Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
same
--2ac
Fw
Imaging government action is key to dignity and activism- ties us to
others and makes us work to prevent attrocities
Nozick, 1990, Robert, Arthur Kingsley Porter Professor of Philosophy at
Harvard University, The Examined Life, p.286-289, KHaze
through official action, but we do that through respecting the rights of individuals not to have their
peaceful lives interfered with, not to be murdered, etc., and this is sufficient expression of our human
the particular actions they enable someone to choose or perform, or the goods they enable him to acquire,
values that can best and most pointedly, not to mention most efficiently, be expressed jointly and
officially- that is, politically- is continuous with a concern for individual self expression. There are many
sides of ourselves that seek symbolic self expression, and even if the personal side were to be given
others. I do not mean to imply that the public realm is only a matter of joint self expression; we wish
also by this actually to accomplish something and to make things different,
and we would not find some policies adequately expressive of solidarity with
others if we believed they would not serve to help or sustain them . The libertarian
view looked solely at the purpose of government, not at its meaning; hence it took an unduly narrow view
compared to further bettering the situation of those already well off, counts as relationally more intense
and enduring from our side and from the side of the receivers also, then the relational stance can explain
what puzzles utilitarianism, viz., why a concern for bettering others situation concentrates especially upon
the needy, all without our aid, we would have to find another way to jointly express and intensify our
relational ties. But dont people have a right not to feel ties of solidarity and concern, and if so, how can
the political society take seriously its symbolic expression of what may not be there? By what right does it
have a right not to feel this. (People sometimes have a right not to or feel something even though they
of their compatriots are. To be sure, this joint public affirmation is not simply verbal; those spoken for may
have to pay taxes to help support the programs it involves. (That a fig leaf was created to cover the shame
contribute to pay for its public programs rather than taxing the others, who dont care anything about it?
purpose- that might be done through private contributions alone- or get the others to pay too- that could
occur though stealing everyones name, in the name of society, about what it holds dear. A particular
sometimes speaks in our names. We could satisfy the people who object to the joint public expression of
sales, possession, and use drove the mass warehousing of California's prisons and jail populations to become the largest in the United States
the U.S.
federal system of crime control has left minority citizens less able to
challenge unfair sentencing laws. Noting that marijuana possession
constituted nearly 8 of 10 drug- related arrests in the 1990s. Michelle Alexander (2010)
insists that this period of "unprecedented punitiveness" resulted "in prison
sentences (rather than dismissal, community service, or probation)" to the degree that "in two
short decades, between 1980 and 2000 the number of people
incarcerated in our nation's prisons and jails soared from roughly
300.000 to more than 2 million. By the end of 2007, more than 7
million Americansor one in every 31 adults were behind bars, on
probation, or parole" (Alexander 2010. 59). Pushed by drug prosecutions, the
rising rate of incarceration reached unprecedented levels in the
1990s. Today's movement toward more prisons, mandatory minimums and reinstatement of the death penalty logically followed the
(Lusane 1991: Provine 2007: Reinerman and Levine 1997: Weatherspoon 1998: Weaver 2007). Miller (2008) contends that
racially exploitative "law and order" campaigns of the 1960s and 1970s (Murakawa 2008). Conservative American politicians use the mythical
Black or Hispanic male drug dealer, like the Black female welfare queen, to drum up votes. A widespread consensus in reported government
confirmed by academic and critical legal studies literature, are strikingly different from how the national and local media choose to present
them. One study focusing on marijuana initiate found "among Blacks, the annual incidence rate (per 1.000 potential new users) increased from
8.0 in 1966 to 16.7 in 1968. reached a peak at about the same time as "Whites" (19.4 in 1976). then remained high throughout the late 1970s.
Following the low rates in the 1980s, rates among Blacks rose again in the early 1990s, reached a peak in 1997 and 1998 (19.2 and 19.1.
respectively), then dropped to 14.0 in 1999. Similar to the general pattern for Whites and Blacks. Hispanics' annual incidence rate rose during
that,
could not also (possibly) know, it must be that the ability to make sense of the world proceeds from shared
conceptual frameworks and practices. Thus, it is the community that is the generator and repository of
knowledge. Bringing Mohantys work on identity as theoretical construction together with Nelsons work on
epistemological communities therefore suggests that, identity is one of the knowledges that is produced
and enabled for and by individuals in the context of the communities within which they exist. The postpositivist reformulation of experience is necessary here as it privileges understandings that emerge
through the processing of experience in the context of negotiated premises about the world, over
experience itself producing self-evident knowledge (self-evident, however, only to the one who has had
feminist is not a given fact of a particular social (and/or biological) location that is, being designated
female but is, in Mohantys terms, an achievement that is, something worked towards through a
process of analysis and interpretation then two implications follow. First, that not all women are feminists.
it is accepted that
experiences are not merely theoretical or conceptual constructs which can be
transferred from one person to another with transparency, we think that there is
something politically self-defeating about insisting that one can only
understand an experience (or then comment upon it) if one has
actually had the experience oneself. As Rege (1998) argues, to privilege
knowledge claims on the basis of direct experience , or then on
claims of authenticity , can lead to a narrow identity politics that
limits the emancipatory potential of the movements or organisations
making such claims. Further, if it is not possible to understand an experience
one has not had, then what point is there in listening to each other ?
Following Said, such a view seems to authorise privileged groups to
ignore the discourses of disadvantaged ones , or, we would add, to place
exclusive responsibility for addressing injustice with the oppressed
themselves . Indeed, as Rege suggests, reluctance to speak about the experience of others has led
Second, that feminism is something that is achievable by men. 3 While
to an assumption on the part of some white feminists that confronting racism is the sole responsibility of
black feminists, just as today issues of caste become the sole responsibility of the dalit womens
organisations (Rege 1998). Her argument for a dalit feminist standpoint, then, is not made in terms solely
of the experiences of dalit women, but rather a call for others to educate themselves about the histories,
This, she
argues, allows their cause to become our cause, not as a form of
appropriation of their struggle, but through the transformation of
subjectivities that enables a recognition that their struggle is also
our struggle. Following Rege, we suggest that social processes can facilitate the understanding
of experiences, thus making those experiences the possible object of analysis and action for all, while
recognising that they are not equally available or powerful for all
subjects . 4 Understandings of identity as given and essential, then, we suggest,
need to give way to understandings which accept them as socially
constructed and contingent on the work of particular , overlapping,
epistemological communities that agree that this or that is a viable and recognised
identity. Such an understanding avoids what Bramen identifies as the postmodern
excesses of post-racial theory, where in this world without borders (racism is
real, but race is not) one can be anything one wants to be: a black kid in Harlem can be
the preferred social relations and utopias and the struggles of the marginalised (Rege 1998).
Croatian-American, if that is what he chooses, and a white kid from Iowa can be Korean-American(2002:
6). Unconstrained choice is not possible to the extent that, as Nelson (1993) argues, the concept of the
epistemological community requires any individual knowledge claim to sustain itself in relation to
standards of evaluation that already exist and that are social. Any claim to identity, then, would have to be
recognised by particular communities as valid in order to be successful. This further shifts the discussion
communities
that confer identity are constituted through their shared
epistemological frameworks and not necessarily by shared
characteristics of their members conceived of as irreducible . 5 Hence,
the epistemological community that enables us to identify our-selves as feminists is one
beyond the limitations of essentialist accounts of identity by recognising that the
that is built up out of a broadly agreed upon paradigm for interpreting the world and the relations between
the sexes: it is not one that is premised upon possessing the physical attribute of being a woman or upon
sharing the same experiences. Since at least the 1970s, a key aspect of black and/or postcolonial feminism
has been to identify the problems associated with such assumptions (see, for discussion, Rege 1998,
2000). We believe that it is the identification of injustice which calls forth action and thus allows for the
understanding them as epistemological communities militates against exclusionary politics (and its
associated problems) since the emphasis comes to be on participation in a shared epistemological and
be conceived of as imagined since they are produced by very real actions, practices and projects.
explicitly endorsing the laws, he told the New Yorker, "it's important for [them] to go forward because it's important for society not to have a situation in which a large
portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished."
marijuana
prohibition targets black and brown people (even though marijuana users are equally or more likely to be
white). Ending prohibition through passing legalization laws , as Colorado and Washington
have, will reduce this racial disparity . The war on drugs, as we all know, has led to
mass criminalization and incarceration for people of color. The
legalization of marijuana , which took effect for the first time in the country in Colorado on January 1, is one step
toward ending that war. While the new law won't eradicate systemic
racism in our criminal justice system completely, it is one of the most
effective thing s we can do to address it . Here are three concrete ways that Colorado's law
is good for people of color. 1. The new law means there will be no
more arrests for marijuana possession in Colorado. Under Colorado's new law, residents 21 or older can produce,
possess, use and sell up to an ounce of marijuana at a time. This change will have a real and measurable
impact on people of color in Colorado, where the racial disparities in
marijuana possession arrests have been reprehensible . In the last ten years, Colorado
police arrested blacks for marijuana possession at more than three times the rate they arrested whites, even though whites used marijuana at higher rates. As noted by
the NAACP in its endorsement of the legalization law, it's particularly bad in Denver, where almost one-third of the people arrested for private adult possession marijuana
for mere marijuana possession in Colorado, period. In the Jan. 6 article "#Breaking Black: Why Colorado's weed
laws may backfire for black Americans," Goldie Taylor mistakenly suggests that Colorado's new
legalization law may "further tip the scales in favor of a privileged
class already largely safe from criminalization." Much of the
stubborn "this-changes-nothing" belief about the new law stems
from confusion between decriminalization and legalization . There is
a profound difference between the hodgepodge of laws known
collectively as "decriminalization" passed in several states over the past 30 years, and Colorado's
unprecedented legalization law. Decriminalization usually refers to a
change in the law which removes criminal but not civil penalties for
marijuana possession, allowing police to issue civil fines (similar to speeding tickets), or require
drug education or expensive treatment programs in lieu of being arrested. Because of the ambiguity in
some states with decriminalization, cops still arrest users with small
amounts of marijuana due to technicalities, such as having illegal paraphernalia, or for having marijuana in
"public view" after asking them to empty their pockets. One only need look as far as the infamous
stop-and-frisk law in New York, where marijuana is decriminalized, to
see how these ambiguities might be abused to the detriment of
people of color. In Colorado, however, the marijuana industry is now
legal and above-ground. People therefore have a right to possess
and use marijuana products, although as with alcohol, there are restrictions relating to things like age, driving, and public use.
Police won't be able to racially profile by claiming they smelled
marijuana or saw it in plain view. 3. We will reduce real problems associated with
the illicit market. As marijuana users shift to making purchases at regulated stores, we'll start to see
improvement in problems that were blamed on marijuana but are in
fact consequences of its prohibition. The violence related to the
street-corner drug trade will begin to fall as the illicit market is slowly replaced by well-guarded stores with
cameras and security systems. And consumers will now know what they're getting; instead of buying whatever's in a baggie, they have the benefit of choosing from a wide
variety of marijuana products at the price level and potency they desire. Goldie Taylor made the dubious claim that since marijuana prices were initially high in Colorado's
new stores, the creation of a legal market won't affect the existing illicit market. But despite sensational headlines, prices for marijuana are just like anything else. They
respond to levels of supply and demand. In the first couple weeks, prices were high because only a small fraction of marijuana businesses in Colorado opened, and what
looked like every user in the state was in line to make a purchase on the day the historic law took effect. As the novelty-fueled demand levels off and the rest of the stores
across the state begin to open, increasing supply, prices will drop. For their money, purchasers can conveniently buy a product they know is tested and unadulterated. And
for those who don't want to buy at a store, Colorado residents over 21 are permitted to grow up to six marijuana plants at home.
picture is far more nuanced and complex than they have presented it. Given
aggression to which intervention is a response. The status quo ante in Afghanistan is not,
as peace activists would have it, peace, but rather terrorist violence abetted by a regime-the Taliban--that rose to power through brutality and repression . This requires us to ask a
question that most "peace" activists would prefer not to ask: What should be done to respond to
the violence of a Saddam Hussein, or a Milosevic, or a Taliban regime? What means are
likely to stop violence and bring criminals to justice? Calls for diplomacy and international law are
well intended and important; they implicate a decent and civilized ethic of global order.
But they are also vague and empty, because they are not accompanied by any account of
how diplomacy or international law can work effectively to address the problem at hand.
The campus left offers no such account. To do so would require it to contemplate tragic choices
in which moral goodness is of limited utility. Here what matters is not purity of intention but the
intelligent exercise of power. Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world. It is the core
laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that
purity of one's intention does not ensure the achievement of what one
intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally
compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence,
then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of
their supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral
purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in
injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is
always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in
principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that
politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions;
it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant. Just as
the
the alignment with "good" may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of "good" that generates evil.
This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one's goals be sincere or
idealistic;
it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals
and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral
absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It
promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.
The demand for moral and ideological purity often results in the rejection of any hierarchy or
organization. The question-can the master's tools be used to tear down the master's house?ignores both the contingency of the relation between such tools and the master's power and , even
more importantly, the fact that there may be no other tools available. Institutionalization is seen as
a repressive impurity within the body politic rather than as a strategic and tactical , even
empowering, necessity . It sometimes seems as if every progressive organization is
condemned to recapitulate the same arguments and crisis, often leading to their collapse. 54 For
example, Minkowitz has described a crisis in Act Up over the need for efficiency and organization,
professionalization and even hierarchy,55 as if these inherently contradicted its commitment to
democracy. This is particularly unfortunate since Act Up, whatever its limitations, has proven itself an
effective and imaginative political strategist. The problems are obviously magnified with success, as
local (as the site of democracy and resistance). This is yet another reason why structures of alliance
are inadequate, since they often assume that an effective movement can be organized and sustained
including its most intimate structuring relations division is constitutive of the social, not the colonial
division. Whiteness
young, thin, white woman advocating for Nonhuman Animals in a pornified, hyper-sexualized society, one choice stands
out loud and clear: Get naked. Its supposed to be empowering, and we think maybe it helps animals. First, Im not really
sure why one has to feel sexually empowered when one is advocating against the torture and death of Nonhuman
Animals. Why our movement is keen on making violence a turn on is a little disturbing. It probably speaks something to
our tendency to juxtapose women with violence. The sexualization of violence against women and other feminized social
groups like Nonhuman Animals is evidence to the rape culture we inhabit. Aside that, however, choice
is
often thrown around as a means of deflecting critical thought at
systems of oppression . If its all about your individual choice, only
you are responsible, only you are to blame. Anyone who has a
problem with that must be judging you as a person . So often our
advocacy is framed as personal choice, an individual expression. If you
arent vegan, thats your choice. If you want to have sex with vegetables and have it filmed by PETA, thats your
individuals can attribute their success to their own individual hard work (when in reality they had extensive help from their
race, gender, class, physical ability, etc.). It also works to blame those less fortunate for their failure. We call them lazy,
stupid, leeches (when in reality they had extensive barriers placed upon them according to their race, gender, class,
physical ability, etc.). This myth of freedom and meritocracy is actually pretty toxic for social movements. If we fail to
recognize how structural barriers impede some, while structural privileges benefit others, we will find it difficult to come
--1ar
real material gains have been made both institutionally
and socially even if some racism is inevitable, lessening
is still worth while
Bouie 14 (Jamelle Bouie, 31 December 2014, Why I Am Optimistic About the Future of Race
Relations in America, Slate,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/future_of_america_s_race_relations_why_i
_am_optimistic_despite_ferguson.html, mjb)
If America seems more divided, he says, its because were more aware
of our racial shortcomings. Its understandable the polls might say,
you know, that race relations have gotten worsebecause when its
in the news and you see something like Ferguson or the Garner case
in New York, then it attracts attention. And if many white Americans have a shocked
response to claims of unfairness and discrimination, its because its outside their purview. If youd asked whites in those
jurisdictions, he said, referring to racial profiling in Illinois, Do you think traffic stops were done fairly? the majority of
whites probably would say yes because its not something they experience. Its not because of racism; its just that its
and New York, and the stark divide in how blacks and whites see law enforcement. But Obama isnt wrong. When it comes
to race relations, America is better than its ever been. The most obvious observation is the fact of Obamas electionand
re-electionto the presidency. As a milestone in American life, this goes beyond electoral politics. The person who
occupies that office is not only the head of the executive branch of the federal government, writes Harvard Law professor
Randall Kennedy for the American Prospect, The president is also the nations mourner-in-chief, booster-in-chief, spousein-chief, and parent-in-chief. He continues: That a black man has been the master of the White House for the past six
years does indeed reflect and reinforce a remarkable socio-psychological transformation in the American racial scene.
As recently as
1990, more than 40 percent of whites supported a homeowners
right to discriminate on the basis of race; by 2008, that number had
dropped to 28 percent (including 25 percent of highly educated Northern whites). The same
goes for the percentage of whites who said blacks were less
intelligent than whites, which dipped from nearly 60 percent in
1990 to less than 30 percent in 2008. And so few whites support school segregation that the
General Social Survey has dropped the item from its questionnaire. Whites are also more tolerant
of interracial marriage. When first measured in 1990, note the authors, fully 65 percent of whites
General Social Survey Since 1972whites have progressed on a wide range of measures.
opposed unions between close relatives and black Americans. By 2008, that number had declined to 25 percent, and in a
2013 Gallup survey, 84 percent of whites said they approved of interracial marriages between blacks and whites. Some of
the most comprehensive pollingoutside of the General Social Surveycomes from the Pew Research Center. According to
a 2010 report, 64 percent of whites say they would be fine with it if a family member married a black American, while
27 percent say they would be bothered but accepting. Only 6 percent say they would reject the marriage. Support is
lowest among older whites, and highest among white millennials, who dont differ in approval from their black and
say blacks arent hard workingor at least, not as hard working as whitesand, notes Pew, most whites say the country
we shouldnt confuse optimism about race relations (or, again, how whites
with optimism about racial progress, or how groups
fare in relation to each other. There, the news isnt just badits bleak. This goes beyond the
said,
familiar facts about young black males and police violence. On the environmental front, black communities are exposed to
more pollutionand suffer more pollution-related ailmentsthan any of their counterparts. Black unemployment is still
double that of whiteseven for college graduatesand the median wealth of black families has plunged since the Great
Recession, all but erasing the gains of the previous three decades. Residential segregation and concentrated poverty are
still the reality for many black Americansthe product of a half-century of discriminatory housing policy. Indeed, the
typical middle-class black child encounters a level of poverty unknown to the vast majority of white children. Then theres
mass incarceration. In his book Punishment and Inequality in America, sociologist Bruce Western shows that prison is the
dominantand most formativeinstitution in the lives of poor black men in the United States. This is only loosely
connected to crime; while poor black men commit more crimes than most other Americans, prison population growth
doesnt track national crime trends. In fact, crime among young black men has plunged, while incarceration has steadily
increased. And incarceration isnt the reason for the decline. Roughly nine-tenths of the decline in serious crime through
the 1990s would have happened without the prison boom, writes Western. The long-term implications of mass
incarceration are too large to examine here, but it suffices to say two things. First, that mass imprisonment of poor black
men casts a pall over our narrative of economic progress. After adjusting for disparities in joblessness and incarceration,
Western found that young black men have experienced virtually no real economic gains on young whites in the fifteen
years since 1999. In fact, around three-quarters of the apparent gains in relative wages are attributable not to a real
improvement in the economic situation of African Americans, but to escalating rates of joblessness and incarceration
[among the group]. The gains of young black men, touted in the heady days of the 1990s economic expansion, were
illusory. Over all, because prison is a hugely corrosive influence on the course of an individuals life, a whole cohort of poor
black men should expect lives with insecure employment, low wages, family disruption, and social isolation. In all
likelihood, the stratification in the black communitywhere the difference between well-off and worst-off is hugewill
only will these economic trends take decades to play out, but its unclear if Americans are willing to devote the time and
effort to closing our racial gaps and integrating poor black Americans into the national mainstream. If the present push
against equal participationexemplified by voter ID and conservative attacks on the Voting Rights Actis any indication,
its hard to imagine a future where the public spends tax dollars to fix the consequences of its past discrimination. Worse,
the same optimism around race relations could undermine a push to improve conditions if
things seem
good, even if deep inequalities still exist, theres no reason to make
them better. Then again, you could say the same of America in the
1950s. Blacks won major victories, but an end to Jim Crow much less
attempts to ameliorate its effectsseemed far on the horizon. By the end of the
1960s, however, we had outlawed segregation, gained voting rights,
outlawed housing discrimination, and oriented the entire federal
government toward securing opportunity for black Americans. Yes,
there were fierce reactions from the right, and many of the policies
and gains have been compromised orin criminal justiceactively
undermined. But even at the height of the post-civil rights backlash, in the conservative jubilee of the Reagan
years, there was no question that blacks were better off. This isnt the soft bigotry of low expectationsits meaningful
The black struggle for equal rightsfor full partnership in the American experiment
obviously isnt over. The proof is everywhere, from an unfair criminal justice system to an economy that
discards black potential. If there is a question, it goes back to optimism versus pessimism. Should our
steady progression make us optimistic? Or are our short memories
(redlining means nothing to most Americans), backsliding (Redemption followed Reconstruction, mass
incarceration followed the end of Jim Crow), and retreat to myth (We made it on our own, why cant they
change.
cause for pessimism? As best I can, I live my life as an optimist. But there are times
Im convinced failure is inevitable, that well never shake ourselves of white supremacy and its
legacy. But even if thats true even if the struggle is doomed and thats our tragedy as Americans
the battle is still worth fighting . To borrow from William James, If this life be not a real fight, in
do it)
which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals from
which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a real fightas if there were something really wild in the universe which
we, with all our idealities and faithfulnesses, are needed to redeem.