TSDC Native Fishing Aff

Native Fishing Rights
***1AC***
***CASE EXT.***
24
***STATUS QUO***
25
SQUO BAD
SQUO BAD, PLAN SOLVES
SQUO BAD, BUT TRIBES WANT THE AFF
SQUO BAD, PLAN SOLVES (LAUNDRY LIST)
26
27
28
29
***SELF DETERMINATION ADVANTAGE***
30
NO TRIBAL INPUT NOW

SQUO TALKS DONT SOLVE
SQUO INDEPENDENTLY KILLING TRIBAL INPUT
MANAGEMENT COUNCILS KEY, THEY CRAFT POLICY
MANAGEMENT COUNCILS KEY, NO INTERVENING ACTORS
TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT KEY
DIRECT OVERSIGHT KEY
ONLY AFF SOLVES
POLICY ACTION K2 SELF-DETERMINATION
SELF DETERMINATION K2 SOLVE CAP
NO SELF-DETERMINATION = GENOCIDE
NO SELF-DETERMINATION = VIOLENCE
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
***CULTURE ADVANTAGE***
43
CULTURAL GENOCIDE NOW

ENVIRONMENT K2 CULTURE
CONTROL OF RESOURCES KEY
MISEDUCATION/HATRED I/L
CULTURAL GENOCIDE = GENOCIDE
CULTURAL VIOLENCE= EXTINCTION
CULTURAL VIOLENCE -> ROOT CAUSE OF GENOCIDE
CULTURAL GENOCIDE -> BARE LIFE
GENOCIDE FIRST
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
***BIODIVERSITY ADVANTAGE***
53
BYCATCH NOW, AND BAD

BOTTOM TRAWLING NOW
COUNCILS CORPORATE NOW
PLAN SOLVES ENVIRONMENT (MINDSET SHIFT)
ARCTIC RESEARCH I/L
WOLVES SCENARIO
FISH DECLINE KILLS BILLIONS
FISH K2 ECONOMY
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
GMOS SCENARIO
BIODIVERSITY LOSS= EXTINCTION
62
63
***SOLVENCY***
64
PLAN MODELED
ONLY FEDS SOLVE (PLENARY POWER)
ONLY FEDS SOLVE, EEZ
ONLY FEDS SOLVE (ENFORCEMENT)
AFF K2 LAUNDRY LIST
65
66
67
68
69
***A2S AND ADD ONS***
70
IDENTITY ADD ON
DONT TRUST THEIR AUTHORS
ETHICS K2 POLICY
HUMAN RIGHTS BAD
A2: CASINOS
A2: NUKE WAR (KATO)
NUKE EXTINCTION RHETORIC BAD
NUKE WAR= NON-UNIQUE
LOL GREAT POWER WAR
LOL EXTINCTION
A2: NATIVE SECESSION
A2: TRIBES BAD
A2: K
PERM
STATE GOOD
A2: COLONIALISM
IDENTITY POLITICS GOOD
A2: TRIBES/INDIANS/NATIVES/ETC. K
MARXISM BAD
A2 CAP K
LINK TURN
NO LINK
PERM
A2: GIVE BACK THE LAND
TURN: CYCLES OF VIOLENCE
TURN: BACKLASH
RECONCILIATION BETTER
ONLY LEGAL REFORM SOLVES
A2: TOPICALITY
A2: SUBSTANTIALLY MEANS A NUMBER
A2: INCREASE MEANS PRE-EXISTENCE
A2: DEVELOPMENT
A2: NATIVES =/= USFG
ANTIRACIST EDUCATION GOOD
TURN, AFF KEY TO FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION
A2: 1NC DEFINITION IS BEST
REJECTING RACIST T VIOLATIONS KEY
AFF K OF DEVELOPMENT
2AC K OF T
71
73
74
75
76
77
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
89
90
91
92
92
93
94
95
96
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
104
DEBATE SPACE KEY

K2 PREVENTING EXTINCTION
1NC DEFINITION= ROOT OF VIOLENCE
RECONSTITUTING MEANINGS OF DEVELOPMENT KEY
1NC= BAD EDUCATION, REAL IMPACTS
LOL FAIRNESS
INDIGENOUS ISSUES KEY
RECONSTITUTING DEVELOPMENT LEADS TO POLITICAL ACTION, REAL IMPACTS
1NC= BAD POLICY
1NC DEFINITION= COLONIAL
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
***NEG***
117
OTHER ACTIONS BEING TAKEN NOW

SELF DETERMINATION FAILS: NEW STATES CRUSHED
SPECIES LOSS GOOD
NO SOLVENCY: US LAWS
NO SOLVENCY: USFG BAD (GENOCIDE)
NUKE WAR FIRST
LINK TO CAP K
SECESSION DISAD
NO MOVEMENTS NOW, EMIGRATION
NO MOVEMENTS NOW, ECONOMICS
SELF DETERMINATION SPILLS OVER TO OTHER INDIGENOUS GROUPS
US SUPPORT SPILLS OVER, KOSOVO PROVES
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT= MOVEMENTS
US POLICY IS MODELED
SELF DETERMINATION = WAR
SELF DETERMINATION= GREAT POWER WAR
SELF DETERMINATION KILLS DEMOCRACY
GIVE BACK THE LAND
STATE BAD/PERM FAILS
U.S.A.= ORIGINAL SIN
LAND KEY
WESTERN CIVILIZATION BAD
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
139
144
145
146
147
***1AC***
First the status quo

Tribes have no control over their traditional fisheries
Dischner 13
Tribal consultation plays unofficial role in council process MOLLY DISCHNER, ALASKA JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
10/17/13: http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/October-Issue-3-2013/Tribal-consultation-plays-unofficial-role-in-council-process/
Alaska Natives have thousands of years of history of fishing

throughout the state, relying on salmon, halibut, crab, herring and other species for food and trade. When it comes to management, however,
the oldest users report mixed success in participating in the decision-making process . Management decisions for Alaskas
fisheries are largely made by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the state Board of Fisheries. The North Pacific Fishery Management
Council, creates fishery management plans for federal waters, three to 200 miles offshore. The Board of Fisheries is
responsible for rivers, lakes and the ocean out to three miles from Alaskas coast. The National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, executes
the decisions made by the council, while the Alaska Department of Fish and Game manages state waters on a day-to-day basis based on rules passed by the board.
Historical participation weighs heavily in fisheries management decisions, and
Both structures incorporate public testimony into their processes, which Alaska Native tribes and organizations are entitled to participate in, but neither offers a role beyond that.
Rob Sanderson, second vice president for Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes, said thats partially because when leaders agreed to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, the law didnt address aquatic resources. Everyone was too worried about the land, and they forgot about the sea, Sanderson said. In June, the North Pacific council took up
several issues that had Alaska Natives organizations weighing in, including chinook salmon bycatch caps for Gulf of Alaska trawlers and Pribilof and Zhemchug canyons
conservation and research. Sanderson and Alaska Inter-Tribal Councils George Pletnikoff testified at the meeting and both said they thought the councils action was responsive to
their testimony, and to that of other Alaska Native organizations. Pletnikoff, who also works for Greenpeace, was part of a significant delegation asking the council to preserve the
Bering Sea canyons. The councils action, which was to pursue an ecosystem management, was courageous he said in June after the decision was made. Sanderson said he had
heard from others involved in the council process that his testimony on bycatch had made a difference. At the June meeting, he called for a lower bycatch cap, emphasizing that
coastal communities in Southeast Alaska are dependent on salmon and halibut, and cannot afford to see those species decline. Ultimately, the council passed a lower cap on
Sanderson would like a

more formal role for Alaska Native stakeholders. At the federal level, theres a requirement that Tribes be
consulted as part of the decision-making process. A June opinion from the U.S. Department of Commerce, which was released as part of a
policy statement on how the bodies that entity governs conduct tribal consultations, stated that federal fishery management councils are not
responsible for doing so. The policy statement acknowledges that council meetings are a critical part of fishery management, and that its most beneficial for Tribes
and groups to get involved in that level. However, it confirms that the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, or NOAA, is ultimately
responsible for working with tribes.
chinook salmon bycatch than he thought they would at the start of the meeting, Sanderson said. But as responsive as the council can be,
Thus, the plan:

The United States Congress should immediately amend the Magnusson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act to
clarify that Native American tribes retain sovereignty over traditional tribal fisheries, guarantee substantial
tribal representation on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, mandate tribal oversight over the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and task all relevant federal agencies with protecting tribal fisheries.
Advantage 1 is Self Determination

Recent court rulings have put tribal sovereignty on the brink, only congressional action solves
NARF 12
THE NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND - ANNUAL REPORT 2011: The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is the national Indian legal defense fund whose primary work
centers on the preservation and protection of Indian rights and resources. NARF began its work in 1970 with a planning grant from the Ford Foundation and through the years has
grown into a reputable and well- respected advocate of Indian interests.
http://www.narf.org/pubs/ar/NARF2012.pdf
In February 2009, the Supreme Court issued its devastating opinion in Carcieri v. Salazar a case that involved a challenge by the
State of Rhode Island to the authority of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to take land into trust for the Narragansett Tribe under the provisions of the Indian
Reorganization Act (IRA). For over 75 years, the Department of the Interior (Department) had exercised its authority under the IRA to take land in trust for all federally
recognized Indian tribes and had consistently interpreted the phrase now under Federal jurisdiction in the IRAs defini-tion of Indian to mean the present, or the time of the
exercise of the Secretarys authority to approve the trust land acquisition. But contrary to every federal judge who had reviewed the matter in the courts below, and who had
deferred to the Departments interpretation of the IRA, eight of nine Justices on the Supreme Court found that the term now in the phrase now under Federal jurisdiction is
unambiguous and limits the authority of the Secretary to take land in trust only for Indian tribes that were under Federal jurisdiction on June 4, 1934, the date the IRA was
enacted. Yet the Court failed to provide any definition of the phrase, under Federal jurisdiction. The Courts ruling in Carcieri is
an affront to the most basic
policies underlying the IRA. The fundamental purpose of the IRA was to restore tribal homelands and to help Indian tribestorn apart by prior federal
policies of allotment and assimilationto re-organize their governments. Therefore, in addition to the authority to acquire lands in trust for all tribes, the IRA also provides
self-determination and to establish tribal busi-ness corporations

In the short-term, the Carcieri decision has been destabilizing for a significant
authority for the Secretary to approve tribal constitutions in order to assist tribes in their efforts towards
in order to help tribes become economically self-sufficient.
number of Indian tribes whose status in 1934 is uncertain. Carcieri invites expensive and previously unnecessary litigation over the IRAs most basic terms,
allowing litigants to raise even more questions regarding the status of those tribes. The first direct evidence of the ripple-effect of Carcieri, and the Roberts Courts further
unraveling of Indian law, was supplied recently in the June 2012 decision in Match-E-Be-Nash- She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Gun Lake Tribe) v.
Patchak. The Patchak litigation resulted in two distinct holdings, both of which will have long term negative impacts for all Indian tribes. First, the Court in Patchak
trampled over the sovereign immunity of the United States and eviscerated the once-broad protections for Indian lands under the Quiet Title Act. Second,
through its finding of prudential standing, the Court widened the court room doors to most any challenge by any person who may feel harmed by a decision of the Secretary
made under the authority of the IRA that benefits an Indian tribe. Only Congress can clarify its intent for the Court. In the weeks and months after the
Courts decision in Carcieri, Indian country worked hard to get legislation introduced in the 111th Congress to simply amend the IRA to return to the status quoa clean
Carcieri- fix to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land in to trust for all federally-recognized Indian tribes. Although the House passed its version of the
Carcieri-fix, and the Senate Committee for Indian Affairs reported out its legislation, neither bill was enacted into law by the end of the session in December 2010. At the start of
the 112th Congress, Indian country moved quickly to resolve the problems being created by Carcieri. But the Carcieri-fix legislation has stalled in the 112th Congress over a few
members concerns regarding the expansion of Indian gaming and the exemption of Indian trust lands from local property taxes.
There are now 15 Carcieri-related challenges already pending before the courts and the Department of the Interior. NARF has provided testimony at several Carcieri-fix hearings
Congress needs to act and send a message to the Supreme Court that they are not
getting federal Indian legislation right and that their rulings are just plain wrong.
before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
The plan solves self-determination by changing congressional intent on a key issue
Weer 14
Tribal leaders say efforts often hampered by bureaucracyApr 29, 2014 at 9:24AM By MELINDA WEER North Kitsap Herald correspondent:
http://www.northkitsapherald.com/news/257175731.html
SUQUAMISH Tribes
are sovereign, or self-governing, nations. But federal and state bureaucracies often slow or
inhibit their ability to respond to needs on their lands, Tribal leaders told federal officials at a Tribal Summit at the Suquamish Tribes House of
Awakened Culture, April 24. Billy Frank Jr., chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, said the commission has not received a response from the White House three
years after the commission presented a white paper offering solutions to salmon habitat degradation. And thats putting treaty rights at risk (http://treatyrightsatrisk.org/). We
ceded land to the U.S. under treaties. The U.S. needs to recognize those treaties, he said. Our
people depend on the natural resources. We need

to restore the habitat that has been destroyed. Dont put us in these processes that take years and years. We cant wait. He added, Our hatcheries are
under attack by lawsuits by NOAA [but] our hatcheries are there because the habitat is gone. Big business is saying it costs too much to have clean water. Our salmon, animals,
eagles need clean water. We cannot allow that poison to take over our country. The summit was sponsored by Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Bremerton. Summit participants included
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell; Brian Cladoosby, Swinomish Tribe chairman and president of the National Congress of American Indians; and representatives of the Hoh Tribe,
Jamestown SKlallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Port Gamble SKlallam Tribe, Makah Nation, Quinault Nation, Quileute Tribe, Skokomish Tribe, and Suquamish Tribe.
Also participating: Larry Roberts, deputy assistant secretary for Indian Affairs; and Stanley Speaks, Northwest regional director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Suquamish
Chairman Leonard Forsman took Jewell on a short walking tour, visiting fishermen on a Suquamish Seafood boat and paying respects at Chief Seattles grave. Cladoosby started
off the summit with a panel discussion on Tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Tribes
govern themselves and their [lands and people].

You dont need to tell us what is good for us, he told federal officials. But sovereignty is not well-understood by many
federal and state lawmakers. Jamestown SKlallam Vice Chairwoman Liz Mueller said she spends a lot of time educating lawmakers on the subject that Tribes
have independent authority with the power to govern their lands and people, an authority they never relinquished when they signed treaties with
the U.S. Indeed, their sovereignty empowered them to sign treaties with the U.S. According to Skokomish Vice Chairman Joe Pavel,
We have a unique relationship with the United States. We would still be sovereign without that relationship. We are not artifacts. We are alive and we
are still growing. Makah Chairman T.J. Greene said many Americans dont understand the relationship between the U.S. and Tribes. When the Tribes ceded their land,
the benefits that we now receive were paid for, he said. The land was ceded so the U.S. could have clear title in order to divide the country into states. The U.S. governments
responsibility to honor its treaty obligations hasnt changed, he said. Tribal leaders said one of those obligations is funding. Tribes have been underfunded for generations, said
Frances Charles, chairwoman of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. We have limited resources to protect our elders, [and for] education, culture and resources. We know what the
issues are; what we lack are the dollars. Pavel added, Somebody else [outside the Tribe] has already decided what our priorities are and thats where the money goes. One
Our priorities are our spiritual and cultural values, our

physical and emotional health, our resources. Leaders also expressed concern about response to issues such as climate change; the Tribes at the summit
are all coastal. Tribal communities are among the most vulnerable to climate change because of their place-based nature and connection
to the environment, Quinault natural resources adviser Gary Morishima said. Tribes are in the best position to detect changes and
determine in their own community how to remedy those changes. He added, The major obstacle in climate change
initiatives is fragmentation of responsibility in the government agencies. In order to maintain functional ecologic
conditions across the landscape, someone needs to be in charge. Instead, we are tied to communications composed of tweets, bullets and
teaspoons. Tribes need the ability to sort truth from fiction. The information needs to be relevant to decisions they are making. Tribes need to be involved in
national and international policy decisions regarding climate change. The Tribes have a holistic view of
environmental issues. We are an oceangoing nation, Greene said of the Makahs. We are spiritually connected to the
ocean. Seventy percent of our economy, our songs, dance and culture connects us.
priority has been jails, but we need to get out ahead of that so our people dont need those.
And, Self-determination is key to checking systems of colonialism that will lead to extinction
Churchill 96
Ward Churchill, Creek Cherokee, member of the Governing Council of the Colorado chapter of the AIM, From a Native Son: Selected Essay on Indigenism, 1985-1995, 1996, p.
181-182
The struggle currently shouldered by AIM and related native organizations is not merely for Indians. It is for everyone. To resolve the issue of
the colonization of the American Indian would be, at least in part, to resolve matters threatening to the whole of
humanity. In altering the relations of internal colonialism in North America, the AIM idea would vastly reduce the
capability of the major nations there to extend their imperial web into Central and South America, as well as Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Basin. In
denying access to the sources of uranium to the industrial powers, American Indians could take a quantum leap toward solving the problem of
nuclear proliferation. In denying access to certain other resources, they could do much to force conversion to renewable, nonpolluting
alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power. The list could be extended at length. Ultimately, the Lagunas, the Shiprocks, Churchrocks, Tuba Cities,
Edgemonts, and Pine Ridges which litter the American landscape are not primarily a moral concern for non-Indian movements (although they should be that, as well). Rather, they
are pragmatic examples, precursors of situations and conditions which, within the not-so-distant future, will engulf other population sectors; which, from place to place, have
already begun to actively encroach in a more limited fashion. Circumstance has made the American Indian the first to bear the full brunt of the new colonialism in North America.
The only appropriate response is to see to it that they are also the last. The new
colonialism knows no limits. Expendable populations will be

expended. National sacrifice areas will be sacrificed. New populations and new areas will then be targeted,
expended, and sacrificed. There is no sanctuary. The new colonialism is radioactive; what it does can never be
undone. Left to its own dynamics, to run its course, it will spread across the planet like the literal cancer it is. It can never be someone elses problem;
regardless of its immediate location at the moment, it has become the problem and peril of everyone alive, and who will be alive. The place to end it is where it has now taken root
and disclosed its inner nature. The
time to end it is now
And, native self determination creates a sustainable global model
Jorgensen 97
Miriam Jorgensen, Research Associate for the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development and consultant to the Standing Rock Sioux and White Mountain
Apache Tribes, 1997, American Indian Studies, p. 137
the challenge for American Indian economic development is for it to be indigenously defined and
institutionally based. As such, development will be a process which takes account of Native assets and goals and
incorporates them into specific plans for the future. It will be capable of addressing welfare issues generally, and not income issues alone. Because it
concentrates on institutional development, it will not put limited projects ahead of broader policy-making. It will create a political-economic environment
which is conducive to investment by tribal members and non- members alike . Furthermore, its political and social
institutions will together promote the continued success of these designated welfare- improving investments. Clearly, development that succeeds at
combating poverty and its concomitant ills is not narrowly "economic." Finally, if Native nations achieve this kind of development, their
success will be a beacon not only to other indigenous peoples whose colonizers allow a measure of political
independence, but to all nations which are restructuring their development outlook. American Indian nations
have the potential to show other countriesfrom Eastern Europe to Asia and beyond -how development can be
done "right."
In particular,
A sustainable self-determination model is key to preventing nuclear war
Shehadi 93
Kamal Shehadi, December 1993. Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Ethnic Self Determination And the Break Up of States, p. 81.
This paper has argued that self-determination
conflicts have direct adverse consequences on international security . As they

nuclear states apart, the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of individuals or groups willing
to use them, or to trade them to others, will reach frightening levels. This likelihood increases if a conflict over self-determination
escalates into a war between two nuclear states. The Russian Federation and Ukraine may fight over the Crimea and the
Donbass area; and India and Pakistan may fight over Kashmir. Ethnic conflicts may also spread both within a state and from
one state to the next. This can happen in countries where more than one ethnic self-determination conflict is brewing: Russia, India and Ethiopia, for example. The
conflict may also spread by contagion from one country to another if the state is weak politically and militarily and cannot contain the conflict on its
doorstep. Lastly, there is a real danger that regional conflicts will erupt over national minorities and borders.
begin to tear
Advantage 2 is Cultural Genocide

The status quo perpetuates an ongoing cultural genocide by not recognizing tribal rights to fisheries
NARF 11
grown into a reputable and well- respected advocate of Indian interests. http://nativewaysfederation.org/sites/default/files/annual_reports/NARF_2011.pdf
The subsistence way of life is essential for the physical and cultural survival of
Alaska Natives. As important as Native hunting and fishing rights are to Alaska Natives' physical, economic,
traditional and cultural existence, the State of Alaska has been and continues to be reluctant to recognize the
importance of the subsistence way of life. On January 5, 2005, the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Protection of Hunting and Fishing Rights in Alaska
challenging the final rule mplementing the mandate in a prior Alaska Native subsistence case, John v. United States. The prior case, in which NARF represented Katie John, an
Alaska Native, established that the United States must protect subsistence uses of fisheries in navigable waters where the United States possesses a reserved water right. In this new
lawsuit, the State challenges the Federal agencies implementation of the mandate by arguing that the reserved waters doctrine requires a quantification of waters necessary to
fulfill specific purposes. Katie John immediately filed a motion for limited intervention for purposes of filing a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party. The
United States filed a motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in February 2005. Judge Collyer entered an Order in July 2005, trans- ferring the
case to the federal court in Alaska. The case was then consolidated with John v. Norton (below).The issues in the two cases were bifurcated for briefing with the States claims
addressed first. In May 2007, the district court entered an Order upholding the agencies rule-making process identifying navigable waters in Alaska that fall within federal
jurisdiction for purposes of Title VIIIs subsistence priority. In January 2005, Katie John, represented by NARF, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
challenging the Federal Agencies Secretaries final rule implementing the prior Katie John mandate as being too restrictive in its scope. Katie Johns complaint alleges that the
Federal agencies should have included Alaska Native allotments as public lands and further that the federal
governments interest in water extends upstream and downstream from the Conservation Units established under the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act. The State of Alaska intervened and challenged the regulations as illegally extending federal jurisdiction to state waters. On September 9, 2009,
the Court entered an order upholding the agencies final rule as reasonable. While rejecting Katie Johns claim that the agency had a duty to identify all of its federally reserved
water rights in upstream and downstream waters, the court stated that the agency could do so at some future time if necessary to fulfill the purposes of the reserve. The case was
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and has been fully briefed. Argument took place in July 2011 and we are now waiting decision by the Court.
In Native Villages of Eyak, Tatitlek, Chenega, Nanwalek, and Port Graham v. Evans, NARF represents five Chugach villages that sued the Secretary of Commerce to establish
aboriginal rights to their traditional-use areas on the Outer Continental Shelf of Alaska, in Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Alaska. In September 2002, the federal district court ruled
against the Chugach. NARF appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and in July 2004, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel vacated the decision of the district court
and remanded for determination of whether the Tribes can establish aboriginal rights to the areas. In September 2004, the district court denied previous summary judgment motions
as moot and ordered that new motions for summary judgment be submitted by December 2004. The Chugach chose not to file a Motion for Summary Judgment given the
remaining fact disputes, but the government did submit one in December 2004. After gathering updated evidence, the Chugach filed their Opposition in June 2005. Oral argument
on the motion for summary judgment was held in November 2006, and summary judgment was denied shortly thereafter in December 2006.
Trial on whether these Tribes hold aboriginal rights to hunt and fish in federal waters was held in the second half of August 2008. In August 2009, the federal
court held
that although the five Chugach Tribes had established that they had a territory and had proven they had used the
waters in question, that the Tribes could not hold aboriginal rights as a matter of law. The Chugach have appealed to the Ninth Circuit en
banc panel which has retained jurisdiction over this case and briefing was completed in April 2010. Oral argument was held in front of the en banc panel in San Francisco on
September 21, 2011, and we are awaiting a decision.
And, the plan is key to protect subsistence fishing culture
AFN 11
Alaska Federation of Natives: 2011 Federal Priorites. AFN is the largest statewide Native organization in Alaska. Its membership includes 178 villages (both federally recognized
tribes and village corporations), 13 regional Native corporations and 12 regional nonprofit and tribal consortia that contract and run federal and state programs. AFN is governed by
a 37-member board of directors, which is elected by its membership at the annual convention held each October. The Alaska Federation of Natives was formed in October 1966,
when more than 400 Alaska Natives representing 17 Native organizations, gathered for a three-day conference to address Alaska Native aboriginal land rights.:
http://www.nativefederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2011-afn-federal-priorities.pdf
Federal laws protecting Native American and Alaska Native hunting, fishing and gathering rights apply throughout the United States, but nowhere are they more critical than in
Alaska, where hunting, fishing and gathering remain economic necessities. Subsistence
resources constitute a substantial majority of the

nutritional needs of Alaskas Native people, especially in rural areas where the need for subsistence resources for
daily nutritional, spiritual and cultural sustenance is the greatest. The indigenous peoples of Alaska have a basic
human right to their subsistence way of life and to maintain their cultural beliefs and practices rights
acknowledged in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples . Federal Protections for Subsistence The
U.S. Government has a trust responsibility to Alaska Natives to honor the commitment it made to them in the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) and in Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA).
That commitment was to establish and implement a comprehensive federal program that would protect their way of life. Fulfilling this commitment is central
to the survival of this and future generations of Alaska Natives. When Congress enacted Title VIII of ANILCA, it envisioned state
implementation of a federal priority for subsistence uses on all lands and waters in Alaska through a state law implementing a rural priority. That cooperative federalism program
operated for a mere seven years before the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that the State Constitution precluded the States participation. Ironically, the State had insisted on a
rural rather than Native subsistence preference in ANILCA. Since 1989, all efforts to amend the State Constitution to comply with ANILCAs rural priority, and thus to have a
unified subsistence management regime, have failed. Over the last decade, the State of Alaska, anti-subsistence groups and the previous Administration aggressively and
successfully took actions to subvert federal law and polices. At the same time, state subsistence laws were virtually gutted, leaving those who once depended on Native-owned or
state lands to fulfill their subsistence needs without meaningful protections. The erosion of federal protections led to the recently completed Secretarial Review of the federal
subsistence management program. Unfortunately, the results of the secretarial review are inadequate. The proposed changes to the federal management program do not address the
fundamental problems with existing law. The checkerboard system of protection was not what Congress envisioned when it enacted Title VIII, and it is not working to protect the
subsistence way of life of Alaska Natives. Congress recognized that the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses...is essential to Native physical, economic, traditional
and cultural existence. Rather
than defending and maintaining a system that no longer serves its intended purposes , AFN
it is imperative that the federal government once again act to safeguard our villages essential food
resources and traditional way of life. Without adequate subsistence resources, most villages will not be able to
feed themselves and will slowly disappear through out-migration. The cost of the resulting economic collapse
and social dislocation would fall on every AlaskanNative and non-Native, urban and ruraland state and federal agencies. Government
has a vested interest in ensuring that the villages remain able to sustain themselves, rather than becoming more
dependent on welfare.
believes
And, the aff spotlights the key internal link of native culture
NARF 11
The culture and way of life of many indigenous peoples are inextricably tied to their aboriginal habitat . For those
tribes that still maintain traditional ties to the natural world, suitable habitat is required in order to exercise their treaty-protected hunting,
fishing, gathering and trapping rights and to sustain their relationships with the animals, plants and fish that comprise
their aboriginal habitats. Establishing tribal rights to the use of water in the arid west continues to be a major NARF priority. The goal of NARF's Indian water rights
work is to secure allocations of water for present and future needs for Indian tribes represented by NARF and other western tribes generally. Under the precedent established by
the Supreme Court in 1908 in Winters v. United States and confirmed in 1963 in Arizona v. California, Indian tribes are entitled under federal law to sufficient water for present
tribal reserved water rights are superior to all

state-recognized water rights created after the tribal priority date. Such a date will in most cases give tribes valuable senior water rights in the water-short west.
and future needs, with a priority date at least as early as the establishment of their reservations. These
Unfortunately, many tribes have not utilized their reserved water rights, and most of these rights are unadjudicated or unquantified. The major need in each case is to define or
quantify the amount of water to which each tribe is entitled through litigation or out-of-court negotiated settlements. Tribes are generally able to claim water for any purpose which
enables the tribe's reservation to serve as a permanent homeland
And, the plan is modeled and spills over globally, American policy towards natives is key to worldwide protection for
indigenous peoples
Morris 92
Glenn, The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance, ed. M. Annette Jaimes, p. 55-57)
Only in the past fifty years, or the past thirty for over a third of the states of the world, has self-determination been realized through the recognition that colonialism is abhorrent to the desired liberty of humankind. Through the acceptance of
Indigenous
peoples from Burma to Brazil, from the Arctic to Australia, continue to be denied the right to control their affairs in any effective and
meaningful manner. In many of these countries, such as Guatemala, Bolivia, Greenland, and Ecuador, indigenous peoples comprise a majority of the total state population; yet, they often remain disenfranchised and
the UN. charter and other human-rights instruments, self-determination of peoples is a universally accepted aspiration. Unfortunately, thousands of the world's peoples have yet to realize that aspiration.
subordinated by the descendants of the original settler or colonizing classes. Despite recent and tentative advances in the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in such places as Nicaragua, Greenland, and Panama, and despite some
progress in certain international forums, the overwhelming majority of indigenous peoples are forced to struggle for their very existence against the enormous pressure of encroaching states surrounding them. Through the application of
international legal and political norms, many peoples under colonial domination have achieved some level of political self-determination. Many representatives of indigenous peoples and nations point to the example of the decolonization of
southern Africa as an example to be emulated in the case of indigenous peoples elsewhere. Just as principles of self-determination have been applied to liberate the peoples of Zimbabwe or Namibia, where the idea of Black majority rule is
accepted without question, so, too, should such principles apply to all indigenous peoples. This essay is devoted to the examination of why such principles have not been applied to indigenous peoples and how the operation of European and
American legal doctrines has been used to maintain their colonial condition. One particular paradox in this examination will be the recognition that even by their own legal standards, the Euroamerican colonization of the Western
hemisphere (and, by extension, other indigenous peoples' lands across the globe) was unjustified.
More important, the purpose here is to indicate that through the application of contemporary principles of international law, particularly in the area of decolonization and self-determination,
indigenous peoples must ultimately be entitled to decide for themselves the dimensions of their political,
economic, cultural, and social conditions. It must be emphasized that the construction of this position is not based in the supposition that because indigenous peoples constitute ethnic or cultural
minorities in larger societies they must be protected due to that status. Rather, the position is that since Europeans first wandered into the Western hemisphere they have acknowledged the unique status of indigenous peoples qua indigenous
peoples. That status is only now being reacknowledged through the application of evolving principles of positive and customary international law. While such assertions may seem novel and untenable at present, it should be recalled that
just forty years ago, tens of millions of people languished under the rule of colonial domination; today, they are politically independent. Central to their independence was the development and acceptance of the right to self-determination
under international law. Despite such developments, many colonized peoples were forced by desperate conditions to engage in armed struggle to advance their legitimate aspirations. Similarly, for many indigenous peoples few viable
options remain in their quest for control of their destinies. Consequently, a majority of the current armed conflicts in the world are not between established states, but between indigenous peoples and states that seek their subordination.
Armed struggle for most indigenous peoples represents a desperate and untenable strategy for their survival. Nonetheless, it may remain an unavoidable option for many of them, because if their petitions seeking recognition of their rights in
international forums are ignored, many indigenous peoples, quite literally, face extermination. Although this chapter has implications for the status of all indigenous peoples, its concentration is primarily within the United States. This is
the policy of the United States toward indigenous nations has

frequently been emulated by other states. The fact that a treaty relationship exists between the United States and indigenous nations, and the fact that indigenous nations within the U.S. retain
because, in several ways, the status of indigenous nations within the U.S. is unique, and
defined and separate land bases and continue to exercise some degree of effective self-government, may contribute to the successful application of international standards in their cases. Also, given the size and relative power of the United
the successful application of decolonization

principles to indigenous nations within the U.S. could allow the extension of such applications to indigenous
peoples in other parts of the planet.
States in international relations, and absent the unlikely independence of a majority-indigenous nation-state such as Guatemala or Greenland,
And, Survival of Native culture solves human extinction, its key to every other impact
Weatherford 94
Jack, Anthropologist, Savages and Civilization: Who Will Survive?, pp. 287-291)
The world now stands united in a single, global civilization.
Today we have no local and regional civilizations.

Collapse in one part could trigger a chain reaction that may
well sweep away cities across the globe. Will the fate of Yaxchiln be the fate of all cities, of all civilization? Are they doomed to rise, flourish, and then fall back into the earth from which they came? Whether we take an
optimistic view or a pessimistic one, it seems clear that we stand now at the conclusion of a great age of human history. This ten-thousand-year episode seems to be coming to an end, winding down. For now, it appears that
civilization has won out over all other ways of life. Civilized people have defeated the tribal people of the world who have been killed or scattered. But just at the moment when victory seems in the air for civilization, just at
the moment when it has defeated all external foes and made itself master of the world, without any competing system to rival it, civilization seems to be in worse danger than ever before. No longer in fear of enemies from
outside, civilization seems more vulnerable than ever to enemies from within. It has become a victim of its own success. In its quest for dominance, civilization chewed up the forest, leeched the soil, stripped the plains, clogged
the rivers, mined the mountains, polluted the oceans, and fouled the air. In the process of progress, civilization destroyed one species of plant and animal after another. Propelled by the gospel of agriculture, civilization moved
forcefully across the globe, but it soon began to die of exhaustion, leaving millions of humans to starve. Some of the oldest places in the agricultural world became some of the first to collapse. Just as it seems to have completed
its victory over tribal people, the nation-state has begun to dissolve. Breaking apart into ethnic chunks and cultural enclaves, the number of states has multiplied in the twentieth century to the point that the concept of a
nation-state itself starts to deteriorate. The nation-state absorbed the remaining tribal people but has proven incapable of incorporating them fully into the national society as equal members. The state swallowed them up but
could not digest them. The state could destroy the old languages and cultures, and it easily divided and even relocated whole nations. But the state proved far less effective at incorporating the detribalized people into the new
national culture. Even though the state expanded across the frontier, it could not make the frontier disappear. The frontier moved into the urban areas with the detribalized masses of defeated nations, emancipated slaves, and
exploited laborers. After ten thousand years of struggle, humans may have been left with a Pyrrhic victory whose cost may be much greater than its benefits. Now that the victory has been won, we stoop under the
burdensome costs and damages to a world that we may not be able to heal or repair. Unable to cope with the rapidly changing natural, social, and cultural environment that civilization made, we see the collapse of the social
institutions of the city and the state that brought us this far. The cities and institutions of civilization have now become social dinosaurs. Even though we may look back with pride over the last ten thousand years of evolution
and cite the massive number of humans and the ability of human society and the city to feed and care for all of them
, one major fluctuation in the world might easily end all of
that.
The civilization we have built stretches like a delicate and fragile membrane on this Earth. It will not require anything as dramatic as a collision with a giant asteroid to destroy civilization. Civilization seems
perfectly capable of creating its own Armageddon. During the twentieth century, civilization experience a number of major scares, a series of warning shots. Civilization proved capable of waging world war on itself. Toward
that end, we developed nuclear energy and came close to provoking a nuclear holocaust, and we may well do so yet. When we survived World War I, then World War II, and finally the nuclear threat of the Cold War, we felt
Civilization experienced several super plagues

ranging from the devastating world influenza epidemic early in the century to AIDS at the close of the century. These may be only weak harbingers of the epidemics
and plagues to come. Even as life expectancy in most countries has continued to climb throughout the twentieth century, diseases from cancer to syphilis have grown stronger and more deadly. If war or new
plagues do not bring down civilization, it might easily collapse as a result of environmental degradation and the disruption of productive agricultural lands. If the great collapse comes, it might well
come from something that we do not yet suspect. Perhaps war, disease, famine, and environmental degradation will be only parts of the process
and not the causes. Today all of us are unquestionably part of a global society, but that common membership does not produce cultural uniformity around the globe. The challenge now
facing us is to live in harmony without living in uniformity, to be united by some forces such as worldwide commerce, pop culture, and communications, but to remain peacefully different in other
safe. When catastrophe did not follow the warning, we felt relief, as though the danger had passed, but danger still approaches us.
areas such as religion and ethnicity. We need to share some values such as a commitment to fundamental human rights and basic rules of interaction, but we can be wildly different in other areas such as life-styles, spirituality,
We need to find a way for all of us to walk in two worlds at once, to be part of the world culture, without sacrificing the
cultural heritage of our own families and traditions. At the same time we need to find ways to allow other people to walk in two worlds, or perhaps even to walk in four or five worlds at once. We cannot go
backwards in history and change one hour or one moment, but we do have the power to change the present and thus alter the future. The first step in that process should come by respecting the
mutual right of all people to survive with dignity and to control their own destinies without surrendering their cultures.
musical tastes, and community life.
The
aborigines of Australia, the Tibetans of China, the Lacandon of Mexico, the Tuareg of Mali, the Aleuts of Alaska, the Ainu of Japan, the Maori of New Zealand, the Aymara of Bolivia, and the millions of other ethnic groups
around the world deserve the same human rights and cultural dignity as suburbanites in Los Angeles, bureaucrats in London, bankers in Paris, reporters in Atlanta, marketing executives in Vancouver, artists in Berlin, surfers
in Sydney, or industrialists in Tokyo. In recent centuries, Western civilization has played the leading role on the stage of human history. We should not mistake this one act for the whole drama of human history, nor should we
assume that the present act is the final one just because it is before us at the moment. Much came before us, and much remains yet to be enacted. We must recognize the value of all people not merely out of nostalgic sentiment
for the oppressed or merely to keep them like exhibits in a nature park. We must recognize their rights and value because
we may need the combined knowledge of all cultures if we
are to overcome the problems that now threaten to overwhelm us.
At first glance, the Aleuts who hunt seals on isolated islands in the Bering Sea may seem like
unimportant actors on the world stage of today, but their ancestors once played a vital role in human survival of the Ice Age. The Quechua woman sitting in the dusty market of Cochamba may seem backward and
Because we do not know the problems that lie ahead of us, we do

not know which set of human skills or which cultural perspective we will need. The coming age of human history threatens to be one of cultural conflicts
between and within countries, conflicts that rip cities apart. If we continue down the same path that we now tread, the problems visible today in Tibet or Mexico may seem trifling compared with the conflicts yet to come. If
we cannot change our course, then our civilization too may become as dead as the stones of Yaxchiln, and one day the descendants of some alien civilization
will stare at our ruined cities and wonder why we disappeared.
insignificant, but her ancestors led the way into an agricultural revolution from which we still benefit.
And, taking a stand against genocide outweighs everything

Harrf and Gur, 81
(Harff and Gur, Northwestern, HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AS A REMEDY FOR GENOCIDE, 1981, p. 40)
Prohibition of
genocide and affirmation of its opposite,the value of life, are an eternal ethical verity, one whose practical
implications necessarily outweigh possible theoretical objections and as such should lift it above prevailing
ideologies or politics. Genocide concerns and potentially effects all people. People make up a legal system, according to Kelsen. Politics is the expression of
One of the most enduring and abhorrent problems of the world is genocide, which is neither particular to a specific race, class, or nation, nor is it rooted in any one, ethnocentric view of the world.
conflict among competing groups. Those in power give the political system its character, i.e. the state. The state, according to Kelsen, is nothing but the combined will of all its people. This abstract concept of the state may at first glance
But I am not concerned with the characteristics of the

state but rather the essence of the state the people. Without a people there would be no state or legal system.
With genocide eventually there will be no people. Genocide is ultimately a threat to the existence of all. True, sometimes
appear meaningless, because in reality not all people have an equal voice in the formation of the characteristics of the state.
only certain groups are targeted, as in Nazi Germany. Sometimes a large part of the total population is eradicated, as in contemporary Cambodia. Sometimes people are eliminated regardless of national origin the Christians in Roman
times. Sometimes whole nations vanish the Amerindian societies after the Spanish conquest. And sometimes religious groups are persecuted the Mohammedans by the Crusaders. The culprit changes: sometimes it is a specific state, or
those in power in a state; occasionally it is the winners vs. the vanquished in international conflicts; and in its crudest form the stronger against the weaker.
potential victim, genocide is a universal concern.
Since virtually every social group is a
Advantage 3 is the Biodiversity
Federal councils are allowing commercial fishing to destroy the unique North Bering biome, threatening
multiple keystone species
NARF 11
As ocean temperatures rise due to climate change, marine mammals and fish are moving north. Commercially valuable fish that have
traditionally been in the Gulf of Alaska are shifting toward the Northern Bering Sea, and the large-scale fishing fleets are planning
to follow them and expand their operations into this highly sensitive ecosystem. This fleet employs bottom trawling, a
highly destructive practice in which weighted nets are dragged inches above the sea floor, removing everything in their path. Nevertheless, the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) currently allows bottom trawling in the Central Bering Sea, and it is having a profound effect
on sensitive habitat and local Yupik communities. In addition, the NPFMC has begun a process to consider whether to allow these fleets to expand into
the Northern Bering Sea, home to threatened species like the walrus, endangered species such as the Steller sea lion and
the spectacled eider, and many isolated Yupik and Inupiaq villages who have been the stewards of this diverse
ecosystem for centuries. The Bering Sea Elders Group is an alliance of thirty-nine Yupik and Inupiaq villages that seeks to protect the sensitive ecosystem of the
Bering Sea, the subsistence lifestyle and the sustainable communities that depend on it. NARF has designed a comprehensive plan to help this group of Alaska Native villages in
their efforts to protect the area and become more engaged in its management. Over the last year, NARF has been working with the Elders Group on both issues, and we have: (1)
researched potential aboriginal rights that the Elders Group and its constituent tribes may possess based on their long-term exclusive use and occupancy of the area, (2) prepared
the Elders Group for negotiations with the trawl fishermen, and (3) assisted the Elders Group with its participation in the NPFMC process.
Global warming is wreaking havoc in Alaska. In recent years scientists have documented melting ocean
ice, rising oceans, rising river temperatures, thawing permafrost, increased insect infestations, animals at risk
and dying forests. Alaska Natives are the peoples who rely most on Alaska's ice, seas, marine mammals, fish and
game for nutrition and customary and traditional subsistence uses; they are thus experiencing the adverse
impacts of global warming most acutely. In 2006, during the Alaska Forum on the Environment, Alaska Native participants described increased forest fires,
Climate Change Project
more dangerous hunting, fishing and traveling conditions, visible changes in animals and plants, infrastructure damage from melting permafrost and coastal erosion, fiercer winter
storms, and pervasive unpredictability. Virtually
every aspect of traditional Alaska Native life is impacted. As noted in the Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment of 2004, indigenous peoples are reporting that sea ice is declining, and its quality and timing are changing, with important negative repercussions for marine hunters.
Others are reporting that salmon are diseased and cannot be dried for winter food. There is widespread concern about caribou habitat diminishing as larger vegetation moves
northward. Because of these and other dramatic changes, traditional
knowledge is jeopardized, as are cultural structures and the

nutritional needs of Alaska's indigenous peoples. Efforts are continuing to convene Congressional hearings on climate change impacts on indigenous
peoples. In Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil, NARF represents the Native Village of Kivalina, which is a federally recognized Indian Tribe, and the City of Kivalina,
which is an Alaskan municipality, in a suit filed on their own behalf and on behalf of all tribal members against defendants ExxonMobil Corp., Peabody Energy Corp., Southern
Company, American Electric Power Co., Duke Energy Co, Chevron Corp. and Shell Oil Co., among others. In total there are nine oil company defendants, four- teen electric power
company defendants and one coal company defendant. The suit claims damages due to the defendant companies' contributions to global warming and invokes the federal common
law of public nuisance. The suit also alleges a conspiracy by some defendants to mislead the public regarding the causes and consequences of global warming
And, only the aff can stop biodiversity loss in the Bering Sea
AFN 11
AFN recommends that the Magnuson-Stevens be amended to establish at least one voting seat for a tribal representative
on NPFMC. Tribes are represented on another Magnuson Management Council. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council has jurisdiction over all marine waters along the
U.S. Pacific Coast south of Alaska. It has 14 voting members from the states of Washington, Oregon, California and Idaho. One voting member is appointed from an Indian tribe
with federally recognized fishing rights in one of the member states. Tribes submit nominations for the voting seat to the Secretary of Commerce. A similar process should be
mandated and implemented for the NPFMC. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) is one of the regional management bodies established under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
Council has jurisdiction over federal fisheries, and many of its decisions directly impact the
subsistence resources that Alaska Natives depend upon for their subsistence way of life. The Council is composed of 11 voting
members, and many of these seats are occupied by the fishing industry. Alaska Tribes and subsistence users are not represented on the
Council. This overwhelming imbalance of power has resulted in decisions that greatly favor industry and fail to
protect subsistence resources and opportunity. For example, the Council recently voted to allow the Bering Sea
pollock trawl fishery to waste as bycatch as many as 60,000 chinook salmon per year. Chinook salmon is the
most essential subsistence resource for villages throughout Western Alaska. These villages are among the most
remote and cash poor in Alaska. The trawl fishery is owned by 100 boats that split a harvest worth a billion dollars per year. The NPFMC decided that the
extremely lucrative pollock fishery should be allowed to throw away 60,000 chinook salmon as waste while subsistence fishermen on the Yukon River are under harvest
restrictions and cannot meet their basic nutritional, economic and cultural needs.
The imbalance of power must be corrected
And, the arctic region is uniquely key

UNEP 10
(United Natins Environment Program, Johnsen, K. Alfthan, B. Hislop, L. Skaalvik, J. F. (Editors), Protecting Arctic Biodiversity: Limitations and Strengths of Environental
Agreements UNEP Grid Arendal, 2010, Online [HT])
The Arctic
contribution to global biodiversity is significant. Although the Arctic has relatively few species compared to areas such as the tropics,
the region is recognised for its genetic diversity, reflecting the many ways in which species have adapted to extreme environment2. Hundreds of
migrating species (including 279 species of birds, and the grey and humpback whales) travel long distances each year in order to take
advantage of the short but productive Arctic summers2.
And, The impact of unchecked oceanic species loss is extinction

NOAA 98
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1998 (Year of the Ocean Report, http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/mar_env_316.html)
The ocean plays a critical role in sustaining the life of this planet. Every activity, whether natural or anthropogenic, has far reaching impacts on the world at large. For
example, excessive emissions of greenhouse gases may contribute to an increase the sea level, and cause potential flooding or an increase in storm frequency; this flooding can reduce wetland acreage and increase sediment and nutrient
The environment and the

economic health of marine and coastal waters are linked at the individual, community, state, regional, national
and international levels. The interdependence of the economy and the environment are widely recognized. The United
flows into the Gulf of Mexico, causing adverse impacts on water quality and reducing habitat for commercial fisheries. This in turn drives up the cost of fish at local markets nationwide.
States has moved beyond viewing health, safety, and pollution control as additional costs of doing business to an understanding of broader stewardship, recognizing that economic and social prosperity would be useless if the coastal and
marine environments are compromised or destroyed in the process of development (President's Council on Sustainable Development, 1996). Much about the ocean, its processes, and the interrelationship between land and sea is unknown.
Many harvested marine resources depend upon a healthy marine environment to exist. Continued research is needed so that sound
management decisions can be made when conflicts among users of ocean resources arise. Although much progress has been made over the past 30 years to enhance marine environmental quality and ocean resources, much work remains.
The challenge is to maintain and continue to improve marine water quality as more people move to the coasts and the pressures of urbanization increase. Through education, partnerships, technological advances, research, and personal
everyone is utterly dependent on

the existence of that lovely, living saltwater soup. There's plenty of water in the universe without life, but nowhere is there life without water. The living ocean
drives planetary chemistry, governs climate and weather, and otherwise provides the cornerstone of the lifesupport system for all creatures on our planet, from deep-sea starfish to desert sagebrush. That's why the ocean
matters. If the sea is sick, we'll feel it. If it dies, we die. Our future and the state of the oceans are one."
responsibility, marine environmental quality should continue to improve, sustaining resources for generations to come."It does not matter where on Earth you live,
Solvency
Only amending Magnuson-Stevens solves
NCAI 13
The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #TUL-13-023 TITLE: Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act Reauthorization.
http://www.ncai.org/attachments/Resolution_eZMCowJdlHMOPXlAlqqATLOxikexcHuLMHOEjyCCskGlYVUVFsT_TUL-13-023%20Final.pdf
without appropriate reform of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act, natural fish populations and
the Alaska Native inhabitants well-being along with the treaty- protected rights of Pacific Northwest Indian
nations and tribes will continue to be at risk. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NCAI requests the following changes MagnusonStevens Fisheries Conservation Act: Separate conservation and allocation decisions, leaving allocation decisions to the management councils, but giving responsibility of conservation decisions to a separate governmental entity subject to
Tribes and/or subsistence users be

represented on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Amend the purpose of the act to include
promotion of Alaska Native subsistence rights and tribal fisheries based on treaty rights, including a mandate to
be responsive to the needs of federally recognized tribes; Require that the national standards for fishery
conservation and management take into account the importance of fishery resources of subsistence-based and
tribal commercial fishing communities; Provide that conservation and management measures shall require bycatch reduction under specific circumstances; Require that the Secretary of Commerce
shall consider experience in tribal subsistence harvests and tribal commercial fishing as qualification to serve on a
management council; Remove the limit of $25,000 per year on bycatch fines in the North Pacific and direct funds to the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon
Initiative and the Yukon and Kuskokwim Inter-tribal Fish Commissions; Include relief for subsistence tribal commercial fisheries disasters
and allow tribes to request relief from the appropriate federal agency; Require management councils to consult
and consider input from tribal governments; Require management council members to be subject to conflict of interests standards;v12. Require
fishery management plans to include provisions necessary to implement tribal treaty rights ; 13. Limit state
authority to regulate and interfere with the exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights where regulated by tribal
governments; 14. Provide resources for mitigation efforts when needed to protect tribal treaty rights including,
increased hatchery production, habitat protection and restoration, development of alternative fisheries when
primary fisheries have been reduced, and the development of value added programs to increase the value of
treaty fisheries And, congressional action is key
the standard rules of good governance and composed of an interagency scientific panel; Utilize ecosystem based management rather than species specific management;
AFN 11
Congress is urged to enact legislation that will provide lasting protection for our way of life. Necessary changes to federal
law include: a) Adding a Native priority to the current rural priority for subsistence. The current rural priority for subsistence hunting and fishing in Title
VIII of ANILCA is inadequate in light of growing urban pressures on finite resources. Several federal laws now provide a Native or Native-plus-rural or Native-plus-local
subsistence priority in Alaska (e.g. for the taking of halibut, marine mammals, and migratory birds). The same priority should be provided for the legitimate subsistence uses of fish
Extending federal protection of Native subsistence rights to Native-owned lands and all navigable waters
waters in Alaska. c) Giving Alaska Natives an ongoing and meaningful co-management role in the federal
subsistence management program. d) Exempting the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) so that
membership can be limited to eligible subsistence users. 2. Convene a high-level inter-agency meeting with key White House officials, including
the Domestic Policy Council, and the Departments that have jurisdiction over subsistence uses. Subsistence management and legal rights of Alaska Natives
cut across a number of Departments within the Administration, including Interior, Agriculture, Justice, State
and Commerce. If meaningful protections are to be provided for subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska, there must be an ongoing dialogue between Alaska Native leaders and the agencies with jurisdiction over the various aspects of
Alaska Natives subsistence way of life. This is a critically important moment in history for Alaska Natives with
respect to hunting and fishing,
and wildlife by Alaska Natives. b)
and marine
***Case Ext.***
***Status Quo***
Squo bad
Raymond-Yakoubian 12
Raymond-Yakoubian, J. 2012. Participation and Resistance: Tribal Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management and Policy. In: C. Carothers, K.R. Criddle, C.P. Chambers,
P.J. Cullenberg, J.A. Fall, A.H. Himes-Cornell, J.P. Johnsen, N.S. Kimball, C.R. Menzies, and E.S. Springer (eds.), Fishing People of the North: Cultures, Economies, and
Management Responding to Change. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/fpncemrc.2012.10 Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Participation and Resistance: Tribal Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management and Policy Julie Raymond-Yakoubian Kawerak, Inc., Nome, Alaska, USA
Bering Strait region tribes have faced a number of important marine management issues over the past several
years. The tribes and Kawerak, Incorporated (Kawerak), in conjunction with several other Alaska Native and other
organizations, have been struggling to become involved in the policy and decision making processes for Bering Sea
issues. This paper reviews some issues and ways in which Bering Strait tribes have participated, or attempted to participate, in
northern Bering Sea federal marine management, and ways in which they have resisted the current118
Raymond-Yakoubian
Tribal Involvement in Fisheries Management Figure 1. Bering Strait communities with federally recognized tribes. regime (many
tribes from other regions of Alaska have also participated in many of the issues described below). Following this, I outline some
major problems that tribes and agencies/bodies involved have faced, and offer some solutions to how all parties can move forward
in a positive manner. This discussion is limited to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), as they are the two primary bodies involved in the major issues
of concern to Bering Strait tribes.
Squo bad, plan solves

Dischner 13
Tribal consultation plays unofficial role in council process MOLLY DISCHNER, ALASKA JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
10/17/13: http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/October-Issue-3-2013/Tribal-consultation-plays-unofficial-role-in-council-process/
at the council level. Sanderson wants a

designated seat on the council for an Alaska Native representative. After all, the fishing industry gets the majority of the seats , he said, so the 228
The clarification on fishery councils came after a comment on the proposed policy asked for a revision to require consultation
federally-recognized tribes should also have one. Theres some precedent for Sandersons request, although the official opinion stated that it wasnt necessary. The Pacific Fishery
Management Council, which has oversight in federal waters offshore from California, Oregon and Washington, does have a dedicated seat for a Tribal representative. Federallyrecognized tribes submit their nominations for that seat to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The Pacific council also has 14 voting members, more than the 11 on the North Pacific
council. But a seat would be a start, Sanderson said. Then, itd just be a matter of finding a representative the Alaska Native community could agree on, he said. The current
council chairman is Eric Olson, who is an Alaska Native and works for Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association, one of the six Community Development Quota groups
representing 65 Western Alaska villages that receive 10.7 percent of Bering Sea fishing quotas. Olson is also a shareholder in the Bristol Bay Native Corp., one of the 12 Alaska
Native regional corporations. For now though, both Sanderson and Pletnikoff have said indigenous groups also need to take a greater role in testifying and participating in the
decisions. In June, Pletnikoff said
indigenous groups need to work on solutions for the canyons. It behooves us now for
organizations interested to pay close attention to this issue as it develops and to demand a seat at the table ,
Pletnikoff said. Sanderson would like his colleagues from other tribes to get more involved at the council, particularly in bycatch. He testified again on the matter at
the October council meeting, and said he was disappointed not to see greater representation. We need more Tribal people there to testify, Sanderson said.
Not every item of the council agenda is of interest to noncommercial users, but Sanderson said its crucial that Alaska Natives weigh in. We are all dependent on
some sort of fishery, at the least, the Natives that live on the gulf coast, Sanderson said. ...We must do all that we can to protect whats
left. Sanderson said that its a crucial time for Alaskas fisheries. The council is looking to rationalize the Gulf of Alaska, and has discussed bycatch
several times in the last few years. I believe that there needs to be a process, Sanderson said. I believe that more tribes need to jump aboard on the
issue of bycatch.
Squo bad, but tribes want the af

The current situation is that in order to, possibly, have their concerns taken into consideration, tribes must
participate in two separate processes, neither of which function according to their needs or acknowledge their
unique relationship to the federal government (these being some kind of engagement with NMFS and the Council
process). The bottom line is that by not embracing consultation, NMFS and the Council have forced all parties
into a reactionary stance from which little that is positive or lasting can come. Bering Strait tribes will continue to
pursue policies, research, and management goals that acknowledge and protect subsistence resources and traditional cultural
practices. Despite the problems and difficulties discussed here, Kawerak and Bering Strait region tribes remain very
interested in working with NMFS and the Council to develop the trust and relationships necessary to move
forward on these and many other issues that are just coming to light in the northern Bering Sea and that have
the potential to have substantial direct effects on tribes in the region .
Squo bad, plan solves (laundry

list)
NCAI 13
The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #TUL-13-023 TITLE: Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act Reauthorization.
http://www.ncai.org/attachments/Resolution_eZMCowJdlHMOPXlAlqqATLOxikexcHuLMHOEjyCCskGlYVUVFsT_TUL-13-023%20Final.pdf
the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act (MSFCA) was originally enacted in 1976, and reauthorized in 1996 and 2006, and governs fisheries
the regional councils to manage fisheries resources
which Tribal citizens and communities are hugely dependent; and
WHEREAS,
management in federal waters of the United States; and WHEREAS, the statute authorizes
WHEREAS, the eight (8) regional councils manage a geographic region larger than the continental United States and are responsible for the health of a $25 billion commercial
fishing industry while at the same time entrusted with conservation of hundreds of species of marine fish; and
a flawed single-species based management system which does not consider the food web dynamics,
fishing gear impacts, and non-target species taken as bycatch has resulted in the overfishing of a third of the
nations fish stocks; and WHEREAS, Alaska Native hunting and fishing practices are profoundly connected to long
standing cultural and spiritual beliefs and rural economies and the use of single-species management has
resulted in significant negative impacts to Alaska Natives; and WHEREAS, the current management of the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council fails to consider the needs of the Alaska Native people and the structure of
the council prevents tribes from participating in decision making; and WHEREAS, under the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
the Pollock fishing industry continues to waste tens of thousands of Chinook salmon as bycatch annually ; and
WHEREAS, Chinook salmon in western Alaska have experienced failures since the year 2000 ; and WHEREAS, the fishing
rights of the Pacific Northwest Indian nations and tribes are defined and protected by treaties and executive
orders of the United States and which sustain a unique culture and economy that has suffered in recent years
from depletion of traditional salmon fisheries; and WHEREAS, the current management of the Pacific Fishery Management Council has responsibility for addressing the treaty- and
WHEREAS,
executive order-protected fishing rights of the Pacific Northwest Indian nations and tribes and has failed to protect those interests; and WHEREAS, Sockeye salmon in the Salish Sea and Spring Chinook in the Columbia River have
experienced failures since at least 1999; and WHEREAS,
***Self Determination
Advantage***
No tribal input now

An overarching concern that has developed through tribal involvement in the three issues (Chinook and chum bycatch and the NBSRA) is tribal
consultation. Tribal attempts at, and participation in, consultation have led to deep dissatisfaction with how
NMFS and the Council approach the process, about the role that tribes play in Bering Sea Tribal Involvement in Fisheries
Management
resource management, and how tribal concerns are incorporated into decision making processes.
The requirement for consultation with federally recognized tribes is primarily outlined by Executive Order 13175 and applies to the development or promulgation of regulations,
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes (Federal Register 2000). This
requirement was recently reiterated by President Obama in a Presidential Memorandum issued in 2009 (Federal Register 2009). An existing Department of Commerce policy,
When it
comes to issues that may affect tribal resources, tribes are not simply another stakeholder; they have special
status as sovereign governments, which is why special provisions like Executive Order 13175 and others exist. Bering Strait region tribes
have engaged in tribal consultation with multiple agencies in a variety of formats for many years. From the perspective of
Bering Strait region tribes and Kawerak, tribal consultation is, at its root and most simply, about forming and maintaining
relationships between sovereign governments (that will hopefully also become partners and collaborators). This view, which I elaborate on below, was
American Indian and Alaska Native Consultation and Coordination Policy, issued in 1995, also applies to the agencies within the department (DOC 1995).
formally outlined during a NMFS and Tribal Representatives Workgroup meeting in November 2009 (NMFS 2009b), as well as through discussions with NMFS staff during
formal and informal consultations over the past several years (e.g., NMFS 2010a, 2011d). Additional descriptions of some of these meetings and elaboration on the points below
can be found in the meeting minutes and the NMFS response to the meeting (e.g., NMFS 2009b,c). Tribal
consultation, in the view of Bering Strait

tribes, should consist of an ongoing and meaningful relationship between a tribe and a federal agency that has
the mutual objective of collaboration, should not be issue-based and should be maintained even during
periods when there are no major issues of contention. Consultation on particular issues must also be timely; if it
is not timely, collaboration and consideration of ideas are not feasible for either party. Other components of consultation include
two-way communication, accountability, consistency (in policies, procedures, staff, etc.) and must involve decision makers (tribal and federal government). Tribes have
also suggested other specific and basic steps that agencies and tribes can take to ensure that a consultation
relationship is successful (such as following up on letters, etc.). Because tribal consultation is federally mandated, because tribes have familiarity with the process
from working with other federal agencies, and because consultation was only happening at the most basic level (i.e., a form letter on a specific issue would be mailed to 600-plus
tribes, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations, and tribal organizations), when they began to seriously engage with NMFS and the Council in 2008, tribes have pursued
this process more aggressively than most other possible routes of engagement. In taking this route, as noted, tribal consultation itself has emerged as a separate major issue of
concern for Bering Strait tribes that want to work with NMFS and the Council on marine management issues .
Squo talks dont solve

Since 2008, when Kawerak and Bering Strait tribes began to seriously engage with NMFS and the Council on issues of concern, there have been three formal tribal consultation
meetings, as well as other requests for consultation that are described briefly below. The first formal tribal consultation in January 2009, in Nome, Alaska, focused on Chinook
bycatch. Five tribes, Kawerak, and NMFS staff participated in this consultation and Council staff attended as observers (this is the only formal consultation meeting that Council
staff attended). Tribes were generally satisfied with that first attempt at consultation; tribes expressed their concerns about Chinook bycatch, about being left out of the process of
developing alternatives, and about NMFSs lack of understanding of tribal consultation. Following the meeting, however, tribes were not con- tacted by the agency for any kind of
follow-up or response to concerns. In October 2009 the Native Village of Unalakleet requested an additional consultation meeting to continue to develop the relationship between
tribes and the agency and to discuss salmon bycatch, the status of the Northern Bering Sea Research Area, and the principles of ecosystem management. Nine tribes, Kawerak, and
NMFS AFSC staff participated in this consultation in February 2010 in Unalakleet, Alaska. Follow-up from this meeting was also lacking and over the long term tribes have been
disappointed in the lack of a continuing relationship. Additionally, the week after the Unalakleet consultation, tribes participated in a workshop focused on the NBSRA where
they learned information about upcoming research they had not been consulted on and which they had not been notified of during the formal consultation meeting. Following this,
in March 2010, 15 Bering Strait tribes requested consultation with NMFS regarding research activities planned in the northern Bering Sea. NMFS did not respond to these requests
in June
2011, a third tribal consultation meeting took place via teleconference, on chum salmon bycatch, in response to
consultation requests by six Bering Strait tribes. This consultation meeting was followed up by a teleconference in October 2011 when NMFS
provided additional information to tribes and others on issues discussed at the June meeting. During consultation tribes specifically requested a
hard cap on chum salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery, which has not been fully addressed by NMFS.
Consultation on chum salmon bycatch also has highlighted confusion surrounding the relationship between
NMFS and the Council. After NMFS participation in the June consultation the NMFS Alaska Region
administrator wrote a letter to the chair of the Council asking the Council to address tribes recommendation for
a chum salmon hard cap (Balsiger 2011b). Several tribes had also requested consultation with the Council on this
issue and the Councils response to tribes was that they needed to carry out consultation with NMFS (Oliver
2011b). Tribal members are frustrated, to say the least, when they are told that they can formally consult only
with NMFS, but then NMFS asks the Council to address the issue tribes are concerned about, and the Council,
in turn, treats tribes like they are any other stakeholder. Unfortunately, tribes are being compelled to consult
with a body (NMFS) that cannot take action on or resolve many of their major concerns, such as Chinook and
chum salmon hard caps. As a result, some tribes and tribal members feel that consultation with NMFS is not
true tribal consultation because it does not include decision makers from the federal government side .
for consultation and informally denied that they were required to carry out tribal consultation on research activities (Raymond-Yakoubian 2010). Most recently
Squo independently killing tribal input

In attempts to engage NMFS and the Council on bycatch issues Bering Strait region tribes and Kawerak have
formally requested tribal consultations and have fully participated in the Council process. Collectively we have
spent large amounts of money to travel to multiple meetings to provide testimony to the Council and its Advisory Panel and
Scientific and Statistical Committee. Tribal representatives who travel to these meetings and provide testimony are often not
engaged by Council members (i.e., through questions following their testimony) and often describe leaving meetings feeling
as though they have wasted their time and resources (Raymond-Yakoubian 2008-2012). These feelings are amplified
for tribal representatives when they see that fishing industry representatives are given literally hours in front of
the Council to discuss their views, solutions, and opinions on the bycatch issue (tribes requested additional time in
front of the Council for the June 2011 meeting in Nome where chum bycatch was discussed, but were denied it). Tribal expert
testimony is also often viewed as anecdotal by the Council, despite the fact that many such representatives are
there speaking on behalf of their entire tribe and their views and observations are endorsed by them. Feelings of
disappointment and frustration with the process are further affirmed when Council decisions greatly differ from
tribal recommendations. For example, tribes virtually unanimously recommended a 30,000 hard cap on
Chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery, but the Council set the cap at 60,000 in conjunction with an
industry incentive program. While the consultation process does not ensure that agency decisions will reflect tribal desires,
in this case the consultation process did not even address tribal concerns. As a result of these and other problems many
tribal representatives are no longer willing to spend their time and effort attending Council meetings to
participate in that particular process.
Management councils key, they

craft policy
The relationship between NMFS and the Council also has been a matter of contestation during tribal
involvement with NMFS issues. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (along with the other seven regional
councils) was created by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The councils
develop management plans and regulations for fisheries within their jurisdictions, which are then forwarded to
and enacted and enforced by NMFS. The Council is, therefore, developing policy and regulation that directly
impacts tribes and tribal resources and has jurisdiction and primary responsibility for groundfish
management (NPFMC n.d.). While Bering Strait tribes believe that the Council should be required to formally participate in
consultations, the Council and NMFS have operated under the belief that the Council is not an agency as defined
in Executive Order 13175 and associated regulations (see Federal Register 2000 p. 67249, Oliver 2011a). Kawerak and tribes have
requested, multiple times, that NMFS provide a written legal opinion on this matter, and even the Council itself has asked NMFS
to clarify the situation (Oliver 2011b). As a federal agency, it is clear that NMFS is required to carry out tribal
consultation. While the determination of the Councils status relative to consultation is debatable (e.g., see
Balsiger 2011a), the fact is that they refuse to formally engage in the process (e.g., Oliver 2011b). The reason this is
important, and is such a large concern to Bering Strait tribes, is that the Council is intimately involved in the
policy and decision making process (which NMFS eventually implements and enforces) (e.g., Eagle et al. 2003, NPFMC
2008). Though technically Council decisions about fisheries management and policy must be approved by the Secretary of
Commerce, Council recommendations are almost never abrogated by the Secretary, making the Council the de facto
decision maker. Despite the power that the Council has over decisions that may significantly impact tribes and
tribal resources, the Council is not held to the tribal consultation mandate. Partly as a result of significant pressure
from Bering Strait region tribes and other tribes and organizations, the Council created a Rural Outreach Committee in late 2009.
While not tribal consultation, and though the committee has no specific focus on tribes, the creation of this committee (and the
setting aside of funds for its work) has been a small improvement in the process of communication between entities. Because of a
Council motion in 2010, NMFS also has begun to give the Council formal updates about tribal consultation (see NPFMC 2010,
Balsiger 2012), though the Council is not required to consider or respond to the information in these reports.
Management councils key, no

intervening actors
Starkey 11
CURRENT TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT IN FEDERAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN ALASKA AND POSSIBILITIES FOR EXPANDING TRIBAL PARTICIPATION IN
THE FUTURE This paper is commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund to provide background for a Tribal Roundtable to be held in Nome, Alaska in June 2011. Compiled June
7, 2011 by John Sky Starkey Attorney at law. Full report @: http://www.avcp.org/apps/Agendas-Reports/State%20of%20Our%20Salmon%20Presentations%20and
%20Handouts/Wednesday%20March%207%202012/Meaningful%20Tribal%20Involvement%20in%20Salmon%20Management/Sky%20Starkey%20CURRENT%20TRIBAL
%20INVOLVEMENT%20IN%20FEDERAL%20FISHERIES%20Handout.pdf
Once the NPFMC has made its decision, it is forwarded to the Secretary of Commerce for final approval. The
Secretary rarely rejects a NPFMC recommendation. Courts also rarely overturn a NPFMC decision. The
NPFMCs decisions, and its views on how different factors should be balanced, are therefore, often the last say
on fishery management issues that affect many in Alaska, including Native Villages and subsistence users.
Tribal involvement key

While Bering Strait region tribes have previously engaged with NMFS and the Council on other topics, over the past several years
three major issues in the Bering Sea have caused great concern to Bering Strait tribes, issues in which they have
attempted to become meaningfully and consistently involved. These issues are Chinook salmon bycatch in the
Bering Sea pollock fishery, chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, and the Northern Bering Sea
Research Area. Tribal involvement in these three issues has led to an additional, broader tribal concern about
the process, content, and results of tribal consultations in general.
Direct oversight key

Kawerak and Bering Strait region tribes have offered numerous sug- gestions to NMFS and the Council to improve and expand
the existing relationship and to address tribal concerns. Below are examples of recommendations from Kawerak and Bering Strait
tribes. Consultation in general NMFS and the Council must embrace the consultation process and the government-
to-government relationship. This entails not just a change in attitude and approach, but also taking concrete
steps toward improvement, some of which are described below. Major relationship building needs to occur and
many tribes have already attempted, or shown their interest in developing, ongoing engagement with NMFS and
the Council.
Only af solves
Starkey 11
Consultation, if performed by the federal agencies in an effective and meaningful way (including capacity building
and maximizing tribal participation in the process that results in federal fishery management), can result in
management decisions that are consistent with tribal goals, traditional uses and management practices . Tribes
have a window of opportunity, because of the Obama administrations directives, to push the federal agencies to develop tribal
consultation policies that will result in meaningful participation. Consultation, if done early, regularly and sincerely can
develop into a relationship between tribes and agencies that results in better fishery management practices.
However, consultation by itself, on difficult issues where the fishing industry has much at stake, is less likely to
result in actions that truly and fully address tribal needs. This is particularly true with the NPFMC because of its
voting make up several of the seats are held by those involved in or sympathetic to the commercial fishing industry. In these
cases, tribes need one or more voting seats at the table if they are to have an effective participatory role in federal
fisheries management. They need to be on somewhat even ground as the other fishing interests represented on
the NPFMC to be effective. Consultation alone is likely not enough to ensure that. The FSB is moving in the right
direction with the addition of voting seats for rural residents. Alaska tribes can make their voices heard, and call for the FSB to
include a tribal official as a voting member
Policy action k2 selfdetermination

Bradford 05
Bradford, Chiricahua Apache and Associate professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 2005
(William, Beyond Reparations, Ohio State Law Journal, 66 Ohio St. L.J. 1)
Furthermore, if JAR may conceivably go too far in pressing for land restoration, like JAC theory it does not go far
enough toward facilitating Indian self- determination because it does not recognize, let alone engage, federal
Indian law as the primary variable preventing the balancing of the moral equation. Compensation and apologies,
gestures potentially part of an amicable settlement, do not contribute directly to the reinvestiture of sovereignty in Indian tribes.
Only a comprehensive program of legal reform that dispenses with doctrines and precedents perpetuating the denial of Indian
rights will create the preconditions for Indian self- determination. n346 As law, more than any other social variable, has
[*69] (re)produced the subordination of Indians, n347 legal reform occupies central position in a theory of Indian justice. n348
Thus, while much of JAR theory is germane, neither it nor the other theories surveyed accord the full measure of relief or provide
as accurate a diagnosis of the problem as is necessary to generate effective solutions. Part III offers a theoretical alternative
Self Determination K2 solve cap

Churchill 03
Ward, Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader 263-5
I am here, however, as may have been gleaned from my opening quotation of George Manuel, to discuss a reality left unmentioned not only by Mao, but by analysts of almost
every ideological persuasion. This is the existence of yet another world, a world composed of a plethora of indigenous peoples, several thousand of us, each of whom constitutes a
nation in our own right. 3 Taken together, these nations comprise a nonindustrial Fourth World, a Host World upon whose territories and with whose natural resources each of
the other three, the worlds of modern statist sociopolitical and economic organization, have been constructed. 4 In substance, the very existence of any stateand it doesnt matter
the denial of indigenous rights, both national and individual, is integral to the
creation and functioning of the world order which has evolved over the past thousand years or so, and which
democratic, or marxist in orientationis absolutely contingent upon usurpation of the material and political
rights of every indigenous nation within its boundaries. It is even now projecting itself in an ever more totalizing
manner into our collective future. 5 We say, and I believe this includes all of us here, that we oppose this prospect, that we oppose what was once pronounced
a bit whether it is fascist, liberal To put it another way,
by the papacy to be the Divine Order of things, what Englands Queen Victoria asserted was the worlds Natural Order, what George Bush, following Adolf Hitler, described as
a New World Order, what Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have sought to consummate behind alphabet soup banalities like GATT and NAFTA and the MAI. In other words,
we are opposed to the entire system presently coordinated by bodies like the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund and the Trilateral Commission. 6 We say we oppose all of this, and, with at least equal vehemence, we
announce our opposition to more particularized byproducts of the trajectory of increasingly consolidated
corporate statism, or statist corporatism, or whatever else it might be more properly called, that we as a species
are presently locked into. The litany is all too familiar: an increasingly rampant homogenization and commodification of our cultures and communities; the ever
more wanton devastation and toxification of our environment; an already overburdening, highly militarized and steadily expanding police apparatus, both public and private,
attended by an historically unparalleled degree of social regimentation and an astonishingly rapid growth in the prison-industrial complex; conversion of our academic institutions
into veritable votechs churning out little more than military/corporate fodder; unprecedented concentration of wealth and power. We say we oppose it all, root and branch, and
of course we are, each of us in our own way, entirely sincere in the statement of our opposition. But, with that said, and in many cases even acted upon, what do we mean? Most of
us here identify ourselves as progressives, so lets start with the term progressivism itself. We dont really have time available to go into this
very deeply, but Ill just observe that it comes from the word progress, and that the progression involved is basically to start with whats already here and carry it forward. The
underlying premise is that the social order we were born into results from the working of iron laws of evolution and, however unpalatable, is therefore both necessary and
inevitable. By the same token, these same deterministic forces make it equally unavoidable that what weve inherited can and will be improved upon. 7 The task of progressives,
having apprehended the nature of the progression, is to use their insights to hurry things along. This isnt a liberal articulation. Its whats been passing itself off as a radical left
alternative to the status quo for well over a century. It forms the very core of Marxs notion of historical materialism , as when he observes
that feudalism was the social precondition for the emergence of capitalism and that capitalism is itself the essential precondition for what he conceives as socialism. Each historical
phase creates the conditions for the next; thats the crux of the progressive proposition. 8 Now you tell me, how is that fundamentally different from what Bush and Clinton have
been advocating? Oh, I see. You want to move forward in pursuance of another set of goals and objectives than those espoused by these self-styled centrists. Alright. Ill
accept that thats true. Let me also state that I tend to find the goals and objectives advanced by progressives immensely preferable to anything advocated by Bush or Clinton. Fair
enough? However, I must go on to observe that the differences at issue are not fundamental. They are not, as Marx would have put it, of the base. Instead, they are
They represent remedies to symptoms rather than causes. In other words, they do not derive from a
genuinely radical critique of our situationremember, radical means to go to the root of any phenomenon in order to understand it 9 and thus
cannot offer a genuinely radical solutions. This will remain true regardless of the fervor with which progressive goals and objectives are embraced on, or
superstructural.
the extremity with which they are pursued. Radicalism and extremism are, after all, not really synonyms. Maybe I can explain what Im getting at here by way of indulging in a
sort of grand fantasy. Close your eyes for a moment and dream along with me that the current progressive agenda has been realized. Never mind how, lets just dream that its been
fulfilled. Things like racism, sexism, ageism, militarism, classism, and the sorts of corporatism with which we are now afflicted have been abolished. The police have been leashed
and the prison-industrial complex dismantled. Income disparities have been eliminated across the board, decent housing and healthcare are available to all, an amply endowed
educational system is actually devoted to teaching rather than indoctrinating our children. The whole nine yards. Sound good? You bet. Nonetheless, theres still a very basicand
I daresay uncomfortablequestion which must be posed: In this seemingly rosy scenario,
Face it, to envision the
what, exactly, happens to the rights of native peoples?
progressive transformation of American society is to presuppose that Americathat is, the United Stateswill continue to exist.
it has always been and must always be, predicated first and foremost on
denial of the right of self-determining existence to every indigenous nation within its purported borders.
And, self-evidently, the existence of the United States is, as
No self-determination = genocide
Jaffke 06
Cheyanna L., Professor of Law at Western State University College of Law; J.D. University of Idaho, College of Law, 1996; LL.M. in Taxation, University of Washington School
of Law, 1997., The "Existing Indian Family" Exception to the Indian Child Welfare Act: The States' Attempt to Slaughter Tribal Interests in Indian Children, 66 La. L. Rev. 733
The tribal interest that needs protection is survival. The right to determine one's members and survive as a tribe lies at
the heart of tribal sovereignty and self-determination. n78 Tribes have an interest in maintaining sovereignty and
strengthening tribal relations. n79 Congress knew that an American Indian tribe could not exist without members n80 and further
understood that the future of the tribe lies with its children. n81 The federal government's delayed aspiration to prevent tribal
extinction resulted in Congress [*747] identifying tribal survival as a fundamental purpose of the ICWA.
No self-determination = violence
Thornberry 2k
Thornberry, Professor of International Law, Keele University, 2000, Operationalizing the Right of Indigenous People to Self
Determination,http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2003/8.html
However, this categorical denial of self-determination to minorities is not as clear-cut as it might seem. Though international instruments suggest that minorities do not have a right
that self-determination as a concept is based on the ideal of protecting oppressed

peoples living under external oppression. In this sense, one of the arguments for a right to self-determination for minorities is based on the 1970
to self-determination, it is important to remember
Declaration as examined above.[57] Passed within the decolonisation process, the declaration invites states to respect the principle of equal rights and self-determination of
peoples. Though it reaffirms the fundamental importance of states territorial integrity, the Declaration strongly insists on the duty of states to respect self-determination drawing a
line linking equality and self-determination. As Wright highlighted, the Declaration seems to imply that if
a government is not properly representative

of all the constituent ethnic groups within its society, self-determination might be the tool to redress the
imbalance between majorities and minorities.[58] Thus, self-determination could be viewed as a remedy for
minorities or the last recourse to rebellion against tyranny. This view is reaffirmed by the Vienna Declaration of 1993: [The right to selfdetermination] shall not be constructed as authorising or encouraging any action which could dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of
sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government
representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind.[59] This paragraph suggests that people
living under a regime that is

not respecting equality and non-discrimination might, as a last resort, have a right to break away, thus creating
some room for oppressed minorities to make some claim towards people-hood. This indicates that the distinction between a minority
and an oppressed people is not always clear. The distinction is blurred further when externally imposed boundaries are factored in. The distinction between peoples and
minorities were not considered when boundaries were first drawn in foreign offices in Paris or London under colonial foreign policies. Several minorities within post-colonial
states are in minority situations within the existing boundaries of their post-colonial countries as a pure result of colonial boundaries drawn for administrative reasons, having been
transformed into international boundaries. As a result, they still claim to be under external oppression. The Working Group on Minorities has recognised this difficulty in the
context of more recent ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia. As Jos Bengoa, one of the members of the Working Group, put it: In recent years the line of demarcation between
groups which have declared themselves national and other groups, referred to as ethnic groups, which are not entitled to self-determination has become blurred to such an extent
that it is difficult to distinguish between the two.[60] There is no definitive answer to the question as to whether minorities are peoples entitled to self-determination in the face of
oppression by their governments.[61] The only expectation is that self-determination
both as a principle, and as a right, must allow for a
right to be governed without discrimination. To what extent such a principle might entitle minorities to become a people if the state government is
discriminating against them remains ambiguous. One of the chief reasons for the narrow interpretation of the right of minorities to external self-determination is the fact that it is
states that consent to international human rights treaties; the very states that could potentially be vulnerable to claims for self-determination made by minorities.[62] One argument
that could be put forward in light of the increased importance of the human rights agenda is that if
minorities remain victims of serious injustice,

and if there is no other remedy available, they might be entitled to secede. This is referred to in theory as the remedial right to selfdetermination, and has never been practically enforced, though the situation that resulted in the creation of the state of East Timor through a UN sponsored plebiscite arguably
comes closest to articulating such a notion.[63]
***Culture Advantage***
Cultural genocide now

Churchill 94
Ward Churchill, Coordinator of the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement, former professor of professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
1994, Indians Are Us? Pg. 72
Yet in the United States of Robert Jackson and Henry Stimson, the indigenous American Indian population had already
been reduced, in a process which is ongoing to this day, from 12.5 to fifteen million in the year 1500 to fewer than
250,000 by the beginning of the twentieth century.8 This was accomplished, according to both official and unofficial sources,
"largely through the cruelty of [Euroamerican] settlers," and a sometimes informal but nonetheless clear and consistent
governmental policy which made it an articulated goal to "exterminate these red vermin," or at least whole segments
of them.9 Official bounties had been placed on the scalps of Indiansany Indians in places as diverse as Georgia, Kentucky,
Texas, the Dakotas, Oregon, and California. They remained in effect until resident Indian populations were decimated or
disappeared. Entire peoples such as the Cherokee were reduced by half through a policy of forced removal from their
homelands east of the Mississippi River to less preferable areas in the West. Others, such as the Navajo, while concentrated under
military guard, suffered much the same fate. The United States Army and cooperating militias perpetrated wholesale
massacres of native people at places like Fallen Timbers, Horseshoe Bend, Bear River, Sand Creek, the Washita River, the
Marias River, Camp Robinson and Wounded Knee Creek.19 Through it all, hundreds of dime novelseach competing with the
next to make Indians appear more grotesque, menacing, and inhumanwere sold in the tens of millions of copies." Plainly, the
Euroamerican public was being conditioned to see Indians in such a way as to allow their eradication to continue.
And continue it did until the "Manifest Destiny" of the U.S.a direct precursor to what Adolf Hitler would subsequently call
Lebensraumpolitik ("the politics of living space")was consummated.12 By 1900, the national project of "clearing" Native
Americans from their land and replacing them with "superior" Anglo-American settlers was complete. The indigenous
population had been reduced by as much as 98 percent. Approximately 97.5 percent of their original territory
had "passed" to the invaders.13 The survivors were concentrated, out of sight and mind of the public, on scattered "reservations," all of them under the self-assigned "plenary" (full) power of the federal government.14 There was, of course, no tribunal
comparable to that at Nuremberg passing judgement on those who had created such circumstances in North America. No U.S.
official or private citizen was ever imprisoned never mind hangedfor implementing or propagandizing what
had been done. Nor had the process of genocide against Indians been completed. Instead, it merely changed
form.
Environment k2 culture
Suagee 99
Dean B., Summer, The Cultural Heritage of American Indian Tribes and the Preservation of Biological Diversity, Director, 31 Ariz. St. L.J. 483 First Nations Environmental Law
Program, Vermont Law School, South Royalton, Vermont. LL.M., American University, Washington College of Law, 1989; J.D., University of North Carolina.
In cases in which the interests of tribal peoples are at stake, it may serve tribes to present their interests in a human rights
framework, perhaps along the lines outlined in Part III of this article. Tribal cultures need biodiversity. All human
societies need biodiversity, but for indigenous cultures the need tends to be greater . Indian people as individuals
might have survived if the [*534] eagles had been driven into extinction, but a core aspect of tribal cultures would be missing if
there were no eagle feathers for religious ceremonies. Tribes of the Pacific Northwest need the wild salmon to recover,
not just enough to be safe from extinction but enough to be a central part of tribal life. The tribes of the Great Plains
need the great herds of buffalo. When a tribe is engaged in a conflict over activities that threaten the tribe's ability to use a
culturally important animal or plant species, the collective human right of the tribe to maintain its cultural integrity
should operate to put a halt to actions that destroy biodiversity, and that halt should come well before the
culturally important species-or another species close to it in the web of life-is pushed to the brink of extinction .
By using a human rights analysis, a tribe can argue that the decision-maker should move beyond an interest-balancing approach in
responding to the tribe's concerns, and that, instead, the tribe has rights that the decision-maker must seek a way to accommodate.
n194
Control of resources key

Suagee 99
Suagee, Dean B. 1999 The Cultural Heritage of American Indian Tribes and the Preservation of Biological Diversity. 31 Arizona State Law Journal 483. Copyright Arizona State
Law Journal, originally written for UNESCO
Because tribal cultures are rooted in the natural world, protecting the land and its biological communities tends to
be a prerequisite for cultural survival. Much has been written about whether or not tribal cultures embody values that can be
described as environmental ethics, or, to frame the inquiry in the past tense, whether or not the cultural values and practices of
tribal peoples enabled them to provide for human needs and wants without causing irreparable damage to their environments. n7
Professor Rebecca Tsosie recently reviewed a substantial amount of the literature on this topic and concluded, after raising the
usual cautions about generalizations, that, for most indigenous cultures of North America, traditional Indian world views can
be described as having several common aspects: a perception of the earth as an animate being; a belief that humans
are in a kinship system with other living things; a perception of the land as essential to the identity of the people;
a concept of reciprocity and balance that extends to relationships among humans, including future generations,
and between humans and the natural world. n8 A basic premise of this article is that the objectives of the movement to
preserve biodiversity will be served by recognizing the human rights of indigenous peoples. The most effective
way to make use of their traditional ecological knowledge is to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples to
govern their own territories. The national and sub-national governments of the world should support these rights
by showing the same kind of respect toward indigenous peoples that they show in their interactions with other
governmental entities. This premise is based, in part, on the historical experience in the United States, which has
shown that tribal self-government is a prerequisite for cultural survival..
Miseducation/Hatred I/L
Friedberg 01
Lilian Friedberg. 2001. Doctoral Candidate in German Studies at University of Illinois. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_indian_quarterly/v024/24.3friedberg.html
Most importantly, perhaps, what distinguishes the American Holocaust from the Nazi Holocaust is what is at stake today. The Nazi Holocaust represents a historical
event that threatened the entire Jewish population of Europe. Relegating this event to the archive of oblivion would involve a fatal miscalculation resulting in wholesale moral
bankruptcy for the entire Western world. But the worldwide Jewish population can hardly be said to be at risk of extermination today--certainly not in the United States. American
Jews stepped up their efforts to direct attention to the Nazi Holocaust at a time when they were by far the wealthiest, best-educated, most influential, in-every-way-most-successful
group in American society--a group that, compared to most other identifiable minority groups, suffered no measurable discrimination and no disadvantages on account of that
minority status. 48 Norman Finkelstein cites the Jewish income in the United States at double that of non-Jews and points out that sixteen of the forty wealthiest Americans are
Jews, as are 40 percent of Nobel prizewinners in science and economics, 20 percent of professors at major universities and 40 percent of partners in law firms in New York and
the most extreme poverty of any sector in the present North American population, and still
highest rate of suicide of any other ethnic group on the continent. 50 High-school [End Page 365] dropout rates are as high as 70 percent in
some communities. As Anishinabeg activist and Harvard-educated scholar Winona LaDuke notes with regard to the Lakota population in South Dakota: " Alcoholism,
unemployment, suicide, accidental death and homicide rates are still well above the national average." 51 Alcoholism, intergenerational
posttraumatic stress, and a spate of social and economic ills continue to plague these communities in the aftermath of the
American Holocaust. This is not to deny or diminish the clear and present danger in the ominous resurgence of anti-Semitic sentiments reflected in isolated incidences
Washington. 49 Native Americans, by contrast, have long been subject to
have the
of racial violence against Jews and Jewish institutions both here and abroad. However, the material realities confronting the Native American population remain, in many instances,
comparable to those prevailing in Third World countries. The Native American experience of persecution is not a vicarious one. For substantial portions of this population, it is a
lived reality. What is more, an unrelenting sentiment of Indian-hating persists in this country : There is a peculiar kind of hatred in the
northwoods, a hatred born of the guilt of privilege, a hatred born of living with three generations of complicity in the theft of lives and lands. What is worse is that each day, those
who hold this position of privilege must come face to face with those whom they have dispossessed. To others who rightfully should share in the complicity and the guilt, Indians
are far away and long ago. But in reservation border towns, Indians [End Page 366] are ever present. . . . The poverty of dispossession is almost overwhelming. So is the poverty of
complicity and guilt. In America, poverty is relative, but it still causes shame. That shame, combined with guilt and a feeling of powerlessness, creates an atmosphere in which
Each generation feels the hatred and it

penetrates deeper to justify a myth. 54 Attempts on the part of American Indians to transcend chronic,
intergenerational maladies introduced by the settler population (for example, in the highly contested Casino industry, in the ongoing battles
over tribal sovereignty, and so on) are challenged tooth and nail by the U.S. government and its "ordinary" people. Flexibility in
transcending these conditions has been greatly curtailed by federal policies that have "legally" supplanted our traditional forms of governance,
outlawed our languages and spirituality, manipulated our numbers and identity, usurped our cultural integrity,
viciously repressed the leaders of our efforts to regain self-determination, and systematically miseducated the
bulk of our youth to believe that this is, if not just, at least inevitable ." 55 Today's state of affairs in America, both with regard to public
hatred buds, blossoms, and flourishes. The hatred passes from father to son and from mother to daughter.
memory and national identity, represents a flawless mirror image of the situation in Germany vis--vis Jews and other non-Aryan victims of the Nazi regime. 56
Cultural genocide = genocide

Churchill 92
Ward Churchill. Codirector of the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement. A previous professor at the University of Colorado/Boulder. 1992. [ Fantasies of the
Master Race. pg. 194-195]
"We are resisting this," Means goes on, "because spirituality is the basis of our culture; if it is stolen, our culture will be
dissolved. If our culture is dissolved, Indian people as such will cease to exist. By definition, the causing of any
culture to cease to exist is an act of genocide. That's a matter of international law; look it up in the 1948 Genocide
Convention. So, maybe thisll give you another way of looking at these culture vultures who are ripping off Indian tradition. It's
not an amusing or trivial matter, and it's not innocent or innocuous. And those who engage in this are not cute, groovy, hip,
enlightened, or any of the rest of the things they want to project themselves as being. No, what they're about is cultural genocide.
And genocide is genocide, regardless of how you want to 'qualify' it. So some of us are starting to react to these folks
accordingly." For those who would scoff at Meanss' concept of genocide, Mark Davis and Robert Zannis, Canadian researchers on
the topic, offer the following observation: If people suddenly lose their 'prime symbol/ the basis of their culture, their
lives lose meaning. They become disoriented, with no hope. A social disorganization often follows such a loss,
they are often unable to insure their own survival...The loss and human suffering of those whose culture has
been healthy and is suddenly attacked and disintegrated are incalculable .
Therefore, Davis and Zannis conclude, "One should not speak lightly of 'cultural genocide' as if it were a fanciful
invention. The consequence in real life is far too grim to speak of cultural genocide as if it were a rhetorical
device to beat the drums for 'human rights.' The cultural mode of group extermination is genocide, a crime. Nor
should 'cultural genocide' be used in the game: 'Which is more horrible, to kill and torture; or remove [the
prime cultural symbol which is] the will and reason to live?' Both are horrible."
Cultural violence= Extinction

Friedberg 01
Collective indifference to these conditions on the part of both white and black America is a poor reflection on the
nation's character. This collective refusal to acknowledge the genocide further exacerbates the aftermath in
Native communities and hinders the recovery process. This, too, sets the American situation apart from the German-Jewish situation: Holocaust denial is seen by most
of the world as an affront to the victims of the Nazi regime. In America, the situation is the reverse: victims seeking recovery are seen as assaulting American ideals. But what
is at stake today, at the dawn of a new millennium, is not the culture, tradition, and survival of one population on one continent on either side of the
Atlantic. What is at stake is the very future of the human species. LaDuke, in her most recent work, contextualizes the issues from a contemporary
perspective: Our experience of survival and resistance is shared with many others. But it is not only about Native people. . . . In the final analysis, the survival of Native America is
fundamentally about the collective survival of all human beings. The question of who gets to determine the destiny of the land, and of the people who live on it--those with the
money or those who pray on the land--is a question that is alive throughout society. 57 [End Page 367] "There
is," as LaDuke reminds us, "a direct relationship

between the loss of cultural diversity and the loss of biodiversity. Wherever Indigenous peoples still remain,
there is also a corresponding enclave of biodiversity." 58 But, she continues, The last 150 years have seen a great holocaust. There have been more
species lost in the past 150 years than since the Ice Age. (During the same time, Indigenous peoples have been disappearing from the face of the earth. Over 2,000 nations of
Indigenous peoples have gone extinct in the western hemisphere and one nation disappears from the Amazon rainforest every year.) 59 It
is not about "us" as

indigenous peoples--it is about "us" as a human species. We are all related. At issue is no longer the "Jewish question" or
the "Indian problem." We must speak today in terms of the "human problem." And it is this "problem" for which
not a "final," but a sustainable, viable solution must be found--because it is no longer a matter of "serial
genocide," it has become one of collective suicide. As Terrence Des Pres put it, in The Survivor: "At the heart of our problems is
that nihilism which was all along the destiny of Western culture: a nihilism either unacknowledged even as the
bombs fell or else, as with Hitler or Stalin, demonically proclaimed as the new salvation."
Cultural violence -> root cause of

genocide
Friedberg 01
Cogent arguments have been made to suggest that the
same notion of creating space for the "master race" is as germane to the
ideological framework of Hitler's Lebensraumpolitik as it is to the U.S. government's doctrine of Manifest Destiny: In
each instance, the extermination of "inferior races" is justified in the interest of making way for a "superior
race" of peoples. 31 According to [End Page 360] Hitler biographer John Toland, the Fhrer is known to have "expressed admiration for the
'efficiency' of the American genocide campaign against the Indians, viewing it as a forerunner for his own plans and
programs." 32 Even Steven Katz concedes that the "depopulation of the New World" was a "salient precursor" to the Nazi
Holocaust. 33 Thus, the American Holocaust might be viewed as the prototype for the extermination of the Jews in Europe. At the very least, the event
must be seen as a predecessor to the Nazi Holocaust. While Hitler's policy of Lebensraumpolitik has been vilified and condemned for the toll it took in terms of human lives--even
in the Historians' Debate, the essential criminality and moral reprehensibility of the Nazi regime was not challenged--heroes are made of men in America whose words were
inspired by the same kind of thinking and whose actions resulted in the murder of millions of human beings considered to be members of "inferior" civilizations. Theodore
Roosevelt, in The Strenuous Life, writes, in 1901. Of course our whole national history has been one of expansion . . . That the barbarians recede or
are conquered, with the attendant fact that peace follows their retrogression or conquest is due solely to the power of the mighty civilized races which have not lost the fighting
instinct, and which by their expansion are gradually bringing peace to the red wastes where the barbarian peoples of this world hold sway. 34Hannah Arendt, in the Origins of
Totalitarianism, identifies metaphysical Jew-hatred as one element in the "subterranean stream of Western history" that subsequently translated into the political anti-Semitic
consciousness in Europe and constituted the defining principle of Hitler's Nazi regime. 35 Similarly, Richard Drinnon argues that the
"national metaphysics of
Indian-hating was central to the formation of national identity and political policy in the United States ." 36 The crucial
issue at stake here is that, according to Drinnon's analysis, this national metaphysics of Indian-hating rested on the "collective refusal to conceive of Native Americans as persons."
37 Had the people of Europe--Jews and Gentiles alike--recognized these "barbarians" to be human entities and embraced them as siblings in the "family of man," they might well
have foreseen the fate that would befall civilized populations in Europe just a few short years later because, as Richard Drinnon points out in Facing West: The Metaphysics of
Indian-Hating and Empire Building: The
sober truth was that the white man's burden of Winning the West was crushing
global folly. The West was quite literally nowhere--or everywhere, which was to say the same thing. For Homer's Greeks and North American
tribal peoples alike, the West was the land beyond, Spiritland, the land of [End Page 361] mystery, of death and of life eternal. It was not a Dark and bloody
Ground to be "won." But for Anglo-Americans it was exactly that, the latest conquest. Yet how could they conclusively "win" it? If the West was at bottom a form of society [as
Winning the West amounted to no less than winning the

world. It could be finally and decisively "won" only by rationalizing (Americanizing, Westernizing,
modernizing) the world, and that meant conquering the land beyond, banishing mystery, and negating or
extirpating other peoples, so the world would be subject to the regimented reason of one settlement culture with its professedly self-evident middle-class values. 38
Hitler's Lebensraumpolitik was not without precedent or parallel. Four centuries after Columbus, the ideology of a master race had
firmly established itself on American soil.
James Turner contended in "The Problem of the West"] then on our round earth,
Cultural genocide -> bare life

Friedberg 01
Perplexing in this context is that Hitler's perception of the Jews as "life unworthy of living," that is, as "lice" or "bare life," is received with moral outrage in the scholarly
community and in public consciousness in the U.S. and elsewhere. But when Indians are placed on the same level of the "evolutionary scale" and assigned the same status in the
biopolitical order, it becomes a justifiable sacrifice made in the name of "progress." Hitler's willing executioners and the ordinary men and women of Germany had to be convinced
that the Jewish population was not human; they had, after all, for centuries prior, lived and worked side by side with these people who were systematically exterminated as "like
lice." Before the Final Solution could be implemented, the Jewish population of Europe had to be reduced to the level of "bare life." But
for the American settlers,

the notion that the life form to be clear-cut from the vast, "unpopulated" wilderness in order to make way for
their American way of life was somehow not human ranked among those truths held to be self-evident; the
"execrable race" of red men and women was viewed from the very onset as existing at the level of "bare life." And
yet, from a perspective that acknowledges the essential humanity of indigenous populations and the sophistication of the established forms of social organization, governance, and
religious ritual prevailing among the indigenous populations at the time of contact, it becomes clear that, while the Nazi Holocaust was indeed unique in scope and in kind to the
twentieth century, the
American Holocaust was, as Stannard has stated, "far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the
history of the world." 45 Fortunately, Hitler was stopped before he could consummate the Final Solution. But some contend that Uncle Sam's willing
executioners are still today engaged in the effort to eradicate what remains of the indigenous population in
North America. For others, the loss of Native lives and lifeways cannot be acknowledged as homicidal, genocidal, or suicidal because the "savage" is not--however
ostentatiously liberal-minded individuals and institutions in this country may contend otherwise--considered fully human: "we" are not related. While a revisionist narrative of the
West would attempt to suffuse its world-view with a politically correct moral underpinning by making superficial [End Page 363] linguistic concessions, no longer applying such
terms as "savage" and "primitive" to indigenous peoples, contemporary
scholarship still draws its insights and impulses from the

same body of research and the same doctrine of universal superiority it now seeks to disavow and revile. The
appearance of euphemisms such as "ethnocide" and "depopulation" applied to the genocide committed against
Native populations is just one index of the continued resistance to the notion that this devastation involves a
human tragedy. Nominally, indigenous peoples have been grudgingly adopted into the "family of man" in the prevailing paradigms of Western thought.
Phenomenologically, they are still today perceived not as human others, but in fact as a separate (and inferior) "species." Depending on one's interpretation of the Latin siluaticus
(of the wood; belonging to a wood), from which the term "savage" is derived, one might suspect that, in
the Western biopolitical order, the "savage

life" acquires the status of one less than bare life or Homo sacer. If that is the case, then what occurred in this country must be
viewed as a gigantic bonfire in which neither mice, lice, nor men, women or children were sacrificed and burned for the sake of clear-cutting
a space for the master race--what was sacrificed here were merely logs. Driftwood. Dead weight. Useless waste. In the world of the uniqueness proponents, the
"depopulation" of the New World is on a par with "deforestation."
Genocide first
ODonnell 02
ODonnell 02 (http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/23_2/07_TXT.htm)
Genocide is the most heinous crime that can be committed against a human population.39 In the famous words of the UN
General Assembly, genocide shocks the conscience of mankind.40 A mandate for its prevention and punishment has been
enshrined in a widely-ratified multilateral treaty.41 Genocides status as a jus cogen, or customary norm of international law from
which no derogation is permitted under any circumstances, is broadly accepted.42 Commentators have suggested that any list of
absolute rights should be short and relatively abstract.43 It nearly goes without saying that the right of a people to be free from
wholesale slaughter would top any such list.44 Given the near-universal consensus that the taking of innocent life is a
moral wrong, genocide stands alone as a wrong [*PG407]that actually multiplies a wrong, magnifying its infamy.45
The essence of genocides power is that it denies the very right to exist to entire groups of people based solely
upon their identity, making it at once selective in practice and universal in scope.46 Given genocides legal and moral
opprobrium, if freedom from it cannot be enumerated as an absolute right, then absolute rights do not exist.
***Biodiversity Advantage***
Bycatch Now, and bad

Chinook and chum salmon are caught in high numbers by the pollock fishery in the Bering Sea (NMFS 2009a,
2011a). These salmon are considered bycatch because they are a prohibited species within the pollock fishery
and so cannot be retained. These salmon are typically thrown back into the ocean already dead , or close to it.
Tribes are unhappy and dismayed about this massive waste of salmon, many of which would have returned to
rivers in the Bering Strait region, and tribes have been working to get the bycatch of salmon reduced. Genetic
research has shown that as much as 87% of Chinook salmon bycatch and 21% of chum salmon bycatch
originate from western Alaska stocks (e.g., Guthrie et al. 2012, Kondzela et al. 2012). Tribes consider both of these
estimates to be significant, in terms of Chinook and chum salmon fish that would have returned to western
Alaska river systems to assist in meeting escapement goals, for spawning, and to be caught by tribal members
for subsistence.
Bottom Trawling Now

The Northern Bering Sea Research Area (NBSRA) is an area from approximately St. Matthew Island north to
the Bering Strait, which has been temporarily closed to bottom trawl fisheries since 2008 (NMFS 2011b). The
NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) was tasked by the Council to draft a research plan for the NBSRA before it is
reopened to bottom trawl fisheries, or some other action is taken. This work has been on hold since June 2011 when the Council
directed the AFSC to compile background information on the northern Bering Sea, including previous and ongoing research, the
effects of bottom trawl studies, the results of community and science workshops held in 2010 and 2011, and other information that
was lacking in the outline of the draft plan (NMFS 2011c). The issue of bottom trawl fisheries potentially moving north
into the northern Bering Sea is of great concern to Bering Strait tribes, as are the NMFS-directed bottom trawl
research activities that took place inside the boundaries of the NBSRA in 2010 and additional research that may take place
within the area in the future (NMFS 2010b, Bullard 2010a).
Councils corporate now

Starkey 11
The NPFMC has 11 voting members including the ADF&G Commissioner, the Directors of the Washington and Oregon Fish
and Wildlife state agencies, and the Regional Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region Office. In
addition, the Governor of Alaska nominates 5 public members and the Governor of Washington nominates 2 public members. The
Secretary of Commerce appoints the 7 voting public members from those nominated by the Governors. Public members are
required to be knowledgeable regarding the conservation and management, or commercial or recreational harvest, of the fisheries
under the NPFMCs jurisdiction. The Secretary is to ensure a fair and balanced apportionment of the active
participants in the commercial and recreational fisheries. No mention is made of subsistence or traditional
fisheries or representatives from these interests, and there is no requirement for nominees to have knowledge of
indigenous fishing rights or practices. The Governor is to consult with representatives of the commercial and recreational
fisheries before making his nominations. There are also 4 non-voting seats on the NPFMC held by the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Coast Guard. As
apparently intended by the Magnuson Act, the process of nomination and appointment has resulted in a
NPFMC dominated by the commercial and recreational fisheries under its jurisdiction . The CDQ program generally
has a voting representative on the NPFMC; however, this is not a legal requirement. There is no voting member exclusively
representing subsistence fisheries or tribal governments.
Plan solves environment (mindset

shift)
Suagee 99
Program, Vermont Law School, South Royalton, Vermont. LL.M., American University, Washington College of Law, 1989; J.D., University of North Carolina.
The societies of the industrialized world have become like the cannibal in this story. Edward O. Wilson said, "In the
world as a whole, extinction rates are already hundreds or thousands of times higher than before the coming of
man. They cannot be balanced by new evolution in any period of time that has meaning for the human race."
n206 As noted earlier, in 1992, Professor Wilson predicted that a fifth or more of all species could become extinct, or doomed to
extinction, by the year 2020, and said that the primary cause is the loss of habitat due to human actions. n207 Existing patterns
of human behavior must change, and change quickly. Indian peoples can help bring about the needed change.
We can do it in a variety of ways, including using the courts to seek protection and restoration of places where
wildlife habitat is essential for the exercise of tribal rights. We can do it by bringing the wisdom of tribalelders
into federal decision-making processes. We can do it by sharing our stories with the larger American society through
television and movies and children's books. But we need to do it. Like the Peacemaker and the cannibal, we need to convert the
takers by helping them find wisdom and righteousness and strength within themselves. We need to help them find the wisdom and
righteousness and strength to leave room for the other living things with whom we share this Mother Earth.
Arctic Research I/L

Bering Strait tribes are extremely concerned about the implications and repercussions of the research the agency
conducts, particularly in the northern Bering Sea. Related to this, it is important to tribes that agency scientists
are aware of and acknowledge the implications of their research, rather than saying that it is simply research
and science, and that researchers have no control over how the results of their work will be used by the agency,
the fishing industry, or others (Raymond-Yakoubian 2010). In 2010 Bering Strait tribes passed formal resolutions
requesting the agency to postpone the bottom trawl survey until consultation was carried out. Tribes subsequently
passed resolutions stating that they were opposed to the expansion of bottom trawl fisheries into the northern
Bering Sea, in their traditional marine hunting territory and the critical habitat for many of the species they
depend on for subsistence. Many tribes are very disappointed and dissatisfied with how things have proceeded regarding the
NBSRA, and some have declared that they will no longer meet with the agency or share information with them.
Wolves Scenario
Suagee 99
Program, Vermont Law School, South Royalton, Vermont. LL.M., American University, Washington College of Law, 1989; J.D., University of North Carolina
When Idaho declined management responsibility, the Nez Perce Tribe stepped forward and offered to accept such responsibility.
n127 The Nez Perce Tribe had reservation lands in the area and treaty rights on federal lands in central Idaho where the wolves
were to be reintroduced. n128 In addition, unlike the federal officials, the Tribe was able to bring important attributes
to the table as they "lived in the area and understood [the] local sensitivities" [*518] regarding the reintroduction of
wolves. n129 In addition, like most Indian tribes, wolves hold cultural and religious importance for the Nez Perce.
Therefore, the Tribe believed they could play a major role in the reintroduction of the wolves. The Nez Perce Tribe developed
a wolf management plan for approval by FWS. n130 This marked the first time that the federal government had contracted
with an Indian tribe to manage the recovery of an endangered species. n131 The FWS retains oversight over the project, but the
FWS and Nez Perce Tribe are carrying out this project in a partnership. The Nez Perce Tribe's wildlife management blends
traditional wisdom with modern science. n132 When the wolves were first brought to central Idaho, a tribal elder sang a
religious song to welcome them, and later said that the experience had been "like meeting an old friend." n133 Unfortunately,
although the Tribe's program has been described as on its way to becoming one of the great success stories in wildlife
conservation, its prospects for success are now in jeopardy as a result of a lawsuit filed by opponents of the project. n134
Wolves are a keystone species
NWF 08
National Wildlife Federation, http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/pdfs/speciesatrisk.pdf, CS
Prior to being granted federal protection, wolves were killed by farmers and ranchers who were encouraged by
a federally sponsored wolf-extermination program. Today, the greatest threat to the wolf is still the
misconception that they endanger people and livestock. Wolves are considered both a keystone and umbrella
species.
Fish Decline kills billions

Science 02
Science, 11/8/2002. Poor to Feel Pinch of Rising Fish Prices,
TOKYO The first major attempt to project global supply and demand for fish has confirmed what many have long suspected:
Rising prices are likely to drive fish out of the reach of growing numbers of poor people who rely on the sea for their
protein. But, with several fisheries on the verge of collapse, some analysts believe that the study's dire projectionspresented
last week at the launching of a global research initiative on fisheries science and policymight in fact be too rosy. The analysis,
by agricultural economists in Penang, Malaysia, and in Washington, D.C., models fish supply and demand to 2020. Under the
most likely scenario, it says, prices for salmon and other high-value fish would rise 15%, and prices for low-end fish such as
milkfish and carp would increase by 6%. Fish meal prices, it estimates, would jump 18% to satisfy rising demand for feed for
cultured, carnivorous high-value fish (below). The consequences [of current trends] could be dire, depending on whether
supply gains are feasible, says Mahfuzuddin Ahmed, a co-author of the study, which was done by the Penang-based WorldFish
Center and the Washington, D.C.-based International Food Policy Research Institute. But a continuation of those gainswhich
have produced a sixfold rise in total fish catch since the 1950sis doubtful, says his boss, center director Meryl Williams, because
three-quarters of the current catch comes from fish stocks that are already overfished, if not depleted. Those [who study] the
population dynamics of fisheries would probably be pessimistic about supplies, she says. Fish now account for about 7% of the
total food supply, according to the center, and are the primary source of protein for roughly one-sixth of the world's
population. Yet fish consumption is generally overlooked in food supply models, which focus primarily on cereals and legumes.
Scientists hope to correct that oversight with Fish for All, an initiative to develop science-based policy alternatives for world
fisheries. Scientists, environmentalists, and industry representatives from 40 countries gathered in Penang last week for a meeting
to launch the effort, led by the WorldFish Center, formerly known as the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources. Both
the fish center and the policy institute are part of the World Bank-funded Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research
Fish k2 economy
Somma 03
Angela Somma, January 2003, Natural Resource Specialist THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF DEPLETING THE WORLD'S
OCEANS, http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0103/ijee/somma.htm
The fate of the earth's oceans is inextricably tied to U.S. economic and national security interests. The oceans provide a source
of employment and income for millions worldwide. When sustainable management of marine resources is
ignored, the long-term interests of coastal communities suffer and the economic engine upon which so many people
depend is undermined. In major fisheries around the world, critically important resources are being depleted,
and coastal economies threatened. Managing marine resources sustainably, however, will maximize economic return,
strengthening local communities and our national economy. Ineffective management and overfishing have caused the
fishing industry to underperform. In 1992, FAO estimated that worldwide revenue at first-hand sales was approximately $70
billion while the total operating cost for the world's fishing fleet was $85 billion. Thus, the fleet was operating at an annual deficit
of $15 billion. 5The operating deficit can be traced to marked growth in the world's fleet between 1979 and 1989 -- estimated by
FAO to have increased by 322 percent without a concomitant increase in the resource. 6 In fact, during this period world fisheries
harvests grew at only about half the rate as the fleets, causing overcapacity in the world's fishing fleet. Overcapacity in fisheries in
which anyone can participate often leads to "derby" fishing in which all the fishers attempt to catch as much as they can as quickly
as they can before the quota is reached. This often creates a temporary market glut and lowers prices for fishers while creating
longer-term supply problems for buyers. It also leads to overcapacity in the processing sector and reduces economic benefits to
consumers. Excessive by catch, which often accompanies overfishing, imparts economic costs on the sector as well. Those
economic costs include reduced food production in fisheries directed at the adult species of juveniles discarded in another
fishery, reduced employment in fisheries and processing plants, and corresponding losses to fishery-dependent
communities. The fishing sector is not the only sector to experience economic costs associated with overfishing.
There can be significant costs to the public as well. A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) found that the cost of fisheries services among the 30 OECD member governments (research, management,
and enforcement services) accounts for approximately 36 percent of total government financial transfers to the fisheries sector. 7
The cost of those services totaled approximately $2.5 billion in 1999. 8 It is difficult to know how much of this cost is attributable
to overfishing, but as stocks become overfished, management regulations generally become increasingly complex with
greater need for enforcement, thus increasing costs to the public sector to manage these dwindling resources. The costs
to the public of providing subsidies to the fishing sector are receiving ever-greater attention. Worldwide, subsidies to the fishing
sector are estimated to cost somewhere between $14 billion and $20 billion annually . 9 Subsidies that reduce fixed and
variable costs or increase revenues distort trade and undermine competition in global seafood markets. Because of subsidies, the
level of production is higher, resulting in decreases in prices. As a species becomes overfished, reduction in supplies can
eventually lead to higher prices.
GMOs Scenario
Loss of fish = GMOs
BBC 2k
BBC News, 9-23-00, GM solution to over-fishing, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/948307.stm
Genetically modified farmed-fish will feed the world by the year 2025 as global catches decline, predicts a US scientist. GM
fish farms will be the only way to supply enough seafood amid the continuing collapse of commercial marine
fisheries, believes Professor Yonathan Zohar, of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. He says biotechnology will
lead to stronger, faster-growing, more nutritious fish that can reproduce all year round. But critics argue that GM fish may
offer a temporary solution to providing food but will not address the problem of over-exploitation of our seas
and oceans. Declining stocks The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation reports that 60% to 70% of fisheries in the
world's oceans are threatened by over-fishing. The agency estimates that at some point between 2015 and 2025, half of all
fish consumed in the world will be farmed. New molecular and biotechnology tools will be required to bring fish
farming on a par with farming of other livestock, says Professor Zohar.
Extinction
PNS 2k
Purdue News Service, 1-30-2000, Genetically Modified Fish Could Wipe Out Natural Species http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0001a/transgenicfish.html
Researchers have found that releasing a transgenic fish to the wild could damage native populations even to the point
of extinction. A transgenic organism is one that contains genes from another species. The research is part of an effort to assess
the risks and benefits of biotechnology and its products, such as genetically modified fish. Purdue animal scientist Bill Muir and
biologist Rick Howard used minute Japanese fish called medaka to examine what would happen if male medakas genetically
modified with growth hormone from Atlantic salmon were introduced to a population of unmodified fish. The research was
conducted in banks of aquariums in a laboratory setting. The results warn that transgenic fish could present a significant
threat to native wildlife. "Transgenic fish are typically larger than the native stock, and that can confer an advantage in
attracting mates" Muir says. "If, as in our experiments, t he genetic change also reduces the offspring's ability to survive,
a transgenic animal could bring a wild population to extinction in 40 generations." Extinction results from a
phenomenon that Muir and Howard call the "Trojan gene hypothesis." By basing their mate selection on size rather than fitness,
medaka females choose the larger, genetically modified but genetically inferior medaka, thus inviting the hidden risk of extinction.
Biodiversity loss= Extinction

Santos 99
Santos 99; Baruch College Ecology Professor, The Environmental Crisis, p. 35-6
In view of their ecologic role in ecosystems, the impact of species extinction may be devastating. The rich diversity of
species and the ecosystems that support them are intimately connected to the long-term survival of humankind.
As the historic conservationist Aldo Leopold stated in 1949, The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not
television or radio but the complexity of the land organismsTo keep every cog in the wheel is the first precaution of intelligent
tinkering. An endangered species may have a significant role in its community. Such an organism may control
the structure and functioning of the community through its activities. The sea otter, for example, in relation to its size,
is perhaps the most voracious of all marine mammals. The otter feeds on sea mollusks, sea urchins, crabs, and fish. It needs to eat
more than 20 percent of its weight every day to provide the necessary energy to maintain its body temperature in a cold marine
habitat. The extinction of such keystone or controller species from the ecosystems would cause great damage. Its
extinction could have cascading effects on many species, even causing secondary extinction. Traditionally, species
have always evolved along with their changing environment. As disease organisms evolve, other organisms may evolve chemical
defense mechanisms that confer disease resistance. As the weather becomes drier, for example, plants may develop smaller,
thicker leaves which lose water slowly. The environment however is now developing and changing rapidly, but evolution is slow,
requiring hundreds of thousands of years. If species are allowed to become extinct, the total biological diversity on
Earth will be greatly reduced; therefore, the potential for natural adaptation and change also will be reduced,
thus endangering the diversity of future human life support systems.
***Solvency***
Plan modeled
Suagee 92
Suagee, J.D. at the University of North Carolina, 1992 Dean B., Self Determination for indigenous peoples at the dawn of the solar age, Spring/Summer, 25 U. Mich. J.L.
Reform 671
Knowledge of this historical context is also needed if the United States government or the American people or both are to become
forces for securing the human rights of indigenous peoples throughout the world. Two important lessons from the United
States' experience that should be shared with the rest of the world are that (1) policies of forced assimilation, such as
the policies of the allotment and termination eras, have yielded disastrous results; and (2) policies that support tribal selfgovernment can work, especially when they include the basic legal principle that tribes possess inherent sovereignty. After
more than two hundred years of relations with both federal and state governments, Indian tribal governments have earned the right
to be treated as permanent features in the American political landscape. In an era when many national governments treat
indigenous peoples as obstacles to progress and development, a country that considers itself a leader in the
international human rights movement should be able to acknowledge its history. We in the United States should
be willing to tell the rest of the world not to repeat our mistakes. We also should work to improve our model of
indigenous self-government, and we should share information about our successes with the rest of the world.
Indigenous peoples need for some states to serve as examples in respecting and protecting the human rights of
indigenous peoples. But, as discussed in the next part, respect for the human rights of indigenous peoples is not enough.
Indigenous peoples also need the states of the world to adopt models of development that do not cause the
destruction of the ecosystems on which the cultures of indigenous peoples depend.
Only feds solve (plenary power)

Suagee 99
Program, Vermont Law School, South Royalton, Vermont. LL.M., American University, Washington College of Law, 1989; J.D., University of North Carolina.,
The plenary power of Congress is a double-edged sword. Under the Constitution, the federal government is vested with
authority over relations with Indian tribes, authority which is exclusive, i.e., not shared with the states. n30 Under
the plenary power doctrine, the power of Congress exceeds the scope of its constitutional underpinnings, but has
nevertheless been upheld by the Supreme Court based on the duty of protection arising from the dependency
relationship with the tribes. n31 Congress often has used this plenary power to divest Indian tribes of rights and powers, and
the Supreme Court has never invalidated such an act of Congress. n32 On the other hand, the plenary power of Congress has been
used to prevent state governments from interfering with tribal self-government. In the American federal system, most of the
conflicts over which government has authority in Indian country are conflicts between the tribes and the states. The Supreme
Court has relied upon the plenary power doctrine in fashioning a principle that tribal law, carried out in a
framework of federal law, can preempt the field, leaving no room for the exercise of state authority . n33
Only feds solve, EEZ

Starkey 11
The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) is governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. It is one of eight regional management councils established under the Act to
manage federal fisheries in the 200-mile exclusive economic zone of the United States. It manages fisheries in
Alaska valued at over one billion dollars annually. These fisheries include the groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands; cod, pollock, flatfish, mackerel, sablefish and rockfish harvested by trawl, longline, jig and pot gear.
The NPFMC also manages halibut pursuant to an international halibut treaty between Canada and the U.S. The
state generally manages fisheries in marine waters that are within three miles from the shore, but some fisheries
cross state-federal jurisdiction and are to some degree jointly managed, such as salmon, crab and scallops.
Only feds solve (enforcement)

UCOCR 73
US Commission On Civil Rights 1973, (Staff Memorandum on the Constitutional Status of American Indians, Washington, D.C. March 1973.
http://www.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/Americas/civil.txt.)
A current major issue arising from the limitations on State authority due to quasi-tribal sovereignty is the hunting and fishing
rights controversy in the Northwest. It is well settled that a State cannot enforce its game and fish laws within the
boundaries of an Indian reservation.(31) However, the issue of State control over on-reservation hunting and
fishing should be distinguished from the question of the extent to which treaty rights prohibit States from
interfering with hunting and fishing by Indians off reservations. In a confusing decision the United States Supreme
Court recently held that treaty rights to "fish at all usual and accustomed places" may not be qualified by a State
but that the exercise of such rights is subject to reasonable State conservation legislation.(32)
Af k2 laundry list
The Bering Strait region of Alaska is the traditional territory of Iupiaq, Yupik, and St. Lawrence Island Yupik
peoples and is the contemporary home of 20 federally recognized tribes (see Fig. 1). The Alaska Native residents
of the Bering Strait are highly reliant on the natural resources of the region for their cultural, spiritual,
nutritional, and economic sustenanceparticularly marine resources. Kawerak is the Alaska Native nonprofit for the
Bering Strait region and collaborates with tribes in the region on many issues, including the marine policy and management issues
discussed here. Issues of concern to tribes
***A2s and Add Ons***
Identity Add On
Identity k2 cultural meaning
Andrews and Sutphen 03

Bridie Andrews, Associate Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University, and Mary P. Sutphen, journalist, 2003 Introduction, MEDICINE AND COLONIAL
IDENTITY
The undermining of this standpoint, this "place of overview" was the aim of the authors of the volume, but to the degree that they
were successful, it left scholars in a quandary. As George Marcus put it: how can ethnography "define its object of study in ways
that permit detailed, local, contextual analysis and simultaneously the portrayal of global implicating forces?"15 To translate this
problematic into the terms of our project, the crass lumping of colonial subjects by an imperial power and the local
subjectivity of individuals are two ends of the spectrum of perceived identity. At the one end we find historians writing
studies where diplomats play the starring roles, and at the other end, we find others trying to coax rebellious subalterns to speak
more loudly.16 Perhaps these two disjunctures are less serious than Marcus suggests: in studying local cultures, we often
find that global forces are turned to unexpected ends. Detailed field study makes possible new understandings of the
transnational context. This is true of several of the studies presented here . Identity, then, is a kind of cultural commodity,
important as a political or economic asset. While individuals or groups define their identities in particular ways,
government officials, researchers, neighbors, or television reporters may impose different labels. They may
choose from a long list of social variables: nationality, class, race, gender, age, sexuality, occupation, or marital
status, all of which may change, either by choice or fiat. Thus a wife who kills her husband after a violent disagreement
may be regarded as amurderess, as a victim of domestic abuse, or simply as a widow. The advantages to the woman of claiming
the identity of victim may make the difference between life imprisonment or immediate freedom. Clearly, all ascriptions of
identity status depend upon the context of the observer and the subject; they are open to multiple
interpretations; and they are negotiable. For all of these reasons, identity is a problematic category of historical
analysis. Even when silences in the historical record do not force historians to focus on one aspect of identity, in practice it is still
very difficult to write history that does justice to more than a couple of strands of identity. Should region trump class, and sex
trump religion? Our understanding of these categories is in itself a modern phenomenon, and as outlined above, controversies over
their importance are recent and rarely integral to the historical record. Scholarly studies reify the separation of particular strands of
identity, as we can see in the thorough Manchester University Press series, History and Related Disciplines: Select Bibliographies,
where one of the recent volumes organizes studies under the apparently exclusive headings of race, or gender, or religion, etc."
Other volumes are devoted entirely to a single characterizing identity.18
Identity k2 value to life
Champagne 06
Duane Champagne, UCLA Department of Sociology Professor, Ph.D Harvard University, Social Change and Cultural Continuity among Native Nations, pg 14
Cultural identity reflects the cultural standards of a society to which one subscribes. Michael Green describes
cultural identity as an identity that "gives the individual a sense of a common past and of a shared destiny."8
Tribes have the commonalties of having to deal with the effects of colonialism (racism; prejudice; loss of culture,
land, and population) and originally having members who were exclusively indigenous peoples. Indians who only recognize
this general definition of Indians' common past and who utilize a spectrum of tribal symbols and cultural mores to construct their
version of an Indian, subscribe to a pan-Indian cultural identity. Green also asserts that culture "unifies and integrates the
individuals, gives them a sense of belonging, and a sense of their own uniqueness as a people. Further, a culture
provides the individuals within that culture a way of life that is constitutive of what it means to be a human
being."9 Using this definition of culture, Indians who practice their specific tribal traditions and are profoundly
affected socially, religiously, and politically by those traditions are often referred to as culturally Indian .
Individuals who adhere to the cultural norms of two groups may refer to themselves as bicultural. Ethnic or group identity are
terms often interchangeable with cultural identity. Borrowing from Rose, ethnicity is a "group classification in which the members
share a unique social and cultural heritage passed on from one generation to the next." It does not have a biological basis.
Traditional Indians adhere to the culture of their tribe by speaking the language, practicing religious ceremonies, and living among their tribespeople. They might use the term ethnic to mean that both their racial background and
cultural adherence are Indian. Other individuals who claim to be Indian but who have no cultural connection to their tribe may
also refer to themselves as ethnically Indian. American Indian ethnic or cultural identities have a variety of meanings
attached to them by Indian and non-Indian societies and by individuals who claim them; they are salient terms
that change with the economic, political, and social tides.
Dont trust their authors

Friedberg 01
A "color line" had been drawn, and it was clear that, in the national consciousness as in public policy, "Native
Americans were natives and not Americans . . . the irreducible prerequisite of being an American, was to be of
European stock." 39 The color line drawn between the Children of Light, the light of the Gospel, of Enlightenment institutions, law and order, progress, philanthropy,
freedom, Americanization, modernization, forced urbanization . . . and the Children of Darkness, they were"savages" who stood in the way of the redemption and the
rationalization of the world . . . unmistakably shaped national patterns of violence by establishing whom one could kill
under propitious circumstances and thereby represented a prime source of the American way of inflicting death .
40 The hidden narratives of the master race and Manifest Destiny governing our understanding of American history distort perceptions of our own historiography. The ideology of
Manifest Destiny--the fantasy and the fancy of the master race--is transferred from one generation to another so that there is no need for the kind of propaganda machinery required
to make "willing executioners" of "ordinary men" and women in Germany. Americans, in their drive to forge "one Nation under God," fought with "God on their side." 41
Stannard, in this regard, explains that the
Eurocentric racial contempt for the indigenous peoples . . . reflected in scholarly

writings of this sort is now so complete and second nature to most Americans that it has passed into popular lore
and common knowledge of the "every schoolboy knows" variety. No intent to distort the truth is any longer necessary. All that is required, once the model
is established, is the recitation of rote learning as it passes
Ethics k2 policy
Norvedt 03
Norvedt, P. March 2003 P. Norvedt is part of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo, the Netherlands. Scientific contribution: Levinas, justice and health care.
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. Volume 6, Number 1. ISSN: 1572-8633, Springer Netherlands, pp. 31-32
Here Levinas follows the Platonic idea of the Good that is beyond Being, the Good that transcends ontology (Peperzak, 1997).
Levinas tries to give an account of a basic existential demand, a lived fundamental obligation that should be the
basis of all moral theory and moral action (Critchley, 2002, p. 34). In one phrase Levinas spells out the order of morality:
The other concerns me from the first. Here fraternity precedes the commonness of a henus. My relationship with the other
as neighbor gives meaning to my relations with all the others [m.i.] (Levinas, 1974, p. 159). This quote in fact contains the core
of Levinasian philosophy. The meaning of claiming that all relations stem from relationships to the other are twofold:
First, it contains his idea that ethics is first philosophy, that ethical signification is not only beyond cognition, but that it
is also the precondition for human understanding and relationships. Ethics is an awakening of consciousness, the
first conversation, the presupposition of human community. Second, it contains the idea that love comes before
justice, that the basic moral demand is the irreducible responsibility and love for the particular other person, which exceeds
impartial justice. In fact, according to Levinas, justice is primary economy, it is politics, comparing, weighing and
measuring. Justice is necessary, but it belongs to the State, and it must be controlled by the ethical.
Responsibility for the Other is the primary event, the scene of morality, on which justice relies. Levinas often cites
the famous statement of Alyosha in Dostojevskijs Brothers Karamazow: We are all guilty for everything and everyone, and I
more than all the others (Levinas, 1988, p. 105). Hence , responsibility is pervasive. It is everywhere, extremely
demanding, and always my affair. Crudely, there is a strand in Levinas thinking where justice is always there, all
encompassing. Is Levinas then close to Singer? No. Charity and justice are not on the same level: Love is originary. Justice
comes from love. Love must always watch over justice (Ibid, p. 108). But how can one then talk about a Levinasian ethics for
this world, a world in which responsibilities have to be shared and in which they inevitably conflict? And how can one assess the
relevance of Levinas for any particular situations in health care? To answer this question it is necessary to investigatemore closely
how Levinas theorizes the relationship between care and justice, between the Other and the Third.
Human Rights bad

Mutua 02
Makau Mutua, Professor of Law and Director, Human Rights Center, SUNY-Buffalo School of Law, 2002 Terrorism and Human Rights: Power, Culture, and Subordination,
Buffalo Human Rights Law Review
The international law of human rights, arguably the most benign of all the areas of international law, seeks the
universalization of European cultural, philosophical, and political norms and social structures. It is largely a
culturally specific doctrine which is expressed in the idiom of the [*5] same culture. The human rights corpus is driven -normatively and descriptively --by what I have called the savage-victim-savior metaphor, in which human rights is a
grand narrative of an epochal contest that pits savages against victims and saviors . 5 In this script of human rights,
democracy and western liberalism are internationalized to redeem savage non-Western cultures from
themselves, and to alleviate the suffering of victims, who are generally non-western and non-European . The
images of the savage Taliban, the Afghan victims mired in pre-modernity, and the American saviors put the metaphor in sharp
relief. In the human rights idiom, North America and the European West --acting generally under the guise of
the United Nations and other multilateral agencies -- are the saviors of hapless victims whose salvation lies only
in the transformation of their savage cultures through the imposition of human rights. The human rights corpus is
presented as a settled normative edifice, as a glimpse of an eternal, inflexible truth. As a result, attempts to question
or reformulate a truly universal regime of rights, one that reflects the complexity and the diversity of all cultures, have generally
been viewed with indifference or hostility by the official guardians of human rights. This refusal to create a culturally complex
and diverse human rights corpus is all the more perplexing because the view that the human rights doctrine is an ideology with
deep roots in liberalism and democratic forms of government is beyond question. In fact, an increasing number of scholars now
realize that the cultural biases of the human rights corpus can only be properly situated within liberal theory and philosophy.
Understood from this position, human rights are an ideology with a specific cultural and ethnographic fingerprint.
The human rights corpus expresses a cultural bias, and its chastening of a state is therefore a cultural project. If culture is not
defined as some discrete, exotic, and peculiar practice which is frozen in time but rather as the dynamic totality of ideas, forms,
practices, and structures of any given society, then human rights is an expression of a particular European-American culture. The
advocacy of human rights across cultural borders is then an attempt to displace the local non-Western culture
with the "universal" culture of human rights. Human rights therefore become the universal culture. It is in this
sense that the "other" culture, that which is non-European, is the savage in the human rights corpus and its
discourse.
A2: Casinos
Dont solve poverty
Blakeley and Park 04

John Blakeley and Jenny Kim Park, September 2004, the Office of General Counsel, [Broken Promises: Evaluating the Native American Health Care System] September 2004
(http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/nahealth/nabroken.pdf) Page 46
Poverty and substandard housing go hand in hand. One way to improve housing conditions in Indian Country is to reduce the high
poverty and unemployment rates and provide more economic opportunities on the reservations. Unfortunately, very few
economic opportunities exist on the reservations. Despite the common belief that gambling casinos on
reservations have brought increased economic opportunities for Native Americans, studies indicate that only a
few tribes have benefited from gaming. Data show that gaming on the reservations has yet to reduce poverty
among Native Americans.
Numbers misleading
Blakeley and Park 04

John Blakeley and Jenny Kim Park, September 2004, the Office of General Counsel, [Broken Promises: Evaluating the Native American Health Care System] September 2004
(http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/nahealth/nabroken.pdf) Page 96
Because the Native American gaming industry has grown to encompass 220 tribes, 377 facilities, and more than $16 billion per
year in revenue, a perception exists that Indians have been given everything they need and that federal handouts
are no longer necessary. This perception is inaccurate on several levels. First, it ignores the federal trust
obligation discussed earlier in this report. Second, it overstates the magnitude and impact of gaming profits. A
report prepared for the American Indian Program Council provides a clearer picture of the impact of casinos in
Indian Country: Only half of all tribes have casinos. Thirty-nine casinos produced the majority of casinogenerated income. More specifically, 39 percent of casinos accounted for 66 percent of revenue. Casinos in five
states, with more than half the total Native American population, accounted for less than 3 percent of all casino
revenue. Casinos in three states, with only 3 percent of the Native American population, accounted for more
than 44 percent of all casino revenue. Dozens of casinos barely break even because of inadequate size or location.
A2: Nuke war (Kato)
Nuke Extinction rhetoric bad

Kato 93
Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, 1993 (Masahide "Nuclear Globalism: Traversing Rockets, Satellites, and Nuclear War via the Strategic Gaze,"
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. Page 347)
Nuclear war has been enclosed by two seemingly opposite yet complementary regimes of discourse: nation-state
strategic discourse (nuclear deterrence, nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and so on) and extra-nation state (or
extra-territorial) discourse (antinuclearism, nuclear criticism, and so on). The epistemology of the former is entrenched in
the possible exchange(s) of nuclear warheads among nation states. The latter which emerged in reaction to the
former, holds the possibility of extinction at the center of its discursive production. In delineating the notion of
nuclear war, both of these discourses share an intriguing leap: from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the
possible nuclear explosions in an indefinite-yet-ever-closer-to-the-present-future. Thus any nuclear explosions
after World War II do not qualify as nuclear war in the cognitive grid of conventional nuclear discourse.
Significantly, most nuclear explosions after World War II took place in the sovereign territories of the Fourth
World and Indigenous Nations. This critical historical fact has been contained in the domain of nuclear testing.
Such obliteration of the history of undeclared nuclear warfare by nuclear discourse does not merely posit the
deficiency of the discourse. Rather, what it does is reveal the late capitalist form of domination, whereby an
ongoing extermination process of the periphery is blocked from constituting itself as a historical fact .
Nuke war= Non-unique

Kato 93
Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, 1993 Masahide "Nuclear Globalism: Traversing Rockets, Satellites, and Nuclear War via the Strategic Gaze,"
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. Page 347
Let us recall our earlier discussion about the critical historical conjecture where the notion of strategy changed its nature and became deregulated/dispersed beyond the
boundaries set by the interimperial rivalry. Herein, the perception of the ultimate means of destruction can be historically contextualized, The
only instances of real

nuclear catastrophe perceived and thus given due recognition by the First World community are the explosions
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which occurred at this conjuncture. Beyond this historical threshold, whose meaning is relevant only to the interimperial rivalry, the
nuclear catastrophe is confined to the realm of fantasy, for instance, apocalyptic imagery. And yet how can one deny the crude fact that nuclear war
has been taking place on this earth in the name of nuclear testing since the first nuclear explosion at
Alamogordo in 1945? As for 1991, 1,924 nuclear explosions have occurred on earth. The major perpetrators of nuclear warfare are
the United States (926 times), the former Soviet Union (715 times), France (192 times), the United Kingdom (44 times), and China (36 times). The primary targets of
warfare (test site to use Nuke Speak terminology) have been invariably the sovereign nations of Fourth World and Indigenous
Peoples. Thus history has already witnessed the nuclear wars against the Marshall Islands (66 times), French Polynesia (175 times), Australian
Aborigines (9 times), Newe Sogobia (The Western Shoshone Nation) (814 times), the Christmas Islands (24 times), Hawaii (Kalama Island, also known as Johnston Island) (12
times), the Republic of Kazakhstan (467 times), and Uighur (Xingjian Province, China) (36 times). Moreover, although I focus primarily on nuclear tests in this article, if we are
to expand the notion of nuclear warfare to include any kind of violence accrued from the nuclear fuel cycle (particularly uranium mining and disposition of nuclear wastes), we
nuclear
war, albeit undeclared, has been waged against the Fourth World, and Indigenous Nations. The dismal consequences of
intensive exploitation, low intensity intervention, or the nullification of the sovereignty in the Third
World produced by the First World have taken a form of nuclear extermination in the Fourth World and
Indigenous Nations. Thus, from the perspectives of the Fourth World and Indigenous Nations, the nuclear catastrophe has never been the unthinkable single
catastrophe but the real catastrophe of repetitive and ongoing nuclear explosions and exposure to radioactivity. Nevertheless, ongoing nuclear wars have been
subordinated to the imaginary grand catastrophe by rendering them as mere preludes to the apocalypse. As a
consequence, the history and ongoing processes of nuclear explosions as war have been totally wiped out from
the history and consciousness of the First World community. Such a discursive strategy that aims to mask the real of nuclear warfare in the
must enlist Japan and the European nations as perpetrators and add the Navaho, Havasupai and other Indigenous Nations to the list of targets. Viewed as a whole,
domain of imagery of nuclear warfare in the domain of imagery of nuclear catastrophe can be observed even in Stewart Firths Nuclear Playground, which extensively covers the
history of nuclear testing in the Pacific: Nuclear explosions in the atmosphere were global in effect. The winds and seas carried radioactive contamination over vast areas of
the fragile ecosphere on which we all depend for our survival and which we call the earth. In preparing for war, we were poisioning our planet and going into battle against nature
the problematic division/distinction

between the nuclear explosions and the nuclear war is kept intact. The imagery of final nuclear war narrated
with the problematic use of the subject (we) is located higher than the real of nuclear warfare in terms of
discursive value. This ideological division/hierarchization is the very vehicle through which the history and the
ongoing processes of the destruction of the Fourth World and Indigenous Nations by means of nuclear violence
are obliterated and hence legitimatized. The discursive containment/obliteration of the real of nuclear warfare
has been accomplished, ironic as it may sound, by nuclear criticism. Nuclear criticism, with its firm commitment
to global discourse, has established the unshakable authority of the imagery of nuclear authority of the imagery
of nuclear catastrophe over the real nuclear catastrophe happening in the Fourth World and Indigenous almost
on a daily basis.
itself. Although Firths book is definitely a remarkable study of the history of nuclear testing in the Pacific,
Lol great power war

Kato 93
Reflecting the historical context mentioned above, in which nuclear critique gained unprecedented popularity, one can say that
nuclear criticism has been shaped and structured by the logic of superpower rivalry. The superpower rivalry has distracted
our attention from the ongoing process of oppression/violence along the North-South axis. After all the
superpower functioned complementarily in solidifying the power of the North over the South . Therefore, nuclear
criticism has successfully mystified the North-south axis as much as the superpower rivalry. Just as the faade of superpower
rivalry (or interimperial rivalry in general for that matter) gave legitimation to the strategy of global domination of
capital, nuclear criticism has successfully legitimated the destruction of periphery through nuclear violence .
What is significant here is to locate the discourse in a proper context, that is, the late capitalist problematic. To do so, we need to
shift our focus back to the questions of strategy and technology discussed earlier. Let us recall our discussion on the genealogy of
global discourse. The formation of global discourse has been a discursive expression of the formation of technological interfaces
among rockets, cameras, and media furnished by the strategy of late capitalism. In a similar vein , nuclear criticism, whose
epistemological basis lies in the exchange of nuclear ballistic missiles between superpowers, emerged from yet
another technostrategic interface. Significantly, the camera on the rocket was replaced by the nuclear warhead, which gave
birth to the first Inter Continental ballistic Missile in the late 1950s both in the United States and the former Soviet Union. Thus,
the discourse of nuclear criticism is a product of technostrategic interfaces among rocket, satellite, camera, photo image, and
nuclear warhead. I next decipher the discourse of global capitalism (globalism) interwoven throughout nuclear criticism by linking
the technostrategic interface to the formation of discourse.
Lol extinction
Kato 93
Nuclear criticism finds the likelihood of extinction as the most fundamental aspcct of nuclear catastrophe . The
complex problematics involved in nuclear catastrophe are thus reduced to the single possible instant of extinction . The task of nuclear critics is
clearly designated by Schell as coming to grips with the one and only final instant: human extinction- whose likelihood we are chiefly interested in finding out about.
Deconstructionists, on the other hand, take a detour in their efforts to theologize extinction. Jacques Derrida, for example, solidified the prevailing mode of representation by
constituting extinction as a fatal absence: Unlike the other wars, which have all been preceded by wars of more or less the same type in human memory (and gunpowder did not
mark a radical break in this respect), nuclear war has no precedent. It
has never occurred, itself; it is a non-event. The explosion of

American bombs in 1945 ended a classical, conventional war; it did not set off a nuclear war. The terrifying
reality of the nuclear conflict can only be the signified referent, never the real referent (present or past) of a
discourse or text. At least today apparently. By representing the possible extinction as the single most important
problematic of nuclear catastrophe (posing it as either a threat or a symbolic void), nuclear criticism disqualifies
the entire history of nuclear violence, the real of nuclear war is designated by nuclear critics as a rehearsal
(Derrik De Kerkhove) or preparation (Firth) for what they reserve as the authentic catastrophe. The history of nuclear violence offers, at best, a
reality effect to the imagery of extinction. Schell summarized the discursive position of nuclear critics very succinctly, stating that nuclear catastrophe
should not be conceptualized in the context of direct slaughter of hundreds of millions of people by the local effects. Thus the elimination of the history of
nuclear violence by nuclear critics stems from the process of discursive delocalization of nuclear violence.
Their primary focus is not local catastrophe, but delocalized, unlocatbale, global catastrophe. The elevation of
the discursive vantage point deployed in nuclear criticism through which extinction is conceptualized parallels
that of the point of the strategic gaze: nuclear criticism raises the notion of nuclear catastrophe to the absolute
point from which the fiction of extinction is configured. Herein, the configuration of the globe and the conceptualization of extinction reveal
their interconnection via the absolutization of the strategic gaze., The in the same way as the fiction of the totality. In other words, the image of the globe, in the final instance, is
nothing more than a figure on which the notion of extinction is being constructed. Schell, for instance, repeatedly encountered difficulty in locating the subject involved in the
conceptualization of extinction, which in turn testifies to its figural origin: who will suffer this loss, which we somehow regard as supreme? We, the living, will not suffer it; we
will be dead. Nor will the unborn shed any tears over their lost chance to exist; to do so they would have to exist already. Robert Lifton attributed such difficulty in locating the
subject to the numbing effect of nuclear psychology. In other words, Lifton tied the difficulty involved here not to the question of subjectivity per se but to psychological
defenses against the overwhelming possibility of extinction. The hollowness of extinction can be unraveled better if we locate it in the mode of perception rather that in nebulous
nuclear psychology: hollowness of extinction is a result of confusing figure with the object. This phenomenon, called the delirium of interpretation by Virilio, is a mechanical
Hence, the
obscurity for the subject in the configuration of extinction results from the dislocation of the subject by the
technosubject functioning as a meaning-generating machine.
process in which incorporeal existence is given a meaning via the figure. It is no doubt a manifestation of technosubjectivity symptomatic of late capitalism.
A2: Native Secession

Bradford 05
Bradford, Chiricahua Apache and Associate professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 2005 William, Beyond Reparations, Ohio State Law Journal, 66 Ohio St. L.J.
Thus, an Indian tribe with a population, territorial base, government, and the capacity to enter into international
relations could, in theory, declare independence and gain international recognition . n447 Arguably, Indian nations, as
a matter of international law, continue to possess the right that existed prior to contact with European discoverers to create their
own forms of organization without reference to the states in which they are now situated. n448 Some Indian rights advocates
suggest that only full tribal sovereignty in the form of independent nation-states recognized as such by other members of the
international community can overcome the disabilities imposed by federal Indian law. n449 However, although the history of
U.S.-Indian relations strongly suggests that Indian interests and those of the U.S. majority are not often commensurable, any
proposal to compromise the territorial integrity of the U.S. is unlikely to be met with anything but the most hostile of responses in
majoritarian political circles. The suggestion that tribal self-determination be bolstered with legal significance evokes reactions to
"Indian separatism" verging on enmity, even [*93] when offered by the U.S. President. n450 A U.S. Senator angrily proclaims
that "[c]itizens of the [U.S.] should not have their rights limited by separate governments within the [U.S.]" n451 In short, full
independence is likely not negotiable, but a significant degree of political and legal autonomy may be . In fact,
most tribes do not define secession and independent statehood as the desired end-state of a program of selfdetermination, but rather as an intermediate status that would devolve degrees of political and legal power that
has been arrogated to the U.S. and the States and allow tribes to "challenge . . . intrusions across the full
spectrum of locations at which . . . injury is felt." n452 A pragmatic approach, organized around issue-area
autonomy, that would allow Indians to "recuperate" traditional laws and modalities of governance n453 and
assert alternative institutional structures more consonant with their cultural imperatives represents an approach
to self-determination that demands a lesser quantum of independence while departing sufficiently from the
current paradigm to satisfy most tribes. n454
A2: Tribes Bad

Robideau 6
ROBERT ROBIDEAU is co-director of the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee, 1.27.6, Socialist Worker, "One of many racists out to defraud Native tribes",
http://socialistworker.org/2006-1/573/573_04_Robideau.shtml
When tribal people stand up in self defense, as they did in the 1970s, when thousands marched across North America on the
Trail of Broken Treaties to Washington, D.C., to protest tribal corruption sanctioned by federal policies and
congressional acts, we were met with clubs and violence. Before federal treaties removed tribes from their traditional
lands, they lived a rich and abundant life for thousands of years. Since then, congressional acts have kept tribes locked in
poverty and ill health to the present day. The federal government's programs enacted by Congress have
whittled away millions of areas of reservation land for profit, and continue an ongoing policy that sanctions
thefts of Indian land and natural resources. The gaming industry represents a continuation of congressional
manipulations that erode tribal sovereignty and continue to plague the quality of life for Native people. We have
fought the land rush, gold rush and oil rush. Now comes the gaming rush, which has created more corruption in our
tribal governments and animosity among Native Americans. Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, and it
has only brought money-mongering politicians scurrying in from Washington, D.C., sniffing out casino profits. Governmental
reports alleging that gaming revenue has been used to "reduce poverty and unemployment rates, build schools
and hospitals, paved road and construct sewer systems, preserve and revitalize cultural traditions and build
responsive and responsible government institutions such as tribal courts" are a smokescreen for the United
States to escape its treaty obligations. If these treaties had been honored decades ago, the Native American
communities would have enjoyed the same opportunities and the same standard of living as mainstream
America. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, with a higher poverty rate than any other
progressive nation. Native Americans rank the poorest in health and economy due to federal "Indian policies ."
A2: K
Perm
Butler 04
Judith Butler, UC Berkeley, in 2004. Precarious Life: the Powers of Mourning and Violence, page 48)
We could have several engaged intellectual debates going on at the same time and find ourselves joined in the
fight against violence, without having to agree on many epistemological issues. We could disagree on status and
character of modernity and yet find ourselves joined in asserting and defended the rights of indigenous women
to health care, reproductive technology, decent wages, physical protection, cultural rights, freedom of assembly .
If you saw me on such a protest line, would you wonder how a postmodernist was able to muster the necessary agency to get
there today? I doubt it. You would assume that I had walked or taken the subway! But the same token, various routes lead us
to politics, various stories bring us onto the street, various kinds of reasoning and belief. We do not need to
ground ourselves in a single model of communication, a single model of reason, a single notion of the subject
before we are able to act. Indeed, an international coalition of feminist activists and thinkers a coalition that affirms the
thinking of activists and the activism of thinkers and refuses to put them into distinctive categories that deny the
actual complexity of the lives in question will have to accept the array of sometimes incommensurable
epistemological and political beliefs and modes and means of agency that bring us into activism .
State Good
Moore 96
Richard Moore, Political Scientist, 1996 [THE FATEFUL DANCE OF CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY, p. http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberjournal/frm00089.html].
Maastricht, Scottish independence, ethnic or regional autonomy, stronger international "peace" arrangements --
these are all developments which might have much to be said for them taken in isolation, or if implemented
within a democratic framework. But within the context of the corporate elite storming the Bastille of democracy, it is
necessary to re-examine all changes and "reforms" from the perspective of whether they strengthen or weaken our fundamental
democratic institutions. If we don't look at the big picture, then we'll be like the frog who submits to being cooked -- the victim of
a sneaky slow-boiling policy. The fact is that the modern nation state is the most effective democratic institution
mankind has been able to come up with since outgrowing the small-scale city-state. With all its defects and
corruptions, this gift from the Enlightenment -- the national republic --is the only effective channel the people
have to power- sharing with the elites. If the strong nation-state withers away, we will not -- be assured --enter an
era of freedom and prosperity, with the "shackles of wasteful governments off our backs". No indeed. If you
want to see the future --in which weak nations must deal as-best-they-can with mega-corporations -- then look at
the Third World.
A2: Colonialism
Gupta and Ferguson 92
Akhil, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University; James, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine; Beyond Culture: Space, Identity, and the Politics
of Difference, Cultural Anthropology 7.1, p. 13-14
Changing our conceptions of the relation between space and cultural difference offers a new perspective on recent debates
surrounding issues of anthropological representation and writing. The new attention to representational practices has already led to
more sophisticated understandings of processes of objectification and the construction of other-ness in anthropological writing.
However, with this said, it also seems to us that recent notions of "cultural critique" (Marcus and Fischer 1986) depend on a
spatialized understanding of cultural difference that needs to be problematized. The foundation of cultural critique-a dialogic
relation with an "other" culture that yields a critical viewpoint on "our own culture"-assumes an already existing world of many
different, distinct "cultures," and an unproblematic distinction between "our own society" and an "other" society. As Marcus and
Fischer put it, the purpose of cultural critique is "to generate critical questions from one society to probe the other" (1986:117); the
goal is "to apply both the substantive results and the epistemological lessons learned from ethnography abroad to a renewal of the
critical function of anthropology as it is pursued in ethnographic projects at home" (1986:112). Marcus and Fischer are sensitive to
the fact that cultural difference is present "here at home," too, and that "the other" need not be exotic or far away to be other. But
the fundamental conception of cultural critique as a relation between "different societies" ends up, perhaps against the authors'
intentions, spatializing cultural difference in familiar ways, as ethnography becomes, as above, a link between an unproblematized
"home" and "abroad." The anthropological relation is not simply with people who are different, but with "a different society," "a
different culture," and thus, inevitably, a relation between "here" and "there." In all of this, the terms of the opposition ("here" and
"there," "us" and "them," "our own" and "other" societies) are taken as received: the problem for anthropologists is to use our
encounter with "them," "there," to construct a critique of "our own society," "here. " There are a number of problems with this way
of conceptualizing the anthropological project. Perhaps the most obvious is the question of the identity of the "we" that keeps
coming up in phrases such as "ourselves" and "our own society." Who is this "we"'! If the answer is, as we fear, "the West," then
we must ask precisely who is to be included and excluded from this club. Nor is the problem solved simply by substituting for
"our own society," "the ethnographer's own society." For ethnographers, as for other natives, the postcolonial world is an
interconnected social space; for many anthropologists-and perhaps especially for displaced Third World scholars-the identity of
"one's own society" is an open question. A second problem with the way cultural difference has been conceptualized within the
"cultural critique" project is that, once excluded from that privileged domain "our own society," "the other" is subtly nativizedplaced in a separate frame of analysis and "spatially incarcerated" (Appadurai 1988) in that "other place" that is proper to an
"other culture." Cultural critique assumes an original separation, bridged at the initiation of the anthropological fieldworker. The
problematic is one of "contact": communication not within a shared social and economic world, but "across cultures" and
"between societies."
Identity Politics Good

Bickford 97
Susan Bickford, Associate Professor of Political Science, received her A.B. from Bryn Mawr College and her Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota, 1997, Anti-Anti-Identity
Politics: Feminism, Democracy, and the Complexities of Citizenship,
The ressentiment argument suggests that pursuing this question through regulatory means is likely to be self-subversive. Certainly,
any effective approach to political change must examine the possibility that particular strategies for emancipatory political action
may end up undermining the freedom of those for whom emancipation is intended. Tapper and Brown make a distinctive
contribution to this analysis with their argument that certain forms of political action run the risk of further entrenching
normalizing conceptions of identity and the power of regulatory apparatuses to enforce and police them. Investigations of these
sorts of risks have been part of feminist discussions for many years, particularly with respect to the dangers and necessity of
working for emancipatory change through the state, and Brown's nuanced analysis of the masculinist dimensions of state power
will undoubtedly be central to future discussions (1995, chap. 7).9 However, to root feminist practices or other kinds of identity
politics primarily in ressentiment is a much less justifiable move. I do not necessarily want to argue that the logic of ressentiment
is not evident in contemporary sociopolitical life; it is one contestable interpretation of the desires at work in particular identitybased claims. I do contest it as a primary characterization of the political uses of identity, which is to say that I reject it as a
wholesale description of contemporary social movements concerned with identity. (Brown does say that the story of identity
politics could be told in other ways, but implies that such alternatives miss the critical dynamics of identity-based claims [1995,
61-62].) I think what is necessary is a more variegated political analysis, one that takes seriously the multiple sources of the
discursive production of identity. The kinds of sources not evident in an analysis like Brown's are the ones that I discuss below,
that involve the conscious articulation by political actors of the uses and complications of "politicized identity." I point to these
articulations not to suggest that they are epistemologically privileged or that they somehow trump other explanations, but rather
that they play a role in the discursive production of identity-they are (widely read) attempts to materialize in the world positive
accounts of identity, ones that do not ignore its location in and production by broader social forces. They are articulations of the
links between identity and politics that do not preclude discussions of the claims made in identity's name.
A2: tribes/indians/natives/etc. K
dErrico 98
Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department at the University of Massachusetts. 1998. http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/name.html)
Native American Indian Studies is a mouthful of a phrase. I chose it because I want people to think about names. I want to provoke a critical awareness of history and culture. In
the study of Indigenous Peoples, I don't want the question of names to slide by, to be taken-for-granted. 1 Most of us know the story about how the Peoples of the "new world"
came to be called "American Indians." Columbus (his name gives away his secret: Cristobal Colon; the Christian colonizer) thought he was going to India and, being a vain and
self-important man, insisted he had found it. So he named the people he met "Indians." The "American" part would come later, after everyone but Columbus had admitted his error,
and the land had been named for another Italian navigator, Amerigo Vespucci. "American Indians" derives from the colonizers' world-view and is therefore not the real name of
Why should we use any name given to a people by someone other

than themselves? 2 On the other hand, why shouldn't we use it? Almost everybody in the world knows the name and to
whom it refers. It is commonly used by many Indigenous Peoples in the United States, even today. It is the legal
definition of these Peoples in United States law. Some people get upset about "American Indian" because of its association with Columbus. There is an
anyone. It is a name given to people by outsiders, not by themselves.
equally serious dilemma with the use of "Native American," which came into vogue as part of a concern for "political correctness." The latter was an effort to acknowledge ethnic
diversity in the United States while insisting on an over-arching American unity. Groups became identified as hyphen-American. Thus, African-American, Irish-American, ItalianAmerican, and so on. For the original inhabitants of the land, the "correct" term became Native-American. The word "native" has a generic meaning, referring to anyone or
anything that is at home in its place of origin. "Native" also has a pejorative meaning in English colonization, as in "The natives are restless tonight." From an English perspective
(and, after all, we are talking about English words), "native" carries the connotation of "primitive," which itself has both a generic definition, meaning "first" or "primary," and a
pejorative use, meaning "backward" or "ignorant." And, as we have seen, "American" derives from that other Italian. So "Native American" does not avoid the problem of naming
from an outsider's perspective.
Concern for political correctness focuses more on appearances than reality. As John Trudell observed
at the time, "They change our name and treat us the same." Basic to the treatment is an insistence that the original inhabitants of the land are not
permitted to name themselves. As an added twist, it seems that the only full, un-hyphenated Americans are those who make no claim of origin beyond the shores of this land. Many
of these folk assert that they are in fact the real "native" Americans. We have to discard both "American Indian" and "Native American" if we want to be faithful to reality and true
to the principle that a People's name ought to come from themselves. The consequence of this is that the original inhabitants of this land are to be called by whatever names they
give themselves. There are no American Indians or Native Americans. There are many different peoples, hundreds in fact, bearing such names as Wampanoag, Cherokee,
But the conundrum of names doesn't end

there. Some of the traditional or "real" names are not actually derived from the people themselves, but from
their neighbors or even enemies. "Mohawk" is a Narraganset name, meaning "flesh eaters." "Sioux" is a French corruption of an Anishinabe word for "enemy."
Seminole, Navajo, Hopi, and so on and on through the field of names. These are the "real" names of the people.
Similarly, "Apache" is a Spanish corruption of a Zuni word for "enemy," while Navajo is from the Spanish version of a Tewa word. If we want to be fully authentic in every
instance, we will have to inquire into the language of each People to find the name they call themselves. It may not be surprising to find that the deepest real names are often a
The important thing is to

acknowledge the fundamental difference between how a People view themselves and how they are viewed by
others, and to not get hung up on names for the sake of "political correctness." In this context, the difference between
"American Indian" and "Native-American" is nonexistent. Both are names given from the outside. On the other hand, in studying the
situation and history of the Original Peoples of the continent, we do not need to completely avoid names whose
significance is understood by all. Indeed, it may be that the shortest way to penetrate the situation of Indigenous
Peoples is to critically use the generic name imposed on them. "Native American Indian Studies," then, is a way
to describe an important part of the history of "America," of the colonization of the "Americas." It is a part of
world history, world politics, world culture. It is a component of "Indigenous Peoples Studies." By using this
terminology, we aim for a critical awareness of nationhood and homelands, of Indigenous self-determination . It is
word for "people" or for the homeland or for some differentiating characteristic of the people as seen through their own eyes.
sometimes noted how far advanced Indigenous Peoples in Latin and South America and Canada are in thinking about their nationhood, as compared to Native Peoples inside the
The
substitution of "Native American" for "American Indian" may actually deepen the problem. Everyone knows
the Indigenous Peoples are not Indians. Not so many know they are also not Americans . A survey of American Indian college
United States. A major reason for this disparity is the apparent capturing of Indigenous self-understanding in the United States (and not only in American history classes).
and high-school students, reported in Native Americas [Winter, 1997], indicated that more than 96% of the youth identified themselves with their Indian nation, and more than 40%
identified themselves solely in those terms. Only a little more than half identified themselves as American citizens. This survey is an example of the usefulness of the "incorrect"
label "Indian" to explain something significant about indigenous self-identification.
Marxism Bad
Barsh 88
Russel Lawrence, summer 1998, American Indian Quarterly 12.3, Contemporary Marxist Theory and Native Reality, p. 205-206, University of Nebraska Press,
In principle Marxism and American Indian traditional values would appear fundamentally opposed in three
interrelated respects: Marxism's emphasis on materialism (both in the sense of objectivity and as an objective of
society), and its derivative hostility to nature and to culture. Dunbar-Ortiz (1984:140, 181) admits that "Indians often
perceive that progressive movements only use them and their struggles opportunistically, to make points about the evils of
capitalism," and condemn socialism "because it is seen as a Western philosophy like colonialism and capitalism." North American
Indians are not alone in this perspective. Many Latin American Indians regard demands that they merge into the class
consciousness of the general national proletariat as a ploy to integrate them further into an exploitative economy-and to protect the
interests of landlords and capitalists (Smith 1985:15). Russell Means has argued (1983:24-26) that each new European
ideology-Christianity, Science, Capitalism-has "despiritualized" society further, and energized ever-greater
European territorial expansions. "[E]very revolution in European history has served to reinforce Europe's tendencies and
abilities to export destruction to other peoples." Marxism has been no different in this respect, for it "offers to take
wealth from the capitalist and pass it around, but in order do so, Marxism must maintain the industrial system"
on which capitalist wealth depends. Indians would have to become part of this system to participate in a Marxist
revolution, and that would destroy their distinct cultural identities. Vine Deloria has agreed (1983:114- 15, 122) that
Marxism is "Western religion dressed in economistic clothing," offering the world the promise of a transcendent "redemption."
Like capitalists, Marxists believe that Man can recreate himself and become God by subjugating nature, and like Christians they
are "aggressively missionary-minded" (ibid. 132). Marxism is inherently Eurocentric, adds Churchill (1983:146), for it
assumes that "all ideas, no matter what the claims of their proponents, can be traced to European origins, and if not Marxist, they
must be bourgeois" and therefore unacceptable. In fact , all European ideologies share the notion, unacceptable to
Indians, that "the more compulsive a culture can become in terms of gathering up and rearranging material, the
more 'advanced' it is considered to be" (ibid. 144). It is precisely this preoccupation with satisfying physical needs that
explains the centrality of "alienation" in Marxist, Christian and capitalist thought (Deloria 1983:114-15). The only genuine cure
for alienation is to accept the spiritual dimension of human life as complementary to the material.
A2 Cap K
Link turn
Churchill 93
Ward ,Co-director of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, associate professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado/Boulder, Struggle for the Land,
1993, p. 418
There is no indication whatsoever that a restoration of indigenous sovereignty in Indian Country would foster class stratification
anywhere, least of all in Indian Country. In fact , all indications are that when left to their own devices, indigenous
peoples have consistently organized their societies in the most class-free manner. Look to the example of the
Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy). Look to the Muscogee (Creek) Confederacy. Look to the confederations of
the Yaqui and the Lakota, and those pursued and nearly perfected by Pontiac and Tecumseh. They represent the very essence
of enlightened egalitarianism and democracy. Every imagined example to the contrary brought forth by even the
most arcane anthropologist can be readily offset by a couple of dozen other illustrations along the lines of those I
just mentioned.
No Link
Hall and Fenelon 04
Thomas, Department of Sociology and Anthropology at DePauw University, James, Department of Sociology at California State University The Futures of Indigenous Peoples:
9-11 and the Trajectory of Indigenous Survival and Resistance http://jwsr.ucr.edu/
Even though resistance to incorporation is old, survival of indigenous groups remains problematic. This survival is one of two
persisting puzzles: 1) the persistence of ethnic groups and 2) the persistence of indigenous groups. Both are distinctive in that they
are organizations not based on capitalist relations. Let us hasten to say, before someone jumps up to beat us about the head and
shoulders with the primordialist or essentialist bludgeons, that we claim neither. Rather, we claim that both types of groups
have their fundamental social links around kinship and community, irrespective of how they make their livings.
Here we must confront a basic misunderstanding by Marx, that ties of common work experiencesrelations of
productionare often not sufficiently powerful to overcome completely ties of kinship and face-to-face
community. This is why both nations and movements adopt metaphors of kinship to build solidarity; or to invert Benedict
Anderson, that is why the imagined community, the nationstate, must be imagined. This is not to gainsay that such a
transformation might happen, but rather to note that it has not happened completely. When these ties of kinship
and community coincide with ways of making a living, they become extremely powerful in binding people
together and in maintaining a sense of solidarity. This is precisely what happens within most indigenous communities.
Even where members participate in the wider capitalist economy and its wage-labor processes, they remain tied to their
indigenous communities. Thus, it is no accident that the most successful of such groups are ones with a continuously existing land
baseeven if it is a land base from which they have become widely dispersed. In the homeland, means of making a living, or of
surviving, are tied to that land base: tribal identities linked to reservations in the U.S.; to traditional lands elsewhere. Phrased
alternatively land still maintains for many indigenous peoples meanings that preceded what Polanyi called the Great
Transformation. Again, we are not asserting some sort of primitiveness, but alternative ways of viewing land, not as a
commodity, but as something much broader. This comes out again and again in the resistance statements of indigenous peoples,
especially those called Indians on the North and Central American continents.
Perm
Cleaver 97
Harry of U of Texas, Nature, Neoliberalism and Sustainable Development: Between Charybdis & Scylla? http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/faculty/Cleaver/port.html
From my point of view, one of the most attractive things about Zapatista thinking and politics is just this emphasis on multiplicity, on the power of collective bodies and on diverse
paths or lines of flight that these bodies can trace into the future.30 Two
great mistakes in the Western revolutionary tradition have been

the obsession with totalization and the idea that system must follow system. Revolutionaries, despite their
rejection of capitalism's imperial efforts to absorb the world and impose a universal hegemony, have still
thought the future in terms of unity and counter-hegemony. Many Marxists have believed that just as a unifying
capitalist system followed feudalism, so must some unifying system called socialism (or communism) be
constructed to replace capitalism. Many radical environmentalists, while condemning the destructiveness of
capitalism's imposed unity, think in terms of bio-systems, of a holistic Gaia. To use Marcos' metaphor of mirrors, such conceptions,
even in the intellectual form of the dialectic, or the spiritual form of Goddess worship, never escape an endlessly repeated mirroring of the past in which the best you get is
inversion (e.g., public instead of private ownership, Mother Nature instead of God-the-Father) but no liberation of human society from a single hegemonic framework for the
organization of life, no liberation of humans or the rest of Nature from the imposition of singular measures of value (e.g., money or labor). To see that mirrors can be set aside and
newness crafted links the Zapatistas' vision to the best of contemporary Western thought, to a certain anti-dialectical tradition of philosophy, to the embrace of difference within
The implications of this line of

thinking are at least two-fold: first, recognizing that we can reject the normally inescapable framework of the
economy (capitalism) means that we are freed to see what alternatives are already being elaborated, and second,
freed from the search for a single comprehensive alternative, we can take a more enjoyable phenomenological
and experimental approach to the study of and participation in the crafting of alternatives . Unlike Odysseus, we can thank
contemporary feminism, to autonomist Marxism and to the most interesting biocentric explorations of deep ecologists.31
Circe sweetly for her "roasted meat and good red wine" and sail off into the sunset on courses of our own choosing. Whether we sail in search of Cames' Isle of Love or follow
Odysseus to Lisbon or head off into completely unknown waters, we are truly free to choose. We can even, like Old Man Antonio, simply paddle our log canoe into the middle of a
quiet mountain lake, under a full moon, have a smoke and tell old tales for each other's amusement and edification.32 To conclude. We
must find ways to link the

emerging alternative new approaches to redefining and organizing the genesis and distribution of "wealth" and
to crafting new relationships among humans and between them and the rest of the universe in ways that are
capable of linked or complementary action. There are many on-going experiments around the world whose experiences and creativity can be shared. This
does not mean unity for socialism or any other singular post-capitalist "economic" order, but rather the building of cooperative interconnections among diverse projects. Nor does it
mean a delinked and divided localism. It means putting together a new mosaic of interconnected alternative approaches to meeting our needs and elaborating our desires. It means
inventing new politics that welcome differences but provide processes of interaction which minimize antagonism.
A2: Give Back the Land
Turn: cycles of violence

Bradford 05
Chiricahua Apache and Associate professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 2005 (William, Beyond Reparations, Ohio State Law Journal, 66 Ohio St. L.J. )
Still, while JAR is the most normatively attractive of the three theoretical clusters, JAR theory is not the final stop on the
theoretical journey to justice for Indians. JAR theory is susceptible to criticism on several grounds. As compelling as the argument
that non-Indian land owners are obligated to vacate their entitlements in favor of the descendants of their Indian predecessors-intitle may be, principles of equity, as JAS theory is quick to assert, should proscribe the wholescale evacuation of millions of acres
of land and the forced relocation of innocent and newly-homeless non-Indians to places uncertain. Even if equity
alone is not sufficient to counsel prudence, the prospect that non-Indians threatened in the security of their
property interests might organize to induce political action resulting in further abridgement of Indian resources
and rights n340 must be accounted for in any theory of Indian justice. If the only remedy for a [*68] past injustice is a present
injustice, a perpetual cycle of bloody conflict over land is inevitable. n341 However, the most radical of JAR theorists are
practically oblivious to the broad externalities the restorative element of their philosophy might spawn: despite warnings that it is
now much too late to "give back Manhattan," n342 some insist that nothing short of the dissolution of the U.S. will suffice if we
are to "tak[e] seriously . . . morality and justice." n343 If politics is the art of the possible, n344 a theory that insists on the
dismemberment of the modern-day U.S. or other forms of "radical social surgery" n345is too fantastic to be given serious
consideration as a political proposal.
Turn: backlash
Bradford 05
Chiricahua Apache and Associate professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 2005 (William, Beyond Reparations, Ohio State Law Journal, 66 Ohio St. L.J.)
One of the most difficult stages in applying JAI theory will be the process of land restoration. Scholars have posited that the
diffusion of transnational rights- based arguments claiming the sanctity of private property and objections to unjust enrichment
may have generated a more favorable political and legal climate for restitution of Indian lands. n410 However, even if preceding
stages in JAI commit the U.S. and its people in theory to do "justice," it will prove far more difficult in practice to reach an
agreement with Indian tribes as to what measures must be implemented to yield a "just" result, and still more difficult to cobble
together legislation implementing agreed-upon measures without catalyzing opposition . For much of the non-Indian
majority, a land restoration agenda resonates not as the legal obligation of a constitutional republic descended
heavily upon prior sovereigns but rather as an existential threat. Indeed, non-Indians are Americans too, and
they have nowhere to go if transformations in land tenure regimes evict them from their homes. Broaching the
subject of land restoration with a non-Indian can trigger defensive backlash: as a white businessman huffed, "I
didn't persecute anybody at Plymouth Rock . . . This is the 1990's. We didn't do anything to them, and we don't
owe them anything." n411
Reconciliation better
Bradford 05
Chiricahua Apache and Associate professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 2005 (William, Beyond Reparations, Ohio State Law Journal, 66 Ohio St. L.J.)
The final stage of JAI theory is distinguished from the preceding stages in that it imposes a duty not upon the U.S., but upon
Indian people. The execution of the first six stages of JAI will "portend[] changes in power and well- being" n477 for some nonIndians, and may well compromise the universalist approach to conceiving of, promoting, and protecting rights. n478 JAI will
therefore invite [*101] contestation over its form, pace, and scope. n479 However, if the U.S. acknowledges, recognizes
responsibility for, and repairs the gross injustices suffered by Indians over the course of its creation and
expansion, JAI obligates Indians to find it in their hearts and minds to forgive. If the U.S. restores a meaningful
measure of land to Indian tribes and amends its legal and political order to ensure respect for and protection of
fundamental Indian rights to self- determination, a new regime of peace and justice worthy of emulation and
export must be rewarded with the most precious gift Indians can bestow: forgiveness. By forgiving the U.S. and
all its people in a solemn ceremony n480 broadcast globally to symbolize the dawn of the new relationship,
Indians will finally be allowed to heal, and all Americans will be released from the chains of history and freed to
forge a better tomorrow. The U.S. and Indian tribes are not only intertwined geographically and historically,
they are interdependent. Indian autonomy and prosperity on the one hand, and U.S. legitimacy and global
leadership on the other, are inseverable, with each a necessary condition for the full realization of the other . n481
Just as the political and economic development of its "domestic dependent nations" is tied to U.S. leadership of
the global political economy, so also is the moral legitimacy of the U.S. linked to its respect and promotion of the
rights of Indians to self- determine. If U.S.-Indian relationships advance on the basis of a recognition of, and
respect for, mutual sovereignties, with disputes [*102] resolved not by coercion and domination, but by
negotiation and harmonization, a new era of just peace, worthy of emulation and export, will follow .
Only legal reform solves

Bradford 02
Assistant professor of Law, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana , 2002 William, With a very great blame on our Hearts, American Indian Law Review, 27 Am. Indian L.
Rev.)
Nevertheless, even if the non-Indian majority would reject the American Myth in the interest of mending national
fences, the path to Indian redress winds through terrain unmapped heretofore. Compensation and apologies,
gestures potentially part of an amicable settlement, are not germane to the resolution of Indian claims for
injustices that cannot be remedied save by reinvestiture of lands and sovereignty in self-determining Indian
tribes. n70 This requires not merely an abstract acknowledgment of the value of pluralism but a comprehensive
program of legal reform that dispenses with doctrines and precedents perpetuating the denial of the human
rights of Indian tribes and people. n71 As law, more than any other social variable, has reproduced the
subordination of Indians in the United States, n72 legal reform occupies a central position in the claim for
Indian redress. n73 [*18] In short, proponents of Indian redress must not only displace a flawed version of
history: they must articulate a proposal for remediation that transports the American people far beyond the
strictures of existing law to enable the peaceful restoration of Indian lands and powers of self-government. n74
Such a transformative mission cannot be accomplished by positing Indians and the non-Indian majority as adversaries, as would
reparations; rather, redress of Indian claims and the healing of the American nation -- crucial foci of the drive toward perfection -necessitate dialogue, reconciliation, and joint authorship of a future history of peace, harmony, and justice. n75
A2: Topicality
A2: Substantially means a number

First, their interpretation is bad: Substantially cant be defined as a number or percentage
WORDS & PHRASES 60

1960, no page. (DRGCL/A37)
The only qualification as to the size or portion of the part lost is that it must be substantial; and as the legislature has not defined
the lost part in any other terms it cannot be said that by "substantial" it meant more than one half" or "substantially all" of
the affected phalange, because such construction cannot be applied to humanitarian legislation.
And, the definition of substantial must be determined on a case by case basis
WORDS & PHRASES, Vol. 40A, 2002, p. 464. (DRGCL/A38)
Cal. 1956. "Substantial" is it relative term, its measure to be gauged by all the circumstances surrounding the matter in
reference to which the expression has been used.-Atchison, 'I'. & S. F. IZy. Co. v. Kings County Water Dist., 3(12 P.2d 1, 41
Ca1.2J 140.
Thus, I offer the following counter definition: Substantially is a significant change
US Legal 11 (http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/materially-and-substantially-changed/)
Materially and substantially changed is a phrase commonly used in the context of support determinations in domestic relations
law, as well as various other contexts. There is no precise definition of this subjective term, but it is generally interpreted as a
change which is significant and has a noticeable impact on the current situation. It is a change which is important in terms of
value, degree, amount, or extent
A2: increase means pre-existence

First, their definition is bogus: Increase doesnt require pre-existence
Reinhardt 5 (U.S. Judge for the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Stephen, JASON RAY
REYNOLDS; MATTHEW RAUSCH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.;
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees., lexis)
Specifically, we must decide whether charging a higher price for initial insurance than the insured would otherwise have been
charged because of information in a consumer credit report constitutes an "increase in any charge" within the meaning of FCRA.
First, we examine the definitions of "increase" and "charge." Hartford Fire contends that, limited to their ordinary definitions,
these words apply only when a consumer has previously been charged for insurance and that charge has thereafter been increased
by the insurer. The phrase, "has previously been charged," as used by Hartford, refers not only to a rate that the consumer has
previously paid for insurance but also to a rate that the consumer has previously been quoted, even if that rate was increased
[**23] before the consumer made any payment. Reynolds disagrees, asserting that, under [*1091] the ordinary definition of
the term, an increase in a charge also occurs whenever an insurer charges a higher rate than it would otherwise have
charged because of any factor--such as adverse credit information, age, or driving record 8 --regardless of whether the
customer was previously charged some other rate. According to Reynolds, he was charged an increased rate because of his
credit rating when he was compelled to pay a rate higher than the premium rate because he failed to obtain a high insurance score.
Thus, he argues, the definitions of "increase" and "charge" encompass the insurance companies' practice. Reynolds is correct.
Increase" means to make something greater. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) ("The action,
process, or fact of becoming or making greater; augmentation, growth, enlargement, extension."); WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD
DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (3d college ed. 1988) (defining "increase" as "growth, enlargement, etc[.]"). "Charge"
means the price demanded for goods or services. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) ("The price
required or demanded for service rendered, or (less usually) for goods supplied."); WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY
OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (3d college ed. 1988) ("The cost or price of an article, service, etc."). Nothing in the definition of
these words implies that the term "increase in any charge for" should be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate
that an individual has previously been charged.
And, counter interpretation: Increase is to make greater
MLA 11 (Increase, Modern Language Association, July 12, 2011,Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/increase)
to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to: to increase taxes.
A2: Development
Counter interp: development means preserving, the aff is the heart of the topic
Obama 10
July 19, 2010 Executive Order 13547 --Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-stewardshipocean-our-coasts-and-great-lakes
This order also provides for the development of coastal and marine spatial plans that build
upon and improve existing Federal, State, tribal, local,

and regional decision making and planning processes. These regional plans will enable a more integrated, comprehensive, ecosystem-based,
flexible, and proactive approach to planning and managing sustainable multiple uses across sectors and improve the conservation of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.
Sec. 2. Policy. (a) To achieve an America whose stewardship ensures
that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe
and productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security of
present and future generations, it is the policy of the United States to: (i) protect, maintain, and restore the health and biological diversity of ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes ecosystems and resources; (ii) improve the resiliency of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, communities, and economies; (iii) bolster the conservation and
sustainable uses of land in ways that will improve the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems; (iv) use the best available science and knowledge to inform decisions
affecting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes, and enhance humanity's capacity to understand, respond, and adapt to a changing global environment; (v) support sustainable,
safe, secure, and productive access to, and uses of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes; (vi) respect and preserve our Nation's maritime heritage, including our social,
cultural, recreational, and historical values; (vii) exercise rights and jurisdiction and perform duties in accordance with applicable international law, including respect for and
preservation of navigational rights and freedoms, which are essential for the global economy and international peace and security; (viii) increase scientific understanding of ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems as part of the global interconnected systems of air, land, ice, and water, including their relationships to humans and their activities;
(ix) improve our understanding and awareness of changing environmental conditions, trends, and their causes, and of human activities taking place in ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes waters; and (x) foster a public understanding of the value of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes to build a foundation for improved stewardship.
And, our interp is key to core education

KLC 98
INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE FOR DEVELOPMENT A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION November 4, 1998 Knowledge and Learning Center Africa Region World Bank
http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/ikrept.pdf
Indigenous knowledge provides the basis for problem-solving strategies for local communities, especially the poor. It
represents an important component of global knowledge on development issues. IK is an underutilized resource in the
development process. Learning from IK, by investigating first what local communities know and have, can improve
understanding of local conditions and provide a productive context for activities designed to help the
communities. Understanding IK can increase responsiveness to clients. Adapting international practices to the local
setting can help improve the impact and sustainability of development assistance. Sharing IK within and across
communities can help enhance cross-cultural understanding and promote the cultural dimension of development
A2: Natives =/= USFG

We meet: Indian reservations are geographically in the United States
Counter Interpretation: United States includes all areas under U.S. jurisdiction
Rainey 95
John, U.S. District Judge, Donald Ray Looper, Individually and On Behalf of His Firm's Clients, Plaintiff, v. William C. Morgan, Department of the Treasury United States
Customs Service, and All Unknown Individuals and Agencies Involved in the Search of a Briefcase at Inter-Continental Airport in Houston, Texas, Defendants, 1995 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 10241, Lexis
The term "United States" means the United States and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.
And, I meet
Free Legal Encyclopedia no date
Native American Rights Federal Power Over Native American Rights, http://law.jrank.org/pages/8749/Native-American-Rights-Federal-Power-over-Native-AmericanRights.html#ixzz21IeEqN5L
the
government retains the ultimate power and authority to either abrogate or protect Native American rights. This
Although Native Americans have been held to have both inherent rights and rights guaranteed, either explicitly or implicitly, by treaties with the federal government,
power stems from several legal sources. One is the power that the Constitution gives to Congress to make regulations governing the territory belonging to the United States (Art.
IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), and another is the president's constitutional power to make treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2). A more commonly cited source of federal power over Native American
affairs is the COMMERCE CLAUSE of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "Congress shall have the Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3). This
clause has resulted in what is known as Congress's "plenary

power" over Indian affairs, which means that Congress has the ultimate right to pass legislation governing
Native Americans, even when that legislation conflicts with or abrogates Indian treaties. The most well-known case supporting
this congressional right is Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903), in which Congress broke a treaty provision that had guaranteed that no more
cessions of land would be made without the consent of three-fourths of the adult males from the Kiowa and Comanche tribes. In justifying this abrogation, Justice EDWARD D.
WHITE declared that when "treaties were entered into between the United States and a tribe of Indians it was never doubted that the power to abrogate existed in Congress, and
that in a contingency such power might be availed of from considerations of governmental policy."
Antiracist Education Good

The neg interpretation creates a topic where we can literally NEVER discuss how minority groups are effect by policy
which is a uniquely bad form of learning
Doane 06
What is Racism? Racial Discourse and Racial Politics Ashley (Woody) Doane* (University of Hartford) Critical Sociology, Volume 32, Issue 23; pub. 2006
At the beginning of the twenty-rst century, racial oppression remains a substantial barrier to the exercise of citizenship rights and the pursuit of social justice in the United States.
Contemporary American society can be described as a racialized social system (Bonilla-Silva 1997), in which social institutions and social hierarchies are profoundly inuenced
by socially dened racial categories. The persistence of substantial economic and social inequality along racial lines is supported by
racialized language (Bonilla-Silva 2001; Fields 1990). Historically,

dominant racial ideologies in the United States have served to explain or legitimize conquest and dispossession, enslavement, exclusion,
discrimination, and the continuing existence of racial stratication (Doane 2003). Dominant ideologies are in turn challenged by
racial ideologies generalized belief systems that explain social relationships and social practices in
counterideologies, which attempt (with varying degrees of success) to redene and eventually overturn the existing racial order. Consequently, racial ideologies and racial
politics are in a state of constant ux, as intellectuals and social movements challenge and defend the status quo. This political struggle is played out via racial
discourse, which I dene as the collective text and talk of society with respect to issues of race. If racial ideologies can be viewed as global systems of thought, then racial
discourse is the arena in which political/ideological struggle occurs. On one hand, discourses shape the mental models, or common sense beliefs,
through which individuals interpret social reality; on the other hand, they collectively reinforce or transform ideologies. Through racial discourse, individuals
and groups frame racial issues as they strive for ideological and political advantage. In essence, racial discourse is a form of propaganda
(Fields 1990:110112) in which social actors employ rhetorical strategies in order to make claims and promote a particular interpretation of a social issue. Successful claims
making enables practitioners to mobilize supporters, attract adherents, and neutralize or discredit political opponents. Discourse is not merely communication
or debate, it is an attempt to inuence both the rules of the game and others perceptions of social reality. Racial politics
is not a pluralistic process, for discourse is inextricably intertwined with issues of power. Dominant groups enjoy disproportionate access
to the vehicles of transmission for discourse, including government, educational institutions , and the media (van Dijk 1997).
Turn, af key to fairness and education

Aloi 05
Dec. 13, 2005 Educator Grande wants to rethink U.S. democracy in accounting for treatment of Native Americans By Daniel Aloi, writer for the cornel chronicle, reporting on
public remarks made by critical educator Sandy Grande http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Dec05/Grande.dea.html
Author and educator Sandy Grande wants to see the teaching of American history reframe the nation's identity as a democracy in order to consider its legacy of genocide and
colonization. Her proposal to radically rework education in America from an ideological standpoint has been bolstered by recent events that, she says, underscore America's history
of colonialism and its treatment of Native Americans. "American Indian tribes -- as internal sovereigns -- are viewed as inherently destabilizing to democracy, defying the principle
of America as one people, one nation," said Grande, an associate professor of education at Connecticut College, in her lecture, "At the Crossroads of Democracy and Sovereignty:
The Indigenization of America," on Dec. 1 at Cornell University's A.D. White House. Cornell's American Indian Studies Program hosted Grande on campus Dec. 1-2. " The
United States is a nation defined by its original sin: the genocide of American Indians -- and everything afterwards [is] just
another chapter in the fall from grace," she said. "One of the questions that dominates throughout is whether it's possible for democracy to grow from the seeds of
tyranny -- if the good life can be built upon the deaths of thousands." Grande provided a litany of recent events including Hurricane Katrina and the response of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency ("a monstrous natural disaster which exposed an even greater national disgrace -- centuries of indifference toward poor
Americans, African Americans, disabled and elderly Americans"); "post-9/11 imperialism"; a police raid on the Naragansett reservation in
Connecticut in a challenge to sovereignty; "and on the public school frontier, the infiltration of intelligent design, Pat Robertson and the slowly vanishing line
between church and state." She said she had noticed such threads as "a continual undermining of women and people of color" and increased
corporate and governmental opposition to tribal recognition. She set out to connect official post-9/11 statements about terrorism and patriotism to "the
pernicious evidence of colonialism masked as benevolent democracy." "I saw a kind of synchronicity," Grande said. "And while they seemed disparate, they were
all related. And all roads seemingly leading to Indian country." The aftermath of Katrina weighed heavily in her examples. "The last time thousands of
people were forced to relocate under military command was in 1838," she said, referring to the "Trail of Tears" in which nearly 4,000 Cherokees died while traveling 1,000 miles
on foot from Georgia to Oklahoma. Grande's lecture was based upon her 2004 book "Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought" (Rowman & Littlefield). The
book engages a conversation between critical, feminist, indigenous and Marxist theories of education and Native American perspectives, exploring the tensions and intersections
between them. "The primary project is decolonization," she said of her proposal. "If we seek a turn toward genuine democracy, it will be
imperative for schools to be reimagined as sites for social transformation. The imperative before us -- particularly indigenous
scholars -- is to engage a process of unthinking our colonial roots and rethinking democracy ." Indigenous peoples, she said, don't view
colonization as "just a class thing, a race thing, a liberal thing, a conservative thing. The sad reality is colonialism is all of these things, the whole of its power greater than the sum
of its parts." In her Dec. 2 seminar in Caldwell Hall, Grande spoke on "Whitestream Feminism and the Colonialist Project: Toward a Theory of Indigensta ." She weighed feminist
theory based primarily on gender inequality against the real lives of American Indian women, who are subject not to a universal patriarchy but to the historical and material
implications of colonization.
Four implications to this card

1.) No education takes place in the neg interpretation because learning about native issues is a precondition to all other
education
2.) REAL fairness is destroyed when we cant talk about how the topic effects Indians
3.) Reading the violation in the 1NC is an independent reason to vote aff because it pushes out discussions that we MUST
have in order to protect REAL democracy and avoid bad policy making
4.) You evaluate the RVI before everything else because it effects the REAL world
A2: 1NC definition is best

Turn: Your appeal to the predictable literature base always grounds the debate in the discourse of racist policy
Doane 06 What is Racism? Racial Discourse and Racial Politics Ashley (Woody) Doane* (University of Hartford) Critical
Sociology, Volume 32, Issue 23; pub. 2006
Over the past few decades, well-funded conservative think tanks and foundations have played key roles in shaping public
discourse on issues ranging from armative action to global warming (Alterman 1999; Cokorinos 2003; McRight and Dunlap
2003; Stefancic and Delgado 1996). Discourses of dominant groups work to legitimize and reproduce dominance by
minimizing the extent of inequality, marginalizing claims of subordinate groups, and moving to make dominant group
understandings normative for the larger society (Doane 1997). Yet this work does not go unchallenged. Subordinate groups
may have a lesser (or even deliberately restricted) ability to inuence public discourse, but they can nevertheless create
counterdiscourses (van Dijk 1997:20) in an attempt to challenge existing racial structures. In current US racial discourse,
one central rhetorical struggle involves diering and competing understandings of what constitutes racism. One
signicant eect of the Civil Rights Movement upon the politics of race in the United States was a decline in the acceptability of
overt ideologies of racial superiority and inferiority and blatant displays of racism (Bonilla- Silva 2003; Schuman et al. 1997).
Discursive expressions of racism tend to be concealed or to occur in private racetalk (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Myers 2003). Today,
charges of racism or the use of thelabelracist carry an extremely negative connotation and serve as perhaps the ultimate
rhetorical weapon in public discourse on racial issues. Even those opposing racial integration or policies to reduce racial inequality
often seek to establish their non-racist credentials by using rhetorical bu ers or shields (e.g., I am not a racist, but...,
Bonilla-Silva 2003; Bonilla- Silva and Forman 2000). What is generally missing from most discussions of racism, however, is an
appreciation of the signicance of racism as a contested concept (Doane 1996:3839). While there is a widespread social
consensus that racism is an extremely negative phenomenon, there is also signicant disagreement as to exactly what is
racism. This is important, for competing denitions of racism have signicant strategic implications for racial discourse and for
the changing trajectories of racial politics in the United States. In this article, I will explore the signicance of racism as a
contested concept. The starting point for this analysis will be to examine the competing ways in which racism is dened and
how dierent authors contextualize claims of racism. While these competing conceptualizations are interesting in themselves, a
related task will be to examine the strategic implications of competing denitions the ways in which they subtly or overtly shape
perceptions and discourses concerning racial issues. From this platform, I will explore links between conceptualizations of racism
and broader racial ideologies, particularly color-blind racism (Bonilla-Silva 2001, 2003). Finally, I will assess the implications of
this research for the future evolution of racial politics in the United States.
Rejecting racist T violations key

Doane 06
What is Racism? Racial Discourse and Racial Politics Ashley (Woody) Doane* (University of Hartford) Critical Sociology, Volume 32, Issue 23; pub. 2006
Racial discourse does not occur in a vacuum: it is shaped by the changing structure of racial conict and racial ideologies
in the larger society. While the analysis of the evolution of systemic racism and racial ideologies in the United States is beyond the scope of this paper, a brief discussion
will provide the necessary context for our analysis. It has become commonplace to characterize the Civil Rights Movement as a watershed (Morris and Herring 1996) in racial
politics in the United States. For our purposes, what is signicant was the broad-based social and political challenge to both the existing racial order and its supporting ideologies
and cultural understandings. Among its many eects, the Civil Rights Movement led to a decline in ideologies of racial superiority, a
reduction of the most blatant forms of segregation amidst formal legal recognition of civil rights , and according to survey results
an increase in white support for racial equality (Schuman et al. 1997). Socially and politically, changing norms incorporated the ideal of racial equality and made the public
expression of blatantly racist attitudes increasingly indefensible. During the following decades, continued political and ideological struggle, changing racial and ethnic
demographics, and economic and social change continue to restructure the US racial order. At the same time, much remains unchanged. The more intractable
problems of institutional racism, de facto segregation, economic inequality, and everyday racism remain embedded in
American society (Carmichael and Hamilton 1967; Feagin 2000; Feagin and Sikes 1994; Feagin and Vera 1995; Massey and Denton 1993; Oliver and Shapiro 1995;
Shapiro 2004). Survey research has regularly shown that the changing attitudes and seeming embrace of racial equality by white Americans ends abruptly when it comes to policies
designed to address continuing segregation and racial inequality.
Af K of Development
2AC K of T
The 1NCs construction of development is a reification of the worst forms of militarism, capitalism, and
racism
Escobar 12
(Arturo Escobar, Kenan distinguished prof. of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. From the book Encountering Development: The Making and
Unmaking of the Third World. Originally published in 1995, this card is from the new edition with a new introduction and minor updates/revisions in 2012. PP. 39-44. OCRed
from the original, minor textual errors may exist.)
Similarly, the fact that economic development relied so much on the need for foreign exchange influenced the promotion of cash crops for
export, to the detriment of food crops for domestic consumption. Yet the ways in which the discourse organized these elements cannot be reduced to causal relations, as I will show
patriarchy and ethnocentrism influenced the form development took. Indigenous

populations had to be "modernized," where modernization meant the adoption of the "right" values, namely, those held by
the white minority or a mestizo majority and, in general, those embodied in the ideal of the cultivated European; programs for
in later chapters. In a similar vein,
industrialization and agricultural development, however, not only have made women invisible in their role as producers but also have tended to perpetuate their subordination (see
chapter 5). Forms
of power in terms of class, gender, race, and nationality thus found their way into development
theory and practice. The former do not determine the latter in a direct causal relation; rather they are the development discourse's formative
elements. The examination of any given object should be done within the context of the discourse as a whole. The emphasis on capital accumulation,
for instance, emerged as part of a complex set of relations in which technology, new financial institutions, systems of
classification (GNP per capita), decision-making systems (such as new mechanisms for national accounting and the allocation of public resources), modes of knowledge,
and international factors all played a role. What made development economists privileged figures was their position in this complex system. Options privileged or excluded must
also be seen in light of the dynamics of the entire discourse- why, for instance, the discourse privileged the promotion of cash crops (to secure foreign exchange, according to
capital and technological imperatives) and not food crops; centralized planning (to satisfy economic and knowledge requirements) but not participatory and decentralized
approaches; agricultural development based on large mechanized farms and the use of chemical inputs but not alternative agricultural systems, based on smaller farms, ecological
considerations, and integrated cropping and pest management; rapid economic growth but not the articulation of internal markets to satisfy the needs of the majority of the people;
and capital-intensive but not labor- intensive solutions. With the deepening of the crisis, some of the previously excluded choices are being considered, although most often within
included as legitimate
development issues may depend on specific relations established in the midst of the discourse ; relations, for instance, between what
a developmentalist perspective, as in the case of the sustainable development strategy, to be discussed in later chapters. Finally, what is
experts say and what international politics allows as feasible (this may determine, for instance, what an international organization may prescribe out of the recommendation of a
group of experts); between
one power segment and another (say, industry versus agriculture); or between two or more forms of
authority (for instance, the balance between nutritionists and public health specialists, on the one hand, and the medical profession, on the other, which may determine the
adoption of particular approaches to rural health care). Other types of relations to be considered are those between sites from which objects appear (for instance, between rural and
between procedures of assessment of needs (such as the use of "empirical data" by World Bank missions) and the position of
authority of those carrying the assessment (this may determine the proposals made and the possibility of their implementation). Relations of this
type regulate development practice. Although this practice is not static, it continues to reproduce the same relations between
the elements with which it deals. It was this systematization of relations that conferred upon development its great dynamic quality: its immanent adapt- ability
urban areas);
to changing conditions, which allowed it to survive, indeed to thrive, up to the present. By 1955 a discourse had emerged which was characterized not by a unified object but by
by the systematic inclusion of new objects under its domain.

The most important exclusion, however, was and continues to be what development was supposed to be all about: people. Development
was-and continues to be for the most part a top down, ethnocentric, and technocratic approach, which treated people and
cultures as abstract concepts, statistical figures to be moved up and down in the charts of "progress ." Development was
conceived not as a cultural process (culture was a residual variable, to disappear with the advance of modernization) but instead as a system of
more or less universally applicable technical interventions intended to deliver some "badly needed" goods to a "target" population. It comes as
no surprise that development became a force so destructive to Third World cultures, ironically in the name of people's interests.
the formation of a vast number of objects and strategies; not by new knowledge but
The reifying of Development destroys the value to human life while destroying all social difference
Escobar 12
The crucial threshold and transformation that took place in the early post- World War II period discussed in this chapter were the result not of a radical epistemological or political
breakthrough but of the reorganization of a number of factors that allowed the Third World to display a new visibility and to irrupt into a new realm of language. This new space
Underdevelopment became the subject of political

technologies that sought to erase it from the face of the Earth but that ended up, instead, multiplying it to
infinity. Development fostered a way of conceiving of social life as a technical problem, as a matter of rational
decision and management to be entrusted to that group of people the development professionals whose specialized knowledge allegedly
was carved out of the vast and dense surface of the Third World, placing it in a field of power.
qualified them for the task. Instead of seeing change as a process rooted in the interpretation of each society's history and cultural tradition as a number of intellectuals in various
parts of the Third World had attempted to do in the 1920s and 1930s (Gandhi being the best known of them) these
professionals sought to devise mechanisms

and procedures to make societies fit a preexisting model that embodied the structures and functions of
modernity. Like sorcerers' apprentices, the development professionals awakened once again the dream of reason that, in their hands, as in earlier instances, produced a
troubling reality. At times, development grew to be so important for Third World countries that it became acceptable for
their rulers to subject their populations to an infinite variety of interventions, to more encompassing forms of
power and systems of control; so important that First and Third World elites accepted the price of massive
impoverishment, of selling Third World resources to the most convenient bidder, of degrading their physical and
human ecologies, of killing and torturing, of condemning their indigenous populations to near extinction ; so
important that many in the Third World began to think of themselves as inferior, underdeveloped, and ignorant and to
doubt the value of their own culture, deciding instead to pledge allegiance to the banners of reason and progress;
so important, finally, that the achievement of development clouded the awareness of the impossibility of fulfilling the
promises that development seemed to be making. After four decades of this discourse, most forms of understanding and representing the Third World
are still dictated by the same basic tenets. The forms of power that have appeared act not so much by repression but by normalization; not by
ignorance but by controlled knowledge; not by humanitarian concern but by the bureaucratization of social
action. As the conditions that gave rise to development became more pressing, it could only increase its hold,
refine its methods, and extend its reach even further. That the materiality of these conditions is not conjured up
by an "objective" body of knowledge but is charted out by the rational discourses of economists, politicians, and
development experts of all types should already be clear.
The alternative is to vote for the 1AC as a form of indigenous development
Escobar 12
Since the middle and late 1980s, for instance, a relatively coherent body of work has emerged which highlights the role of
grassroots movements, local
knowledge, and popular power in transforming development. The authors representing this trend state that they are interested not in
development alternatives but in alternatives to development, that is, the rejection of the entire paradigm altogether . In spite of
significant differences, the members of this group share certain preoccupations and interests: an interest in local culture and knowledge; a critical
stance with respect to established scientific discourses; and the defense and promotion of localized, pluralistic
grassroots movements. The importance and impact of these movements are far from clear; yet, to use Sheth's (1987) expression, they provide an arena
for the pursuit of "alternative development as political practice." Beyond, in spite of, against development: these are
metaphors that a number of Third World authors and grassroots movements use to imagine alternatives to development
and to "marginalize the economy" another metaphor that speaks of strategies to contain the Western economy as a system of
production, power, and signification. The grassroots movements that emerged in opposition to development throughout the 1980s belong to the novel forms
of collective action and social mobilization that characterized that decade. Some argue that the 1980s movements changed significantly the character of the political culture and
Resistance to development was one of the ways in which Third

World groups attempted to construct new identities. Far from the essentializing assumptions of previous
political theory (for example, that mobilization was based on class, gender, or ethnicity as fixed catagories), these processes of
identity construction were more flexible, modest, and mobile, relying on tactical articulations arising out of the
conditions and practices of daily life. To this extent, these struggles were fundamentally cultural. Some of these forms and styles
of protest will continue throughout the 1990s. Imaging the end of development as a regime of representation raises all sorts of
social, political, and theoretical questions. Let us start with this last aspect by recalling that discourse is not just words and that words are
political practice (Laclau and Mouffe 1985; Escobar and Alvarez 1992).
not "wind, an external whisper, a beating of wings that one has difficulty in hearing in the serious matter of history" (Foucault 1972, 209). Discourse is not the expression of
thought; it is a practice, with conditions, rules, and historical transformations . To analyze development as a discourse is "to show that to
speak is to do something something other than to express what one thinks; ... to show that to add a statement to a pre-existing series of statements is to perform a complicated and
costly gesture" (1972, 209). In chapter 5, for instance, I showed how seemingly new statements about women and nature are "costly gestures" of this sort, ways of producing
changing the order of discourse is a political question that

entails the collective practice of social actors and the restructuring of existing political economies of truth . In the
case of development, this may require moving away from development sciences in particular and a partial, strategic
move away from conventional Western modes of knowing in general in order to make room for other types of
knowledge and experience. This transformation demands not only a change in ideas and statements but the
formation of nuclei around which new forms of power and knowledge might converge .
change without transforming the nature of the discourse as a whole. Said differently,
Debate space key

Escobar 12
The end result was the creation of a space of thought and action the expansion of which was dictated in advance by
the very same rules introduced during its formative stages. The development discourse defined a perceptual field
structured by grids of observation, modes of inquiry and registration of problems, and forms of intervention; in
short, it brought into existence a space defined not so much by the ensemble of objects with which it dealt but by a
set of relations and a discursive practice that systematically produced interrelated objects, concepts, theories,
strategies, and the like. To be sure, new objects have been included, new modes of operation introduced, and a
number of variables modified (for instance, in relation to strategies to combat hunger, knowledge about nutritional
requirements, the types of crops given priority, and the choices of technology have changed); yet the same set of relations among
these elements continues to be established by the discursive practices of the institutions involved . Moreover,
seemingly opposed options can easily coexist within the same discursive field (for instance, in development economics, the
structuralist school and the monetarist school seem to be in open contradiction; yet they belong to the same discursive formation
and originate in the same set of relations, as will be shown in the next chapter; it can also be shown that agrarian reform, green
revolution, and integrated rural development are strategies through which the same unity, "hunger," is constructed, as I will do in
chapter 4). In other words, although the discourse has gone through a series of structural changes, the architecture of the discursive
formation laid down in the period 1945-1955 has remained unchanged, allowing the discourse to adapt to hew conditions.
The result has been the succession of development strategies and sub strategies up to the present, always within
the confines of the same discursive space. It is also clear that other historical discourses influenced particular
representations of development. The discourse of communism, for instance, influenced the promotion of those choices which
emphasized the role of the individual in society and, in particular, those approaches which relied on private initiative and private
property. So much emphasis on this issue in the context of development, so strong a moralizing attitude probably would not have
existed without the persistent anti-Communist preaching that originated in the cold war.
K2 preventing extinction
Escobar 12
Our Common Future launched to the world the strategy of sustainable development as the great alternative for the end of
the century and the beginning of the next. Sustainable development would make possible the eradication of poverty and
the protection of the environment in one single feat of Western rationality. The discourse is based on cultural histories
that are not difficult to trace. Seeing the Earth from space was no great revolution, despite the commission's claim. The vision
from space belongs to the paradigm defined by the scientific gaze of the nineteenth-century clinician. But in the same way
that "the figures of pain are not conjured away by means of a body of neutralized knowledge; they [are] redistributed in the space
in which bodies and eyes meet" (Foucault 1975, 11), the degradation of the Earth is only redistributed and dispersed in
the professional discourses of environmentalists, economists, and politicians. The globe and its problems have
finally entered rational discourse. Disease is housed in nature in a new manner . And as the medicine of the
pathological led to a medicine of the social space (the healthy biological space was also the social space dreamed of by the French
Revolution), so will the "medicine of the Earth" result in new constructions of the social that allow nature's health to
be preserved. This new construction of the social is what the concept of sustainable development attempts to bring into place.
The Bruntland report inaugurated a period of unprecedented gluttony in the history of vision and knowledge with the concomitant
rise of a global "ecocracy." Some might argue that this is too harsh a judgment, so we should carry the argument step by step.
1NC Definition= root of violence

Escobar 12
The development discourse, as this book has shown, has been the central and most ubiquitous operator of the
politics of representation and identity in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America in the post-World War II period. Asia,
Africa, and Latin America have witnessed a succession of regimes of representation originating in colonialism and
European modernity but often appropriated as national projects in postindependence Latin America and postcolonial Africa
and Asia--each with its accompanying regime of violence. As places of encounter and suppression of local cultures,
women, identities, and histories, these regimes of representation are originary sites of violence (Rojas de Ferro
1994). As a regime of representation of this sort, development has been linked to an economy of production and desire,
but also of closure, difference, and violence. To be sure, this violence is also mimetic violence, a source of selfformation. Terror and violence circulate and become, themselves, spaces of cultural production (Girard 1977 and
Taussig 1987). But the modernized violence introduced with colonialism and development is itself a source of identity.
From the will to civilization in the nineteenth century to today, violence has been engendered through representation.
Reconstituting meanings of development key

Escobar 12
alternatives as a research question and a social practice can be most fruitfully gleaned from
the specific manifestations of such alternatives in concrete local settings. The alternative is, in a sense, always there. From this
perspective, there is not surplus of meaning at the local level but meanings that have to be read with new senses, tools,
and theories. The deconstruction of development, coupled with the local ethnographies just mentioned, can be
important elements for a new type of visibility and audibility of forms of cultural difference and hybridization that
Said differently, the nature of
researchers have generally glossed over until now. The subaltern do in fact speak, even if the audibility of their voices in the circles where "the West" is reflected upon and
theorized is tenuous at best. There is also the question of the translatability into theoretical and practical terms of what might be read, heard, smelled, felt, or intuited in Third
with the goal of

strengthening those differences by inserting them into political strategies and self defined and self directed
socioeconomic experiments and the opening of spaces for destabilizing dominant modes of knowing , so that the need for
the most violent forms of translation is diminished. In other words, the process must embrace the challenge of simultaneously seeing
theory as a set of contested forms of knowledge originating in many cultural matrices and have that theory
foster concrete interventions by the groups in question.
World settings. This process of translation has to move back and forth between concrete proposals based on existing cultural differences
1NC= Bad education, real impacts

Parenti 95
(Michael Parenti, Ph.D. from Yale in poli sci, prolific author and activist. From the book Against Empire. This card is from chapter 10, PP. 175-196. OCRed from the original,
minor textual errors may exist.)
Within U.S. universities are people who do "risk analysis" to help private corporations make safe investments in
the Third World. Others work on consumer responses to marketing techniques, labor unrest, and union busting. Still others
devise new methods for controlling rebellious peoples at home and abroad, new weapons delivery systems and
technologies for surveillance and counterinsurgency. (Napalm was invented at Harvard.) Whether studying Latin
American villagers, inner-city residents, or factory workers, for handsome fees these scholars and scientists offer bright
and often ruthless ideas about how to keep the world safe for those who own it. On these same campuses one can find
ROTC programs difficult to justify by any normal academic standard. The campuses also are open to recruiters from various
corporations, the CIA, and the armed forces. In 1993, an advertisement appeared in student newspapers across the nation
promoting "student programs and career opportunities" with the CIA. Students "could be eligible for a CIA internship and tuition
assistance" and would "get hands-on experience" working with CIA "professionals." The advertisement did not explain how fulltime students could get "hands-on experience" as undercover agents. Would it be by reporting on professors and fellow students
who voiced iconoclastic views? At these same colleges and universities can be found faculty and administrators, including
many engaged in the activities described above, who argue with all apparent seriousness that a university is an
independent community of neutral scholars, a place apart from the immediate interests of this world, a temple of
knowledge. In reality, many universities have direct investments in corporate America in the form of substantial
stock portfolios. By purchase and persuasion, our institutions of higher learning are wedded to institutions of
higher earning. In this respect, universities differ little from such other social institutions as the media, the arts, the
church, schools, and various professions, all of which falsely claim independence from a dominant class
perspective. During the late 1960s, at rallies and teach-ins, many students and some faculty began to educate themselves about
the injustices and horrors of a far-off war in Indochina. At first, they questioned only the war, then the leaders who produced it,
and then the system that produced the leaders, including that part of the system represented by the actively complicit university.
Crossing the line from a liberal complaint to a radical analysis, some campus protestors concluded that the Vietnam War was not a
"mistake," but part of a long standing pattern of US. interventionism designed to make the world safe for multinational corporate
exploitation. They also came to realize that protest was not just a matter of creating a dialogue and persuading supposedly well
intentioned but ill informed leaders. Rather it entailed increasingly difficult confrontations with the repressive powers of the state
and its auxiliary institutions, and with leaders who were not misguided or confused but who knew perfectly well what they were
doing. The university represents itself as a citadel of free thought. There is even a special term, "academic freedom," to describe
its favored circumstance. In truth, the system of rule within the average institution of higher learning owes more to Sparta than to
Athens. Reflective of the larger society around it, most universities and colleges are more ideological factories than
intellectual founts, places where criticisms of imperialism are in scarce supply and where students mortgage
their future to capitalism as a social order.
Lol fairness
Parenti 95
(Michael Parenti, Ph.D. from Yale in poli sci, prolific author and activist. From the book Against Empire. This card is from chapter 10, PP. 175-196. OCRed from the original,
minor textual errors may exist.)
Mainstream academics maintain that their politically orthodox brands of teaching and research are the only
ones that qualify as proper scholarship. Such was an argument used to deny Samuel Bowles tenure at Harvard. Since
Marxist economics is not really scholarly, Bowles was neither a real scholar nor a genuine economist. (The decision seriously split
the economics department and caused Nobel Prize-winner Wassily Leontif to quit Harvard in disgust.) Centrist ideologues
seem unaware that this view might itself be an ideological one, a manifestation of their own self-serving,
unexamined political biases. Having judged Marxist scholars as incapable of disinterested or "real" scholarship, the centrists
can refuse to hire them under the guise of protecting rather than violating academic standards. Many mainstream academics
manifest a remarkable detachment from the urgent realities of the world. What is unsettling is how this is treated as a
scholarly virtue. Supposedly such detachment helps them to retain their objectivity. In fact, much of the best scholarship comes
from ideologically committed scholars. Thus, it is female and African American researchers who respectively have produced the
best work on the oppressions of sexism and racism, areas that their white male colleagues never imagined were fit subjects for
study. It is they, in their partisan urgency, who have revealed the unexamined sexist and racist presumptions of conventional
scholarship in the sciences and social sciences. Likewise, it is leftist intellectuals who have produced the best work on popular
struggles and often the only revealing work on the political economy of class power, subjects remaining largely untouched by
"objective" centrists. Their partisan concerns have inspired some exciting and challenging scholarship. In sum, a dissenting
ideology can free us from long established blind spots and awaken us to things overlooked by the established orthodoxy. In any
case, mainstream academics are nowhere nearly as detached as they claim. Their work already is riddled with
unexamined values that are treated as empirical truths, while empirical hypotheses introduced by radicals are
dismissed as polemics or value judgments. They inject their biases into what they say and leave unsaid and, as already
noted, into their decisions regarding recruitment, promotion, tenure, and curriculum. One goal of any teacher should be to
introduce students to bodies of information and analysis that have been systematically ignored or suppressed in
the press, the academy, and society, a task that usually is better performed by dissident faculty than by those
who accept existing institutional and class arrangements as the natural order of things.
Indigenous issues key

Escobar 12
Unmaking of the Third World. Originally published in 1995, this card is from the new edition with a new introduction and minor updates/revisions in 2012. PP. viii-xii. OCRed
The visibility of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities as development subjects, objects, and conceptualizers
has also increased dramatically. These actors are at the cutting edge of critical development work in important ways, for
instance, in terms of denouncing the irrationality of development and the incompatibility of many development
projects with indigenous worldviews (e.g., Mander and Tauli-Corpuz 2006; Blaser, Feit, and McRae 2004), or of pointing at
the limitations of Euro-modernity from indigenous perspectives (Blaser 2010). Questions of development, identity,
territory, and autonomy have become important for the case of indigenous peoples (e.g., de la Cadena and Starn
2007; Blaser et al. 2010) and Afro-descendent groups, particularly in Latin America (Escobar 2008a, Oslender 2008, Asher 2009,
French 2009). The experience of indigenous women in Latin America is providing the basis for a "decolonial
feminism," in which critiques of the ethnocentrism of modernist feminist discourses are joined with analyses of
patriarchal forms of exclusion harbored within appeals to tradition or cultural difference (e.g., Hernandez 2008;
Suarez Navaz and Hernandez 2008; Hernandez 2009; Lugones 2010; Bidaseca 2010; Escobar 2010a; see also Radcliffe, Laurie,
and Andolina 2009 for a related feminist perspective on indigenous movements and development in the Andes).
Reconstituting development leads to political

action, real impacts
Escobar 12
Unmaking of the Third World. Originally published in 1995, this card is from the new edition with a new introduction and minor updates/revisions in 2012. PP. viii-xii. OCRed
An aspect of the transformation in the conditions of development over the past fifteen years, often unacknowledged
although of utmost importance, is that the very categories and uses of knowledge-what and whose knowledge counts
in development and for what purposes have been subjected to increasing pressures from many sides. This affects social
them)' in general in that the cohort of those interested in the production of new theories has expanded well beyond the usual
suspects in the (largely Northern) academies. Today a growing number of researchers, activists, and intellectuals outside of the
academy are heeding the urge to provide alternative understandings of the world, including of development. In this sense, the
complex conversations that are beginning to happen among many kinds of knowledge producers worldwide are in and of
themselves a hopeful condition of development theory at present. This urge involves the need to transform not only the places and
contents of theory, but its very form (Mignolo 2000; Ost81weil 2005; Escobar 2008a). This trend is particularly acute in the field
of social movement studies (and, as we shall see, in transition studies), where activists' own research and knowledge
production are becoming central to understanding what movements are, why they mobilize, and what kinds of
worlds they wish to bring forth. A number of emphases are emerging from anthropological and geographical approaches,
including the blurring of the boundary between academic and activist worlds and knowledges, and a series of
concepts and domains of inquiry such as network ethnography, mapping of knowledges, ethnography of
identities and activist-figured worlds, activist, partisan, or militant research, and so forth.7 Scholars in development
studies have been somewhat attuned to the knowledge produced by project beneficiaries, although largely in the guise of "local
knowledge"; however, they have yet to incorporate these newer insights significantly into their theory making and the design of
interventions.
1NC= bad policy

Hardt and Negri 2000
(Michael Hardt, prof. of Literature at Duke University and Antonio Negri, University of Paris. From the book Empire. pp. 282-284. OCRed from the original, minor textual errors
may exist.)
The discourse of economic development, which was imposed under U.S. hegemony in coordination with the New Deal
model in the postwar period, uses such false historical analogies as the foundation for economic policies. This
discourse conceives the economic history of all countries as following one single pattern of development, each at
different times and according to different speeds. Countries whose economic production is not presently at the level of the
dominant countries are thus seen as developing countries, with the idea that if they continue on the path followed previously by
the dominant countries and repeat their economic policies and strategies, they will eventually enjoy an analogous position or
stage. The developmental view fails to recognize, however, that the economies of the so-called developed countries
are defined not only by certain quantitative factors or by their internal structures, but also and more important
by their dominant position in the global system. The critiques of the developmentalist view that were posed by
underdevelopment theories and dependency theories, which were born primarily in the Latin American and African
contexts in the 1960s, were useful and important precisely because they emphasized the fact that the evolution of a regional
or national economic system depends to a large extent on its place within the hierarchy and power structures of
the capitalist world system. The dominant regions will continue to develop and the subordinate will continue to
underdevelop as mutually supporting poles in the global power structure. To say that the subordinate economies do
not develop does not mean that they do not change or grow; it means, rather, that they remain subordinate in the global
system and thus never achieve the promised form of a dominant, developed economy . In some cases individual
countries or regions may be able to change their position in the hierarchy, but the point is that, regardless of who fills which
position, the hierarchy remains the determining factor. The theorists of underdevelopment themselves, however, also repeat a
similar illusion of economic development. Summarizing in schematic terms, we could say that their logic begins with two valid
historical claims but then draws from them an erroneous conclusion. First, they maintain that, through the imposition of
colonial regimes and/ or other forms of imperialist domination, the underdevelopment of subordinated
economies was created and sustained by their integration into the global network of dominant capitalist
economies, their partial articulation, and thus their real and continuing dependence on those dominant
economies. Second, they claim that the dominant economies themselves had originally developed their fully articulated and independent structures in relative isolation,
with only limited interaction with other economies and global networks. From these two more or less acceptable historical claims, however, they then deduce an invalid
conclusion: if the developed economies achieved full articulation in relative isolation and the underdeveloped economies became disarticulated and dependent through their
integration into global networks, then a project for the relative isolation of the underdeveloped economies will result in their development and full articulation. In other words, as
an alternative to the "false development" pandered by the economists of the dominant capitalist countries, the theorists of underdevelopment promoted "real development," which
involves delinking an economy from its dependent relationships and articulating in relative isolation an autonomous economic structure. Since this is how the dominant economies
developed, it must be the true path to escape the cycle of underdevelopment. This syllogism, however, asks us to believe that the laws of economic development will somehow
transcend the differences of historical change. The alternative notion of development is based paradoxically on the same historical illusion central to the dominant ideology of
development it opposes. The tendential realization of the world market should destroy any notion that today a country or region could isolate or delink itself from the global
Even the dominant countries are

now dependent on the global system; the interactions of the world market have resulted in a generalized
disarticulation of all economies. Increasingly, any attempt at isolation or separation will mean only a more
brutal kind of domination by the global system, a reduction to powerlessness and poverty.
networks of power in order to re-create the conditions of the past and develop as the dominant capitalist countries once did.
1NC definition= colonial

Escobar 12
The coherence of effects that the development discourse achieved is the key to its success as a hegemonic form of
representation: the construction of the poor and underdeveloped as universal, preconstituted subjects, based on
the privilege of the representers; the exercise of power over the Third World made possible by this discursive
homogenization (which entails the erasure of the complexity and diversity of Third World peoples, so that a squatter in Mexico
City, a Nepalese peasant, and a Tuareg nomad become equivalent to each other as poor and underdeveloped); and the
colonization and domination of the natural and human ecologies and economies of the Third World .
Development assumes a teleology to the extent that it proposes that the "natives" will sooner or later be
reformed; at the same time, however, it reproduces endlessly the separation between reformers and those to be
reformed by keeping alive the premise of the Third World as different and inferior, as having a limited humanity
in relation to the accomplished European. Development relies on this perpetual recognition and disavowal of
difference, a feature identified by Bhabha (1990) as inherent to discriminatio. The signifiers of "poverty", "illiteracy,"
"hunger," and so forth have already achieved a fixity as signifieds of "underdevelopment" which seems impossible
to sunder. Perhaps no other factor has contributed to cementing the association of "poverty" with "underdevelopment" as the
discourse of economists. To them I dedicate the coming chapter.
***Neg***
Other actions being taken now

Tribes have also pursued other methods for engaging issues. For example, tribal organizations like Kawerak, as well as
tribes, have sought and obtained funding for their own research projects, outreach, and other activities. These
funds support several ongoing social science projects, the majority of which are directly related to marine
resources. Bering Strait tribes and Kawerak have also formed new coalitions with groups that have similar
interests, and strengthened existing relationships. Some tribes and organizations have decided to bypass NMFS
and the Council to try to work directly with industry. Tribes and tribal organizations also work directly with
academic or independent scientists on research projects and in developing policy and management
recommendations. Additionally, tribes are attempting to get seats on governing bodies, including the Council, to
ensure a more balanced membership and that tribal concerns are fully heard and considered.
Self Determination Fails: New

States Crushed
Etzioni 93
University professor at George Washington University and editor of the responsive community, 1993
(Amitai, The evils of self determination, Winter, Issue 89)
It is impossible to sustain the notion that every ethnic group can find its expression in a full-blown nation-state ,
fly its flag at the United Nations, and have its ambassadors accredited by other nation-states; the process of ethnic separation and the breakdown of existing states will then never
be exhausted. Many countries in the world continue to contain numerous ethnic enclaves . Even within those enclaves, further ethnic
splinters exist. Moreover, new ethnic "selves" can be generated quite readily, drawing on fracture lines now barely noticeable. Subtle differences in geography, religion, culture,
and loyalty can be fanned into new separatist movements, each seeking their own symbols and powers of statehood. Few saw the potential for three countries in Iraq until it nearly
broke into a Shiite southern state, a northern Kurdish state, and a central Iraqi Sunni state after the 1991 Persian Gulf war. In the United Kingdom, Scots and Welsh are again
asserting themselves. The former Yugoslavia, already riddled by division, may fragment further still; for instance, Albanians, Yugoslavia's third largest and Serbia's second largest
ethnic minority, have elected a shadow government in Kosovo and are agitating for independence but have so far stopped short of armed rebellion. And so it goes throughout the
world. In most places centrifugal forces, forever present, are accelerating. Indeed, as
most drives to break away from existing states or coalesce

in new ones advance, groups line up to tear the emergent state into segments. New divisions often take place long
before ethnic groups accord the new entity even a limited opportunity to develop a responsive, democratic
government. A good example would be the Sorbians in eastern Germany who want to establish the state of Lusatia. Though one may not take their claims seriously, Alfred
Symank, a Sorbian and the chief lobbyist for a group known as Sorbian Nationality for Autonomous Lusatia, argues that Sorbians "are a legitimate nation" and "want the world to
recognize that Germany isn't just made up of Germans. The Sorbs are here too!" Symank speaks of the oppression of the Sorbs at the hands of the Prussians, Saxons, Nazis,
communists, and now unified Germany. He wonders, "If Lithuania succeeds, if Slovenia succeeds, why can't we?" All that before the ink had even dried on German unification.
Much more serious are the demands of various groups within the former Soviet Union's republics. For example, the southern Ossetians in Georgia are in violent battle with the
ethnic strife
destabilizes a region and makes it unlikely that the new states will survive as more ethnic groups emerge and
demand further fragmentation. Even the romantics of self-determination must pause before the prospect of a United Nations with thousands of members. The
majority Georgians, and the ethnically Turkish Gagauz have already proclaimed independence from the Moldovan majority in Moldova. Continued
world may well survive the creation of ever more toy states, smaller than Liechtenstein and less populated than the South Pacific island-country of Nauru (population 9,300), but
what meaning does self-determination have when minuscule countries are at the economic and military mercy,
even whim, of larger states--states in whose government they have no representation at all? If the world is to
avoid such chaos, the call for self-determination should no longer elicit almost reflexive moral support. We
should withhold political and moral support unless the movement faces one of the truly exceptional situations in
which self-determination will enhance democracy rather than retard it. Generally, people who see themselves as oppressed put great value in gaining
the moral support of others. As a rule, though, we should encourage groups to work out their differences within existing national communities. Also, to further discourage
fragmentation, the economic disadvantages of separatism should be made evident. Finally, governments that face ethnic challenges, like Canada, should be urged to provide more
local autonomy and more democratic federalism in order to prevent dissolution.
Species loss good

a) its key to evolutionary change and long-term benefit
Boulter 02
Michael Boulter (professor of paleobiology at the University of East London) 2002 Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p. 170
The same trend of long-drawn-out survival of the final relicts has been further considered by Bob Mays group at Oxford, particularly Sean Nee. The Oxford group are vociferous
wailers of gloom and doom: Extinction episodes, such as the anthropogenic one currently under way, result in a pruned tree of life. But they go on to argue that the
vast
majority of groups survive this pruning, so that evolution goes on, albeit along a different path if the environment is changed. Indeed, the fossil
record has taught us to expect a vigorous evolutionary response when the ecosystem changes significantly . This kind
of research is more evidence to support the idea that evolution thrives on culling. The planet did really well from the Big Five massextinction events. The victims demise enabled new environments to develop and more diversification took place
in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In just the same way the planet can take
advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The harder the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the
extinctions of a whole selection of vulnerable organisms.
b) biodiversity is badcomplex systems are more prone to total failuresimple ones are stable
Heath 99
Jim Heath 1999 Orchids Australia, December, http://www.orchidsaustralia.com/whysave.htm
Some people say we cant afford to lose any species, no matter what species they are. Everything needs everything else, they say, to make nature
balance. If that were right, it might explain why the six orchid species should be saved. Alas, no. We could pour weedkiller on all the orchids in
Australia and do no ecological damage to the rest of the continents biology. But wouldnt the natural ecological
systems then become less stable, if we start plucking out species - even those orchids? Not necessarily. Natural biological
systems are hardly ever stable and balanced anyway. Everything goes along steadily for a time, then boom - the
system falls apart and simplifies for no visible reason. Diverse systems are usually more unstable than the less
diverse ones. Biologists agree that in some places less diversity is more stable (in the Arctic, for example). Also, monocultures - farms - can be
very stable. Not to mention the timeless grass of a salt marsh. In other words, theres no biological law that says we have to save the orchids because they
add diversity, and that added diversity makes the biological world more stable.
c) the impact is extinction
Boulter 02
Michael Boulter (professor of paleobiology at the University of East London) 2002 Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p. 67
life on this planet continues despite

internal and external setbacks, because it is the system that recovers at the expense of some of its former parts. For example,
the end of the dinosaurs enabled mammals to diversify. Otherwise if the exponential rise were to reach infinity,
there would not be space or food to sustain life. It would come to a stop. Extinctions are necessary to retain life
on this planet.
If biological evolution really is a self-organised Earth-life system there are some very important consequences. One is that
No Solvency: US Laws
Casey 94
James A., Sovereignty by sufferance: the illusion of Indian Tribal Sovereignty, Cornell Law Review, 79 Cornell L. Rev. 404, January
There have been many proposals to solve the sovereignty problems outlined above. Some examples include a constitutional
amendment guaranteeing the sovereign status of Indian tribes, n189 legislative enactments to undo the injustices of the past and
provide for increased representation in the government, n190 and increased dependence on and control of the government trust
relationship. n191 All of these approaches suffer, however, from the same basic flaw: they ground themselves in the
current system of federal Indian law. n192 As [*434] the above discussion indicates, the current system does not
adequately protect the rights of Indian tribes because it is not based upon their consent and it provides no
defined method for dealing with the conflicts that threaten tribal sovereignty. Without addressing these two
fundamental problems, approaches that merely doctor the injustices wrought by the system relieve the
symptoms but fail to treat the disease.
No Solvency: USFG Bad (Genocide)

Rosser 06
Assistant Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law, 2006 (Ezra, Native American Natural Resources, 45 Tulsa L. Rev. 57, Fall)
Indian people have no reason to trust non-Indian governments. While it is important to be very careful in making historical claims regarding
non-Indian treatment of Indian people, n82 it is not an exaggeration to describe this treatment as genocide. Professor Rennard Strickland writes: I want us to address the reality of
the American Continents as a sacred site of both the survival and the decimation of a people and their culture. We
must face the fact that this hemisphere

is the tragic "killing fields" resulting in aboriginal genocide and culturecide . This is the thing not spoken, not acknowledged, not even
hinted at in the larger American myth. The facts are clear and incontrovertible. The introduction to the three-volume history Violence in America dramatically describes the
magnitude of this human disaster: the near annihilation of the Western hemisphere's Native people during the four centuries following Christopher Columbus' voyages, constitutes
the most massive eradication in the history of the world. The
staggering figure of lost lives is projected by major scholars as at least

one hundred million people. The current demographic analysis suggests that "as researchers calculate the cause of depopulation, the conclusion that will inevitably
be reached is that between 97 [*71] and 98 percent of North and South America's 1492 population was wiped out by post-Columbian holocaust." This means that only two
to three percent of the aboriginal population of the Americas survived. n83 Similarly, Fletcher states "[t]he genocide
perpetrated on Indian people is unprecedented in world history in terms of its continuity ." n84 The relationship
between non-Indians and Indians is also defined by at times voluntary, but often forced, land transfers from
Indians to non-Indians. n85 The present role of this ignoble history (albeit a history still being written n86) in the relationship between Indians and non-Indians
cannot be overstated. While it took Dances with Wolves n87 to remind a new generation of Americans of Indian suffering, "[e]very Indian and Indian tribe knows the story of their
decimation." n88 Ashley and Hubbard observe in their book on intergovernmental negotiations that "[o]vercoming this history is not easy!" n89 And I believe it should not be easy
Even if the self-determination era is an era in which U.S. policy warrants Indian trust in non-Indian
governments--itself a highly debatable proposition--this period reflects a mere blip on the centuries of
mistreatment of Indians at the hands of non-Indian governments. To borrow from Justice William Johnson's concurrence in Cherokee
to overcome.
Nation v. Georgia, n90 whether the heightened respect for Indian governments--begun with President Nixon's 1970 Special Message to Congress n91 and continued through
successive legislation n92 and executive orders, n93--"can be yet said to have received the consistency which entitles" [*72] non-Indian governments to the trust and respect of
Indians "is, I conceive, yet to be determined." n94 Tribes can negotiate cooperative agreements even when they do not trust the non-Indian governments at the negotiating table;
what Indians really need to negotiate from non-Indians is a "leaveus-alone agreement." n95 As argued by the late Professor Vine Deloria, Jr. in his highly influential manifesto, the leave-us-alone agreement has as central components
however, the blanket advocacy of such agreements rejects the idea that
an awareness of the role that caution regarding non-Indians has played in maintaining a unique Indian identity in the face of tremendous non-Indian pressure, as well as an
appropriate concern for the harmful effects of non-Indian involvement in Indian life. n96 As Deloria eloquently explains, the
U.S. government, and, by proxy, state
governments are not and should not be trusted by Indians: In looking back at the centuries of broken treaties, it is clear that the United States never intended to
keep any of its promises. Like other areas of life, the federal government adapted its policies to the expediency of the moment... Indian people have become extremely wary of
promises made by the federal government. The past has shown them that even the most innocent-looking proposal is often fraught with implications the sum total of which is loss
of land. n97 Much has changed since Deloria wrote these words. However, given the long history of contact--a history that is still being written to the detriment of Indian rights
n98--with non-Indians, the wariness of Indian people continues to be justified. n99
Nuke War first

Schell 82
Fate of the Earth pg. 82, God of Policy debate, debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/CheshierJan'01.pdf
...it
is clear that at present, with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence, and with more being
added every day, we have entered into the zone of uncertainty, which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. But the mere risk of
extinction has a significance that is categorically different from, and immeasurably greater than that of any other risk, and as we
make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. Up to now, every risk has been contained within the frame of
life; extinction would shatter the frame. It represents not the defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purposes
would be drowned for all time. We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless, eternal defeat on the same footing as
risks that we run in the ordinary conduct of our affairs in our particular transient moment of human history. To employ a
mathematical analogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite,
and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to
gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore,
although scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring
about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear
weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species. (95)
Link to Cap K
Escobar 12
The rising discourse of biodiversity in particular achieves this feat. In this discourse, nature becomes a source of value
in itself. Species of flora and fauna are valuable not so much as resources but as reservoirs of value that research
and knowledge, along with biotechnology, can release for capital and communities . This is one of the reasons why
ethnic and peasant communities in the tropical rain-forest areas of the world are finally being recognized as
owners of their territories (or what is left of them), but only to the extent that they accept to treat it and themselves
as reservoirs of capital. Communities and social movements in various parts of the world are being enticed by
biodiversity projects to become "stewards of the social and natural 'capitals' whose sustainable management is ,
henceforth, both their responsibility and the business of the world economy " (M. O'Connor 1993, 5). Once the
semiotic conquest of nature is completed, the sustainable and rational use of the environment becomes an
imperative. Here lies the underlying logic of sustainable development and biodiversity discourses . This new
capitalization of nature does not only rely on the semiotic conquest of territories (in terms of biodiversity reserves and
new schemes for land ownership and control) and communities (as "stewards" of nature); it also requires the semiotic
conquest of local knowledges, to the extent that "saving nature" demands the valuation of local knowledges of
sustaining nature. Modern biology is beginning to find local knowledge systems to be useful complements. In these discourses,
however, knowledge is seen as something that exists in the "minds" of individual persons (shamans, sages, elders)
about external "objects" (plants, species), the medical or economic "utility" of which their bearers are supposed
to "transmit" to the modern experts. Local knowledge is not seen as a complex cultural construction, involving
not objects but movements and events that are profoundly historical and relational. These forms of knowledge
usually have entirely different modes of operation and relations to social and cultural fields (Deleuze and Guattari
1987). By bringing them into the politics of science, local forms of knowledge are recodified by modern science in
utilitarian ways.
Secession Disad
Self determination movements are down in the status quo
Rosecrance 08
Professor of Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Governent, Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affiars, and Stein, Professor of Political
Science at UCLA, 2008 Richard and Arthur, Is Ethnic Conflict Inevitable?: Parting ways over nationalism and separatism, Foreign Affairs, July/August
Second, the achievement of separate sovereignty today depends on external recognition and support. Prospective
new states cannot gain independence without military assistance and economic aid from abroad. International
recognition, in turn, requires the aspiring nationalist movement to avoid international terrorism as a means of
gaining attention. If a separatist group uses terrorism, it tends to be reviled and sidelined. If an ethnic group does not have enough
support to win independence by peaceful electoral means inside its country, its resorting to terrorism only calls into
question the legitimacy of its quest for independence. Recognizing this, the Qubecois abandoned the terrorist
methods of the Quebec Liberation Front. Most Basques castigate Basque Homeland and Freedom (known by its
Basque acronym ETA). Enlightened Europeans have withdrawn their support for the Chechen rebels. And the
continued terrorist shelling of Israeli cities from a Hamas-dominated Gaza might undermine the previous
international consensus in favor of a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem , or at least warrant an exceptional
approach to Gaza. With the possible exception of the Palestinians, the notion that any of these peoples would be better off
in smaller and weaker independent states in a hostile neighborhood is unrealistic . Occasionally, dissidents make the
case that if they were to leave the state unit, they would be taken into the comforting embrace of the European Union or the North
American Free Trade Agreement, thereby gaining access to a large market. But that would depend a great deal on outsider support
for their cause. The United Kingdom might not wish to see Scotland in the EU and would be in a position to veto
its membership. The United States and Canada might not agree to let an independent Quebec join NAFTA. The
belief that when a tiny nation is born it falls automatically into the loving hands of international midwives is
questionable. The truth varies from case to case.
Plan sparks secessionist movements internationally
National Journal 2k
Missy Ryan, Will the ambassador from Navajo yield, June 3, Vol. 32, Issue 23
In general, though, the State Department is just plain suspicious about Indians' insistence on legal self-determination
internationally. If the trend toward more recognition of native peoples continues, it could raise all sorts of
problems with how Washington deals with separatist groups all over the world. Moreover, the State Department takes
a far dimmer view of Indians' quest for recognition than do other Clinton Administration agencies, including the Interior and
Justice departments. Although some degree of self-government and territorial autonomy for Indian tribes, similar to that which
individual states wield, is recognized by many federal agencies, the State Department sees Indian tribes as domestic protectorates
in international questions. In its view tribes shouldn't deal with any foreign nation. For State Department diplomats , expanding
Indian rights also increases the risk of more balkanizations here and around the globe. Although American
Indians protest that they aren't after secession, native groups in other parts of world, such as in the volatile
Chiapas region of southern Mexico, are much more likely to take any such rights and run with them .
Self determination sparks secession
Rothbard 90
Murray, author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other
books and articles. He was also the editor with Lew Rockwell of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report., August 1990, National Self-Determination,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard134.html
National boundaries are only just insofar as they are based on voluntary consent and the property rights of their
members or citizens. Just national boundaries are, then, at best derivative and not primary. How much more is
this true of existing State boundaries which are, in greater or lesser degree, based on coercive expropriation of
private property, or on a mixture of that with voluntary consent! In practice, the way to have such national
boundaries as just as possible is to preserve and cherish the right of secession, the right of different regions,
groups, or ethnic nationalities to get the blazes out of the larger entity, to set up their own independent nation.
Only by boldly asserting the right of secession can the concept of national self-determination be anything more
than a sham and a hoax.
The impact is war

Gottlieb 93
Gottlieb, Director of the Middle East Peace Project, 1993 Gideon, Nation Against State
Self-determination unleashed and unchecked by balancing principles constitutes a menace to the society of states.
There is simply no way in which all the hundreds of peoples who aspire to sovereign independence can be
granted a state of their own without loosening fearful anarchy and disorder on a planetary scale. The proliferation
of territorial entities poses exponentially greater problems for the control of weapons of mass destruction and
multiplies situations in which external intervention could threaten the peace. It increases problems for the
management of all global issues, including terrorism, AIDS, the environment, and population growth. It creates
conditions in which domestic strife in remote territories can drag powerful neighbors into local hostilities,
creating ever widening circles of conflict. Events in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union drove this point home.
Like Russian dolls, ever smaller ethnic groups dwelling in larger units emerged to secede and to demand independence. Georgia,
for example has to contend with the claims of south Ossetians and Abkhazians for independence, just as the Russian federation is
confronted with the separatism of Tartaristan. An international system made up several hundred independent
territorial states cannot be the basis for global security and prosperity
No Movements Now, Emigration

Rosecrance 08
Science at UCLA, 2008 (Richard and Arthur, Is Ethnic Conflict Inevitable?: Parting ways over nationalism and separatism, Foreign Affairs, July/August)
Fourth, a discontented population may react to ethnic discrimination, but it also responds to economic need, and whatever
its concerns, it does not always have to seek independence to alleviate them. It has another safety valve: emigration
to another country. The state of Monterrey has not sought independence from Mexico; rather, many of its inhabitants have
moved, legally or illegally, to the United States. The huge emigration from the Maghreb to France and Italy reflects a similar
attitude and outcome; the dissatisfied populations of North Africa can find greater welfare in Europe. And when Poles move to
France or the United Kingdom, they do not secede from the mother country but demonstrate greater satisfaction
with French or British rule. Emigration is the overwhelming alternative to secession when the home government
does not sufficiently mitigate economic disparities.
No Movements Now, Economics

Rosecrance 08
Science at UCLA, 2008 (Richard and Arthur, Is Ethnic Conflict Inevitable?: Parting ways over nationalism and separatism, Foreign Affairs, July/August)
The apostles of national self-determination would do well to consider a still more important trend: the return to
bigness in the international system. This is happening not only because great powers such as China, India, and
the United States are now taking on greater roles in world politics but also because international economics
increasingly dwarfs politics. To keep up, states have to get bigger. The international market has always been larger than
the domestic ones, but as long as international openness beckoned, even small powers could hope to prosper and attain some
degree of economic influence. In the past decade, however, the tariff reductions proposed in the Doha Round of international trade
negotiations have failed, industrial duties have not fallen, and agriculture has become even more highly protected than it was in
the nineteenth century. Globalization has clearly distributed economic boons to smaller countries, but these states
still require greater political scale to fully realize globalization's benefits. To generate scale, states have negotiated
bilateral and multilateral trade preferences with other states regionally and internationally, thereby gaining
access to larger markets. The EU has decided to make up in the enlargement of its membership and a bigger free-trade area
what it lacks in internal economic growth. The 27 countries of the EU currently have a combined GDP of over $14 trillion, besting
the United States' $13 trillion, and the union's expansion is not over yet. Europe never faced the limits on "manifest destiny" that
confronted the United States--the shores of the Pacific Ocean. Charles de Gaulle was wrong when he heralded a "Europe from the
Atlantic to the Urals": the EU has already expanded into the Caucasus. And with at least eight new members, it will proceed into
Central Asia. As the borders of Europe approach Russia, even Moscow will seek de facto ties with the increasingly monolithic
European giant. In Asia, current tensions between China and Japan have not prevented proposals for a free-trade zone, a common
currency, and an investment bank for the region. Chinese in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam
draw their adopted countries toward Beijing. China will not expand territorially (except titularly when Taiwan rejoins the
mainland), but it will move to consolidate an economic network that will contain all the elements of production, except, perhaps,
raw materials. Japan will adjust to China's primacy, and even South Korea will see the writing on the wall.
Self Determination spills over to other

indigenous groups
Washburn 95
Washburn, Director of the American Studies Program at the Smithsonian Institution, 1995 Wilcomb E., Red mans Land/White Mans Law, Pages v-vi
One of the changes since 1971 has been the growing relevance of the American Indian policy in the larger
international context. In the past twenty-five years, the relationship of the United states to the Indian tribes and the
nations within its borders (described by presidents Reagan, Bush , and Clinton as a government-to-government relationship)
has influenced the emerging relationships of native and non-native peoples in Canada, Australia, and Latin
America. In its July 26, 1994, Statement to the working group on Indigenous Populations, the U.S. Observer Delegation
reported from Geneva that the United States strongly supports the basic goals of the United Nations Draft Universal Declaration
of Indigenous Rights, and desires to explore how this concept of self-determination [for Indian tribes and Alaska
Natives within the United States] might be translated into international terms. While differences of opinion over the
declaration remain (for example, whether to use the term indigenous people or indigenous peoples the latter term which
might imply the right of secession), the United States continues to provide a model against which other nations
measure their policies toward their indigenous populations.
US support spills over, Kosovo proves

Bose 08
Sumantra, Kosovo to Kashmir: the self-determination dilemma, May 22, http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/kosovo-to-kashmir-autonomy-secession-and-democracy
Aggrieved minorities - the "orphans of secession", as one scholar has called them - have always been both the collateral
damage and the volatile discontents of this policy, starting with the Serbs of Croatia. It is this series of precedents that
United Nations special envoy Martti Ahtisaari's 2007 recommendation of "supervised independence" for Kosovo indirectly alludes
to when it asserts that "concluding this last episode in the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia will allow the region to begin a
new chapter in its history." The recognition of Kosovo as sovereign by some of the wealthiest and most prominent
states in the international system, including its sole superpower, is (as was the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia in
early 1992) a validation of an ethno-nationalist claim to self-determination based on the will of the majority
ethnos. Two crucial factors here are the overwhelming extent of this majority (it is doubtful that the Ahtisaari proposal
could have been floated if Albanians were a 67% majority of Kosovo's people, as they were in 1961 according to the Yugoslav
census of that year, rather than the 90% majority of today); and the unanimous and adamant insistence of that huge
majority on the maximal version of self-determination. President Bush's praise of the Kosovo Albanian
leadership's "embrace of multi-ethnicity as a principle of good governance" in his letter to Kosovo's president
endorsing the declaration of independence, puts no more than a poor gloss on this reality. Multi-ethnicity as a
principle of governance was extinguished across the region of the former Yugoslavia more than fifteen years ago .
International support= movements

Bose 08
Sumantra, Kosovo to Kashmir: the self-determination dilemma, May 22, http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/kosovo-to-kashmir-autonomy-secession-and-democracy
Sovereignty has two aspects: the juridical (which depends on international recognition) and the empirical (which depends on the
capacity of the state's authorities to control and administer its territory). Both aspects are political battlegrounds in the Kosovo
controversy. The world is divided on the juridical issue, and there is a minority group of dissenters even among the EU states.
Belgrade's rejection of the 17 February 2008 declaration in Pristina is a crucial factor reinforcing the divide. Within the last
decade, East Timor's internationally supervised independence (1999-2002) was made possible by Indonesia's acquiescence to that
process. Three decades ago, Pakistan's recognition of Bangladesh's sovereignty - given in February 1974, just two years after the
end of armed hostilities, once Pakistan received guarantees about the repatriation of its 90,000 prisoners of war from the
December 1971 conflict - paved the way to Bangladesh's membership of the United Nations in September 1974. As long as Serbia
continues to declare Kosovo a renegade province, on the lines of China's position vis--vis Taiwan, the juridical issue cannot be
settled.
US Policy is modeled
Fourth World Center 96
US Model of Indigenous Rights Subverts Inter-sessional Working Group, Spring/Summer, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/fwc/Issue10/Commentary/rights-1.html
In the summer of 1994, following the conclusion of the 12th session of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, the SubCommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities sent the Draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples to the UN Commission on Human Rights. This was a necessary step for the Draft in route to the ultimate
approval by the UN General Assembly that its proponents hope to achieve. But in February 1995, the Draft Declaration was put in
jeopardy of de-railment when the Human Rights Commission ordered the Draft reviewed by a new working group. That group,
named the "Open-ended Inter-sessional Working Group" (referred to herein as the "Inter-sessional"), held its first meeting from 20
November to 1 December 1995. The proceedings from the meeting demonstrate an attempt by a coterie of states, led by the United
States, to commandeer the debate on indigenous rights, as they try to maintain their control of international law and the United
Nations' role in enforcing the principles found in the Draft Declaration. Because of its role as the one surviving super-
power at the end of the Cold War, with the financial leverage to determine the future of the United Nations, the
US has inordinate control over the way the Draft Declaration is being worded and what exactly the document
will imply as policy. The United States intends that its own model for treatment of indigenous peoples should be
emulated by other states, and therefore that the Draft Declaration should reflect the order of US Indian Law.
The agenda is not merely to define a simple moral order; more important, the US is attempting to create a
broader, more encompassing hegemony that minimizes the possibility that indigenous peoples might actually be
protagonists of their own destinies. The rationale behind US policy is quite apparently that, as the biggest
stakeholder in the world economic system, it believes it has the right to limit the number of nations that can
achieve independent statehood. Each new state that comes into the system taxes the managerial resources of the
system, because each one expects to increase its political and economic power. Each new state demands the
perquisites that correspond to becoming truly independent, to be treated as a legitimate "people" in control of
its own destiny, thus demonstrating to non-state actors like indigenous peoples that self-determination might
also be within their reach. Each new state must be kept at least marginally satisfied in economic rewards, in
order to be kept from returning to the socialist competition that has been abandoned for the past five years. And
all states in the private club that is the United Nations expect that the "unruly mob" of hundreds of indigenous
peoples that also aspire to control their own destinies will be kept at bay with a general policy designed to
mollify them.
Self Determination = War

Etzioni 93
University professor at George Washington University and editor of the responsive community, 1993 Amitai, The evils of self determination, Winter, Issue 89
In earlier historical periods the people favoring self-determination tended to be internationalist. As long as the leaders of various
national movements were largely poets, philosophers, and intellectuals rallying against dominant empires, their causes seemed
appealing and just. However, as nationalism--and especially micro-nationalism--has spread increasing hostility,
ethnic fragmentation has opened the door to great new violence. In Moldova, the Russian minority and the Gagauz
people face discrimination and outright violence. The same holds for the ethnic Turkish minority in Bulgaria, Romanians in
Hungary, and Hungarians in Romania. Civil wars among ethnic entities within the newly independent African states
are commonplace. And in India, though the Sikhs have not yet obtained independence for Punjab, subgroups are
already at each other's throats.
Self Determination= Great power war

Brietzke 95
Professor, Valparaiso University School of Law, 1995 Paul H., Self-Determination, or jurisprudential confusion: Exacerbating political conflict, Fall, 14 Wis. Intl L.J. 69
Only a suicidal state will give up territory or vital functions without a fight, merely to satisfy one of its nations' selfdetermination claims. "International law is not a suicide club for States." n24 If it were, states would refuse to cooperate or
participate wherever possible. While much of international law assumes that conflict n25 characterizes international politics,
conventional lawmaking processes assume a consensus among the party-States that bargain out the advantages from particular
abandonments of an international state of nature. However, external conditions, such as a powerful patron state or the
international community, may force the state to cede authority over a "nation." Historically, self-determination
claims figured prominently in a Hobbesian "war of all against all": groups seceded from a state through struggle
and not as a matter of right. Given the coercive capacities that most states can muster while under threat, few
self-determination claims succeeded if they were not linked to boundary adjustments after a major war . For
example, in the American Civil War, the claim of self-determination was merely the exception that proved the rules of state
sovereignty and territorial integrity. Recently, however, such claims have become more successful and [*78] respectable. While
"dispossessions, ethnocide, genocide and other human rights abuses" still disfigure international politics, a
greater international acceptance of cultural pluralism and greater awareness of the injustices portrayed by the
international media exist. n26 The older generation's dinnertime tales about the "starving Armenians" have been replaced by
nightly video footage from Bosnia or Rwanda.
Self determination kills democracy

Etzioni 93
University professor at George Washington University and editor of the responsive community, 1993 Amitai, The evils of self determination, Winter, Issue 89
self-determination works against

democratization and threatens democracy in countries that have already attained it. Self-determination
movements challenge democracy by chipping away at its structural and socio-psychological foundations . Structurally,
democracy depends on more than regular elections. Elections were conducted frequently by an authoritarian Egypt and the communist USSR. A true democratic
structure requires that nonviolent change of those in power can be made in response to the people's changing
preferences. Such changes ensure that the government can continue to respond to the needs and desires of the
people, and that if the government becomes unresponsive it will be replaced without undue difficulties. To ensure that
Although the economic penalties paid by splinter states may be painful, they are not the primary cost of disunion. Excessive
the variety of needs within a population find effective political expression, democracies require that the sitting government not "homogenize" the population in some artificial
Only a plurality of social, cultural, and economic loyalties and power centers
within society make it possible for new groups to break upon the political scene, find allies, build coalitions, and
effect change. The Great Society reforms of the mid 1960s in the United States demonstrate the importance of a plural, fluid system. Rising African American groups
manner, like imposing one state-approved religion.
formed a coalition with white liberals and labor unions to advance a common agenda, increasing political participation and preventing a political explosion. Aside from keeping
the government and its closest allies in the population in check, the pluralistic array of groups that thrive in a truly democratic society also keep one another in check. When
historical processes or deliberate government policies leave only one group of supporters organized and weaken all other groups, as the Nazis did in post-World War I Germany,
they undermine the foundations of democracy. In short, social pluralism supports democratic government. While there are many ways the coalitions needed for social pluralism
can be built, the best are those that cut across existing lines of division, dampening the power of each and allowing for a large number of possible combinations of social bases to
build political power. Thus, a society rigidly divided into two or three economic classes may have a structure that is somewhat more conducive to democratic government than a
society with only one class. However, the potential for democracy in such a society increases when there are other groups that draw on members from various classes, so that
loyalty to them cuts across class lines. In the United States, ethnic loyalties have historically cut across socio-economic strata, dampening both class and ethnic divisions. Thus,
American Jews may be largely middle and upper-middle class, but most people in those classes are not Jewish, and there are Jews in the other classes. White Anglo-Saxon
Protestants may be over-represented in the upper classes, but they are also found in large numbers in all other classes, and so on. The fact that both economic and ethnic loyalties
cut across regional boundaries further cements the foundations of pluralism and, hence, of democracy. In contrast, breakaway states based on ethnicity tend to fashion
communities that are more sociologically monolithic than their parent states. Quebec, obviously, would be more "French"--and the remaining Canada more "English"--than the
Ethnically based breakaway

states generally result in more ethnic homogeneity and less pluralism, meaning that they often lack the deeper
sociological foundations of democracy.
current composite. The great intolerance breakaway states tend to display toward minority ethnic groups heightens the polarization.
Extinction
Diamond 96
Larry, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, http://wwwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.html)
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia
nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through
increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly
corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate.
The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and
unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its
provisions for legality, accountabIlity, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The
experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do
not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders.
Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic
insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to
use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long
run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they
must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor
international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach
agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the
rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and
prosperity can be built.
Give Back the Land

Progress is only possible by first accounting for the original sin of the U.S. nation state, the failure the engage the subject of
the Indian homeland as a first priority is a strategic silence
Churchill 96
WARD CHURCHILL, FORMER PROFESSOR OF ETHNIC STUDIES AT UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER 1996 [I AM INDIGENIST, FROM A NATIVE SON PGS 520-30]
the pervasive and near-total silence of the Left in this connection has been quite illuminating
Let me say that

. Non-Indian activists,
with only a handful of exceptions, persistently plead that they cant really take a coherent position on the matter of Indian land rights because unfortunately, theyre not really conversant with the issues (as if these were tremendously
they do virtually nothing, generation after generation, to inform themselves on the topic of who
actually owns the ground theyre standing on. The record can be played only so many times before it wears out and becomes just another variation of hear
no evil, see no evil. At this point, it doesnt take Albert Einstein to figure out that the Left doesnt know much about such things because its never wanted to know, or that this is so because its
always had its own plans for utilizing land it has no more right to than does the status quo it claims to oppose . The
complex). Meanwhile,
usual technique for explaining this away has always been a sort of pro forma acknowledgement that Indian land rights are of course really important stuff (yawn), but that one really doesnt have a lot of time to get into it (Ill buy your
book, though, and keep it on my shelf, even if I never read it). Reason? Well, one is just overwhelmingly preoccupied with working on other important issues (meaning, what they consider to be more important issues). Typically
sexism, racism, homophobia, class inequities, militarism, the environment, or some combination of these.
Certainly, theres no denying any of these issues their due; they are all important, obviously so.
But more important than the question of land rights? There are some serious problems of primacy and priority
imbedded in the orthodox script. To frame things clearly in this regard, lets hypothesize for a moment that all of the various non-Indian movements concentrating on each of these issues were suddenly
enumerated are
Its a pretty good evasion, all in all.
successful in accomplishing their objectives . Lets imagine that the United States as a whole were somehow transformed into an entity defined by the parity of its race, class, and gender relations, its embrace of unrestricted sexual
When all is said and done, the

society resulting from this scenario is still, first and foremost, a colonialist society, an imperialist society in the most
fundamental sense possible with all that this implies. This is true because the scenario does nothing at all to address the
fact that whatever is happening happens on someone elses land, not only without their consent, but through an
adamant disregard for their rights to the land. Hence, all it means is that the immigrant or invading population has rearranged its affairs in such a way as to make itself more comfortable
at the continuing expense of indigenous people. The colonial equation remains intact and may even be reinforced by a greater degree of
participation, and vested interest in maintenance of the colonial order among the settler population at large. The
preference, its rejection of militarism in all forms, and its abiding concern with environmental protection (I know, I know, this is a sheer impossibility, but thats my point).
dynamic here is not very different from that evident in the American Revolution of the late 18th century, is it? And we all know very well where that led, dont we? Should we therefore begin to refer to socialist imperialism, feminist
imperialism, gay and lesbian imperialism, environmental imperialism, African American, and la Raza imperialism? I would hope not. I would hope this is all just a matter of confusion, of muddled priorities among people who really do
mean well and whod like to do better. If so, then all that is necessary to correct the situation is a basic rethinking of what must be done., and in what order. Here, Id advance the straightforward premise that the land rights of First
Americans should serve as a first priority for everyone seriously committed to accomplishing positive change in North America. But before I suggest everyone jump off and adopt this priority, I suppose its only fair that I interrogate the
converse of the proposition: if making things like class inequity and sexism the preeminent focus of progressive action in North America inevitably perpetuates the internal colonial structure of the United States, does the reverse hold true?
all
indications are that when left to their own devices, indigenous peoples have consistently organized their societies
in the most class-free manners. Look to the example of the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy). Look to the Muscogee (Creek) Confederacy. Look to the confederations of the Yaqui and
Ill state unequivocally that it does not. There is no indication whatsoever that a restoration of indigenous sovereignty in Indian Country would foster class stratification anywhere, least of all in Indian Country. In fact,
the Lakota, and those pursued and nearly perfected by Pontiac and Tecumseh. They represent the very essence of enlightened egalitarianism and democracy. Every imagined example to the contrary brought forth by even the most arcane
anthropologist can be readily offset by a couple of dozen other illustrations along the lines of those I just mentioned. Would sexism be perpetuated? Ask one of the Haudenosaunee clan mothers, who continue to assert political leadership in
their societies through the present day. Ask Wilma Mankiller, current head of the Cherokee nation , a people that traditionally led by what were called Beloved Women. Ask a Lakota womanor man, for that matterabout who it was
that owned all real property in traditional society, and what that meant in terms of parity in gender relations. Ask a traditional Navajo grandmother about her social and political role among her people. Women in most traditional native
societies not only enjoyed political, social, and economic parity with men, they often held a preponderance of power in one or more of these spheres. Homophobia? Homosexuals of both genders were (and in many settings still are) deeply
revered as special or extraordinary, and therefore spiritually significant, within most indigenous North American cultures. The extent to which these realities do not now pertain in native societies is exactly the extent to which Indians have
restoration of Indian land rights is tied directly to the reconstitution of

traditional indigenous social, political, and economic modes, you can see where this leads: the relations of sex and sexuality accord rather well with the aspirations of
been subordinated to the mores of the invading, dominating culture. Insofar as
feminist and gay rights activism. How about a restoration of native land rights precipitating some sort of environmental holocaust? Lets get at least a little bit real here. If youre not addicted to the fabrications of Smithsonian
anthropologists about how Indians lived, or George Weurthners Eurosupremacist Earth First! Fantasies about how we beat all the wooly mammoths and mastodons and saber-toothed cats to death with sticks, then this question isnt even on
the board. I know its become fashionable among Washington Post editorialists to make snide references to native people strewing refuse in their wake as they wandered nomadically about the prehistoric North American landscape.
What is that supposed to imply? That we, who were mostly sedentary agriculturalists in any event. Were dropping plastic and aluminum cans as we went? Like I said, lets get real. Read the accounts of early European arrival, despite the
fact that it had been occupied by 15 or 20 million people enjoying a remarkably high standard of living for nobody knows how long: 40,000 years? 50,000 years? Longer? Now contrast that reality to whats been done to this continent over
the past couple of hundred years by the culture Weurthner, the Smithsonian, and the Post represent, and you tell me about environmental devastation. That leaves militarism and racism. Taking the last first, there really is no indication of
racism in traditional Indian societies. To the contrary, the record reveals that Indians habitually intermarried between groups, and frequently adopted both children and adults from other groups. This occurred in pre- contact times between
Indians, and the practice was broadened to include those of both African and European originand ultimately Asian origin as wellonce contact occurred. Those who were naturalized by marriage or adoption were considered members of
the group, pure and simple. This was always the Indian view. The Europeans and subsequent Euroamerican settlers viewed things rather differently, however, and foisted off the notion that Indian identity should be determined primarily by
blood quantum, an outright eugenics code similar to those developed in places like Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Now thats a racist construction if there ever was one. Unfortunately, a lot of Indians have been conned into
buying into this anti- Indian absurdity, and thats something to be overcome. But theres also solid indication that quite a number of native people continue to strongly resist such things as the quantum system. As to militarism, no one will
deny that Indians fought wars among themselves both before and after the European invasion began. Probably half of all indigenous peoples in North America maintained permanent warrior societies. This could perhaps be reasonably
construed as militarism, but not, I think, with the sense the term conveys within the European/Euro-American tradition. There were never, so far as anyone can demonstrate,, wars of annihilation fought in this hemisphere prior to the
Columbian arrival, none. In fact, it seems that it was a more or less firm principle of indigenous warfare not to kill, the object being to demonstrate personal bravery, something that could be done only against a live opponent. Theres no
honor to be had in killing another person, because a dead person cant hurt you. Theres no risk. This is not to say that nobody ever died or was seriously injured in the fighting. They were, just as they are in full contact contemporary sports
like football and boxing. Actually, these kinds of Euro-American games are what I would take to be the closest modern parallels to traditional inter-Indian warfare. For Indians, it was a way of burning excess testosterone out of young males,
and not much more. So, militarism in the way the term is used today is as alien to native tradition as smallpox and atomic bombs. Not only is it perfectly reasonable to assert that a restoration of Indian control over unceded lands within the
United States would do nothing to perpetuate such problems as sexism and classism, but the reconstitution of indigenous societies this would entail stands to free the affected portions of North America from such maladies altogether.
Moreover, it can be said that the process should have a tangible impact in terms of diminishing such oppressions elsewhere. The principles is this: sexism, racism, and all the rest arose here as a concomitant to the emergence and
Everything the state does, everything it can do, is entirely

contingent on its maintaining its internal cohesion, a cohesion signified above all by its pretended territorial
integrity, its ongoing domination of Indian Country. Given this, it seems obvious that the literal dismemberment
of the nation-state inherent to Indian land recovery correspondingly reduces the ability of the state to sustain the
imposition of objectionable relations within itself. It follows that realization of indigenous land rights serves to
undermine or destroy the ability of the status quo to continue imposing a racist, sexist, classist, homophobic,
militaristic order on non-Indians.
consolidation of the Eurocentric nation-state form of sociopolitical and economic organization.
The impact is extinction, turns the case
Friedberg 01
Collective indifference to these conditions on the part of both white and black America is a poor reflection on the
nation's character. This collective refusal to acknowledge the genocide further exacerbates the aftermath in
Native communities and hinders the recovery process. This, too, sets the American situation apart from the German-Jewish situation: Holocaust denial is seen by most
of the world as an affront to the victims of the Nazi regime. In America, the situation is the reverse: victims seeking recovery are seen as assaulting American ideals. But what
is at stake today, at the dawn of a new millennium, is not the culture, tradition, and survival of one population on one continent on either side of the
Atlantic. What is at stake is the very future of the human species. LaDuke, in her most recent work, contextualizes the issues from a contemporary
perspective: Our experience of survival and resistance is shared with many others. But it is not only about Native people. . . . In the final analysis, the survival of Native America is
fundamentally about the collective survival of all human beings. The question of who gets to determine the destiny of the land, and of the people who live on it--those with the
money or those who pray on the land--is a question that is alive throughout society. 57 [End Page 367] "There
is," as LaDuke reminds us, "a direct relationship

between the loss of cultural diversity and the loss of biodiversity. Wherever Indigenous peoples still remain,
there is also a corresponding enclave of biodiversity." 58 But, she continues, The last 150 years have seen a great holocaust. There have been more
species lost in the past 150 years than since the Ice Age. (During the same time, Indigenous peoples have been disappearing from the face of the earth. Over 2,000 nations of
Indigenous peoples have gone extinct in the western hemisphere and one nation disappears from the Amazon rainforest every year.) 59 It
is not about "us" as

indigenous peoples--it is about "us" as a human species. We are all related. At issue is no longer the "Jewish question" or
the "Indian problem." We must speak today in terms of the "human problem." And it is this "problem" for which
not a "final," but a sustainable, viable solution must be found--because it is no longer a matter of "serial
genocide," it has become one of collective suicide. As Terrence Des Pres put it, in The Survivor: "At the heart of our problems is
that nihilism which was all along the destiny of Western culture: a nihilism either unacknowledged even as the
bombs fell or else, as with Hitler or Stalin, demonically proclaimed as the new salvation."
The alternative is to reject the right of the U.S. nation state to exist on planet Earth
Churchill 96
WARD CHURCHILL, FORMER PROFESSOR OF ETHNIC STUDIES AT UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER 1996 [I AM INDIGENIST, FROM A NATIVE SON PGS 89-94
in order to begin their struggles at all, anti-colonial fighters around the world have had to
abandon orthodox realism in favor of what they knew to be right. To paraphrase Bendit, they accepted as their agenda, a
redefinition of reality in terms deemed quite impossible within the conventional wisdom of their oppressors. And
in each case, they succeeded in their immediate quest for liberation. The fact that all but one (Cuba) of the examples used subsequently turned out to hold
. The point is that in each case,
colonizing pretensions of its own does not alter the truth of thisor alter the appropriateness of their efforts to decolonize themselvesin the least. It simply means that decolonization has yet to run its course, that much remains to be done.
The battles waged by native nations in North America to free themselves, and the lands upon which they depend
for ongoing existence as discernible peoples, from the grip of U.S. (and Canadian) internal colonialism are plainly part of
this process of liberation. Given that their very survival depends upon their perseverance in the face of all
apparent odds, American Indians have no real alternative but to carry on. They must struggle, and where there
is struggle here is always hope. Moreover, the unrealistic or romantic dimensions of our aspiration to quite
literally dismantle the territorial corpus of the U.S. state begin to erode when one considers that federal
domination of Native North America is utterly contingent upon maintenance of a perceived confluence of
interests between prevailing governmental/corporate elites and common non-Indian citizens. Herein lies the
prospect of long-term success. It is entirely possibly that the consensus of opinion concerning non-Indian
rights to exploit the land and resources of indigenous nations can be eroded, and that large numbers of nonIndians will join in the struggle to decolonize Native North America. Few non-Indians wish to identify with or defend the naziesque characteristics of US history.
To the contrary most seek to deny it in rather vociferous fashion. All things being equal, they are uncomfortable with many of the resulting attributes of federal postures and actively oppose one or more of these, so long as such politics do
not intrude into a certain range of closely guarded self- interests. This is where the crunch comes in the realm of Indian rights issues. Most non-Indians (of all races and ethnicities, and both genders) have been indoctrinated to believe the
officially contrived notion that, in the event the Indians get their land back, or even if the extent of present federal domination is relaxed, native people will do unto their occupiers exactly as has been done to them; mass dispossession and
eviction of non-Indians, especially Euro-Americans is expected to ensue. Hence even progressives who are most eloquently inclined to condemn US imperialism abroad and/or the functions of racism and sexism at home tend to deliver a
blank stare or profess open disinterest when indigenous land rights are mentioned. Instead of attempting to come to grips with this most fundamental of all issues the more sophisticated among them seek to divert discussions into higher
priority or more important topics like issues of class and gender equality in which justice becomes synonymous with a redistribution of power and loot deriving from the occupation of Native North America even while occupation
continues. Sometimes, Indians are even slated to receive their fair share in the division of spoils accruing from expropriation of their resources. Always, such things are couched in terms of some greater good than decolonizing the .6
percent of the U.S. population which is indigenous. Some Marxist and environmentalist groups have taken the argument so far as to deny that Indians possess any rights distinguishable from those of their conquerors. AIM leader Russell
Means snapped the picture into sharp focus when he observed n 1987 that: so-called progressives in the United States claiming that Indians are obligated to give up their rights because a much larger group of non-Indians need their
resources is exactly the same as Ronald Reagan and Elliot Abrams asserting that the rights of 250 million North Americans outweigh the rights of a couple million Nicaraguans. Leaving aside the pronounced and pervasive hypocrisy
permeating these positions, which add up to a phenomenon elsewhere described as settler state colonialism, the fact is that the specter driving even most radical non-Indians into lockstep with the federal government on questions of native
land rights is largely illusory. The alternative reality posed by native liberation struggles is actually much different: While government propagandists are wont to trumpetas they did during the Maine and Black Hills land disputes of the
1970sthat an Indian win would mean individual non-Indian property owners losing everything, the native position has always been the exact opposite. Overwhelmingly, the lands sought for actual recovery have been governmentally and
corporately held. Eviction of small land owners has been pursued only in instances where they have banded togetheras they have during certain of the Iroquois claims casesto prevent Indians from recovering any land at all, and to
otherwise deny native rights. Official sources contend this is inconsistent with the fact that all non-Indian title to any portion of North America could be called into question. Once the dike is breached, they argue, its just a matter of time
before everybody has to start swimming back to Europe, or Africa or wherever. Although there is considerable technical accuracy to admissions that all non-Indian title to North America is illegitimate, Indians have by and large indicated
they would be content to honor the cession agreements entered into by their ancestors, even though the United States has long since defaulted. This would leave somewhere close to two-thirds of the continental United States in non-Indian
hands, with the real rather than pretended consent of native people. The remaining one-third, the areas delineated in Map II to which the United States never acquired title at all would be recovered by its rightful owners. The government
holds that even at that there is no longer sufficient land available for unceded lands, or their equivalent, to be returned. In fact, the government itself still directly controls more than one-third of the total U.S. land area, about 770 million
acres. Each of the states also owns large tracts, totaling about 78 million acres. It is thus quite possibleand always has beenfor all native claims to be met in full without the loss to non-Indians of a single acre of privately held land.
When it is considered that 250 million-odd acres of the privately held total are now in the hands of major corporate entities, the real dimension of the threat to small land holders (or more accurately, lack of it) stands revealed.
Government spokespersons have pointed out that the disposition of public lands does not always conform to treaty areas. While this is true, it in no way precludes some process of negotiated land exchange wherein the boundaries of
indigenous nations are redrawn by mutual consent to an exact, or at least a much closer conformity. All that is needed is an honest, open, and binding forumsuch as a new bilateral treaty processwith which to proceed. In fact, numerous
native peoples have, for a long time, repeatedly and in a variety of ways, expressed a desire to participate in just such a process. Nonetheless, it is argued, there will still be at least some non-Indians trapped within such restored areas.
Actually, they would not be trapped at all. The federally imposed genetic criteria of Indian ness discussed elsewhere in this book notwithstanding, indigenous nations have the same rights as any other to define citizenry by allegiance
(naturalization) rather than by race. Non- Indians could apply for citizenship, or for some form of landed alien status which would allow them to retain their property until they die. In the event they could not reconcile themselves to living
under any jurisdiction other than that of the United States, they would obviously have the right to leace, and they should have the right to compensation from their own government (which got them into the mess in the first place). Finally,
and one suspects this is the real crux of things from the government/corporate perspective, any such restoration of land and attendant sovereign prerogatives to native nations would result in a truly massive loss of domestic resources to
the United States, thereby impairing the countrys economic and military capacities (see Radioactive Colonialism essay for details). For everyone who queued up to wave flags and tie on yellow ribbons during the United States recent
imperial adventure in the Persian Gulf, this prospect may induce a certain psychic trauma. But, for progressives at least, it
the great mass of non-Indians in North America really have much to gain
and almost nothing to lose, from the success of native people in struggles to reclaim the land which is rightfully
ours. The tangible diminishment of US material power which is integral to our victories in this sphere stands to
pave the way for realization of most other agendas from anti-imperialism to environmentalism, from African
American liberation to feminism, from gay rights to the ending of class privilege pursued by progressive on
this continent. Conversely, succeeding with any or even all of these other agendas would still represent an inherently oppressive situation in their realization is contingent upon an ongoing occupation of Native North
America without the consent of Indian people. Any North American revolution which failed to free indigenous territory from non-Indian
domination would be simply a continuation of colonialism in another form. Regardless of the angle from which
you view the matter, the liberation of Native North America, liberation of the land first and foremost, is the key
to fundamental and positive social changes of many other sorts. One thing they say, leads to another. The question has always been, of course,
which thing is to the first in the sequence. A preliminary formulation for those serious about achieving (rather than endlessly theorizing and debating), radical change in the United States might be First Priority to
should be precisely the point. When you think about these issues in this way,
First Americans Put another way this would mean, US out of Indian Country. Inevitably, the logic leads to what weve all been so desperately seeking: The
United States at least what weve come to know it out of North America altogether. From there it can be
permanently banished from the planet. In its stead, surely we can join hands to create something new and
infinitely better. Thats our vision of impossible realism. Isnt it time we all went to work on attaining it?
State bad/perm fails

Churchill 04
WARD CHURCHILL, NATIVE AMERICAN ACTIVIST AND PROLIFIC AUTHOR, APRIL 2004 DISMANTLING THE POLITICS OF COMFORT. SATYA MAGAZINE
That's looking for a painless fix again. Power and leverage in the traditional sense are not going to bring fundamental change into
being. Each of those entities is a projector of the same kind of violence, but on a quantitatively lesser scale than the U.S. However,
the nature of their intervention, based upon their perception of self-interest, is convincing the U.S. to [change] in a way that will
not visit undue consequences upon them. You'd get cosmetic alterations-policy adjustments and so forth-a refinement
of the system, thus the continuation of the status quo. It would ultimately create illusions of change and keep
people confused. Third world opposition on the other hand understands this dynamic much more clearly. You have to have
an eradication of the beast, not a retraining of the beast's performance. I can give a talk to a university in North
America, to students and professors, and they are fundamentally confused about things that are automatically self-evident to
people when you go to a village in Latin America, where the average educational attainment is third grade. Now why can these
"peasants" automatically grasp concepts that are just beyond the reach altogether of your average university audience in North
America? Why do you think? Partly because it's this fostering of illusion-and it's self-imposed-that repeating the same process yet
again will somehow lead to a fundamentally different result. We can go through the charade of 'let's elect John Kerry instead of
George Bush,' do things which are essentially painless to us, and the outcome is going to be different. You don't have politics, you
have alchemy. That's delusional behavior. It's a state of denial in a social maybe even cultural sense. And that's what's
masquerading as progressive politics. Is there a historical example of what could happen here? There is
absolutely no historical precedent that I could name. We're [within] the belly of the beast. When you destabilize,
when there is genuinely significant fracturing, the actual disintegration of the social and political order.
Everybody goes on about the end of the 60s, but there nonetheless were conditions indicating substantial
instability. The ability of the U.S. to project power didn't exactly evaporate but it was very sharply curtailed.
But a complete curtailment of the U.S. ability to project power on a global basis has no historical precedent
U.S.A.= Original Sin

Street 04
PAUL STREET,AUTHOR,MARCH11,2004. THOSEWHODENYTHECRIMESOFTHEPASTREFLECTIONSON AMERICAN RACIST ATROCITY DENIAL, 1776-2004,
HTTP://THEREITIS.ORG/DISPLAYARTICLE242.HTML
It is especially important to appreciate the significance of the vicious, often explicitly genocidal "homeland" assaults on
native-Americans, which set foundational racist and national-narcissist patterns for subsequent U.S. global
butchery, disproportionately directed at non-European people of color. The deletion of the real story of the so-called
"battle of Washita" from the official Seventh Cavalry history given to the perpetrators of the No Gun Ri massacre is revealing.
Denial about Washita and Sand Creek (and so on) encouraged US savagery at Wounded Knee, the denial of which
encouraged US savagery in the Philippines, the denial of which encouraged US savagery in Korea, the denial of which
encouraged US savagery in Vietnam, the denial of which (and all before) has recently encouraged US savagery in
Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a vicious circle of recurrent violence, well known to mental health practitioners who
deal with countless victims of domestic violence living in the dark shadows of the imperial homeland's crippling,
stunted, and indeed itself occupied social and political order. Power-mad US forces deploying the latest
genocidal war tools, some suggestively named after native tribes that white North American "pioneers" tried to
wipe off the face of the earth (ie, "Apache," "Blackhawk," and "Comanche" helicopters) are walking in bloody footsteps
that trace back across centuries, oceans, forests and plains to the leveled villages, shattered corpses, and stolen
resources of those who Roosevelt acknowledged as America's "original inhabitants." Racist imperial carnage
and its denial, like charity, begin at home. Those who deny the crimes of the past are likely to repeat their
offenses in the future as long as they retain the means and motive to do so.
Land Key
Churchill 92
WARD CHURCHILL. CODIRECTOR OF THE COLORADO CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT. A PREVIOUS PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF COLORADO/BOULDER. 1992. [ FANTASIES OF THE MASTER RACE. PG. 131]
Land, as Red Cloud, Hugo Blanco and myriad others have noted, is the absolutely essential issue defining viable
conceptions of Native America, whether in the past, present or future. A deeply held sense of unity with particular
geographical contexts has provided, and continues to afford, the spiritual cement allowing cultural cohesion across the entire
spectrum of indigenous American societies. Contests for control of territory have also been the fundamental basis of
Indian/non-Indian interaction since the moment of first contact, and underlie the virtually uninterrupted (and
ongoing) pattern of genocide suffered by American Indians over the past half-millennium. It follows that the
retention of any modicum of Indian national and cultural integrity in coming decades is a matter utterly and
inextricably bound up with the question of whether they will not only be able to maintain their present residue of
original land base, butin many casesto expand upon it, recovering areas lost in earlier expropriations. If
Native America is to survive, the over-riding historical trajectory marking this hemisphere since 1492 must be,
in a word, reversed.
Western Civilization Bad

DELORIA 77
AMERICAN INDIAN AUTHOR, THEOLOGIAN, HISTORIAN, AND ACTIVIST, 77 [VINE, ON LIBERATION, FOR THIS LAND, PP. 100-101]
If there were any serious concern about liberation we would see thousands of people simply walk away from the vast economic,
political, and intellectual machine we call Western civilization and refuse to be enticed to participate in it any longer. Liberation is
not a difficult task when one no longer finds value in a set of institutions or beliefs. We are liberated from the burden of Santa
Claus and the moral demand to be "good" when, as maturing adolescents, we reject the concept of Santa Claus. Thereafter we
have no sense of guilt in late November that we have not behaved properly during the year, and no fear that a lump of coal rather
than a gift will await us Christmas morning. In the same manner, we are freed and liberated once we realize the insanity and
fantasy of the present manner of interpreting our experiences in the world. Liberation, in its most fundamental sense, requires a
rejection of everything we have been taught and its replacement by only those things we have experienced as having values. But
this replacement only begins the task of liberation. For the history of Western thinking in the past eight centuries has been one of
replacement of ideas within a framework that has remained basically unchanged for nearly two millenia. Challenging this
framework of interpretation means a rearrangement of our manner of perceiving the world, and it involves a reexamination of the
body of human knowledge and its structural reconstruction into a new format. Such a task appears to be far from the struggles of
the present. It seems abstract and meaningless in the face of contemporary suffering. And it suggests that people can be made to
change their oppressive activity by intellectual reorientation alone.

TSDC Native Fishing Aff

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TSDC Native Fishing Aff

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Native Fishing Rights

***SELF DETERMINATION ADVANTAGE***

NO TRIBAL INPUT NOW

CULTURAL GENOCIDE NOW

BYCATCH NOW, AND BAD

***A2S AND ADD ONS***

DEBATE SPACE KEY

OTHER ACTIONS BEING TAKEN NOW

First the status quo

Alaska Natives have thousands of years of history of fishing

Sanderson would like a

Thus, the plan:

Advantage 1 is Self Determination

an affront to the most basic

self-determination and to establish tribal busi-ness corporations

The plan solves self-determination by changing congressional intent on a key issue

people depend on the natural resources. We need

govern themselves and their [lands and people].

Our priorities are our spiritual and cultural values, our

colonialism knows no limits. Expendable populations will be

time to end it is now

And, native self determination creates a sustainable global model

A sustainable self-determination model is key to preventing nuclear war

conflicts have direct adverse consequences on international security . As they

Advantage 2 is Cultural Genocide

And, the plan is key to protect subsistence fishing culture

resources constitute a substantial majority of the

tribal reserved water rights are superior to all

the policy of the United States toward indigenous nations has

the successful application of decolonization

The world now stands united in a single, global civilization.

Today we have no local and regional civilizations.

, one major fluctuation in the world might easily end all of

Civilization experienced several super plagues

we may need the combined knowledge of all cultures if we

are to overcome the problems that now threaten to overwhelm us.

Because we do not know the problems that lie ahead of us, we do

And, taking a stand against genocide outweighs everything

But I am not concerned with the characteristics of the

potential victim, genocide is a universal concern.

Since virtually every social group is a

Advantage 3 is the Biodiversity

knowledge is jeopardized, as are cultural structures and the

The imbalance of power must be corrected

And, the arctic region is uniquely key

And, The impact of unchecked oceanic species loss is extinction

The environment and the

everyone is utterly dependent on

Tribes and/or subsistence users be

Squo bad, plan solves

at the council level. Sanderson wants a

Squo bad, but tribes want the af

Squo bad, plan solves (laundry

No tribal input now

consultation, in the view of Bering Strait

Squo talks dont solve

Squo independently killing tribal input

Management councils key, they

Management councils key, no

Tribal involvement key

Direct oversight key

Policy action k2 selfdetermination

Self Determination K2 solve cap

what, exactly, happens to the rights of native peoples?

SELF DETERMINATION ADVANTAGE

A2S AND ADD ONS

A2s and Add Ons