Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

1NC v.

Emory BG
This debate should not be about where our military is present,
but rather how we militarize our presence. The AFFs
seemingly benign reduction of presence is merely a
reinvigoration of a larger machine of Coloniality. Their plan of
action only further legitimizes the authority of an unethical
actor in the USFG.
Mignolo (Professor of Romance Languages at Duke University) 5
(Walter, The Idea of Latin America, pg 5) //DDI13
How do these two entangled concepts, modernity and coloniality, work
together as two sides of the same reality to shape the idea of America in
the sixteenth century and of Latin America in the nineteenth? Modernity
has been a term in use for the past thirty or forty years. In spite of differences in
opinions and denitions, there are some basic agreements about its meaning.
From the European perspective, modernity refers to a period in world
history that has been traced back either to the European Renaissance and
the discovery of America (this view is common among scholars from the South
of Europe, Italy, Spain, and Portugal), or to the European Enlightenment (this view is
held by scholars and intel-lectuals and assumed by the media in Anglo-Saxon
countries England, Germany, and Holland and one Latin country, France). On
the other side of the colonial difference, scholars and intellectu-als in the
ex-Spanish and ex-Portuguese colonies in South America have been
advancing the idea that the achievements of modernity go hand in hand
with the violence of coloniality. The difference, to reiterate, lies in which
side of each local history is told. OGormans invention of America theory was
a turning point that put on the table a perspective that was absent and not
recognized from the existing European and imperial narratives. Lets agree that
OGorman made visible a dimension of history that was occluded by the partial
discovery narratives, and lets also agree that it is an example of how things may
look from the varied experiences of coloniality. America, as a concept, goes
hand in hand with that of modernity, and both are the self-representation
of imperial projects and global designs that originated in and were
implemented by European actors and institutions. The invention of
America was one of the nodal points that contributed to create the
conditions for imperial European expansion and a lifestyle, in Europe, that
served as a model for the achievements of humanity. Thus, the discovery
and conquest of America is not just one more event in some long and linear
historical chain from the creation of the world to the present, leaving behind all
those who were not attentive enough to jump onto the bandwagon of modernity.
Rather, it was a key turning point in world history: It was the moment in which

the demands of modernity as the nal horizon of salvation began to


require the imposition of a specic set of values that relied on the logic of
coloniality for their implementation. The invention of America thesis
offers, instead, a perspective from coloniality and, in consequence, reveals
that the advances of modernity outside of Europe rely on a colonial matrix
of power that includes the renaming of the lands appropriated and of the
people inhabiting them, insofar as the diverse ethnic groups and civilizations in
Tawantinsuyu and Anhuac, as well as those from Africa, were reduced to Indians
and Blacks. The idea of America and of Latin America could, of
course, be accounted for within the philosophical framework of European
modernity, even if that account is offered by Creoles of European descent dwelling
in the colonies and embracing the Spanish or Portuguese view of events. What
counts, however, is that the need for telling the part of the story that was not told
requires a shift in the geography of reason and of understanding. Coloniality,
therefore, points toward and intends to unveil an embedded logic that
enforces control, domination, and exploitation disguised in the language
of salvation, progress, modernization, and being good for everyone . The
double register of modernity/coloniality has, perhaps, never been as clear as it has
been recently under the administration of US president George W. Bush.
Pedagogically, it is important for my argument to conceptualize
modernity/coloniality as two sides of the same coin and not as two
separate frames of mind: you cannot be modern without being colonial; and
if you are on the colonial side of the spectrum you have to transact with
modernity you cannot ignore it. The very idea of America cannot be
separated from coloniality: the entire continent emerged as such in the
European consciousness as a massive extent of land to be appropriated and of
people to be converted to Christianity, and whose labor could be exploited.
Coloniality, as a term, is much less frequently heard than moder-nity and many
people tend to confuse it with colonialism. The two words are related, of course.
While colonialism refers to spe-cic historical periods and places of imperial
domination (e.g., Spanish, Dutch, British, the US since the beginning of the
twentieth century), coloniality refers to the logical structure of colonial
domination underlying the Spanish, Dutch, British, and US control of the
Atlantic economy and politics, and from there the control and
management of almost the entire planet. In each of the particu-lar
imperial periods of colonialism whether led by Spain (mainly in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries) or by England (from the nineteenth century to World
War II) or by the US (from the early twentieth century until now) the same logic
was maintained; only power changed hands.

The futurist PTX of the 1AC represents a colonial


understanding of time, that ignores that the future is an
accumulation of past and current forms of anti-black violence
Dillon (Stephen, Assistant Professor of Queer Studies at Hampshire College) 2013 ("It's here, it's that time:"
Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames, Women & Performance: a journal of feminist
theory, 2013, vol. 23, No. 1, 38-51, C.A.)

Baucom and Spillerss theorizations of time as accumulation and capture have profound implications for how we

Traditionally, the future is a space and time we do not


know, a place of possibility and hope. The emptiness of the future is imagined as a space
of seamless progress: a myth of Marxist teleology; a capitalist dream; a fantasy of
nationalism and colonialism. When we imagine the future as the outcome
of the passage of time, the past falls away and the present disappears so
that the future becomes relief from the devastating weight of everything
that has come before. For example, Jos Esteban Muoz argues that the
way out of the crushing weight of today is to hold on to the future because
now is not enough. According to Muoz, the future is the domain of
queerness, a warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality
that allows us to think then and there when here and now is not enough
(2009, 1). For Muoz, the call for no future is only available to those who have
a future to deny. He worries that abandoning the future to a heteronormative white world will only lead to
the deaths of more queer people of color. Yet, if time does not pass but accumulates,
then the future is not the triumph of a tendency inscribed in the present .
It is not the dissolution of the past or the undoing of the present. If time
does not pass but accumulates, then the future is not liberated from the
constraints of yesterday, but, rather, is the place where the wreckage of
then and now lives on. When we think of time against the temporal regimes of the state,
heteronormativity, the nation, and capital, time drags, reverses, compresses, and accumulates. Engaging
queerness as a force that distorts and undermines normative logics of
sequence is to know that the conditions of possibility for the atrocities of
the past have not faded, but, rather, have intensied (Freeman 2010, 27). It is to
deploy what Jasbir Puar calls an antecedent temporality where one can see, feel, and engage
the ghosts that are not yet here, but will be tomorrow and the next day
and the next (Puar 2007, xx). Muoz writes that the past tells us something about the present: It tells us
understand the future.

that something is missing, or something is not yet here (2009, 86). Baucom and Spillers extend this assertion by

past forms of racial terror are a lesson about the present, but also
a vision of what is to come. If time does not pass but accumulates, then
the past is where the future is anticipated, recollected, and demonstrated
(Baucom 2005, 213). If there is no progress, but instead repetition, modication,
intensication, reversals, and suspensions, then we know what the future
will be. The future will be what was before.
arguing that

This allows systems of power to mutate and become more


powerful turns case
Dillon (Stephen, Assistant Professor of Queer Studies at Hampshire College) 2013 ("It's here, it's that time:"
Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames, Women & Performance: a journal of feminist
theory, 2013, vol. 23, No. 1, 38-51, C.A.)
The Womens Army not only understood themselves as inhabiting their future deaths expecting to be killed or

A
future under the colluding rule of anti-blackness, white supremacy, and
heteropatriarchy was a future the Womens Army attempted undo by
trying to bring an end to the present. If there was to be a future there
could be no present. And so, they pursued the destruction of the present
captured at any moment they also argued that if the present had a future, the future would never come.

in order to usher in the future. Born in Flames argues for a confrontation


with the future as a horizon of death through a politics of urgency and
presentism, but it deploys multiplicity and difference to challenge time as
accumulation and capture. Within the feminist and queer politics of Born
in Flames, if the present is not enough, the future wont be either. In this
way, the critique of progress and reform was also a critique of dominant
conceptions of time based on passage not accumulation. Under the passing of time,
the future will be better because time undoes the brutality of power. The time of hope constructs
the past as an aberration of irrationality, lawlessness, cruelty, and
backwardness, while the future is the pasts constitutive opposite . The future is
where hope resides. Yet, the critique of reform, revolution, and progress in Born in
Flames understands time not as a passing, but as modication, mutation,
and transformation. Power does not get better, friendlier, or less brutal; it
just changes name and shape. The wreckage of the past keeps piling up, so that what the liberal
imagination hopes it has left behind, is actually what makes the present and the future unlivable. In the end, for

it will be not be the


warm illumination of queerness as it leads us to a more livable day; it will
be the horrors of the past amplied by the names equality, justice, and
freedom. We might consider that queerness is not the futurity of an
always-moving horizon; rather, it is all we have now .
Fanon, Jackson, and the Womens Army the future may not come. And if it does,

US hegemony is just the racial violence of America gone global


aff claims to benevolence are symptoms of white privilege
Rodriguez 07 [Dylan, PhD in Ethnic Studies Program of the University of California Berkeley and Associate Proffessor of
Ethnic Studies at University of California Riverside, American Globality And the US Prison regime: State Violence And White Supremacy from
Abu Ghraib to Stockton to bagong diwa, Ateneo de Manila University, 2007, Kritika Kultura 9 (2007): 022-048]
In fact, the

notion of American globality I have begun discussing here already exceeds negri and Hardts formulation to the
extent that it is a global racial formation, and more pointedly a global mobilization of a white
supremacist social formation (read: a united States of America formed by the social-economic geographies of racial chattel slavery and their
recodification through the post-13th Amendment innovation of other technologies of criminalization and imprisonment). The US prison regimes production
of human immobilization and death composes some of the fundamental modalities of American
national coherence. It inscribes two forms of domination that tend to slip from the attention of political theorists, including Negri and Hardt:
first, the prison regime strategically institutionalizes the biopolitical structures of white racial/nationalist
ascendancyit quite concretely provides a definition for white American personhood, citizenship,
freedom, and racialized patriotism. Second, the prison regime reflects the moral, spiritual, and cultural
inscription of Manifest Destiny (and its descendant material cultural and state-building articulations of
racist and white supremacist conquest, genocide, and population control) across different historical
moments. to invoke and critically rearticulate negri and Hardts formulation, the focal question becomes: How does the right of the US-asglobal police to kill, detain, obliterate become voiced, juridically coded, and culturally recoded? the
structure of presumptionand therefore relative political silenceenmeshing the prisons
centrality to the logic of American globality is precisely evidence of the fundamental power of the
US prison regime within the larger schema of American hegemony . In this sense the uS prison regime is ultimately really
not an institution. rather it is a formulation of world order (hence, a dynamic and perpetual labor of institutionalization rather than a definitive modernist institution)
in which massively scaled, endlessly strategized technologies of human immobilization address (while never fully resolving) the socio-political crises of globalization.
The US prison regime defines a global logic of social organization that constitutes, mobilizes, and prototypes across various localities. What would it mean, then, to
consider state-crafted, white supremacist modalities of imprisonment as the perpetual end rather than the self-contained means of American globality? I am suggesting
a conception of the prison regime that focuses on what cultural and political theorist Allen Feldman calls a formation of violence, which anchors the contemporary
articulation of white supremacy as a global technology of coercion and hegemony. Feldman writes, the growing autonomy of violence as a self-legitimating sphere of
social discourse and transaction points to the inability of any sphere of social practice to totalize society. Violence

itself both reflects and


accelerates the experience of society as an incomplete project, as something to be made. As a formation of

violence that self-perpetuates a peculiar social project through the discursive structures of warfare, the US
prison regime composes an acute formation of racial and white supremacist violence, and thus houses the capacity for
mobilization of an epochal (and peculiar) white supremacist global logic. This contention should not be confused with the sometimes parochial (if not politically
chauvinistic) proposition that American state and state-sanctioned regimes of bodily violence and human immobilization are somehow self-contained domestic
productions that are exceptional to the united States of America, and that other global sites simply import, imitate, or reenact these institutionalizations of power.
In fact, I am suggesting the opposite: the US

prison regime exceeds as it enmeshes the ensemble of social relations


that cohere US civil society, and is fundamental to the geographic transformations, institutional
vicissitudes, and militarized/economic mobilizations of globalization generally . to assert this, however, is to
also argue that the constituting violence of the US prison regime has remained somewhat undertheorized and objectified in the overlapping realms of public discourse,

it is not possible to conceptualize and


critically address the emergence and global proliferation of the (uS/global) prison industrial complex
outside a fundamental understanding of what are literally its technical and technological premises:
namely, its complex organization and creative production of racist and white supremacist bodily violence.
activist mobilization, and (grassroots as well as professional) scholarly praxis. Here I am arguing that

It is only in this context, I would say, that we can examine the problem of how the Prison is a modality (and not just a reified product or
outcome) of American statecraft in the current political moment. It is only a theoretical foregrounding of the white supremacist state and social
formation of the united States that will allow us to understand the uS prison regime as an American globality that materializes as it prototypes
state violence and for that matter, state power itself through a specific institutional site.

This generates a permanent state of exception that is the root


cause of the death ethics of war and underwrites a hellish
existence where death, murder, war, rape, and racism are
ordinary facts of life
McKittrick (Katherine, Professor of Gender Studies at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario) 2013
(Plantation Futures, Duke University Press, Small Axe, Volume 17, Number 3, November 2013 (No. 42), pp. 1-15,
C.A.)

The interlocking workings of human worth, race, and space demonstrate


the ways the uninhabitable still holds currency in the present and
continues to organize contemporary geographic arrangements. The
colonial enactment of geographic knowledge mapped a normal way of
life [End Page 6] through measuring different degrees of humanness and
attaching different versions of the human to different places. More clearly, the
extension of what some European explorers assumed was nonexistent was a geographic system that came to

This
normal way of life is rooted in racial condemnation; it is spatially evident
in the sites of toxicity, environmental decay, pollution, and militarized
action that are inhabited by impoverished communitiesgeographies
described as battlegrounds or as burned, horric, occupied, sieged,
unhealthy, incarcerated, extinct, starved, torn, endangered.25 What stands out are
the ways we can trace the past to the present and the present to the past through geography. The historical
constitution of the lands of no one can, at least in part, be linked to the present
and normalized spaces of the racial other; with this the geographies of the racial other are
organize difference in place and to regard this differential process as a commonsense or normal way of life.

emptied out of life precisely because the historical constitution of these geographies has cast them as the lands of

some live in the unlivable, and to live in the


unlivable condemns the geographies of marginalized to death over and
over again. Life, then, is extracted from particular regions, transforming some places into inhuman rather than
human geographies. Or, those who have lived outside what is considered normal
and those who continue to inhabit the uninhabitable are so perversely
outside the Western bourgeois conception of what it means to be human
that their geographies are renderedor come to beinhuman, dead, and dying.
We can collectively think of several places that are considered lifeless
without history, geography, or suitable capitalist life-support systems: war-torn countries,
no one. So in our present moment,

reservations, ghettos, what is referred to as the global South. Most explicitly,


the not-so-present and popular push to save ailing Africa and its children reveals it as a continental human
geography that is not human at all but an unlivable space occupied by the racially condemned, the already dead

the spaces of otherness have hardened through time,


often with black, wretched bodies occupying or residing outside the
lowest rung of humanness and thus inhabiting what most consider
inhuman or uninhabitable geographies. This is the mutual construction of identity and place
and dying. This suggests that

writ large. If some places are rendered lifeless in the broader geographic imagination, what of those inhabiting the
lifeless? And what of the worldview of those who occupy the wretched categoryis this worldview also lifeless
because the geographies surrounding the marginalized are rendered dead? How does the dehumanization and
racial marking of some communities follow the colonial logic that the human in human geography is a direct
reference to Man, who not only represents a full version of humanness (the us, in the us and them) but at the global
level naturally inhabits the livable, wealthy, overdeveloped countries? In what ways does this colonial logic imply
that Mans human others (the them of the us and them) naturally occupy dead and dying regions as they are cast
as the jobless underclasses whose members are made to function as our waste products in our contemporary
global world?26 Thus condemned, most of the worlds population, [End Page 7] a population Sylvia Wynter
describes as the dysselected/imperfect/less-than-human, inhabits not cosmopolitan cities but slums.27 How, in the
present, have the lands of no one emerged and normalized a mode of organizing the planet according to life and

It is the descriptive statement identifying black


geographies as dead spaces of absolute otherness that has prompted my
return to the plantationprecisely because in my research the plantation
is cast as the penultimate site of black dispossession, antiblack violence,
racial encounter, and innovative resistance. Indeed, it is the plantation that
was mapped onto the lands of no one and became the location where
black peoples were planted in the Americasnot as members of society
but as commodities that would bolster crop economies. 28 Within this geographic
lifelessness? Plantation Logic

system, wherein racial violence is tied to the administration of economic growth, the protean capabilities of black
humanness are lived.29 As I note in Demonic Grounds, the plantation is often dened as a town, with a protable

The plantation normally contains a


main house, an office, a carriage house, barns, a slave auction block, a
garden area, slave quarters and kitchen, stables, a cemetery, and a
building or buildings through which crops are prepared, such as a mill or a
renery; the plantation will also include a crop area and elds, woods, and
a pasture. Plantation towns are linked to transportrivers, roads, small
rail networksthat enable the shipping of crops, slaves, and other
commodities. This is a meaningful geographic process to keep in mind because it compels us to think about
economic system and local political and legal regulations.30

the ways the plantation became key to transforming the lands of no one into the lands of someone, with black
forced labor propelling an economic structure that would underpin town and industry development in the Americas.
With this in mind, the plantation spatializes early conceptions of urban life within the context of a racial economy:
the plantation contained identiable economic zones; it bolstered economic and social growth along transportation
corridors; land use was for both agricultural and industrial growth; patterns of specialized activitiesfrom domestic
labor and eld labor to blacksmithing, management, and church activitieswere performed; racial groups were
differentially inserted into the local economy, and so forth.31 In Cabin, Quarter, Plantation, Clifton Ellis and Rebecca
Ginsberg examine the architecture and landscape of plantation towns in North America, adding to the racial
economy by noticing the hand of enslaved workers in transforming (literally) the land[,] the efforts of proslavery agents [in shaping] environments that facilitated control and surveillance of slaves activities[,]
slaveholders adapt[ing] old building types and develop[ing] new ones with [End Page 8] the purpose of employing
architecture to subjugate and control their human chattel.32 These featuresthe economy, the landscape, the
architecturego hand in hand with different kinds and types of racial violence, what Saidiya Hartman describes as
scenes of subjection: the mundane terror of plantation life; the brutalities perpetuated under the rubric of
pleasure, paternalism, and property; the suffering, rape, and depersonalization; the brutal exercise of power that

While plantations differed over time and space, the


processes through which they were differentially operated and maintained
draw attention to the ways racial surveillance, antiblack violence, sexual
cruelty, and economic accumulation identify the spatial work of race and
gave form to resistance.33

racism.

In many senses the plantation maps specic black geographies as identiably violent and
impoverished, consequently normalizing the uneven production of space. This normalization can unfold in the
present, with blackness and geography and the past and the present enmeshing to uncover contemporary sites of
uninhabitablity. Yet to return to the plantation, in the present, can potentially invite unsettling and contradictory
analyses wherein: the sociospatial workings of antiblack violence wholly dene black history; this past is rendered
over and done with, and the plantation is cast as a backward institution that we have left behind; the plantation
moves through time, a cloaked anachronism, that calls forth the prison, the city, and so forth. These contradictions
keep in place, to borrow from Kara Keeling, common memory images that are habitually called forth to construct
blackness as silent, suffering, and perpetually violated, just as it attempts to erase the ways antiblack violence is

this kind of analytical framework is unsettling


because it simultaneously archives the violated black body as the origin of
New World black lives just as it places this history in an almost airtight
time-space continuum that traces a linear progress away from racist
violence.
enacted in the present.34 Put differently,

Affirmatives focus on the exteriorized violence of American


imperialism obscures and disavows the banal domestic
violence of Coloniality critically unpacking the very concept
of war is necessary to understanding war as intrinsic to US
Hegemony
Rodriguez (Dylan, Professor and Chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies at UC Riverside) 2009 (The
Terms of Engagement: Warfare, White Locality, and Abolition, Critical Sociology, Vol. 36 (1), pg. 151-173, C.A.)

War, such a common term in the global lexicon, is arguably among the least
rigorously theorized and most willfully misunderstood concepts of our
historical present. The social intercourse of the USA simultaneously
presumes a relatively coherent consensus comprehension of war, while
reflexively (and often obsessively) dislocating its localities of violence to
sites alien from and devoutly foreign to the proximate sites of the US
homeland. Wherein the comprehension of the militarizations of the War on Terror
if not constantly displaced onto the elsewhere (non-local) spectacles of Abu Ghraib,
Guantanamo, Fallujah, and Bagram? What to make of the rhetorically saturated,
localized wars on gangs, drugs, poverty, and illegal immigration of the last few
decades if the organic statecraft therein does not merely entail the multiple political
articulations of intensied policing and state intervention, but focally encompasses
mobilizations of the legitimated excesses of the racist state in an orchestrated
violence that is no less fatal than that of actual civil war? My concern in this essay
is with contextualizing and resituating the profound state and stateordained violences of those proliferating warfare technologies that have
been rendered mundane, acceptable, and banal within the nuances of the
American domestic social formation in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
More precisely, I wish to bring analytical and theoretical attention to the organized
human fatalities and orchestrated subjections of racially pathologized social
subjects that are essential to white supremacist nationbuilding , even and
especially within the historical conjuncture of the multiculturalist racist
states emergence as the hegemonic institutional phenotype of the USA.
Thus, what might a radical sociology, antiracist praxis, and social theory contribute
to a critical reframing of the white supremacist state as something that has neither
obsolesced nor decomposed, as if simply a relic of an earlier, vulgar moment in US

racial formation (Omi and Winant 1994),1 but has reinvigorated and
recomposed its animus of dominance through a symbiosis of
multiculturalist incorporations/empowerments and political enhancement of a
statecraft that is durably and foundationally racist? Here, I follow scholar activist
and political geographer Ruthie Gilmores clarifying denition of racism as the
state-sanctioned and/or extra-legal production and exploitation of groupdifferentiated vulnerabilities to premature death (Gilmore 2002: 261). In spite of, or
perhaps because of, the recent proliferation of antiwar liberal and
progressive discourses challenging the militarized US global regime of the
Bush Administrations War on Terror, the circumstances, scenes, and locations of
warfare have been insidiously periodized and re-sited not incidentally by
the antiwar left itself to the nominal historical and geographic exteriors
of the USA. There is a political-discursive circuit bridging the extranational and global military mobilizations of the US state, including its
knowledge-producing and violence-enhancing techniques, and the loyal
opposition and dissension of the establishment US left to a state-induced
global war that it alleges is being conducted under false, flawed, or
immoral pretensions. The energy conducted by this political-discursive
circuit (as with all functioning circuits) reproduces each of the nominally
opposed elements of its bridge while, uniquely, generating bodies of social
thought (embodied by scholars, pundits, activists, state gures, and public media
forms) and political performances (rallies, antiwar agendas/manifestos, and rituals
of public debate) that instruct a particular common sense of what war is.
This common sense obscures and consistently disavows the material
continuities between state-formed technologies of warmaking across
historical moments and geographies, while re-forming the US Homeland
as a place of relative peace or at least as a place that is not at war
wherein state-produced and state-proctored institutionalizations of
massive racist violence are unrecognizable as such, and articulations of the
current emergencies of domestic warfare e.g. by prison and penal abolitionists
(Critical Resistance Publications Collective 2000), radical women of color
antiviolence activists (INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence 2006), and
imprisoned radicals and revolutionaries (Hames-Garcia 2004; Rodrguez 2006) are
held with suspicion as the allegations of those (simply) unwilling to concede the
fundamental tenability and universal reformability of the US social and state forms. I
am thus addressing a modality of war that is most often contained and disappeared
into the categorically unremarkable: that which is so taken-for-granted, assumed so
organic to the production of the social landscape, that it is quite literally not worthy
of extended remark, much less sustained critical comment or analysis. As such, this
historical present is a warfare mosaic that refuses simplifying categorization
precisely because its composition absorbs the identication of its observers, and
(following Althussers formulation) hails social subjects with individualizing
narratives of national vindication. The discursive techniques of this war
subsume regularly available, locally recognizable artifacts of martial law
(e.g. announced and valorized police roundups of gangs and illegal aliens), a
racist police state (euphemized as racial proling), and deeply political or
proto-political civil insurrection (e.g. rioting, cop assassination, and property

destruction) under the rubrics of law, policing, justice, and (most importantly)
peace or peacekeeping. In the context of this political-cultural national
production, ordinary people are not merely witnesses to state-waged
atrocity in their midst, but are (sometimes overlappingly) its participants,
enablers, victims, and strategists.

Institutional structures of domination create everyday


holocaustsyou should reject singular focused impacts in
favor of working against the ongoing extinctions of people of
color [international conflict impacts]
Omolade 89, [1989, Barbara Omolade is a historian of black women for the past
twenty years and an organizer in both the womens and civil rights/black power
movements, We Speak for the Planet in Rocking the ship of state : toward a
feminist peace politics, pp. 172-176]
Recent efforts by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan to
limit nuclear testing, stockpiling, and weaponry, while still protecting their own
arsenals and selling arms to countries and factions around the world, vividly
demonstrate how "peace" can become an abstract concept within a culture of
war. Many peace activists are similarly blind to the constant wars and threats
of war being waged against people of color and the planet by those who
march for "peace" and by those they march against. These pacists, like
Gorbachev and Reagan, frequently want people of color to fear what they
fear and dene peace as they dene it. They are unmindful that our lands and
peoples have already been and are being destroyed as part of the "nal
solution" of the "color line." It is difficult to persuade the remnants of
Native American tribes, the starving of African deserts, and the victims of
the Cambodian "killing elds" that nuclear war is the major danger to
human life on the planet and that only a nuclear "winter" embodies fear
and futurelessness for humanity. The peace movement suffers greatly from its
lack of a historical and holistic perspective, practice, and vision that include the
voices and experiences of people of color; the movement's goals and messages
have therefore been easily coopted and expropriated by world leaders who
share the same culture of racial dominance and arrogance. The peace movement's
racist blinders have divorced peace from freedom, from feminism, from education reform, from legal
rights, from human rights, from international alliances and friendships, from national liberation, from
the particular (for example, black female, Native American male) and the general (human being). Nevertheless,
social movements such as the civil rights-black power movement in the United States have always demanded
peace with justice, with liberation, and with social and economic reconstruction and cultural freedom at home and
abroad.

The integration of our past and our present holocausts and our struggle to
dene our own lives and have our basic needs met are at the core of the
inseparable struggles for world peace and social betterme nt. The Achilles heel of
the organized peace movement in this country has always been its whiteness. In this multi-racial and racist society,
no allwhite movement can have the strength to bring about basic changes. It is axiomatic that basic changes do not
occur in any society unless the people who are oppressed move to make them occur. In our society it is people of
color who are the most oppressed. Indeed our entire history teaches us that when people of color have organized
and struggled-most especially, because of their particular history, Black people-have moved in a more humane
direction as a society, toward a better life for all people.1 Western man's whiteness, imagination, enlightened
science, and movements toward peace have developed from a culture and history mobilized against women
of color. The political advancements of white men have grown directly from the devastation and holocaust of
people of color and our lands. This technological and material progress has been in direct proportion to the

undevelopment of women of color. Yet the dayto- day survival, political struggles, and rising up of women of color,
especially black women in the United States, reveal both complex resistance to holocaust and undevelopment and

The Holocausts Women of color are survivors


of and remain casualties of holocausts, and we are direct victims of warthat is, of open armed conflict between countries or between factions within the
same country. But women of color were not soldiers, nor did we trade animal pelts
or slaves to the white man for guns, nor did we sell or lease our lands to the white
man for wealth. Most men and women of color resisted and fought back, were
slaughtered, enslaved, and force marched into plantation labor camps to serve the white
often conflicted responses to the military and war.

masters of war and to build their empires and war machines. People of color were and are victims of holocausts-that
is, of great and widespread destruction, usually by re. The world as we knew and created it was destroyed in a
continual scorched earth policy of the white man. The experience of Jews and other Europeans under the Nazis can
teach us the value of understanding the totality of destructive intent, the extensiveness of torture, and the
demonical apparatus of war aimed at the human spirit. A Jewish father pushed his daughter from the lines of certain
death at Auschwitz and said, "You will be a remembrance-You tell the story. You survive." She lived. He died. Many
have criticized the Jews for forcing non-Jews to remember the 6 million Jews who died under the Nazis and for

women of color, we,


too, are "remembrances" of all the holocausts against the people of the world. We
must remember the names of concentration camps such as Jesus, Justice,
Brotherhood, and Integrity, ships that carried millions of African men,
women, and children chained and brutalized across the ocean to the "New
World." We must remember the Arawaks, the Taino, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw,
the Narragansett, the Montauk, the Delaware, and the other Native American names
of thousands of U.S. towns that stand for tribes of people who are no more. We must
remember the holocausts visited against the Hawaiians, the aboriginal peoples of
Australia, the Pacic Island peoples, and the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We must
etching the names Auschwitz and Buchenwald, Terezin and Warsaw in our minds. Yet as

remember the slaughter of men and women at Sharpeville, the children of Soweto, and the men of Attica. We
must never, ever, forget the children disgured, the men maimed, and the women broken in our
holocausts-we must remember the names, the numbers, the faces, and the stories and teach them to our children
and our children's children so the world can never forget our suffering and our courage. Whereas the particularity of
the Jewish holocaust under the Nazis is over,

our holocausts continue. We are the madres


locos (crazy mothers) in the Argentinian square silently demanding news of our
missing kin from the fascists who rule. We are the children of El Salvador who
see our mothers and fathers shot in front of our eyes. We are the
Palestinian and Lebanese women and children overrun by Israeli,
Lebanese, and U.S. soldiers. We are the women and children of the
bantustans and refugee camps and the prisoners of Robbin Island. We are the
starving in the Sahel, the poor in Brazil, the sterilized in Puerto Rico. We are
the brothers and sisters of Grenada who carry the seeds of the New Jewel Movement in our hearts, not daring to
speak of it with our lipsyet. Our holocaust is South Africa ruled by men who loved Adolf Hitler, who have developed
the Nazi techniques of terror to more sophisticated levels. Passes replace the Nazi badges and stars. Skin color is
the ultimate badge of persecution. Forced removals of women, children, and the elderly-the "useless appendages of
South Africa"-into barren, arid bantustans without resources for survival have replaced the need for concentration
camps. Black sex-segregated barracks and cells attached to work sites achieve two objectives: The work camps
destroy black family and community life, a presumed source of resistance, and attempt to create human
automatons whose purpose is to serve the South African state's drive toward wealth and hegemony. Like other
fascist regimes, South Africa disallows any democratic rights to black people; they are denied the right to vote, to
dissent, to peaceful assembly, to free speech, and to political representation. The regime has all the typical Nazi-like
political apparatus: house arrests of dissenters such as Winnie Mandela; prison murder of protestors such as
Stephen Biko; penal colonies such as Robbin Island. Black people, especially children, are routinely arrested without
cause, detained without limits, and confronted with the economic and social disparities of a nation built around
racial separation. Legally and economically, South African apartheid is structural and institutionalized racial war.
The Organization of African Unity's regional intergovernmental meeting in 1984 in Tanzania was called to review
and appraise the achievements of the United Nations Decade for Women. The meeting considered South Africa's
racist apartheid regime a peace issue. The "regime is an affront to the dignity of all Africans on the continent and a

stark reminder of the absence of equality and peace, representing the worst form of institutionalized oppression
and strife." Pacists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi who have used nonviolent resistance
charged that those who used violence to obtain justice were just as evil as their oppressors. Yet all successful
revolutionary movements have used organized violence. This is especially true of national liberation movements
that have obtained state power and reorganized the institutions of their nations for the benet of the people. If men
and women in South Africa do not use organized violence, they could remain in the permanent violent state of the
slave. Could it be that pacism and nonviolence cannot become a way of life for the oppressed? Are they only
tactics with specic and limited use for protecting people from further violence? For most people in the developing
communities and the developing world consistent nonviolence is a luxury; it presumes that those who have and use
nonviolent weapons will refrain from using them long enough for nonviolent resisters to win political battles. To
survive, peoples in developing countries must use a varied repertoire of issues, tactics, and approaches. Sometimes
arms are needed to defeat apartheid and defend freedom in South Africa; sometimes nonviolent demonstrations for
justice are the appropriate strategy for protesting the shooting of black teenagers by a white man, such as
happened in New York City.

Peace is not merely an absence of 'conflict that enables


white middleclass comfort, nor is it simply resistance to nuclear war and
war machinery. The litany of "you will be blown up, too" directed by a
white man to a black woman obscures the permanency and
institutionalization of war, the violence and holocaust that people of color
face daily. Unfortunately, the holocaust does not only refer to the mass murder of
Jews, Christians, and atheists during the Nazi regime; it also refers to the
permanent institutionalization of war that is part of every fascist and
racist regime. The holocaust lives. It is a threat to world peace as
pervasive and thorough as nuclear war.

Their attempt to protect a supposedly universal humanity is a


part of white supremacist civil defense pedagogy that
propagates eugenicist public policy. Turns the AFF.
Preston 2008 [John, Professor of Education at University of East London, Protect
and Survive: whiteness and the middle-class family in civil defence
pedagogies, Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 23, No. 5]

That civil defence pedagogies exist to save lives and allow for the
continuation of society and (in the case of nuclear war) the survival of humanity
suggests that these are universal and neutral conceptions. This is not the
case. Notions of what is meant as a viable human and of the continuation of
humanity have their foundations in debates concerning eugenics . Eugenics has often been
considered to be a historical relic, located in the work of early Victorian geneticists and in the genocidal policies of
Nazi Germany. This understanding of eugenics has been supplanted by work which considers eugenics to be central
in understanding social policy across a range of national contexts, contemporary as well as historical (Burdett
2006). Eugenics is based on understandings of genetics that locate social and moral defects in the genetic material
(bio-plasm) of individuals and families. Historically, this has led to the codication, regulation, sterilisation and (in
some circumstances) extermination of those individuals considered to be genetically aberrant (Ordover 2003;
Bruinius 2006). In addition, individuals and families of good genetic stock were encouraged to produce offspring
(Stern 2005). Another strand of eugenic thought (and one which influences the discussion here) is the fear that
over civilisation would lead to a situation whereby Darwinist processes of survival of the ttest would not apply
and those with superior genes would become complacent, being outbred by those of poor genetic stock. According

Darwinist ideologies of survival of the ttest have been


most influential in determining civil defence policies in the USA. In
practice, the ttest is taken to be the white middle-class
heteronormative family. The meaning of white or whiteness in this context is a
moral and political category (states and collectives determine who is white and can
act for or against white interests) which requires both material practice and
to Sharp (2007), these

symbolic performance for its maintenance (Ignatiev and Garvey 1996). Whiteness is often an
implicit facet of middle-class formation which, until relatively recently, has passed without comment in the USA and
the UK (Frankenberg 1993, 1999; Reay 2005). This work draws on an often unacknowledged history of writing by
people of colour (a long historical tradition of black radicalism including Fanon (1986), DuBois (1989, 1999), and in
his collected educational writings by Provenzo (2002), Sojourner Truth (1998) and more recently the work of hooks
(1989, 1999)). It is not possible to discuss the formation of the middle classes in these countries and across
historical contexts without a discussion of whiteness, explicitly without a discussion of whiteness(es) (see Ignatiev
1995; Roediger 1999, 2002, 2005; Bonnett 2000a; Preston 2007b). Whiteness(es) refers to different formations and
boundaries of whiteness, but its flexibility does not mean that those belonging to the category white do not
exercise forms of cultural and economic domination as part of an over-arching system of white supremacy (Ansley
1997; Allen 2001, 2004; Gillborn 2005, 2006; Leonardo 2005; Chakrabarty 2006). Given this emphasis on whiteness
as both social construction system of social domination, critical race theory (CRT) is a useful conceptual apparatus
for considering the relationship between race, class and pedagogies (Ladson-Billings 2004) including those around

Notions of white supremacy, interest convergence and betrayal (Bell


1980, 1989, 1992) are congruent with the discursive development of civil
defence pedagogies. In addition, the critique of whiteness from critical whiteness studies is important in
civil defence and preparedness.

comprehending these pedagogies. Firstly, it is essential to de-reify whiteness by seeing it as a socially constructed
identity which is historically contingent and liable to change over time. Whiteness in 1950s America had a different
historical meaning to whiteness in 1980s England, for example. In the former context, it was associated with the
development of suburbia and the assimilation of various white-American immigrant groups into the suburban
middle classes. In the latter, it was a racial form which had developed from imperialism and the welfare state, which
was both consolidated by state expansion and new British imperialisms of the 1980s, but also undercut by
marketisation and mass unemployment (Bonnett 2000b). Secondly, from CRT an understanding not only of white
privilege but also of its structural cognate (Leonardo 2005) white supremacy which enables an understanding of
how whiteness works through white racial practices (racism and ethnic preference) and institutional and structural

In terms of civil defence, white supremacy works through eugenic


discourses and a particular understanding of humanity which explains
why the white middle classes were particularly favoured in civil defence
pedagogies, their value reinforced by both their whiteness and their class
position.
embeddedness.

Our alternative is to bring about the end of the world as we


know itthis produces a coalitional ethic of love necessary to
solve paradigm of war and spark a true humanity
Maldonado-Torres (Nelson, associate professor of comparative literature at Rutgers, 2008 [Against War:

Views from the Underside of Modernity, Duke University Press, p. 243-46, C.A.)
That Hitler is Europe's demon points to Dussels idea regarding the proto-history of the ego cogito. Before Descartes

Before Cartesianism and Hitlerism, there was racial


slavery and colonialism. A de-colonial reduction of Western thought brings
out these connections and reveals hidden dimensions in European
modernity: from Cesaire's link between Hitlerism and colonialism to Dussel's phenomenology of the ego
and Hitler, there was Cortes.

conquiro, to Fanons explorations of the lived experience of the colonized, in respect to which he tested the limits of

The European Cartesian-inspired


sciences give way here to de-colonial Cesaireian inspired sciences and
forms of critique according to which the truth and the good are only
found, if not instantiated, by the preferential option for the damnes, the
suspicion of master morality, the epistemic priority of the color line, and
the ethical suspension of identity and the telos of empire . Cartesianism introduces a
dominant ontological and psychoanalytical conceptions.

highly abstract conception of subjectivity that renders embodiment unimportant or problematic for the task of
knowledge; Hitlerism, in contrast, emphasizes embodiment to the point where it becomes an essence. Levinas
posed the alternative of erotic and reproductive embodied subjectivity in response to Hitlerism and liberalism.

Fanon proposed the idea of the body as the "open door of every
consciousness" (BSWM T23), that is, as a site of hospitality and generous

interhuman contact, as his response to the anthropology of colonialism


and racism. Recognition of the body does not lead in this account to racial
politics but rather to de-colonial engagement dened as the creation of
the world of the You, which, in a racist and colonial order, demands no less
than "the end of the world" -- from here the relevance of politics and
revolutionary action to Fanon. The embodied self for Fanon is primarily a site of generous interaction.
Agency is dened primordially in ethical terms. Fraternity in this context
no longer refers to blood relations but rather to the primacy of
intersubjective contact. Once the embodied self is recognized as the point
of departure, and the body is conceived as the "open door" of
consciousness, then nonsexist human fraternity does not take a secondary
role to liberty or equality. The demands of a consistent struggle for
nonsexist human fraternity, perhaps better put as affiliation, points to the
need for a suspension of the ultimate value of the affirmation of identity
and to the need of altericity or the suspension of the universal through
the preferential option for the damnes. Affiliation, which is dened by the
Chicana theorist Chela Sandoval as "attraction, combination, and relation
carved out of and in spite of difference," goes together here with nonindifference and responsibility, both of which presuppose listening to the
cry of the condemned." To be sure, both listening and responsible action are
only possible through embodiment. Action is in this sense no longer
dened by the hand-that-takes but rather by receptive generosity and
what Sandoval has aptly rendered as de-colonial love. In short, in new decolonial sciences the search for truth and knowledge, the accomplishment
of liberty and equality, and the satisfaction of demands for the recognition
of identity respond to something greater than themselves: to the
humanizing task of building a world in which genuine ethical relations
become the norm and not the exception--the very subversion of the
paradigm of war. The creation of the world of the You needs to be
mediated by the exercise of critique. Philosophy is called to identify and denounce the moments
in which structures of meaning respond to the interest of Being and betray the for-the-Other of signication.
Philosophy performs a reduction of what has been "said" by showing the many ways in which the said turns against,
rather than in favor of, the flourishing of ethics in the interhuman realm. Philosophy is called to show when certain
formations of meaning create or are complicit with a context marked by the relation between a master and a slave.
This relation is sometimes located at a basic intersubjective level, but its most frightful expression appears when it

At its
highest level, the relation between master and slave takes on the control
and division of the whole world and becomes empire. The critique of the
imperial formation of the said evokes the de-colonial reduction . The de-colonial
reduction attempts to bring out the pathologies of existence in contexts
marked by the geopolitical extension of the relation between master and
slave. By introducing coloniality as an axis of reflection in the examination of the lived worlds of
communities, the de-colonial reduction makes clear how different sorts of
pathologies can be traced back to the betrayal of the human in an imperial
project of existence. The de-colonial reduction also opens up the mental space to
enquire imaginatively into new possibilities of existence and the
subversive power of loving or alterical acts. The critique of the imperial
expression of the said or de-colonial reduction is ultimately performed by both the
denes general modes of perception and behavior in communities, social bodies, and growing civilizations.

philosopher and the activist. The destabilization of the imperial order of


things appears in thought as well as in praxis. At the end, Don Quixote, in his eccentric
reflections, was a sort of philosopher himself. So was Frantz Fanon, who, with a rifle in one hand and a pen in the

Expressions of
anger and practices of violence represent the last recourse of the
"damned." But activism has manifold ways to express itself, and to express
itself continually it must, if it ever wants to see some change in the way that
institutions work and in the manner in which we behave toward each
other. The de-colonial reduction is, therefore, performed in praxis and not only in
theory. It can become then both a way of thinking and a way of life. In both of
these ways, the de-colonial reduction gives expression to a peculiar
utopian ideal: the end of empire and of imperial man . It becomes a
constant alert against the temptation of ever trying to form "a community
of masters." This alert and the related utopian ideal pose a challenge to
Western civilization. Vanquishing Eurocentrism in its many forms becomes one of
the most urgent tasks of the de-colonial reduction . Unfortunately, neither philosophers
of the right nor critics of the left yet perceive the importance of this task . On the one
other, fought against dehumanizing and condescending ways of being and behaving.

hand we nd Eurocentric discussions of liberalism, communitarianism, or cosmopolitanism; on the other hand we


nd equally Eurocentric discussions of radical political action. We even nd either open retrievals of Eurocentrism or

have not realized that the rst


and most basic gesture of the critique of Eurocentrism lies in listening to what the
peoples on the periphery have to say about truth, justice, love, critique, community
life, and so forth. They have to hear the people on the periphery , learn from them, and
ght with them for the attainment of a condition in which such people are able to
reproduce their lives and contribute fully in discussions about the future of
humanity. This does not mean that the learning process is unidirectional. This is rather a matter of enacting
a receptive de-colonial attitude by virtue of which true communication can be
achieved. The de-colonial attitude highlights the epistemic priority of the problem of
the color line, which, following Lewis Gordon, could be understood as the line
between the allegedly normative and abnormal identities and forms of life. The decolonial attitude also gives a preferential option for the condemned of the earth ,
meaning that it takes centrally the questions, concerns, and proposals for decolonization that emerge in the underside of the modern world. This does not mean that
European responses must be rejected in toto since they have contributed and still contribute much to critical
thinking; rather, they need to be opened up radically and transformed in light of the
challenges posed by colonization and the paradigm of war . Resistance to such
opening, dialogue, and transformation is a sad testimony to the persistence of
Eurocentrism and the master morality of imperial man. De-colonization is waiting to
occur not only in regard to material and cultural levels but also vis-a-vis epistemic
levels.
Eurocentric critiques of Eurocentrism. These philosophers and critics

This epistemic intervention into the discussion of the


resolution is necessary to truly understanding militarized
technologies of violence. We represent a decolonial poetic that
sutures performances of black life and coalitions between
colonized peoples.
McKittrick (Katherine, Professor of Gender Studies at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario) 2013
(Plantation Futures, Duke University Press, Small Axe, Volume 17, Number 3, November 2013 (No. 42), pp. 1-15,
C.A.)

the plantation
system during and after transatlantic slavery permeated black life by
contributing to the interlocking workings of dispossession and resistance .7
Beckfords research, in particular that published throughout the 1970s, brought into focus the ways plantations are
linked to a broader global economy that thrives on the persistent
underdevelopment and persistent poverty of black life .8 In working through the
In his writings on black diaspora populations and economy, George Beckford persuasively argued that

socioeconomic logic of the plantocracies, he put forth what has become known as his plantation thesis or his plantation economy
thesis, which, in part, suggests that the plantations of transatlantic slavery underpinned a global economy; that this plantation
history not only generated North Atlantic metropolitan wealth and exacerbated dispossession among the unfree and indentured ,

it
also instituted an incongruous racialized economy that lingered long after
emancipation and independence movements in the Americas; and that the
protracted colonial logic of the plantation came to dene many aspects of
postslave life.9 Beckfords research on the plantation sheds light on the ways painful racial histories hold in them the
possibility to organize our collective futures. The plantation thesis uncovers the interlocking workings of modernity and blackness,
which culminate in long-standing, uneven racial geographies while also centralizing that the idea of the plantation is migratory.
Thus, in agriculture, banking, and mining, in trade and tourism, and across other colonial and postcolonial spacesthe prison, the
city, the resorta plantation logic characteristic of (but not identical to) slavery emerges in the present both ideologically and

With this, differential modes of survival emergecreolization, the


blues, maroonage, revolution, and morerevealing that the plantation, in
both slave and postslave contexts, must be understood alongside complex
negotiations of time, space, and terror.11 It is the plantation that anchors a
series of debates about the workings of antiblack racism and the knottedcreolized organization of diasporic life in the new worldknots emerging
in plant and culinary life, representational politics and practices,
transnational socioeconomic linkages, black Atlantic time-space, and
more.12 W. E. B. Du Boiss The Philadelphia Negro touches on plantation traces in his study of black experiences and struggles
in urban space.13 The plantation also notably introduces Achille Mbembes essay
Necropolitics and thus provides the groundwork for his broader
discussion of mortality and late-modern violence (urbicide, suicide bombs,
drones).14 Nicholas Mirzoeff, too, begins his project on coloniality and visuality by thinking through the practice of
overseeing, simultaneously, blackness and plantation landa history that eventually leads to his
discussion of the necropolitical technologized and militarized management
of chaotic bodies.15 Two plantation schemas arise: the ways the plantation
uncovers a logic that emerges in the present and folds over to repeat
itself anew throughout black lives and the ways the plantation is a
meaningful concept that, at least in part, launches
postslave/contemporary theories of violence and urbicide . The plantation therefore
materially.10

provides the context to put forth the following interconnected questions: What are some notable characteristics of plantation
geographies and what is at stake in linking a plantation past to the present? What comes of positioning the plantation as a threshold
to thinking through long-standing and contemporary practices of racial violence? If the plantation, at least in part, ushered in how
and where we live now, and thus contributes to the racial contours of uneven geographies, how might we give it a different future?
In this essay, I think about the conceptual work of black geographies and the plantation, noticing that the latter is a meaningful
historical geography that has provided a theoretical framework for thinking about the ways black life and black histories link to

Part of this work addresses the ways the


plantation regulated and normalized violence and instigated resistance,
while noticing that it canat least conceptuallylead to a totalizing future
of brutality. Indeed, because the inequities produced vis--vis the plantations of transatlantic slavery are long-standing and
postslave conceptualizations of geographic violence.

the plantation has provided a theoretical schema to think about a range of difficult struggles, it is also worth asking whether these
inequities must negatively anticipate how we conceptualize our collective futures. The discussion does not cite the plantation as a
conceptual pathway that exclusively narrates an oppression/resistance schema; nor does it situate the plantation as the anchor to

these approaches serve as the shadow to my


tracing of the geographic workings of dispossession, which intends to
contextualize the plantation as a location that might also open up a
discussion of black life within the context of contemporary global cities
and futures. It is important to note here that I move from the plantation to the city with crude intention and the plantationantiblack violence and dismal futures. Instead,

urbicide moves of Mbembe in mind. While time-space is notable, it is also worth addressing the ways the plantationprecisely
because it housed and historicizes racial violences that demanded innovative resistancesstands as a meaningful conceptual
palimpsest to contemporary cityscapes that continue to harbor the lives of the most marginalized.16 The contemporary city, as

I hope my
thinking will foster other considerations of black and racial geographies
rural, suburban, gated, beyond the Americas, toothat might benet from the sort of imagining
presented here, is not meant to be understood or theorized as the singular end-point to plantation theory; instead,

of plantation futures I put forth. Working with the writings of Sylvia Wynter and Dionne Brand, and soldering the theoretical to the
creative, this discussion imagines black geographies as the sites through which particular forces of empire (oppression/resistance,
black immortality, racial violence, urbicide) bring forth a poetics that envisions a decolonial future. Our future modes of being, if tied
to the plantation and empire and violence, might not necessarily follow our late-modern necropolitics of the present into futuremisery, wherein freedom is lifeless and racial terror is the act of realizing this freedom.17 Instead ,

our future modes


of being might hinge on a decolonial poetics that reads black
dispossession as a question markpunctuating postslavery violences
and posed to our present mode of beingthus providing a critique of the
very historical process that brought the Manichean workings of the
plantation to such heights of fulllment.18 Reading the plantation and
its future as put forth hereunderwritten by life, the poetic, the theoretical, and the creative, and shaped by a
history of violenceis guided by the hope that this discussion will, in a small way, enable a new discursive
space.19 Indeed, it is precisely because the plantation has a built-in capacity
to maintain itself that we would do well to reimagine its future .20 Past colonial
encounters created material and imaginative geographies that reied global segregations through damning the spaces long
occupied by Mans human others.21 Here, damning can be understood in two interlocking ways: as a fencing in and as a
condemnation of racial-sexual difference. The uninhabitablein particular, the landmasses occupied by those who, in the fteenth
and sixteenth centuries, were unimaginable, both spatially and corporeallyis the geographic (non)location through which the
plantation emerged. From Calibans uninhabited island in Shakespeares The Tempest, to the regions within Africa identied as too
hot to be livable, the landmasses deemed uninhabitable presented a geographic predicament upon discovery.22 As we know, the
occupants of the uninhabitable, indigenous to Africa and the Americas, were cast as barbarous and irrational, while their lands were
transformed into protable colonial outposts and settlements. Rather than rehearsing this difficult but familiar story in detail, a
meaningful thread to think about is the ways the lands of no one came to be bound to a geographic language of racial
condemnation. The Americas and Africa, for example, were tagged as geographically inferior, based on an Old World European
temporal schema that deemed the biospheric matter of these regions newer than the soil, earth, air, and water of Europe. This
geographic presumption, in part, contributed to the old European worldview that those indigenous to new landmasses in Africa
and the Americas also have nascent, and therefore unsophisticated and underdeveloped, worldviews.23 So what was geographically
at stake when the European center extended itself outward, toward a space that was at once nowhere and inhabited by no one,
yet unexpectedly there and inhabited, are race and racial geographies. Indeed, a new symbolic construct of race, which

Native
reservations, plantations, and formal and informal segregations are just
some of the ways the lands of no one were carved up to distinguish
between and regulate the relations of indigenous, nonindigenous, African,
and colonial communities, with some geographies still being cast as
uninhabitable for particular groups; sites such as reservations, slave
quarters, and auction blocks were considered alongside racial specicities .
coincided with post-1492 colonial arrangements, organized much of the world according to a racial logic.24

The geographic process after the rush to colonize the lands of no one unraveled into New World cultural exchanges that settled into
a rigorous nonhomogeneous human model: geographies for white men, white women, indigenous men, indigenous women, black
men, and black women.

Of course there were overlapping geographic experiences

and peoples that troubled these seemingly discreet spaces, but this
overlap is accompanied by an overarching system wherein particular
spaces of othernessfor purposes here, black geographieswere
designated as incongruous with humanness.