale and within many national societies like the United States itself . We see such violence in
the proliferation of sweatshops and other kinds of harsh labor, including contemporary forms of slavery and trafficking in
humans. We see it, too, in so-called natural disasters, where conscious policies have made populations vulnerable and
unprepared for predictable harms triggered by dramatic weather events. Facing the combination of the growing scope of
structural violence with the evolving conditions of direct violence, we can think of violence as a key issue in
the unfolding conflicts over globalization. While violence is by no means the only challenge posed by
globalization, it is of indisputable importance both for its impact on the lives of individuals and societies and for its place in the
historical problem of finding adequate institutional forms to bring the processes of globalization into line with the needs and
aspirations proper to justice and democracy. In this light, the theme of violence is a key part of the larger prospect of the kind
of social learning that is needed if the new structures and cultural forms that are needed are to be found/achieved.7 Within
this sweeping set of challenges, the problem of ethics has a key role. But ethics needs to be viewed in the historical terms of
globalization itself. In what follows, we will survey some facets of this problem of ethical reflection and action in the shadow of
a violence-prone globalization. In this setting is it possible to imagine a universal ethics, one that informs a global co-
responsibility for shared problems?
84
NEG: Imperialism Good
COLONIALISM IS DIFFERENT FROM IMPERIALISM

SEP ’12, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Colonialism”, accessed 6/25/14
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/
Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. One of the
difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is hard to distinguish it from imperialism. Frequently the two concepts are treated
as synonyms. Like colonialism, imperialism also involves political and economic control over a
dependent territory. The etymology of the two terms, however, provides some clues about how they differ. The term
colony comes from the Latin word colonus, meaning farmer. This root reminds us that the practice of colonialism
usually involved the transfer of population to a new territory, where the arrivals lived as
permanent settlers while maintaining political allegiance to their country of origin.
Imperialism, on the other hand, comes from the Latin term imperium, meaning to command. Thus, the term
imperialism draws attention to the way that one country exercises power over another,
whether through settlement, sovereignty, or indirect mechanisms of control.
Imperialism is necessary to solve poverty, democracy, human rights and war

Barnett, Thomas MP. "The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S., and Globalization, at Crossroads." Professor
in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department, U.S. Naval War College 7 Mar. 2011. Web. 28 June 2014.
<http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-sand-
%C2%B6%20globalization-at-crossroads>.
It is worth first examining the larger picture: We

live in a time of arguably the greatest structural
change in the global order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing
feature being its relative and absolute lack of mass violence . That is something to consider when
Americans¶ contemplate military intervention in Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent larger-scale ¶ killing by
engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically imagined ¶ global death count stemming from
the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire." We'll ¶ be engaging in the same sort of system-administering
activity that has marked our stunningly¶ successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more blunt: As
the guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace
the world has ever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that
governed the 20th century, the mass murder never would have ended. Indeed, it's
entirely conceivable there would now be no identifiable human civilization left, once
nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did not keep sliding¶ down that path of
perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by ushering in our now-perpetual
great-power peace. We introduced the international liberal trade order known as globalization and played loyal
What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of
Leviathan over its spread.
democracy, the persistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women, the
doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and a
profound and persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts . That is
what American¶ "hubris" actually delivered.
85
Imperialism breeds democratic self rule

Kurtz 03 (Stanley, Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, A just
empire? Democratic Imperialism: A Blueprint, April 1, 2003,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6426)
Our commitment to political autonomy sets up a moral paradox. Even

the mildest imperialism will be
experienced by many as a humiliation. Yet imperialism as the midwife of democratic
self-rule is an undeniable good. Liberal imperialism is thus a moral and logical
scandal, a simultaneous denial and affirmation of self-rule that is impossible either to
fully accept or repudiate. The counterfactual offers a way out. If democracy did not depend on colonialism, we
could confidently forswear empire. But in contrast to early modern colonial history, we do know the answer to the
counterfactual in the case of Iraq. After
many decades of independence, there is still no
democracy in Iraq. Those who attribute this fact to American policy are not
persuasive, since autocracy is pervasive in the Arab world, and since America has
encouraged and accepted democracies in many other regions. So the reality of Iraqi dictatorship
tilts an admittedly precarious moral balance in favor of liberal imperialism.
American imperialism keyworld peace

Elshtain 03 (Jean Bethke, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and
Political Ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School, “Just War Against
Terrorism” pg. 169)
The heavy burden being imposed on the United States does not require that the
United States remain on hair-trigger alert at every moment. But it does oblige the
United States to evaluate all claims and to make a determination as to whether it can
intervene effectively and in a way that does more good than harm—with the primary
objective of interdiction so that democratic civil society can be built or rebuilt. This
approach is better by far than those strategies of evasion and denial of the sort visible in Rwanda, in Bosnia, or in the sort of
"advice" given to Americans by some of our European critics. At this
point in time the possibility of
international peace and stability premised on equal regard for all rests largely,
though not exclusively, on American power. Many persons and powers do not like this fact, but it is
inescapable. As Michael Ignatieff puts it, the "most carefree and confident empire in history now grimly confronts the question
of whether it can escape Rome's ultimate fate."9 Furthermore, America's
fate is tied inextricably to the
fates of states and societies around the world. If large pockets of the globe start to go bad—here,
there, everywhere (the infamous "failed state" syndrome)—the drain on American power and treasure will reach a
point where it can no longer be borne.
Interventionism protects basic human rights

Nardin and Pritcharal 90 (Terry- professor and head of the Political Science
Department at the National University of Singapore, Kathleen D- director of
community impact product development for the United Way of America, “ETHICS
AND INTERVENTION: THE UNITED STATES IN GRENADA, 1983” 1990, pg 9)
A second major argument in favor of intervention is based on a concern for human

rights. This argument rests on the idea that a country that values democracy and
individual rights should be pre-pared to act when those values are threatened, not
only at home but abroad. According to this view, it is simply intolerable for a free nation to stand on the sidelines
while foreign tyrants like Idi Amin and Pal Pat enslave and massacre their own unfortunate subjects. At least in extreme cases
86
like these. unilateral intervention should be permitted if other means fall. A nation that is not
in a position to intervene Itself should support those governments (like Tanzania in the case of Idi Amin) that are able
to act.
US imperialism is flawed but is still the greatest force for good

Boot 3 (Max, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, Council on
Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-imperialism-force-good/p5959)
What is the greatest danger facing America as it tries to rebuild Iraq: Shiite fundamentalism? Kurdish separatism? Sunni
intransigence? Turkish, Syrian, Iranian or Saudi Arabian meddling? All
of those are real problems, but none
is so severe that it can't readily behandled. More than 125,000 U.S. troops occupy Mesopotamia. They
are backed up by the resources of the world's richest economy . In a contest for control of Iraq,
America can outspend and outmuscle any competing faction. The greatest danger is
that America won't use all of its power for fear of the "I" word -- imperialism. When asked
on April 28 on al-Jazeera whether the United States was "empire building," Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld reacted as if
he'd been asked whether he wears women's underwear. "We don't seek empires," he replied huffily. "We're not imperialistic.
We never have been." That's a fine answer for public consumption. The problem is that it isn't true. The United States
has been an empire since at least 1803, when Thomas Jefferson purchased the
Louisiana Territory. Throughout the 19th century, what Jefferson called the "empire
of liberty" expanded across the continent. When U.S. power stretched from "sea to shining sea," the
American empire moved abroad, acquiring colonies ranging from Puerto Rico and the Philippines to Hawaii and Alaska. While
the formal empire mostly disappeared after the Second World War, the
United States set out on another
bout of imperialism in Germany and Japan. Oh, sorry -- that wasn't imperialism; it was
"occupation." But when Americans are running foreign governments, it's a distinction without a difference. Likewise,
recent "nation-building" experiments in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan are imperialism under another name.
Mind you, this is not meant as a condemnation. The history of American imperialism is hardly one of unadorned good doing;
U.S.
there have been plenty of shameful episodes, such as the mistreatment of the Indians. But, on the whole,
imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past
century. It has defeated the monstrous evils of communism and Nazism and
lesser evils such as the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing. Along the way, it
has helped spread liberal institutions to countries as diverse as South Korea
and Panama . Yet, while generally successful as imperialists, Americans have been loath to confirm that's what they
were doing. That's OK. Given the historical baggage that "imperialism" carries, there's
no need for the U.S.
government to embrace the term. But it should definitely embrace the practice .
87
NEG: Colonialism key to Democracy

American colonialism is key for democracy in underdeveloped
nations
Ishiyama ‘11
Ishiyama, John T. "“6. Democratization and the Global Environment”,." Comparative Politics: Principles of Democracy and
Democratization, (2011): n. pag. Print.
An oft- cited additional “ international ” factor affecting democratic development, particularly in the developing world, is the
legacy of colonialism. On the one hand, there is the extremely Eurocentric view that the
spread of democracy is
the political outcome of the spread of European values and traditions via colonialism (for a
discussion, see Huntington, 1984 ). This is because, theoretically, the colonial power may have
transmitted some of its culture and language to the colony, which in turn may
have led to the emergence of a “ cooperative ” political culture, or may have left institutions
that were conducive to democracy in place when the colonizing powers exited (Weiner, 1989 ). However, some scholars (Barro,
1999 ; Quainoo, 2000 ) have found no relationship between colonial heritage and democracy, while others (Lipset et al ., 1993;
Clague et al. , 2001 ) find that being a former British colony increases the probability that a country becomes democratic. In
particular, several scholars
have argued that the type of colonizer was important in
explaining whether a country was able to develop into a democracy after the
end of colonial rule. Myron Weiner (1989) , for instance, noted that by 1983 every country in the Third World that
emerged from colonial rule since World War II with a population of at least one million (and almost all the smaller countries as
well) with a continuous democratic experience was a former British colony. This would suggest that there was something
about British colonial rule that made it different from the colonial administration of other European states, such as France and
Belgium. Khapoya (1998) , for instance, distinguishes between two main types of colonial rule in Africa: indirect rule and direct
rule. The British generally used a system of indirect rule, where the emphasis was not on the assimilation of Africans to
become “ black Britishers, ” but rather to share skills, values, and culture, to “ empower ” the Africans with the
ability to run their own communities. Thus, instead of assimilating the Africans as British citizens,
society was segregated between the natives and the whites living in the colony. The British also employed an indirect system of
administrative rule. Generally this meant that the colonial authorities would co - opt the local power structure (the kings,
chiefs, or headman) and via invitations, coercion, or bribery, incorporate them into the colonial administrative structure. In
return, these local elites were expected to enforce laws, collect taxes, and serve as the “ buffer ” between the natives and
colonial authorities. A positive consequence of this system of indirect rule (a system used
elsewhere in the British Empire, such as in India and Malaya) was that it provided native elites with
important experiences in self - rule. Further, many British colonies adopted
practices that mimicked British practices such as experience with electoral,
legislative, and judicial institutions (Clague et al. , 2001 ). Given this level of preparedness, then following
World War II, Britain was much more willing than other colonial powers to grant independence, which in turn made the newly
independent states more willing to retain the institutions the British had put into place. Thus, from this perspective, Britain
seems to have left its colonies in a better situation to develop democracy later than non - British colonies.
Colonialism is a medium which brings human rights and

civilization and destroys tyranny in the country
D’Souza 02 D'Souza, Dinesh. "Two Cheers for Colonialism ( Dinesh D'Souza." Two Cheers for Colonialism
( Dinesh D'Souza. Free Republic, 5 Nov. 2002. Web. 26 June 2014.
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/680152/posts>.
Despite their suspect motives and bad behavior, however, the British needed a
certain amount of infrastructure to effectively govern India. So they built
roads, shipping docks, railway tracks, irrigation systems, and government
88
buildings. Then they realized that they needed courts of law to adjudicate
disputes that went beyond local systems of dispensing justice. And so the
British legal system was introduced, with all its procedural novelties, like
"innocent until proven guilty." The British also had to educate the Indians, in
order to communicate with them and to train them to be civil servants in the empire. Thus Indian children
were exposed to Shakespeare, Dickens, Hobbes, and Locke. In that way the Indians began to
encounter words and ideas that were unmentioned in their ancestral culture:
"liberty," "sovereignty," "rights," and so on.¶ That brings me to the greatest
benefit that the British provided to the Indians: They taught them the
language of freedom. Once again, it was not the objective of the colonial rulers to encourage rebellion. But by
exposing Indians to the ideas of the West, they did. The Indian leaders were the product of
Western civilization. Gandhi studied in England and South Africa; Nehru was a
product of Harrow and Cambridge. That exposure was not entirely to the good; Nehru, for example, who
became India's first prime minister after independence, was highly influenced by Fabian socialism through the teachings of
Harold Laski. The result was that India had a mismanaged socialist economy for a generation. But my broader point is that
the champions of Indian independence acquired the principles, the language,
and even the strategies of liberation from the civilization of their oppressors.
This was true not just of India but also of other Asian and African countries that broke free of the European yoke.¶ My
conclusion is that against their intentions,the colonialists brought things to India that have
immeasurably enriched the lives of the descendants of colonialism. It is
doubtful that non-Western countries would have acquired those good things
by themselves . It was the British who, applying a universal notion of human rights, in the early 19th century
abolished the ancient Indian institution of suttee -- the custom of tossing widows on their husbands' funeral pyres . There
is no reason to believe that the Indians, who had practiced suttee for centuries,
would have reached such a conclusion on their own. Imagine an African or Indian king
encountering the works of Locke or Madison and saying, "You know, I think those fellows have a good point. I should relinquish
my power and let my people decide whether they want me or someone else to rule." Somehow, I don't see that as likely.¶
Colonialism was the transmission belt that brought to Asia, Africa, and South
America the blessings of Western civilization. Many of those cultures continue
to have serious problems of tyranny, tribal and religious conflict, poverty, and
underdevelopment, but that is not due to an excess of Western influence;
rather, it is due to the fact that those countries are insufficiently Westernized.
Sub-Saharan Africa, which is probably in the worst position, has been described by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan as "a
cocktail of disasters." That is not because colonialism in Africa lasted so long, but because it lasted a mere half-century. It was
too short a time to permit Western institutions to take firm root. Consequently, after their independence, most African nations
have retreated into a kind of tribal barbarism that can be remedied only with more Western influence, not less. Africa needs
more Western capital, more technology, more rule of law, and more individual freedom.
89
NEG: Eurocentrism Good

The Ks assumption of the modern being tangible means their
impacts are built upon false assumptions
Grossberg 10 (Distinguished Professor of Communication Studies and Cultural Studies, and
Adjunct Distinguished Professor of American Studies, Anthropology, and Geography at the University
of North Carolina)
(Lawrence, Cultural Studies in the Future Tense, pg. 260) //DDI13
The question is neither empirical nor conceptual, but conjunctural and
discursive. To theorize the problematic of the modern requires us to investigate
the production of the discourses of the modern-what are its conditions of
possibility, its effectivitics, and its dispersions. Or to put it differently, it involves
questions of what might be called conjunctural and epochal ontologies . What are
we saying about a context when we call it modern, or when we deny it such a description?
What was it that was brought into existence under the sign of euro-modernity that is what we
refer to as "the modern"? What sort of answer would not simply condemn the modern to
forever becoming euro-modern? I offer a somewhat speculative analysis of fractions of a
spatially and historically dispersed conversation on modernity. What can possibly be
signaled by the complexity of the contexts and claims made about and for
modernity? The analysis does not seek to define either an essence or a simple
unity; rather, it points to the virtuality of modern , to a reality that has effects but is
never fully actualized, because it can be actualized in multiple ways .
Modernity allows us to find solutions to world problems

Grossberg (Distinguished Professor of Communication Studies and Cultural Studies, and Adjunct
Distinguished Professor of American Studies, Anthropology, and Geography at the University of North
Carolina) 10
One of the most famous (in the English-speaking world at least) statements of tills chronotope is Marshall Berman's
marxist-influenced vision of modernity as a particular attitude toward and experience of the increasingly rapid and
dense actualizations of change: "a mode of vital experience-experience of space and time, of ti1e self and others, of
life's possibilities and perils ....
To be modern is to find ourselves in an environment that
promises us adventure, power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world
-and at the same time, that threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we
know, everything we arc .... To be modcrn is to be part of a universe il1 which ... 'all
that is solid melts into air''' (1982, rs). To be modern is to make oneself at home in the
maelstron1, to embrace and even desire change. Modernity is the experience of
History. But there is no guarantee how this linear temporality is lived out. For son1e it is about the future as
defined by a teleological sense of progress rather than apocalypse. For David Bromfield, writing about Perth,
Australia, "The 'modern' was only marginally understood ... as implying the future .... The modern is much more
commonly a known history" (quoted in Morris 1998, r6 ). Gyekye ( 1997, 280) similarly ·conceives modernity as a
commitment to innovation and change: the "cultivation of the ilu1ovative spirit or out~ look ... can be said to define
n1odernity." Modernity
is the incessant claim to produce the new.10 And yet, Gyekye also
contests any account that ignores the complexity not only of modernity but also of
notions of innovation and change. After all, he points out, traditional societies also
change and often seek change, while on the other side, modern societies always
embody and embrace traditions. Similarly, Gaonkar (2oor) warns against those who emphasize the place
90
of change in modernity, ignoril1g· on the one hand the growing importance of routil1e, and on the other, that change
itself is a new modality of power; as Cesaire (zoOI), Chakrabarty (zooo), and others have argued, this construction of
history as a linear temporality is powerfully articulated to a variety of forms of violence and brutality, exhibited most
clearly in slavery, colonialisn1, and global wars.
EUROCENTRIC THOUGHT ALLOWED FOR LIBERATING IDEAS,

MODERNITIES GOOD
Alcoff 7 (Department of Philosophy at Syracuse University., Project Muse, Mignolo’s Epistemology of Coloniality,
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/new_centennial_review/v007/7.3.alcoff.html)
Hegemony in Mignolo’s usage of the term is very much taken from the Gramscian idea of hegemony as the construction of mass
consent. That is, [End Page 84] hegemony is achieved through a project of persuasion that works principally through claims to
truth. Europe is ahead because Europe is smarter and more reflective than the rest of the world; the United
States
has the right to hog the world’s resources because it knows best how to make use of
them. Leading liberals like Arthur Schlesinger make the claim for Western epistemic
supremacy without any embarrassment : Schlesinger claims not that Europe (and the U.S.
has made no mistakes, but that Europe alone invented the
as a European nation)
scientific method, which gave it the capacity to critique its mistakes . Moreover, he
claims that, although
every culture “has done terrible things,” “whatever the particular
crimes of Europe, that continent is also the source—the unique source—of those
liberating ideas . . . to which most of the world today aspires. These are European ideas, not Asian,
nor African, nor Middle eastern ideas, except by adoption”(Schlesinger 1992, 127; emphasis in original). The result of the wide
acceptance of such hegemonic claims in the United States and in Europe is a broad-based consent to imperial war as the
presumptive entitlement of the political vanguard of the human race; the result of the acceptance of such hegemonic claims in
the colonized world includes such symptomatic effects as the ones Samuel Ramos and Octavio Paz described when they said
that Mexicans have an alienated relationship to their own temporal reality, and that they imagine the real present as occurring
somewhere else than where they live. The temporal displacement or alienation of space, which causes the colonized person to
be unable to experience their own time as the now and instead to see that “now” as occurring in another space, is the result of
a Eurocentric organization of time in which time is measured by the developments in technological knowledge, the gadget
porn of iPods and BlackBerrys, and the languages in which that technological knowledge is developed. Who is developing the
latest gadgets? What language do they speak? These questions show us where the “now” resides, and thus, who is “behind.”
91
NEG: Alt BAD

THEIR ASSERTIONS OF COLONIAL SUBJECTIVITY ENFORCES AN
ENDLESS CYCLE OF CONFRONTATION – THE ALT WILL NEVER
REACH AN ENDPOINT
Grossberg 10(Distinguished Professor of Communication Studies and Cultural Studies, and Adjunct
Carolina)
(Lawrence, Cultural Studies in the Future Tense, pg. 265-66)
This exteriority is, it seems to me, further compromised by the assumption that the
other is constituted as a subject. Thus, the argument moves from coloniality as a
complex political relation to the colonial difference as a matter of subjectivity .5
The colonial difference slides between a space of productive possibility, a notion
of a prior indigenous way of living/subject, and a wounded yet celebrated
identity/subject position occupied by specific people who have been the
''victims" of colonization. On the one hand , that position offers a vision of a
hybridized colonial subject, which is, in its very extremity, the very inescapability of its
violent subordination, and therefore offers a clearer experience---and critique---of modernity
from its extremity. And on the other hand , the position also offers the possibility of
alternatives to modernity. Presumably, the assumption is that the colonial
subject is more than just the colonized subject, that their very hybridity points to
another space-time of their existence (in another place, another time) that opens the
possibilities not of going back but of imagining new futures . But the excluded,
subalternized other is never outside of modernity, since it is a necessary aspect of
modernity' itself, since modernity cannot be separated from coloniality . There must
be something more, for the critique of modernity is also ''from the exterior of the
modern/colonial world." There seems to be no reason why that exteriority which,
as quoted above, interpellates the Other, must always and only be located within
modernity/coloniality or as subjectivity. While it is important to recognize that there are
vibrant alternatives to modernity, might such alternatives not also come from other spaces of
social possibility and political imagination? Might they not also open up the possibility
of other modernities? Might not the possibility that the M/C group seeks a ''positive
affirmation of the alternative ordering of the world" (Escobar 2 0 0 7 , r88) open up the
multiplicity of modernities as well as alternatives to modernity?
Thinking outside of euro-modernity is bad

Carolina) 10
The difficulty and promise of the effort to think modernity outside or beyond euro-
modernity is made clear in the very important "research program" of the
"Modernity/Coloniality group," comprised mostly of Latin American intellectuals .2 To
be fair, the group is what Escobar (2007, 190) calls "a community of argumentation," sharing a project, a common political and
epistcn1ologicil desire, and a con1rnon set of assmnptions and conceptual tools. That desire is articulated out of a particular
92
"reading," one rlut echoes the opening of this book, of the contemporary context (r8r ):
"the present is a moment
of transition: between a world defuied in terms of modernity ... and a new (global)
reality which is still diflicult to ascertain but which, at opposite ends, can be seen
either as a deepening of Inodernity the world over or, on the contrary, as a deeply
negotiated reality that encompasses many heterogeneous culn1ral formations .... This
sense of a transition is well captured by the question: Is globalization that last st:.1ge
of capitalist modernity, or the beginning of something new?"
93
NEG: Vague Alts Bad

VAGUE ALT- EVEN THE METHOD IS UNCERTAIN, ALL ABOUT THE INTELLECTUAL
AND NOT THE POLICY MAKER
Carolina) 10
that I do not know what this conversation will look like, and I
Finally, I have to admit
do not know what the outcome will be. I do not know what a new university
should be. I do not know what other modernities-as well as alternatives to
modernity-are possible, but I do know that we have to begin in1agining such possibilities. We have to
imagine a world in which many worlds can exist together. And we have to figure out what is going on, and how it has,
for so long, prevented us from moving toward more humane realities. I have always thought of cultural studies as an
invitation into such conversations, into the experimentation of collaboration, into a selfreflective practice of
translation and transformation, and into· an uncertain effort to build new institutional spaces. As such, it is
difficult and enlivening, depressing and full of hope, modest and arrogant. It is for me
a promising way of being a political intellectual !
94
NEG: Modernity good

Turn: their fixation on euro-modernity ignores multiple modernities, which
negates alternatives now challenging the North—REJECT their narrow
reification euro-modernity that effectively excludes the wills of real people
who want modernity
Carolina) 10
(Lawrence, Cultural Studies in the Future Tense, pg. 286-7) //DDI13
Before ending this discussion of multiple modernities, I want to address one final challenge. One
might, confronted with the claim of other modernities, ask why I call them modern instead of
something else, perhaps even alternatives to modernity. This question deserves a serious
answer, although I want to reiterate that I do not think that other modernities are the only
possibilities that are being struggled over. There are certainly alternatives to modernity
even in the broad sense that I am using it, but there are also some possibilities
better thought of as modernities. I have no doubt that at least one reason for this
conclusion lies in the "origins" of this investigation, in any effort to find a better way of
understanding the contemporary conjuncture of the United States. This led me to a story about
struggles over the "coming American modernity." As happens too often, having "discovered"
modernity as the definition of a problem-space, I discovered that many others have been
addressing the question of (and demand for) modernity in other- both geographically and
historically-conjunctures. A second reason is tl1at I want to avoid paradoxically
reproducing the negative logic of euro-modernity. The question, are these other
possibilities not outside of, or other to, modernity itself?, can too quickly become
a euro- modern negative difference. Perhaps, by thinking about multiple moderni-
ties, we can move our interrogation onto other topologies; the effort to find other
ways of thinking relationality is itself a part of the effort to think beyond euro-
modernity, but without the analytic work, it can easily remain an imaginary logic. But the most
important reason is what Gaonkar (2oor, 21) describes as the "rage for modernity" and what
Lisa Rofel (1999, xi) captures, describing her fieldwork conversations: "'Modernity' was
something that many people from all walks of lite felt passionately moved to talk
about and debate." Rofel (cited in Deeb 2006, r89) continues: "In the end, despite its
messiness, the attempt to redefine the terms of discourse around being modern
was really an attempt to posit a way of being that is neither West nor East, and that is
both 'modern’ and 'authentic." '38 Of course, I could have chosen to invent another
term for other modernities, given the power of euro- modernity over our
imagination of modernity itself, but I want to resist such a temptation to give in to
the power of euro-modernity . We cannot start by denying people's desire to be modern ,
nor should we underestimate their ability to imagine the possibility of being
modern without following in the path of the North Atlantic nation-states. Nor can
we take for granted that we understand what it is they are reaching for in this
desire. Gyekye (1997, 263) asserts that modernity "has in fact assumed or rather
gained a normative status, in that all societies in the world without exception
aspire to become modern, to exhibit in their social, cultural and political lives
features said to characterize modernity---whatever this notion means or those
features are." He is clearly not suggesting that the whole world is trying to become Europe;
in fact, he similarly describes a number of writers in the Middle Ages (269): "In characterizing
95
themselves and their times as modern, both Arabic and Latin scholars were expressing their
sense of cultural difference from tl1e ancients. . . . But not only tl1at: tl1ey must surely have
considered tl1eir own times as advanced (or more advanced) in most, if riot all, spheres of
human endeavor." On what ground<> do we deny such claims or judgments of modernity? Even
Lefebvre (I995, r85) acknowledges that the "'modern' is a prestigious word, a talisman, an open
sesame, and it comes with a lifelong guarantee." Admittedly, tl1e relations to discourses of the
modern are often extraordinarily complex and contradictmy. Deeb's research with Shi'ites leads
her to conclude: 1'The concept of modern-ness is used as a value-laden comparison in relation
to people's ideas about themselves, others" (2006, 229), and "Incompatible desires come
together here -- tile desire to undermine dominant western discourses about being modern and
the desire to be modern (or to be seen as modern)" (233). I want to suggest that at least a
part of the complexity of these discourses is precisely the thinness of our
vocabulary --- and understanding --- of modernity. Thus, the answer to why I want to
think through and with the concept of a multiplicity of modernities is because the contest over
modernity is already being waged, because it has real consequences, and because we
need to seek a new ground, of possibility and hope, and of a new imagination for future
ways of being modern . Cultural studies has always taught that any successful struggle for
political transformation has to start where people are; the choice of where to
begin the discourses of change cannot be defined simply by the desires, or even
the politics, of intellectuals . Of course, there is another perspective on such matters that we
also have to take account of: Blaser (2009), for example, has suggested that I am taking people's
desire to be modern too literally, and failing to consider that their use of the term may be an
adaptation to or the equivocation of a demand. That is, might not the demand for modernity also
be the product of the political positioning of such populations? I have no doubt that such
questions need to be raised in specific conjunctural struggles, and for specific actors. I have no
doubt that there are, as Deeb (zoo6, r89) declares, "other stories to be told.'' (186).
Modernity allows us to find solutions to world problems

Carolina) 10
One of the most famous (in the English-speaking world at least) statements of tills chronotope is Marshall Berman's marxist-
influenced vision of modernity as a particular attitude toward and experience of the increasingly rapid and dense
actualizations of change: "a mode of vital experience-experience of space and time, of ti1e self and others, of life's possibilities
and perils ....
To be modern is to find ourselves in an environment that promises us
adventure, power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world -and
at the same time, that threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we
know, everything we are .... To be modern is to be part of a universe in which ...
'all that is solid melts into air''' (1982, rs). To be modern is to make oneself at
home in the maelstron1, to embrace and even desire change. Modernity is the
experience of History. But there is no guarantee how this linear temporality is lived out. For son1e it is about the
future as defined by a teleological sense of progress rather than apocalypse. For David Bromfield, writing about Perth,
Australia, "The 'modern' was only marginally understood ... as implying the future .... The modern is much more commonly a
known history" (quoted in Morris 1998, r6 ). Gyekye ( 1997, 280) similarly ·conceives modernity as a commitment to
innovation and change: the "cultivation of the ilu1ovative spirit or out~ look ... can be said to define n1odernity."
Modernity is the incessant claim to produce the new.10 And yet, Gyekye also
contests any account that ignores the complexity not only of modernity but
also of notions of innovation and change. After all, he points out, traditional
societies also change and often seek change, while on the other side, modern
societies always embody and embrace traditions. Similarly, Gaonkar (2oor) warns against those
who emphasize the place of change in modernity, ignoril1g· on the one hand the growing importance of routil1e, and on the
96
other, that change itself is a new modality of power; as Cesaire (zoOI), Chakrabarty (zooo), and others have argued, this
construction of history as a linear temporality is powerfully articulated to a variety of forms of violence and brutality, exhibited
most clearly in slavery, colonialisn1, and global wars.
Eurocentric thought allowed for liberating ideas, modernities good

Alcoff 7 (Department of Philosophy at Syracuse University., Project Muse, Mignolo’s Epistemology of Coloniality,
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/new_centennial_review/v007/7.3.alcoff.html)
Hegemony in Mignolo’s usage of the term is very much taken from the Gramscian idea of hegemony as the construction of mass
consent. That is, [End Page 84] hegemony is achieved through a project of persuasion that works principally through claims to
truth. Europe is ahead because Europe is smarter and more reflective than the rest of the world; the
United States
has the right to hog the world’s resources because it knows best how to make
use of them. Leading liberals like Arthur Schlesinger make the claim for
Western epistemic supremacy without any embarrassment : Schlesinger claims
not that Europe (and the U.S. as a European nation) has made no mistakes, but that Europe
alone invented the scientific method, which gave it the capacity to critique its
mistakes . Moreover, he claims that, although every culture “has done terrible things,”
“whatever the particular crimes of Europe, that continent is also the source—
the unique source—of those liberating ideas . . . to which most of the world
today aspires. These are European ideas, not Asian, nor African, nor Middle eastern ideas, except by
adoption”(Schlesinger 1992, 127; emphasis in original). The result of the wide acceptance of such hegemonic claims in the
United States and in Europe is a broad-based consent to imperial war as the presumptive entitlement of the political vanguard
of the human race; the result of the acceptance of such hegemonic claims in the colonized world includes such symptomatic
effects as the ones Samuel Ramos and Octavio Paz described when they said that Mexicans have an alienated relationship to
their own temporal reality, and that they imagine the real present as occurring somewhere else than where they live. The
temporal displacement or alienation of space, which causes the colonized person to be unable to experience their own time as
the now and instead to see that “now” as occurring in another space, is the result of a Eurocentric organization of time in which
time is measured by the developments in technological knowledge, the gadget porn of iPods and BlackBerrys, and the
languages in which that technological knowledge is developed. Who is developing the latest gadgets? What language do they
speak? These questions show us where the “now” resides, and thus, who is “behind.”
Multiple modernities good for viewing the world in a new light

Carolina) 10
To repeat myself, I want to both accept and reread SantOs's (zooz, 13) perceptive statement that we face "modern problems for
which there are no modern solutions."40 I would prefer to say that we face modern problems that
challenge us to think outside the possibilities of our own ways of being
modern. Thinking about multiple modernities might enable us to admit that
we no longer know what questions to pose-for example, about culture in
general, and media and popular culture more specifically-for it is not merely that the practices have
changed (although we have too often the contexts of struggle-and the diagrams of modernity--arc changing. What effect
does the hypothesis of a multiplicity of modernities have on the generation of
imaginaries of economy, nature, and development, for instance, or on social
movement strategies, or on strategies of place-making and temporalization?
How do we create questions, vocabularies, and concepts that sufficiently capture the complexity of forces, technologies, and
struggles operating in the midst of numerous struggles over, and transitions
among, different visions
and formations of possible modernities and alternatives to modernity? How
do we imagine questions and languages that sufficiently capture multipolar,
multi temporal, and multiscalar webs of connectivity, relationality, and
difference, which are driving the creation of contemporary geo-economic,
97
political, and cultural formations and spaces, and new subjectivities and
collectivities ·within and across them?
98
NEG: Pragmatism key to Solve
Political action key to solve the methodological shift

Carolina) 10
I ·want to describe a diagram of ways of being modern as a configuration-a doubled difference-of four distinct but
articulated apparatuses of spatial and temporal belonging." The actuality
of any possible modernity
will be defined by particular articulations of each of the terms of lived temporality-
change and the event-and of lived spatiality-institutional space and everyday life-as
well as the relations among them. In euro-modernity , for example, these appear as
history and the phenomenological present, as the state and a commodified everyday
life. But there arc other ways of actualizing change, and the present of realizing
institutional and everyday space. They are virtualities that can be differently
actualized to create a multiplicity of ways of being modern . In other words, being modern
involves neither the event nor change in the abstract but concrete actualizations of
both in relation-neither everyday life nor institutional space in the abstract but
concrete actualizations of both in relation. Insofar as each of these varied logics of belonging in space
and time is never simply singular and universal, as if there were only one possibility, then "being modern') itself is a
real and positive multiplicity.
99
NEG: Pragmatism bad

Pragmatism is just theory that hinders action. Turns case-the only way to
know colonization is bad is to try.
Peter '07
Peter, the founder of the blog called 'On Philosophy' where he tackles many different and excepted ideas. 'Pragmatism : The
Good, The Bad, & The Ugly'. Retrieved from 'On Philosophy' (http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/pragmatism-
the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/)
Where pragmatism is different from other theories about justification, and where it
goes bad, is by taking this claim to extremes. Pragmatism claims that the only
justification a claim can have is by “working”, by being assimilated, validated,
corroborated, and verified (again in the words of William James). And pragmatism
claims that there is no more to truth than being justified in this way. Unfortunately
for such a strong version of pragmatism extending it in either of these ways makes
the position self-defeating. Consider first the idea that justification consists only in a
claim “working”. Suppose that a young scientist is attempting to formulate a new
hypothesis about gravity. A number of ideas probably present themselves. According
to pragmatism all of these ideas are at this point equally justified; since none have
been put to the test none can be said to work better or worse than any of the others.
But clearly this is not actually the case, certain hypotheses are already more justified
than others by extrapolation from past theories. Hypothesis involving gremlins,
fairies, or anything other than simple and unintelligent components interacting with
each other are unjustified. If our scientist really withheld judgment about each
hypothesis until putting it to the test then they would have to test each hypothesis
that presented itself to them, since they would have no way to pick the one most
likely to be a successful explanation. So, on pragmatic grounds, we must reject the
pragmatist theory of justification if it is to stand by itself, since it simply won’t work.
(What will work is pragmatism plus some rules that allow deduction from what is
already justified.)
100

(De) Coloniality Affirmative - JDI 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(De) Coloniality Affirmative - JDI 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(De)Coloniality AFF JDI 2014 Kaut/Johnson Lab

NEG: Victimization Bad....................................................................................................... 77

THE TOPIC IN IT OF ITSELF RE-CREATES THE HISTORICAL COLONIAL

HISTORICALLY THE LANGUAGE OF DEVELOPMENT SETS THE PRECEDENT FOR

THE LANGUAGE OF THE TOPIC, UNDER THE GUISE OF “EXPLORE AND

PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY

WE MUST EXPLORE EVERY INSTANCE OF COLONIAL EXPLORATION THROUGH

ACTS OF EPISTEMIC DISOBEDIENCE UNCOVER THE INVISIBLE VOILENCE OF

ETHICAL ENGAGEMENT. BEFORE WE DIRECTLY ENGAGE WITH OCEANS WE

rhetoric of modernity necessarily generates the irreducible energy of

2AC Ext: Colonialism Root Cause of

Explanations of the violence occurring during land expropriation in China

COLONIALITY ENSURES A PARADIGM OF VIOLENCE AND WAR. THIS

called a paradigm of violence and

war . This dominant paradigm is characterized by making invisible or insignificant the

knowledge, and of human reality in general. The relation with objects ,

2AC Ext: Rhetoric Proceeds Action

European modernity. Border thinking is not antimodern; it is the modern response

2AC Ext: Alt Epistemic Disobedience

Mignolo (Professor of Literature in Duke University, Joint Appointments in Cultural Anthropology

2AC Ext: Colonialism Root Cause of

GENOCIDE IS A NECESSARY PROCESS OF COLONIALISM BY WIPING OUT

Conventional definitions of genocide, in particular the United Nations Convention

emerge due to the radicalization of identity politics in the context of historically

COLONIZATION OF THE AMERICAS SHOWS THE GENOCIDAL LOGIC OF

The logic of elimination not only refers to the summary liquidation of

2AC Ext: Colonialism Root Cause of

IGNORING THE BASIS OF COLONIALISM IN THE CLIMATE CRISIS DOOMS

grantors of order. In fact, in

2AC Ext: Development=Colonialism

human suffering that justify developmental interventions¶ result from a very

impoverishment),23 and the resulting destruction of social diversity through the

setting himself up in the settler's place.25

Madagascar's historic problem of deforestation can be linked to the

2AC Ext: Coloniality destroy society

development oriented solely toward the ¶ benefit of the metropolitan countries,

2AC Ext: Colonialism Causes Poverty

2AC Ext: Colonialism=Structural

COLONIALITY RESULTS IN A PROCESS OF SOCIALIZATION THAT

so called Amerindians, the¶ outcome of the discussion is not as important as the

What happens in the Americas is a ¶ transformation and naturalization of the non-

colonialism which constitute a¶ reality characterized by the naturalization of

Coloniality , I am suggesting here, can be

understood as a radicalization and ¶ naturalization of the non-ethics of war .

The phallic conception of the¶ European-medieval world is now added to the

experience of racialized people is deeply touched by the ¶ encounter with

For some subjects modernity

2AC Ext: Exploration means changes

When we speak of development, to what, in fact are we referring? One frequently

2AC Ext: Rhetoric proceeds action

When we think of war or unrest, we often picture stern-looking soldiers holding

AT: Imperialism Root Cause

Eurocentered modernity can be seen as the imposition of a global design by a

particular local history radical alternatives

one may envision alternatives to the totality imputed

to modernity, and adumbrate not a different totality leading to different global

refracting modernity through the lens of coloniality engage in a questioning of the

that the proper analytical unit of analysis is

modernity/coloniality -- in sum, there is no modernity without coloniality, with the

. Coloniality of power a global hegemonic model of power

dimensions of the subalternization processes effected by the coloniality of power; the

ontological dimension of colonialty, on both sides of the encounter; it points at the

Eurocentrism, as the knowledge model of the