Sie sind auf Seite 1von 49

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3

Emma Serrano/Strange
MORE NATIVES!
MORE NATIVES!................................................................................................................................................................1
T—IN THE US.....................................................................................................................................................................2
2NC SOVEREIGNTY TURN...............................................................................................................................................3
TRIBE K—EXT—TURNS CASE........................................................................................................................................4
TRIBE K—A2 POLITICAL ENTITIES!!............................................................................................................................5
SOLAR CP 1NC...................................................................................................................................................................6
SOLAR KEY*.......................................................................................................................................................................7
A2 X KEY—POVERTY.......................................................................................................................................................8
A2 X KEY—DEPENDENCE...............................................................................................................................................9
________________________________________..............................................................................................................10
***AFF STUFF***.............................................................................................................................................................10
A2 LAND CP—PERM.......................................................................................................................................................11
MALTHUS ADV................................................................................................................................................................12
A2 MALTHUS=GENOCIDE.............................................................................................................................................13
DOE MECH.......................................................................................................................................................................14
UTILITY COOP MECH.....................................................................................................................................................15
FED KEY............................................................................................................................................................................16
A2 CHURCHILL................................................................................................................................................................17
A2 NOBLE SAVAGE........................................................................................................................................................18
2AC T—POSITIVE INCENTIVE......................................................................................................................................19
2AC T—IN THE US...........................................................................................................................................................20
2AC T—INCREASE...........................................................................................................................................................21
A2 DISAD 1/2.....................................................................................................................................................................22
A2 DISAD 2/2.....................................................................................................................................................................23
2AC KATO.........................................................................................................................................................................24
2AC COVIELLO................................................................................................................................................................25
2AC SMALL BUSINESS CP 1/4.......................................................................................................................................26
2AC SMALL BUSINESS CP 2/4.......................................................................................................................................27
2AC SMALL BUSINESS CP 3/4.......................................................................................................................................28
2AC SMALL BUSINESS CP 4/4.......................................................................................................................................29
EXT—JOBS........................................................................................................................................................................30
2AC STATES CP 1/2..........................................................................................................................................................31
2AC STATES CP 2/2..........................................................................................................................................................32
2AC SOVEREIGNTY 1/2...................................................................................................................................................33
2AC SOVEREIGNTY 2/2...................................................................................................................................................34
2AC TRIBE K 1/2...............................................................................................................................................................35
..........................................................................................................................................................1
2AC TRIBE K 2/2...............................................................................................................................................................36
2AC ELIGIBILITY 1/2.......................................................................................................................................................37
2AC ELIGIBILITY 2/2.......................................................................................................................................................38
2AC CONSULT INDIANS 1/3...........................................................................................................................................39
2AC CONSULT INDIANS 2/3...........................................................................................................................................40
2AC CONSULT INDIANS 3/3...........................................................................................................................................41
2AC ESSENTIALISM K 1/3..............................................................................................................................................42
2AC ESSENTIALISM K 2/3..............................................................................................................................................43
2AC ESSENTIALISM K 3/3..............................................................................................................................................44
2AC CAP K 1/5...................................................................................................................................................................45
2AC CAP K 2/5...................................................................................................................................................................46
2AC CAP K 3/5...................................................................................................................................................................47
2AC CAP K 4/5...................................................................................................................................................................48
2AC CAP K 5/5...................................................................................................................................................................49
1
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
T—IN THE US
A. Topical affirmatives must increase alternative energy in the United States.

1. The United States is the 50 states.


Random House 06 (Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/united%20states)
–noun a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminous states, the District of Columbia, and Alaska
in North America, and Hawaii in the N Pacific. 267,954,767; conterminous United States, 3,022,387 sq. mi. (7,827,982
sq. km); with Alaska and Hawaii, 3,615,122 sq. mi. (9,363,166 sq. km). Capital: Washington, D.C. Abbreviation: U.S.,
US

2. In means within a designated space.


Random House 06 (Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in)
–preposition (used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits): walking in the park.

B. Indian tribes are distinct sovereign nations. This means that the plan gives energy incentives outside the United
States.
Bruce “Two Dogs” Bozsum, Chairman of Mohegan Tribal Council, Spring 2008, The Mohegan Way “What is
Sovereignty and why is it Important to Native American Tribes?”
http://www.mohegan.nsn.us/docs/MoheganWay/MoheganWay_Spring2008.pdf

Sovereignty is the most fundamental concept that defines the relationship between the government of the United States of
America and governments of Native American Tribes. Native Tribal Governments are the oldest governments in existence
in the Western Hemisphere. In fact, The Constitution of The Seven Iroquois Nations, which was called “The Great Law of
Peace,” governed an alliance of Indian Tribes that was already in place four hundred years before the first European
settlers arrived in the New World. The Mohegan Tribe traveled from the area once governed by that Native Constitution
to the region that is now known as Southeastern Connecticut more than 350 years ago and has maintained a sovereign
governmental structure ever since. In fact, when the English formed its “Connecticut Colony,” the new settlers formally
recognized the sovereignty of the Mohegan Tribe in the Treaty of Hartford in 1638. When the United States was formed,
almost 150 years later, the U.S. Constitution recognized the Tribal governments and included the language that guarantees
the existence of Native American sovereignty today. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized Tribal
sovereignty in numerous court decisions. In 1831, the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans had the full legal right
to manage their own affairs, govern themselves internally, and engage in legal and political relationships with the federal
government and its subdivisions. The following year, the Supreme Court ruled that Indian Tribes are “distinct political
communities, retaining their original rights as the undisputed possessors of the soil from time immemorial... the very term
‘nation’, so generally applied to them, means a people distinct from others, having territorial boundaries, within which
their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged
but guaranteed by the United States.”

C. Vote Negative

1. Limits—there are infinite locations outside the United States that the plan could give incentives too—the
negative can’t research every possible foreign target of incentives.

2. Limits are key to in depth clash and education—they’re the only way to set parameters on the topic.

2
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2NC SOVEREIGNTY TURN
Framing tribes as “sovereign dependents” kills sovereignty and self determination.
Lucy A. Curry, JD 2001 Summa Cum Laude Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Fall 2001 Wisconsin Women’s Law
Journal, 16 Wis. Women's L.J. 161, “A Closer Look at Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez: Membership by Sex, by Race, and
by Tribal Tradition” Lexis [ev]

The Doctrine of Discovery came to describe the legal consequences of European imperialism as validating the denial of
equal status and rights of the "savage" peoples of the Indian tribes. In fact, the doctrine was used not only to diminish
196

the rights of tribes to sovereignty in the first instance, 197 but it also continues to be used by Congress in its plenary
power over all Indian affairs 198 and by the Supreme [*189] Court as a basis to divest all tribes of certain powers
deemed "inconsistent with their dependent status." In Johnson v. M'Intosh, the Court found as "excuses" for
199 200

extinguishing Indian title and controlling Indian affairs, the savage character of the Indians and their unproductive use of
the land. Despite these reasons, which remain central to the legitimacy of the federal government's dominant status, the
201

Supreme Court, in 1913, ruled that Congress could exercise its plenary power over Pueblo-owned land, to which the
federal government never acquired title, but was held communally in fee simple by Pueblo Indians who were described by
the Court as peaceful people who used their land industriously. The Court's decision in United States v. Sandoval
202

overruled a federal district court decision and held that the land of the Pueblos of New Mexico could be considered
"Indian country" over which Congress could extend its plenary power to criminalize the introduction of intoxicating
liquor. Though lower courts distinguished the Pueblo from other tribes on the ground that they owned their land in fee
203

simple under grants from the Spanish government, the Supreme Court did not find this distinction controlling. Rather,
204

the Court found that Congress requires neither the ownership of the land nor the consideration of citizen status, nor the
consideration of the Pueblo's civilized nature, in order to maintain the Indian tribes' condition of tutelage and treat the
"United States as a superior and civilized nation..." The Court so reasoned because, despite these considerations, "the
205

people of the pueblos...are nevertheless Indians in race, customs, and domestic government." Even though the Court
206

has consistently held it lacks the authority to judge the wisdom of Congress's uses of its plenary power over Indian affairs,
207
the Court justified Congress's exercise of its power on the basis of the reports from superintendents overseeing the
Pueblos of New Mexico. Those reports revealed that the Pueblo Indians "are dependent upon the fostering care of the
208

Government, like reservation Indians in general; that, although industrially superior, they are intellectually and morally
inferior to many of them; and that they are easy victims to the evils and debasing influence of intoxicants."209

3
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
TRIBE K—EXT—TURNS CASE
Tribe discourse used to strip Natives of power.
Rebecca Tsosie, Associate Professor of law at Arizona State University, Summer 94, Arizona State Law Journal, 26 Ariz.
St. L.J. 495, “Sovereigns, Civil Rights, and the Sacred Text: The Legacy of Justice Thurgood Marshall's Indian Law
Jurisprudence” Lexis [ev]

Not surprisingly, therefore, the racist underpinnings of Dred Scott found analogues in the Supreme Court's nineteenth
century Indian law decisions justifying the colonization and assimilation of Indian nations. In Johnson v. M'Intosh, for
24

example, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Indian nations had been divested of all rights to their ancestral lands
save the "right of occupancy" by the mere fact of North America's "discovery" by European nations. As justification,
25

Chief Justice Marshall claimed that "the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation
was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in [*500] possession of their
country, was to leave the country a wilderness." Similarly, the Supreme Court in United States v. Sandoval found that
26 27

the Pueblo Tribes were "Indians" for purposes of federal liquor laws, despite their sedentary village lifestyle, because they
shared common cultural characteristics with the more nomadic tribes as "simple, uninformed and inferior people" who
were "chiefly governed according to the crude customs inherited from their ancestors." 28

4
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
TRIBE K—A2 POLITICAL ENTITIES!!
US federal law determines tribal status by race—this biological essentialism makes Indians inherently inferior.
Lucy A. Curry, JD 2001 Summa Cum Laude Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Fall 2001 Wisconsin Women’s Law
Journal, 16 Wis. Women's L.J. 161, “A Closer Look at Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez: Membership by Sex, by Race, and
by Tribal Tradition” Lexis [ev]

Although the validity of the U.S. government's special treatment of Indian tribes is grounded in their political distinction,
race and racial difference have always been the underlying considerations. Since the moment Anglos discovered America,
racial identity has played a formidable role in regulating and defining the society they created. One's racial identity has
defined the scope of one's rights and privileges in Anglo-American culture. For Indian tribes, racial identity has relegated
them to an inferior and dependent status within the dominant sovereign. The ideologies and laws of the federal
government, which granted tribes sovereignty to self-govern and exclude nonmembers, were based on Anglo-American
notions of race; the ways in which the Pueblo "chose" to exclude individuals from membership was, and still remains, an
important way in which the federal government defines racial identity. Critical race theorists and other social
constructionists have greatly contributed to our understanding of the historic and current cultural meanings given to race.
Scholar John Calmore explains that critical race theory has as its premise a recognition that "'race' is not a fixed term.187

Instead, 'race' is a fluctuating, decentered complex of [*188] social meanings that are formed and transformed under the
constant pressures of political struggle." 188 Although our understanding of race has been created by the legal and social
relations between people in the United States, the races were treated as natural, objective categories of biological
essentialism 189 governed by blood, with white blood as the naked preference. By using "objective fact" and natural
190

law, race is made determinant of rationality, superiority, and privilege. The laws of the United States have embraced the
191

social meanings given to race and have relied on the natural law of blood by which to self-define and regulate privileges
accorded in Anglo-American society. For example, the Doctrine of Discovery provided an ideological basis for the
conquest and subsequent control of Indian tribes and tribal land, presuming Indian irrationality and savagery as a function
of race, a biological inevitability which requires the tribal "condition of pupilage" under the protection and supervision
192

of whites. The Discovery Doctrine, imported by the Supreme Court as United States law from the European-derived
193 194

Law of Nations (sixteenth century international law), bound all "civilized" countries in order to legitimize the European
colonization of the indigenous peoples and termination of their laws, because the natives were presumed to be "not only
against Christianity, but against the law of God and of nature." 195

Federal gov’t “tribal recognition” is based in racial definitions of difference that relegate Indians to a permanent
biological underclass.
Lucy A. Curry, JD 2001 Summa Cum Laude Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Fall 2001 Wisconsin Women’s Law
Journal, 16 Wis. Women's L.J. 161, “A Closer Look at Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez: Membership by Sex, by Race, and
by Tribal Tradition” Lexis [ev]

Even after the IRA, when the federal government officially and formally recognized tribes and Indians with a political
rather than a racial distinction, the racial (and thus perceived inherent) difference between Indians and whites still controls
the boundaries of tribal powers from their roots in the Eurocentric Doctrine of Discovery. Therefore, as Professor Robert
A. Williams, Jr. eloquently stated, the Indian's self-governing and self-defining vision is recognized, however, only as
long as the tribes' desires are consistent with the interests, express or implied, of the European-derived vision of the
superior sovereign. This form of discourse enforces a highly efficient process of legal auto-genocide, the ultimate
hegemonic effect of which is to instruct the savage to self-extinguish all troublesome expressions of difference that
diverge from the white man's own hierarchic, universalized worldview. 283

5
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
SOLAR CP 1NC
Text: <WRITE IT YOURSELF  I DON’T KNOW WHAT THEIR TEXT IS.>

Solar power solves sovereignty.


Sandia National Laboratories 07 “AN ENERGY VISION Energy Independence and Electricity Sovereignty,”
http://photovoltaics.sandia.gov/docs/PDF/solarway07.pdf [ev]

Indian tribes throughout the United States are stewards of vast natural resources such as oil, gas, coal, and precious
metals, yet they often reap very little from these holdings. But perhaps more valuable in the long run are the mighty
renewable energy resources American Indian tribes possess – including the perpetual power of the sun. Several tribes
have formed their own utility enterprises, a component of which is sometimes solar energy – photovoltaics. Illustrated on
these pages are some of these highly visible and growing activities, destined to play an even greater role in tribal
sovereignty in the future.

6
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
SOLAR KEY*
Only solar energy respects culture and solves grid infrastructure.
Jonathan A. Biron, Sandia National Laboratories, 8/25/06, “Tribal Renewable Energy Integration: An Analysis of Current
Tribal Infrastructure” http://www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/pdfs/interns2006biron.pdf [ev]

There are also cultural aspects of energy installation on tribal lands that could affect the development on their lands.
During a field visit to the Hopi village, it was noted that some villages did not allow electrical power due to cultural
beliefs and this prevents the wide-spread use of electricity in certain villages. Hotevilla is a very conservative Hopi village
due to the residents’ cultural traditions and as a result, there are numbers of households without electricity. Even though
standard electrical lines were not allowed due to its potential to disrupt sacred areas, the use of photovoltaic systems was
first accepted. Because of the remote location, the financial and cultural costs of providing electricity from the grid, solar
power was seen as a viable alternative to providing electricity to the people in the village. Field visits to several Hopi
villages were observed to have electricity from photovoltaic systems and the electrical grid. The example of the Hopi
Tribe is intriguing is because they used met their needs of electricity and cultural values through the use of renewable
energy systems. These types of applications not only improve the lives of the people in the village, but it preserves their
unique culture. Throughout the United States, there is not uniform infrastructure on tribal lands. The wide differentiation
of the tribal infrastructure correlates to their energy development and revenue. The need to pursue renewable energy
development can range widely from tribe to tribe depending on their needs and resources available. Even though energy
needs change, renewable energy systems have many applications. Renewable energy may be a feasible investment for a
particular tribe, but the initial costs can out weight the environmental, economical, and health benefits produced by a
renewable energy system.

7
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
A2 X KEY—POVERTY

Any renewable energy can solve jobs and poverty.


Kate Burke Energy Policy Specialist for National Conference on State Legislatures and Linda Sikkema, NCSL, State
Legislatures June 07, “Native American Power” http://www.ncsl.org/magazine/articles/2007/07SLJune07_Native.pdf pg
1-2 [ev]

One-third of the 2.4 million Native Americans living on or near tribal lands live in poverty. The unemployment rate is
double the national average. There are an estimated 18,000 families in the Navajo Nation alone still living without
electricity. “Our hope is that if the tribes choose to develop these renewable energy resources,” says DOE’s Pierce, “it
could enable local economic development and contribute to additional jobs.” For some tribes, taking on renewable energy
projects means helping members pay for, and in some cases acquire, power. If tribes can generate their own power, they
can lower utility bills and bring power to more people. Energy projects also provide new jobs, and potential profits
translate into additional assets for tribes. In some cases not only do tribes benefit, but so do the areas near the reservation.
A handful of tribes supply power to neighboring communities, which can be beneficial for the tribes as well as the
surrounding area.

8
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
A2 X KEY—DEPENDENCE
Any renewable solves dependence.
Jonathan A. Biron, Sandia National Laboratories, 8/25/06, “Tribal Renewable Energy Integration: An Analysis of Current
Tribal Infrastructure” http://www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/pdfs/interns2006biron.pdf [ev]

V. Conclusions Tribes’ reliable natural resources are their renewable energy sources. It does not make sense rely on a
non-renewable energy source that will eventually diminish. Whether this is tomorrow or in the future, there is a finite
resource which will eventually be gone. As a result, everything that is dependent on this resource will have to use other
resources. With humans’ current symbiotic relationship with the earth, there has been repercussion associated with
discover and plunder methods used to supply the world’s global demand for energy. Even though the world potentially
could have an energy crisis, there are tribes in the United States that have dealt with these inconveniences by developing
advanced solutions to their once unique problems. These problems that the people of the Navajo, Hopi, and countless
other tribal nations have faced and continue to face have provided a basis for learning how to live within our energy
consumption needs and increase the use of renewable energy systems. It is possible that if more tribes continue to develop
their lands or even design energy efficient buildings they could greatly reduce their energy consumption, while helping
the nation to progress in its quest to become energy independent. Tribal nations will benefit greatly from renewable
energy and the United States will also benefit greatly. As a result through the support of different government and tribal
organizations, the use of renewable energy can continue to grow and help meet the tribe’s and United States’ goal of
energy sovereignty.

9
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange

________________________________________
***AFF STUFF***

10
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
A2 LAND CP—PERM
Perm—pass the plan and offer Native Americans the unqualified right to total separation—acknowledgement is
the most critical factor.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 292-3 [ev]

SHARING THE LAND There are several closely related matters which should be touched upon before wrapping this up.
One has to do with the idea of self-determination. What is meant when indigenists demand an unrestricted exercise of
self-determining rights by native peoples? Most nonindians, and even a lot of Indians, seem confused by this and want to
know whether it's not the same as complete separation from the U.S., Canada, or whatever the colonizing power may be.
The answer is, "not necessarily." The unqualified acknowledgement by the colonizer of the right of the colonized to
total separation ("secession") is the necessary point of departure for any exercise of self-determination.
Decolonization means the colonized exercise the right as we see fit, in accordance with our own customs, traditions,
and appreciations of our needs. We decide for ourselves what degree of autonomy we wish to enjoy, and thus the nature
of our political and economic relationship(s), not only with our former colonizers, but with all other nations as well."° My
own inclination, which is in some ways an emotional preference, tends to run toward complete sovereign independence,
but that's not the point. I have no more right to impose my preferences on indigenous nations than do the colonizing
powers; each indigenous nation will choose for itself the exact manner and extent to which it expresses its autonomy, its
sovereignty."' To be honest, I suspect very few would be inclined to adopt my sort of "go it alone" approach (and,
actually, I must admit that part of my own insistence upon it often has more to do with forcing concession of the right
from those who seek to deny it than it does with putting it into practice). In the event, I expect you'd see the hammering
out of a number of sets of international relations in the "free association" vein, a welter of variations of commonwealth
and home rule governance.'12

11
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
MALTHUS ADV
Only realignment with Native culture can prevent the capitalist drive to produce—this drive dooms the world to
overpopulation and inevitable extinction.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 293-5 [ev]

Rephrased, this means it would be a violation of a fundament of traditional indigenous law to supplant or eradicate another
species, whether animal or plant, in order to make way for some greater number of humans, or to increase the level of material
comfort available to those who already exist. Conversely, it is a fundamental requirement of traditional law that each human
accept his or her primary responsibility, that of maintaining the balance and harmony of the natural order as it is encountered "9
One is essentially free to do anything one wants in an indigenous society so long as this cardinal rule is adhered to. The bottom
line with regard to the maximum population limit of Indian Country as it has been sketched in this presentation is some very
finite number. My best guess is that five million people would be pushing things right to the limit.120 Whatever. Citizens can
be admitted until that point has been reached, and no more. And the population cannot increase beyond that number over time,
no matter at what rate. Carrying capacity is a fairly constant reality; it tends to change over thousands of years, when it changes
at all. POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT What I'm going to say next will probably startle a few people (as if what's been
said already hasn't). I think this principle of population restraint is the single most important example Native North America can
set for the rest of humanity. It is the thing which it is most crucial for others to emulate. Check it out. I recently heard that Japan,
a small island nation which has so many people that they're literally tumbling into the sea, and which has exported about half
again as many people as live on the home islands, is expressing "official concern" that its birth rate has declined very slightly
over the last few years. The worry is that in thirty years there'll be fewer workers available to "produce," and thus to "consume"
whatever it is that's produced.' 21 Ever ask yourself what it is that's used in "producing" something? Or what it is that's being
"consumed"? Yeah. You got it. Nature is being consumed, and with it the ingredients which allow ongoing human existence. It's
true that nature can replenish some of what's consumed, but only at a certain rate. That rate has been vastly exceeded, and the
extent of excess is increasing by the moment. An overburgeoning humanity is killing the natural world, and thus itself. It's no
more complicated than that.122 Here we are in the midst of a rapidly worsening environmental crisis of truly global
proportions, every last bit of it attributable to a wildly accelerating human consumption of the planetary habitat, and you have
one of the world's major offenders expressing grave concern that the rate at which it is able to consume might actually drop a
notch or two. Think about it. I suggest that this attitude signifies nothing so much as stark, staring madness. It is insane:
suicidally, homicidally, ecocidally, omnici dally insane. No, I'm not being rhetorical. I meant what I've just said in the most
literal way possible,'23 but I don't want to convey the misimpression that I see the Japanese as being in this respect unique.
Rather, I intend them to serve as merely an illustration of a far broader and quite virulent pathology called "industrialism"—or,
lately, "postindustrialism"—a sickness centered in an utterly obsessive drive to dominate and destroy the natural order. (Words
like "production," "consumption," "development," and "progress" are mere code words masking this reality.)124 It's not only
the industrialized countries which are afflicted with this dis-ease. One byproduct of the past five centuries of European
expansionism and the resulting hegemony of eurocentric ideology is that the latter has been drummed into the conscious:. ness
of most peoples to the point where it is now subconsciously internalized. Everywhere, you find people thinking it "natural" to
view themselves as the incarna tion of God on earth—i.e., "created in the image of God"—and thus duty-bound to "exercise
dominion over nature" in order that they can "multiply, grow plentiful, and populate the land" in ever increasing
"abundance."125 The legacy of the forced labor of the latifundia and inculcation of Catholicism in Latin America is a
tremendous overburden of population devoutly believing that "wealth" can be achieved (or is defined) by having ever more
children.126 The legacy of Mao's implementation of "reverse technology" policy—the official encouragement of breakneck
childbearing rates in his already overpopulated country, solely as a means to deploy massive labor power to offset capitalism's
"technological advantage" in production—resulted in a tripling of China's population in only two generations.127 And then
there is India.. Make absolutely no mistake about it. The planet was never designed to accommodate five billion human beings,
much less the ten billion predicted to be here a mere forty years hence.1211 If we are to be about turning power relations around
between people, and between groups of people, we must also be about turning around the relationship between people and the
rest of the natural order. If we don't, we'll die out as a species, just like any other species which irrevocably overshoots its
habitat. The sheer numbers of humans on this planet needs to come down to about a quarter of what they are today,- or maybe
less, and the plain fact is that the bulk of these numbers are in the Third World.129 So, I'll say this clearly: not only must the
birth rate in the Third World come down, but the population levels of Asia, Latin America, and Africa must be reduced over the
next few generations. The numbers must start to come down dramatically, beginning right now.

12
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
A2 MALTHUS=GENOCIDE
Voluntary population control isn’t genocide.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 295 [ev]

Of course, there's another dimension to the population issue, one which is in some ways even more important, and I want
to get into it in a minute. But first I have to say something else. This is that I don't want a bunch of Third Worlders
jumping up in my face screaming that I'm advocating "genocide." Get off that bullshit. It's genocide when some
centralized state, or some colonizing power, imposes sterilization or abortion on target groups."' It's not genocide at all
when we recognize that we have a problem, and take the logical steps ourselves to solve them. Voluntary sterilization is
not a part of genocide. Voluntary abortion is not a part of genocide. And, most important, educating ourselves and our
respective peoples to bring our birth rates under control through conscious resort to birth control measures is not a part of
genocide.131 What it is, is part of taking responsibility for ourselves again, of taking responsibility for our destiny and our
children's destiny. It's about rooting the ghost of the Vatican out of our collective psyches, and the ghosts of Adam Smith
and Karl Marx. It's about getting back in touch with our own ways, our own traditions, our own knowledge, and it's long
past time we got out of our own way in this respect. We've got an awful lot to unlearn, and an awful lot to relearn, not
much time in which we can afford the luxury of avoidance, and we need to get on with it.

13
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
DOE MECH
DoE investment solves/
Kate Burke Energy Policy Specialist for National Conference on State Legislatures and Linda Sikkema, NCSL, State
Legislatures June 07, “Native American Power” http://www.ncsl.org/magazine/articles/2007/07SLJune07_Native.pdf pg
2 [ev]

Funding for new projects can be a challenge, however. Many tribes have been able to invest their own money, while
others have turned to banks, the federal government and other tribes. Since 1992, the Tribal Energy Program at the U.S.
Department of Energy has supported tribes with renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies to encourage self-
sufficiency, economic development and employment opportunities. So far, the DOE has invested $12.4 million in 76
projects in Indian Country with tribes putting in around $3.3 million.

14
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
UTILITY COOP MECH
Only utility cooperation solves trust and self determination.
Kate Burke Energy Policy Specialist for National Conference on State Legislatures and Linda Sikkema, NCSL, State
Legislatures June 07, “Native American Power” http://www.ncsl.org/magazine/articles/2007/07SLJune07_Native.pdf pg
3 [ev]

Private investors are eager to pursue collaboration with tribes because they see profit in developing renewable energy
projects on tribal lands. But trust is a big issue for both parties. Investors fear tribal sovereignty and worry that the tribe
could shut them out of the process at any time. Tribes are hesitant to work with private investors because of a history of
exploitation and broken promises. Most tribes have created their own utility and make an effort to cooperate with local
ones. This has been successful because few utilities can stand alone. The very connectedness of the electricity grid makes
cooperation a given. Most see tribal renewable projects as a benefit to the local community and a means to provide more
clean power. Jurisdictional issues may arise if a tribe wants to purchase existing facilities on its land from a utility. These
legal matters are often worked out, however, and transmission, interconnection and power agreements follow. The
Umpqua Indian Utility Cooperative is the first tribal utility to acquire existing utility infrastructure and begin operation
with a different power supplier. The cooperative purchases power from the Bonneville Power Administration and
distributes it at its casino and truck stop locations by Canyonville, Ore.

15
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
FED KEY
Fed support key.
Kate Burke Energy Policy Specialist for National Conference on State Legislatures and Linda Sikkema, NCSL, State
Legislatures June 07, “Native American Power” http://www.ncsl.org/magazine/articles/2007/07SLJune07_Native.pdf pg
3 [ev]

Tribal governments, private investors, local governments and utility companies see the benefit of exploring alternative,
clean sources of power. Washington Representative John McCoy says this is an important trend and one he hopes has
sustainability. “There are a number of tribes exploring alternative energy sources. Umatilla is working on wind; Tulalip
will build a bio-digester this year. Makah has been working on waves,” he says. “Tribes are concerned about global
warming and its effects on the environment. Everyone should be concerned since it upsets the way every plant, creature
and human lives. Major corporations have finally gotten the message and are now wanting to get something done.” “The
revenues aren’t lucrative, yet,” says Sandra Begay-Campbell of Sandia National Laboratories. “But federal and state
support for renewable energy is gaining momentum. As awareness of climate change and energy efficiency increases—
along with the price of oil—renewable energy development will continue, and tribal renewable energy development will
be in demand.”

16
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
A2 CHURCHILL
Churchill’s aggressive stances are motivated by jealously of Indians.
John Lavelle, Executive Director Of Center For The Spirit (Support And Protection Of Indian Religious And Indigenous
Traditions) In San Francisco, Winter 96, American Indian Quarterly Vol 20 No 1, “Reviewed work(s): Indians Are Us?:
Culture and Genocide in Native North America by Ward Churchill” JSTOR [ev]

Through the course of all his writings, Churchill gradually has emerged as a spokesman of sorts for those persons
derisively referred to as Indian "wannabees"—individuals with no American Indian ancestry or tribal affiliation who
nonetheless hold themselves out to the public as "Indians" by aggressively inserting themselves into the political affairs of
real Indian people. Churchill's appeal among the "wannabees" lies both in the boldness with which he expresses contempt
for Indian tribes, and in the scholarly facade he gives his anti-tribal propositions; indeed, many Churchill fans appear to
have been won over by the mere fact that Churchill's books contain an abundance of endnotes. By researching those
copious endnotes, however, the discerning reader will discover that, notwithstanding all the provocative sound and fury
rumbling through his essays, Churchill's analysis overall is sorely lacking in historical/factual veracity and scholarly
integrity.

17
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
A2 NOBLE SAVAGE
Indian tribes have embraced ideal of “noble savage” for political empowerment.
Kent H Redford, Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society Institute and Vice President, Conservation Strategy at the
Wildlife Conservation Society in New York, 1/31/1991, Cultural Survival Quarterly Vol 15 Iss 1, “The Ecologically
Noble Savage” Proquest [ev]

It is the latter idea, that Indians lived in conformity with nature, that inspired this century's reincarnation of the noble
savage. Writings of several scientists and indigenous rights advocates echo the early chroniclers' assumption that
indigenous people lived in "balance" with their environment. Prominent conservationists have stated that in the past,
indigenous people "lived in close harmony with their local environment." The rhetoric of Indian spokespersons is even
stronger: "In the world of today there are two systems, two different irreconcilable `ways of life.' The Indian world -
collective, communal, human respectful of nature, and wise - and the western world - greedy, destructive, individualist,
and enemy of nature" (from a report to the International NGO Conference on Indigenous Peoples and the Land, 1981).
The idealized figure of centuries past had been reborn, as the ecologically noble savage. The recently accumulated
evidence, however, refutes this concept of ecological nobility. Precontact Indians were not "ecosystem men"; they were
not just another species of animal, largely incapable of altering the environment, who therefore lived within the
"ecological limitations of their home area." Paleobiologists, archaeologists, and botanists are coming to believe that most
tropical forests have been severely altered by human activities before European contact. Evidence of vast fires in the
northern Amazonian forests and of the apparently anthropogenic origins of large areas of forest in eastern Amazonial
suggests that before 1500, humans had tremendously affected the virgin forest, with ensuing impacts on plant and animal
species. These people behaved as humans do now : they did whatever they had to to feed themselves and their families.
"Whatever they had to" is the key phrase in understanding the problem of the noble savage myth in its contemporary
version. Countless examples make it clear that indigenous people can be either forced, seduced, or tempted into accepting
new methods, new crops, and new technologies. No better example exists than the near-universal adoption of firearms for
hunting by Indians in the Neotropics. Shotguns or rifles, often combined with the use of flashlights and outboard motors,
change completely the interaction between human hunters and their prey. There is no cultural barrier to the Indians'
adoption of means to "improve" their lives (i.e., make them more like Western lives), even if the long-term sustainability
of the resource base is threatened. These means can include the sale of timber and mining rights to indigenous lands,
commercial exploitation of flora and fauna, and invitations to tourists to observe "traditional lifestyles." Indians should
not be blamed for engaging in these activities. They can hardly be faulted for failing to live up to Western expectations of
the noble savage. They have the same capacities, desires, and, perhaps, needs to overexploit their environment as did out
European ancestors. Why shouldn't Indians have the same right to dispose of the timber on their land as the international
timber companies have to sell theirs? An indigenous group responded to the siren call of the market economy in just this
spirit in Brazil in 1989, when Guajajara Indians took prisoners in order to force the government Indian agency, FUNAI, to
grant them permission to sell lumber from their lands. "Inherent Superiority"? Such observed behavior contrasts sharply
with the claims made about Indian use of natural resources in the modern world. Despite evidence to the contrary,
indigenous people continue to be credited with natural respect for ecology and a commitment to sustainable methods of
resource sue under all circumstances. Some Indian groups, reading of the qualities attributed to them by Europeans, have
begun to give themselves the same credit. In some cases, Indian spokespersons promise that adoption of "Indian ways"
will solve many of the problems created by the ignorant ways of the non-Indians. In the highly publicized Chimane Forest
Reserve in Amazonian Bolivia, for example, where indigenous people are protesting lumbering activities by commercial
firms, a spokesperson for the Moxo Indians lays claim to some of the land stating: "We have learned to take care and
maintain the ecology because we know that it guarantees our existence." The assertion that as Indians these people will be
ecologically noble stewards, though unproven, is a trump card in the current world of conservation sensitivities.

18
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC T—POSITIVE INCENTIVE
1. Permanent tax credits are positive incentives—you get money if you invest in wind energy.
American Indian Law Review 07, 32 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267, “Special Feature: The Tax Man Cometh Not: How The
Non-Transferability Of Tax Credits Harms Indian Tribes” First place winner, 2006-07 American Indian Law Review
Writing Competition, Lexis [ev]

Tax credits are economic incentives the government provides to promote certain activities. With these incentives, the
76

government is trying to encourage economic activity (such as charitable giving or pollution-free energy production) that
the government considers socially beneficial. The government has an interest in promoting those activities targeted for
77

promotion to the fullest extent possible, including in Indian Country. The PTC is a tax credit Congress created to foster
the production of renewable energy. The PTC is a broad incentive - it has aided renewable energy developments from
California to Maine. An examination of the record of congressional debates surrounding the renewal of the PTC in 2005
makes clear Congress was interested in both reducing dependence on foreign fossil [*286] fuels and stimulating the 78

growth of domestic renewable energy businesses. To this end, Congress decided to enact a tax incentive (the PTC) that
79

will cost taxpayers over $ 300 million a year over the next decade. 80

2. Tax credits are alternative energy incentives.


Glenn C. Ralph ‘7, Investors Group Financial Services, Inc.
[“Can 'green' investments power your investment growth?” November, http://www.mcimortgageconsultants.ca/hollycollin/articles/2007-11/green-
investment.html]
Incentives. Alternative energy incentives are becoming more common, with government tax breaks and
subsidies for producers and consumers. How might these benefit an alternative energy investment?

3. Our interpretation is most specific to the topic—defining “alternative energy incentive” as one term provides
the most limiting and predictable interpretation and ensures topic focus—that’s key to education and clash.

4. We’re reasonably topical—tribes are within the United States territory—their approach to T forces a race to
the bottom to eliminate just one more aff which kills education.

5. Their logic excludes natives as meaningful members of the United States—this legislative exclusion replicates
the harms of colonialism because it is the same logic used by European settlers to justify pushing the Natives away
and later relocating them to reservations to push them out of the United States because they did not belong—this
genocide kills all by making any group expendable through their exclusionary logic.

19
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC T—IN THE US
1. Tribes are in the US.
Department of Energy 4/10/08
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/native_americans.asp
There are more than 700 American Indian tribes and Native Alaskan villages and corporations located on 96
million acres in the United States. Many of these tribes and villages have excellent wind resources that could be
commercially developed to meet their electricity needs or for electricity export.

2. PTC is within the US.


American Indian Law Review 07, 32 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267, “Special Feature: The Tax Man Cometh Not: How The
Non-Transferability Of Tax Credits Harms Indian Tribes” First place winner, 2006-07 American Indian Law Review
Writing Competition, Lexis [ev]

Making the PTC tradable would merge those two goals. Congress should - and, the record indicates, does - want Indian
tribes to face the same set of incentives as non-Indian business entities. Both logic and congressional action indicate that
the government would want all economic activity within the boundaries of the United States to face the same incentive
system, in order to broadly encourage the activities targeted by tax credits. Congress has articulated its goals of energy
security and clean energy production. Tribes, given the proper incentives, and a tradable PTC, can help the U.S. meet
those goals.

3. United States includes territories and possessions


US Code ‘07
(6 USCS § 1111, Lexis_Nexis)

(6) United states. The term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and any other territoryor possession of the United States.

4. Prefer—
A) Government definitions are most predictable and accurate—means most educational topic debates.
B) Best limits—ensures concrete basis.

5. We’re reasonably topical—tribes are within the United States territory—their approach to T forces a race to
the bottom to eliminate just one more aff which kills education.

6. Their logic of geographic exclusion is exactly the same as the logic used to subjugate and exterminate Native
tribes—tribes were “outside the United States” so they could be relocated first across the Appalachian Mountains
and then across the Mississippi and then onto reservations and then removed to further and further isolated areas
away from white America where they DID NOT belong because they were NOT part of the United States—the
negative’s legislative will to see Natives as separate and other makes extermination inevitable, when we perceive
tribes as an alien political entity in our own backyard we can destroy them—viewing natives as WITHIN the
United States is key to federal protection and prevention of genocidal legislation. Their genocide of Native
America spills over to kill all by making any group expendable through exclusionary logic.

20
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC T—INCREASE
1.) We increase the number of people who can access incentives. By lowering the baseline we comparatively
increase incentives

2.) Incentives is something that motivates effort


That’s American Heritage

3.) By expanding the number of people who are motivated to do alternative energy we increase the baseline.
Motivation is expanded because more people means more total motivation. The baseline of motivation is increased.
Prefer this because we’re the only ones defining incentives

4.) Increase is to expand or prolong, that’s Random House. We expand incentives by expanding access to them

5.) We don’t explode the topic – expanding incentives only allows for positive and negative cases – lit checks

6.) They limit out negative incentives affs by requiring the baseline to increase, which are good
A. Research burden inevitable - negative incentives become counterplan ground if we can’t read them. Hurts
fairness more aff loses key solvency mechs.
B. US energy policy primarily deals with negative incentives – means they preclude core lit – killing topic specific
education. Also makes their interpretation arbitrary – prefer ours on predictability
C. Neg ground – coercion links are much stronger than those to positive incentives – increases ground

7.) Ground outweighs limits


A. ground is a prerequisite for educational debates because it means teams will have case-specific strategies which
encourage in depth research and guarantee topic-specific education
B. Turns limits – more cases is irrelevant if the neg has more sweet answers against them

8.) Competing interpretations bad: They lead to a race to the bottom which turns their standards – default to
reasonability

21
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
A2 DISAD 1/2
1. Ethical obligation to Natives outweighs—tradeable PTC is key to equality and to confront the moral wrongs our
government has perpetrated against tribes—that’s AILR and Churchill—put ethics first, its central to our
existence as people.
Our individual stances are key to solve the harms of colonization.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 243-4 [ev]

At base, the same principle applies here that pertains "over there." As our delegation put it repeatedly to the Germans in
our closing remarks, "The indigenous peoples of the Americas can, have, and will continue to join hands with the
indigenous peoples of this land, just as we do with those of any other. We are reaching out to you by our very act of being
here, and of saying what we are saying to you. We have faith in you, a faith that you will be able to rejoin the family of
humanity as peoples interacting respectfully and harmoniously—on the basis of your own ancestral ways—with the
traditions of all other peoples. We are at this time expressing a faith in you that You perhaps lack in yourselves. But, and
make no mistake about this, we cannot and will not join hands with those who default on this responsibility, who instead
insist upon wielding an imagined right to stand as part of Europe's synthetic and predatory tradition, the tradition of
colonization, genocide, racism, and ecocide. The choice, as We've said over and over again, is yours to make. It cannot be
made for you. You alone must make your choice and act on it, just as we have had to make and act upon ours." In North
America, there will be an indication that affirmative choices along these lines have begun to emerge among self-
proclaimed progressives, not when figures like Robert Bly are simply dismissed as being ridiculous kooks, or condoned as
harmless irrelevancies," but when they come to be treated by "their own" as signifying the kind of menace they actually
entail. Only when white males themselves start to display the sort of profound outrage at the activities of groups like the
Men's Movement as is manifested by its victims—when they rather than we begin to shut down the movement's meetings,
burn its sweat lodges, impound and return the sacred objects it desecrates, and otherwise make its functioning impossible
—will we be able to say with confidence that Euroamerica has finally accepted that Indians are Indians, not toys to be
played with by whoever can afford the price of the game. Only then will we be able to say that the "Indians 'R’ Us" brand
of cultural appropriation and genocide has passed, or at least is passing, and that Euroamericans are finally coming to
terms with who they've been and, much more important, who and what it is they can become. Then, finally, these
immigrants can at last be accepted among us upon our shores, fulfilling the speculation of the Duwamish leader Seattle in
1854: "We may be brothers after all." As he said then, "We shall see."87

2. Genocide outweighs—poverty is a genocide against Native Americans, trigger 800 times higher death rates—
that’s Churchill and Brook—genocide threatens all because every population is at risk—that makes extinction
inevitable—that’s Cambell.

22
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
A2 DISAD 2/2
3. Their predictions are based on psychological phenomena which make claims fundamentally improbable.
Louis Menand The New Yorker 12/5/05 “Everybody’s an Expert”
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/051205crbo_books1

Prediction is one of the pleasures of life. Conversation would wither without it. “It won’t last. She’ll dump him in a month.” If you’re
wrong, no one will call you on it, because being right or wrong isn’t really the point. The point is that you think he’s not worthy of
her, and the prediction is just a way of enhancing your judgment with a pleasant prevision of doom. Unless you’re putting money on
it, nothing is at stake except your reputation for wisdom in matters of the heart. If a month goes by and they’re still together, the
deadline can be extended without penalty. “She’ll leave him, trust me. It’s only a matter of time.” They get married: “Funny things
happen. You never know.” You still weren’t wrong. Either the marriage is a bad one—you erred in the right direction—or you got
beaten by a low-probability outcome. It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book, “Expert Political Judgment:
How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (Princeton; $35), that people who make prediction their business—people who appear as
experts on television, get quoted in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses, and participate in punditry roundtables—
are no better than the rest of us. When they’re wrong, they’re rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. They insist that
they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. They have the same
repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the
world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake. No one is paying you for your gratuitous opinions about other
people, but the experts are being paid, and Tetlock claims that the better known and more frequently quoted they are, the less reliable
their guesses about the future are likely to be. The accuracy of an expert’s predictions actually has an inverse relationship to his or her
self-confidence, renown, and, beyond a certain point, depth of knowledge. People who follow current events by reading the papers and
newsmagazines regularly can guess what is likely to happen about as accurately as the specialists whom the papers quote. Our system
of expertise is completely inside out: it rewards bad judgments over good ones. “Expert Political Judgment” is not a work of media
criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley—and his conclusions are based on a long-term study that he began twenty
years ago. He picked two hundred and eighty-four people who made their living “commenting or offering advice on political and
economic trends,” and he started asking them to assess the probability that various things would or would not come to pass, both in the
areas of the world in which they specialized and in areas about which they were not expert. Would there be a nonviolent end to
apartheid in South Africa? Would Gorbachev be ousted in a coup? Would the United States go to war in the Persian Gulf? Would
Canada disintegrate? (Many experts believed that it would, on the ground that Quebec would succeed in seceding.) And so on. By the
end of the study, in 2003, the experts had made 82,361 forecasts. Tetlock also asked questions designed to determine how they
reached their judgments, how they reacted when their predictions proved to be wrong, how they evaluated new information that did
not support their views, and how they assessed the probability that rival theories and predictions were accurate. Tetlock got a
statistical handle on his task by putting most of the forecasting questions into a “three possible futures” form. The respondents were
asked to rate the probability of three alternative outcomes: the persistence of the status quo, more of something (political freedom,
economic growth), or less of something (repression, recession). And he measured his experts on two dimensions: how good they were
at guessing probabilities (did all the things they said had an x per cent chance of happening happen x per cent of the time?), and how
accurate they were at predicting specific outcomes. The results were unimpressive. On the first scale, the experts performed worse
than they would have if they had simply assigned an equal probability to all three outcomes—if they had given each possible future a
thirty-three-per-cent chance of occurring. Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world, in other words, are
poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys, who would have distributed their picks evenly over the three choices.

4. Put probability over magnitude—embracing the native point of view is key to prevent the progress driven
exploitation of the world by identifying a new synergy between humans and nature—that’s Fixico—new policy
towards natives allows us to embrace their attitude towards the earth, solving ecological destruction which will
wipe out any ability to sustain life—that’s Metener—put guaranteed extinction over sketchy disad claims.

23
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC KATO
5. The negative’s focus on nuclear extinction erases the real nuclear violence of testing and waste disposal—
significantly, the targets of these wars are Indigenous Fourth World nations—their portrayal of nuclear war
damns the Native to extinction and legitimizes nuclear violence against any and all targets, guaranteeing global
destruction.
Masahide Kato 1993 Professor Of Political Science At The University Of Hawaii, “Nuclear Globalism: Traversing
Rockets, Satellites, and Nuclear War via the Strategic Gave,” Alternatives 18.3 339-360.

Let us recall our earlier discussion about the critical historical conjuncture 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 of 1991, 1,924 nuclear explosions have occurred on earth." The major
perpetrators of nuclear warfare are the United States (936 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
(Xinjian Province, China) (36 times)." Moreovertalthough 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 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, 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
Nevertheles& 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 from the consciousness of the First World community. Such a discursive strategy that aims to mask the
"real" of nuclear warfare in the domain of imagery of nuclear catastrophe can be observed even in Stewart Firth's 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 poisoning our planet and
going into battle against nature itself! Although Firth's book is definitely a remarkable study of the history. of "nuclear
testing" in the Pacific, 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
nuclearr violence are obliterated and hence legitimatized. The discfirsive 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 catastrophe over the real nuclear
catastrophe happening in the Fourth World and Indigenous Nations almost on a daily basis.

24
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC COVIELLO
6. Their apocalyptic rhetoric furthers the perpetual threat of destruction and justifies unending, state-sanctioned
violence.
Coviello 2000—Peter, assistant professor of English at Bowdoin College, Apocalypse From Now On

Perhaps. But to claim that American culture is at present decisively postnuclear is not to say that the world we inhabit is in any way post-apocalyptic. Apocalypse, as I
began by saying, changed – it did not go away. And here I want to hazard my second assertion: if, in the nuclear age of yesteryear, apocalypse signified an event
threatening everyone and everything with (in Jacques Derrida’s suitably menacing phrase) “remainderless and a-symbolic destruction,” then in the postnuclear world
apocalypse is an affair whose parameters are definitively local. In shape and in substance, apocalypse is defined now by the affliction it brings somewhere else, always
to an “other” people whose very presence might then be written as a kind of dangerous contagion, threatening the safety and prosperity of a cherished “general
population.” This fact seems to me to stand behind Susan Sontag’s incisive observation, from 1989, that, “Apocalypse is now a long running serial: not ‘Apocalypse
Now’ but ‘Apocalypse from Now On.’” The decisive point here in the perpetuation of the threat of apocalypse (the point Sontag goes on, at length, to miss) is that the
apocalypse is ever present because, as an element in a vast economy of power, it is ever useful. That is, though the
perpetual threat of destruction – through the constant reproduction of the figure of the apocalypse – the agencies of power ensure their
authority to act on and through the bodies of a particular population. No one turns this point more persuasively than Michel Foucault, who
in the final chapter of his first volume of The History of Sexuality addressess himself to the problem of a power that is less repressive than productive, less life-
threatening than, in his words, “life-administering.” Power, he contends, “exerts a positive influence on life … [and] endeavors
to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations.” In his brief
comments on what he calls “the atomic situation,” however, Foucault insists as well that the productiveness of modern power must not be
mistaken for a uniform repudiation of violent or even lethal means. For as “managers of life and survival, of bodies
and the race,” agencies of modern power presume to act “on the behalf of the existence of everyone.” Whatsoever
might be construed as a threat to life and survival in this way serves to authorize any expression of force, no matter
how invasive, or, indeed, potentially annihilating. “If genocide is indeed the dream of modern power,” Foucault writes,
“this is not because of a recent return to the ancient right to kill’ it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the
species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population.” For a state that would arm itself not with the power to kill its
population, but with a more comprehensive power over the patters and functioning of its collective life, the threat of an apocalyptic demise,
nuclear or otherwise, seems a civic initiative that can scarcely be done without.

25
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC SMALL BUSINESS CP 1/4
1. No way to start a business without power—reservations have NO electricity because they’re so alienated from
the grid—that’s Brooks and Chuchill—only renewable power can start the wheels needed to lift tribes out of
poverty.

2. Perm do both—double solvency by allowing more avenues for development and growth.

3. Can’t solve unemployment—that’s the root cause of 10,000 times higher sucide rate and 33 percent higher Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome—even if they start small businesses there won’t be ENOUGH jobs or demand especially given
the ISOLATED NATURE of reservations—only wind energy creates enough jobs.
Shannon Biggs, Director of the Local Green Economy program at Global Exchange, Autumn, ‘07
(Harnessing the Wind, Earth Island Journal, Volume 22, Issue 3, p. Proquest) [Bozman]

During the late 1980s, while searching for a low-cost energy source to meet the reservation's needs, the Rosebud Sioux learned that
the wind on their reservation could potentially meet one-twelfth of the entire US electricity demand. Despite a lack of experience in
wind technology or energy policy, the tribe determined to harness what people were calling the tri-state area of the Dakotas and
Nebraska: "the Saudi Arabia of wind." They constructed the first native^owned wind turbine on reservation land, distinguishing
themselves as enterprising leaders on the edge of eco-energy technology. In the process, the Sioux have shown how communities can
take advantage of unique local resources to bolster their economic self-sufficiency. By choosing a "green" solution that honors their
belief in living in balance with nature, thè Rosebud Sioux have contributed to solving the US energy problem and the global warming
challenge, and have inspired other Native American nations to explore how to meet their power needs in an environmentally wise
fashion. A Viable Empowerment Strategy It is hard to overestimate the potential of wind. It does not pollute or require painful
extraction methods such as mountaintop removal for coal or superheating the earth for oil, and it will never disappear. Although -it
currently accounts for less than one percent of total US energy output, wind is a multi-billion dollar industry, and the fastest growing
energy technology in the country. Today, wind power in the United States exceeds 11,600 megawatts, enough to light the city of
Detroit. Experts at the American Wind Energy Associa- . tion's 2007 annual conference forecast that by 2030 an estimated half a
trillion dollars in investment will bump wind's share of the US electricity generation to 20 percent. Despite the promise of wind, the
US remains reliant on dirty electricity generation methods. The utility industry says this is due to the expense of converting the energy
infrastructure to cleaner technologies. But the argument that fossil fuels are cheaper is called into question after taking into account all
of the government subsidies for carbon-heavy energy. The 2005 energy bill gave the on, gas, and coal industries some $32 billion in
subsidies over five years. Wind power companies received less than one percent of federal support for energy projects. There is truth
to the claim that the infrastructure is not yet in place to bring full-scale wind energy nationwide. "The Dakotas, Texas, Wyoming, and
other rural places have vast wind resources," says wind energy expert Dale Osborn. "But the problem is that they are in the middle of
nowhere. Large developers need to focus on transmission, but building it in short order is not yet possible." Osborn is a wind pioneer
and the owner of a small wind firm, DISGEN. He is often credited with growing the US wind industry from its infancy in the 1980s to
its more robust and technically advanced state- today. He points out that transmission obstacles have been overcome in the past with
federal assistance. "If you think about how agribusiness evolved," says Osborn, "there wasn't electricity [in rural areas] so co-ops were
formed with the support of the federal government. It made no sense for commercial enterprise to install it. Crops were grown in -the
country, but there was no way to get those goods to market, so the federal government developed the highway system." But there is
no need for tribes or other rural communities to wait for big picture solutions that may not ever benefit them. As Osborn reckons, "We
can't just do it with large-scale projects geared for big population centers. We need other, small-scale strategies [for the rest of the
country]. And beyond energy policy, other than coal and gas, wind represents the largest economic opportunity for rural
communities that I have ever seen." As the Rosebud experience illustrates, small-scale wind production is a viable community-
controlled economic empowerment strategy that is ready right now. Tag It Green Patrick Spears is the president of the Intertribal
Council On Utility Policy (ICOUP), a consortium of Plains tribes working to bring lucrative green power to reservations. As he says,
"The wind is a blessing. Harnessing this gift, we can benefit our people, help reduce the impact of global warming, and provide
economic restoration. I've never seen a situation oolite like it. It's win-win-win." Like all tribes, economic restoration has been a long
time coming for the Sioux. In 1944, the Flood Control Act authorized six darns to be built along the once-mighty Missouri River,
forcing many Plains Indians to move away from traditional lands along the fertile .river basin. While some tried to make a go of it in
US cities, most were relocated to less hospitable lands and poorly planned communities on the reservations. Life on the Rosebud
reservation is difficult. There is a casino, but the reservation's remote location does not attract a lot of traffic. Winters are long and
with the windchill, temperatures can fall 30 degrees below zero. Unemployment, according to tribal officials, is between 80 and 90
percent, and a multitude of health and social problems persist, as they do on other reservations. Spears was only 13 years old when the
land where his uncles taught him to hunt and fish was flooded. "It's a serious emotional issue for us," he says. "Clustered housing, no
jobs, not much fresh food ...

26
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC SMALL BUSINESS CP 2/4
4. Can’t solve fundamental degradation of Native Americans—AILR says lack of PTC justifies fundamental
inequality because allows all to treat Indians as economically subservient—even if businesses cause growth
precedent of unequal treatment will prevent long term benefits through unequal codes.

5. Can’t solve spiritual tradition—Asmus cites tribal consensus that wind energy is uniquely in tune with native
stances towards the environment—there’s no VALUE to business creation if lose unique culture—counterplan
turns Indians into money grubbing businessmen and ELIMINATES their culture—
A) This form of assimilation makes tribal extinction inevitable.
Robert B. Porter Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Tribal Law and Government Center, University of
Kansas; Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Sac & Fox Nation of Kansas and Missouri; Member (Heron Clan) and
former Attorney General of the Seneca Nation of Indians (1991-1995), 1998, University of Michigan Journal of Law
Reform, 31 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 899, “A Proposal To The Hanodaganyas To Decolonize Federal Indian Control Law”
Lexis [ev]

As I see it, the complete destruction of the Indian nations will occur when the Indian people who comprise those nations
have become indistinguishable from the rest of American society. Viewed this way, when all of the people comprising an
Indian nation have become so assimilated into the dominant society as to be indistinguishable from the society at large,
then they will have, by definition, become members of the colonizing society. Regardless of whether Indian people
them [*956] selves perceive this transformation, their assimilation is surely relevant to an American society called upon
to make a policy decision concerning whom to recognize as members of separate sovereign nations. It is hard to defend
the position that a people who are no longer distinct from American society should nonetheless be afforded recognition as
such. This is especially true when this recognition may translate into a sovereign status that denies the application of the
laws of the recognizing people. If there is absolutely no way to distinguish a group of so-called Indigenous people from a
group not claiming to be Indigenous, on what basis does one deny that the same social contract should apply? It is wholly
illegitimate to deny equal treatment on the sole basis that one's ancestors, but not oneself, at some time in the past had a
distinct Indigenous existence. Colonization has had a dramatic effect on Indian nations solely by virtue of the many
generations of Indian people who have been forced to abandon their tribal way of life and who have otherwise assimilated
into the cultural and social fabric of the United States. 358 While there is some evidence that the number of people in the
United States self-identifying as "Indian" has increased, 359 this may simply be the result of a broadening of the
definition of Indian to include people of Indian ancestry who are not tribal members, i.e., who are "Native American."
Indeed, this phenomenon may be further evidence of a breakdown of Indian identity where ethnicity and race, and not
political and cultural affiliation, have become the defining criteria. 360

B) Kills hope for environment—native culture is key to change identity towards environment and prevent over
consumption that will eliminate us all—that’s Fixico and Metener

C) Only realignment with Native culture can prevent the drive to produce that dooms the world to overpopulation
and inevitable extinction.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 293-5 [ev]

Rephrased, this means it would be a violation of a fundament of traditional indigenous law to supplant or eradicate another
species, whether animal or plant, in order to make way for some greater number of humans, or to increase the level of material
comfort available to those who already exist. Conversely, it is a fundamental requirement of traditional law that each human
accept his or her primary responsibility, that of maintaining the balance and harmony of the natural order as it is encountered "9
One is essentially free to do anything one wants in an indigenous society so long as this cardinal rule is adhered to. The bottom
line with regard to the maximum population limit of Indian Country as it has been sketched in this presentation is some very
finite number. My best guess is that five million people would be pushing things right to the limit.120 Whatever. Citizens can
be admitted until that point has been reached, and no more. And the population cannot increase beyond that number over time,
no matter at what rate. Carrying capacity is a fairly constant reality; it tends to change over thousands of years,

27
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC SMALL BUSINESS CP 3/4
[NO TEXT DELETED]
when it changes at all. POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT What I'm going to say next will probably startle a few people
(as if what's been said already hasn't).
I think this principle of population restraint is the single most important example Native North America can set for the rest of
humanity. It is the thing which it is most crucial for others to emulate. Check it out. I recently heard that Japan, a small island
nation which has so many people that they're literally tumbling into the sea, and which has exported about half again as many
people as live on the home islands, is expressing "official concern" that its birth rate has declined very slightly over the last few
years. The worry is that in thirty years there'll be fewer workers available to "produce," and thus to "consume" whatever it is
that's produced.' 21 Ever ask yourself what it is that's used in "producing" something? Or what it is that's being "consumed"?
Yeah. You got it. Nature is being consumed, and with it the ingredients which allow ongoing human existence. It's true that
nature can replenish some of what's consumed, but only at a certain rate. That rate has been vastly exceeded, and the extent of
excess is increasing by the moment. An overburgeoning humanity is killing the natural world, and thus itself. It's no more
complicated than that.122 Here we are in the midst of a rapidly worsening environmental crisis of truly global proportions,
every last bit of it attributable to a wildly accelerating human consumption of the planetary habitat, and you have one of the
world's major offenders expressing grave concern that the rate at which it is able to consume might actually drop a notch or two.
Think about it. I suggest that this attitude signifies nothing so much as stark, staring madness. It is insane: suicidally,
homicidally, ecocidally, omnici dally insane. No, I'm not being rhetorical. I meant what I've just said in the most literal way
possible,'23 but I don't want to convey the misimpression that I see the Japanese as being in this respect unique. Rather, I intend
them to serve as merely an illustration of a far broader and quite virulent pathology called "industrialism"—or, lately,
"postindustrialism"—a sickness centered in an utterly obsessive drive to dominate and destroy the natural order. (Words like
"production," "consumption," "development," and "progress" are mere code words masking this reality.)124 It's not only the
industrialized countries which are afflicted with this dis-ease. One byproduct of the past five centuries of European
expansionism and the resulting hegemony of eurocentric ideology is that the latter has been drummed into the conscious:. ness
of most peoples to the point where it is now subconsciously internalized. Everywhere, you find people thinking it "natural" to
view themselves as the incarna tion of God on earth—i.e., "created in the image of God"—and thus duty-bound to "exercise
dominion over nature" in order that they can "multiply, grow plentiful, and populate the land" in ever increasing
"abundance."125 The legacy of the forced labor of the latifundia and inculcation of Catholicism in Latin America is a
tremendous overburden of population devoutly believing that "wealth" can be achieved (or is defined) by having ever more
children.126 The legacy of Mao's implementation of "reverse technology" policy—the official encouragement of breakneck
childbearing rates in his already overpopulated country, solely as a means to deploy massive labor power to offset capitalism's
"technological advantage" in production—resulted in a tripling of China's population in only two generations.127 And then
there is India.. Make absolutely no mistake about it. The planet was never designed to accommodate five billion human beings,
much less the ten billion predicted to be here a mere forty years hence.1211 If we are to be about turning power relations around
between people, and between groups of people, we must also be about turning around the relationship between people and the
rest of the natural order. If we don't, we'll die out as a species, just like any other species which irrevocably overshoots its
habitat. The sheer numbers of humans on this planet needs to come down to about a quarter of what they are today,- or maybe
less, and the plain fact is that the bulk of these numbers are in the Third World.129 So, I'll say this clearly: not only must the
birth rate in the Third World come down, but the population levels of Asia, Latin America, and Africa must be reduced over the
next few generations. The numbers must start to come down dramatically, beginning right now.

6. Paternalism—the counterplan decides what’s best for tribes instead of listening to what they want—they’re
yelling for equality through alternative energy—that’s Brooks, AILR and Asmus—but the counterplan finds it
more politically convenient to embrace a hip alternative solution—this is the kind of colonial standpoint that
justified colonization in the first place because immigrants could “improve” the savage’s way of life.

28
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC SMALL BUSINESS CP 4/4
7. Government grants kill self-determination—only PTC solves.
American Indian Law Review 07, 32 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267, “Special Feature: The Tax Man Cometh Not: How The
Non-Transferability Of Tax Credits Harms Indian Tribes” First place winner, 2006-07 American Indian Law Review
Writing Competition, Lexis [ev]

It is commonly thought that Indian tribes enjoy a significant business advantage because they are tax-free entities. This is
often true - an entity that does not pay 35% of its earnings to the government is generally better off than one that does.
However, in certain industries, the tax credits available are so great that not paying taxes hurts the tribes in a side-by-side
business comparison to taxable entities, such as corporations. This paper will argue that tribes should be given the
opportunity to transfer to tax-paying partners the tax credits they would have earned from certain projects but for their tax-
free status. Making tax credits tradable for tribes will accomplish three important goals: (1) The federal government will
be able to better promote targeted economic activities by giving tribes the same financial incentives as the rest of the
business community; (2) Tribal dependence on federal grants will be reduced, as larger pools of investment capital
become available to tribes and tribal wealth increases; (3) As dependence is reduced, tribal sovereignty will increase. This
paper will examine the issue of tax credit tradability through the lens of wind energy projects, which normally receive
large tax credits, but which are structurally very difficult for tribes - as non-tax-paying entities - to develop.

29
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
EXT—JOBS
Wind energy key to job creation and growth.
Kate Burke Energy Policy Specialist for National Conference on State Legislatures and Linda Sikkema, NCSL, State
Legislatures June 07, “Native American Power” http://www.ncsl.org/magazine/articles/2007/07SLJune07_Native.pdf pg
1-2 [ev]

HELPING THEIR OWN One-third of the 2.4 million Native Americans living on or near tribal lands live in poverty. The
unemployment rate is double the national average. There are an estimated 18,000 families in the Navajo Nation alone still
living without electricity. “Our hope is that if the tribes choose to develop these renewable energy resources,” says DOE’s
Pierce, “it could enable local economic development and contribute to additional jobs.” For some tribes, taking on
renewable energy projects means helping members pay for, and in some cases acquire, power. If tribes can generate their
own power, they can lower utility bills and bring power to more people. Energy projects also provide new jobs, and
potential profits translate into additional assets for tribes. In some cases not only do tribes benefit, but so do the areas near
the reservation. A handful of tribes supply power to neighboring communities, which can be beneficial for the tribes as
well as the surrounding area.

30
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC STATES CP 1/2
1. Perm do both

2. States can’t solve—only the Federal government has authority.


Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01
(Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy
Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman]

In 1985 the Ninth Circuit, in State of Washington Department of Ecology v. United. States Environmental Protection Agency, n42
held that states could not enforce their hazardous waste regulations against Indian tribes or individuals on Indian land. In crafting a
standard for resolving statutory ambiguities, the court stated: When a statute is silent or unclear with respect to a particular issue, we
must defer to the reasonable interpretation of the agency responsible for administering the statute. By leaving a gap in the statute,
Congress implicitly has delegated policy-making authority to the agency...We may not substitute our judgment for that of the
agency as long as the agency has adopted a reasonable construction of the statute. n43 The court further noted that "states are
generally precluded from exercising jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country unless s has clearly expressed an intention to
permit it." n44 A similar issue was addressed by the Eighth Circuit in Blue Legs v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
n45 which held that federal jurisdiction existed to enforce provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
concerning the prohibition of open dumps against tribes, in part because the tribes have the responsibility and authority, stemming
from their inherent sovereignty, to regulate, operate, and maintain solid waste disposal facilities on the reservations. Congress and
tribes then worked together successfully to introduce and enact several amendments to federal environmental statutes authorizing the
federal EPA to propose rules and regulations by which Indian tribes could establish environmental programs and related regulatory
structures. The EPA was placed in a federal oversight role over all state implementation programs, and that authority was extended to
tribal implementation programs that sought designation and approval.

3. States can’t solve—only the federal government can change the PTC because it’s a FEDERAL bill—even if
states give equivalent funding they can’t solve
A) Changing PTC key to ethical obligation to Indians—that’s AIRL—allowing inequality to continue means
Natives will never be able to profit because PTC sets a precedent for eliminating Indians from the business sphere.
B) PTC key to self determination because it’s the only way to generate profit and electricity—that’s Brooks and
AIRL—voting negative means genocide against Native Americans which justifies spill over to kill any group
guaranteeing extinction.

4. Federal government key to lasting change—that’s Churchill—only federal gov’t can overrule biased states and
ensure equal regulation.

5. Using the federal government to make policy is the best way to return self determination to tribes
Sandra Zellmer 2002, Professor, Tulane University Law School, University of Colorado Law Review, “SUSTAINING
GEOGRAPHIES OF HOPE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS,” p. lexis

Many treaties explicitly recognize tribal governments as sovereign nations entitled to certain political rights, including the
right to self-government. n98 Treaties also reflect the special place that the land holds for the tribes, with provisions for
exclusive possession of tribal lands and non-exclusive use of off-reservation lands for hunting, fishing, and other
subsistence practices. n99 To effectuate treaties, and to alleviate barriers to political, economic, and cultural autonomy
posed by religious suppression, removal, and allotment, an array of twentieth century federal statutes promotes tribal self-
determination with respect to land management, education, and other areas of governance. n100 Congress has explicitly
recognized that religious [*438] practices are an integral part of tribal culture and identity and has agreed to protect tribal
interests in their own distinctive culture and religion as a matter of national policy n101 and international law. n102 Along
with tribal treaties, these statutes provide an expression of the government's trust relationship with tribes, as well as a
recognition of international human rights norms.

31
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC STATES CP 2/2
6. Perm do the counterplan.

7. Fifty State Fiat is a voter.


A) Object Fiat—what the states should do is irrelevant to the question of what the federal government
should do—allowing object fiat allows the neg to fiat past real world policy considerations which means we don’t
get in depth education based in the literature.
B) Clash—the neg can fiat past every fed key warrant means we don’t’ get to do in depth comparison
between federal and state action—clash outweighs because it’s only possible in the context of the debate round
which means they kill a unique educational oppourtunity.

8. Federal policy is key to comprehensive security—that’s the only way to prevent ethnic cleansing.
Robert B. Porter Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Tribal Law and Government Center, University of
Kansas; Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Sac & Fox Nation of Kansas and Missouri; Member (Heron Clan) and
former Attorney General of the Seneca Nation of Indians (1991-1995), 1998, University of Michigan Journal of Law
Reform, 31 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 899, “A Proposal To The Hanodaganyas To Decolonize Federal Indian Control Law”
Lexis [ev]

Finally, the Self-Governance Act does not adequately address the reality that not all Indian nations will be able to
reassume a full or significant measure of their former self-governing powers. The cold, hard truth of the matter is that a
significant number of Indian nations have been so vanquished by colonization that they are truly "domestic dependent
nations." 483 The Self-Governance Policy preserves the possibility that the federal government will one day again respect
the full measure of tribal sovereignty. But, as Johnson and Hamilton note: "As the castle walls of paternalism crumble,
what should be done about the tribes left inside?" 484 Although it appears that Johnson and Hamilton were thinking only
of those Indian nations who are inside the "castle walls" for purposes of federal financial support, the bigger problem lies
in dealing with the reality that some Indian nations will be inside the "castle walls" either because they choose to be there,
or because they will be unable to leave. This is a significant policy quandary with no easy solution. It is inevitable that the
federal trust responsibility must be preserved in some modified form to respect the underlying [*980] treaty obligations
and to ensure the survival of the Indian nations. Given the territorial limitation on tribal sovereignty, the federal
government must remain involved to protect Indian lands, resources, and sovereignty from external threats. But as the
Self-Governance Policy encourages some Indian nations to self-determine and decolonize, the heretofore unacknowledged
barrier between those Indian nations inside and outside of the "castle walls" will become more prominent. The Self-
Governance Policy has begun the process of dividing the Indian nations into two categories: "domestic autonomous
nations" and "domestic dependent nations." If the United States is prepared to continue its colonial policies to ensure some
increasingly weak vestige of tribal self-government for the "domestic dependent nations," then perhaps there is little to be
concerned about. If not, then all of the Indian nations must be prepared for the possibility that the weaker nations will be
the first ones "terminated" under some future effort to "ethnically cleanse" the United States of the weakest Indian nations
within its boundaries - that is, those most assimilated and least equipped to administer their own territory and affairs.

32
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC SOVEREIGNTY 1/2
1. No link—we allow the natives to self identify as they wish, we don’t ascribe a Western concept of sovereignty to
them—they want economic self-determination which is a prerequisite to being able to identify as they wish—that’s
Churchill and AIRL.

2. Perm do both—we can reject the Western concept of sovereignty without damning tribes to genocide.

3. Dominance and genocide is inevitable without a shift in treatment of Natives—ignoring the plan only replicates
their power impacts, prefer our tangible solution to their ivory tower buzzwords.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 266-7 [ev]

It's time to stop fantasizing and confront what this consummation might look like. To put it bluntly, colonialism is
colonialism, no matter what its trappings. You can't end classism in a colonial system, since the colonized by definition
comprise a class lower than that of their colonizers.13 You can't end racism in a colonial system because the imposed
"inferiority" of the colonized must inevitably be "explained" (justified) by their colonizers through contrived
classifications of racial hierarchy." You can't end sexism in a colonial system, since it functions—again by definition—on
the basis of one party imposing itself upon the other in the most intimate of dimensions for purposes of obtaining
gratification.15 If rape is violence, as feminists correctly insist,I6 then so too is the interculture analogue of rape: colonial
domination. As a consequence, it is impossible to end social violence in a colonialist system. Read Fancin and Memmi.
They long ago analyzed that fact rather thoroughly and exceedingly well.'? Better yet, read Sartre, who flatly equated
colonialism with genocide.1S Then ask yourself how you maintain a system incorporating domination and genocidal
violence as integral aspects of itself without military, police, and penal establishments? The answer is that you can't. Go
right down the list of progressive aspirations and what you'll discover, if you're honest with yourself, is that none of them
can really be achieved outside the context of Fourth World liberation. So long as indigenous nations are subsumed against
our aril within "broader" statist entities—and this applies as much to Canada as to the United States, as much to China as
to Canada, as much to Mexico and Brazil as to China, as much to Ghana as to any of the rest; the problem is truly global
—colonialism will be alive and well.'9 So long as this is the case, all efforts at positive social transformation, no master
how "revolutionary" the terms in which they are couched, will be self-nullifying, simply leading us right back into the
groove we're in today. Actually, we'll probably be worse off after each iteration since such outcomes generate a steadily
growing popular disenchantment with the idea that meaningful change can ever be possible. This isn't a zero-sum game
we're involved in. As Gramsci pointed out, every failure of supposed alternatives to the status quo serves to significantly
reinforce its hegemony.20

4. Self determination solves the impact—even if we use Western sovereignty we eliminate the devil’s choice
between poverty and coal mining—lack of self determination is the root cause of all exploitation of Natives because
when they’re powerless they can be manipulated by coal corporations—that’s Brooks, Churchill and AIRL.

5. Paternalism—the kritik decides what’s best for tribes instead of listening to what they want—they’re yelling for
sovereignty through alternative energy—that’s Brooks, AILR and Asmus—but the kritik finds it more politically
convenient to step over their heads with long words and Western discourse—this is the kind of colonial standpoint
that justified colonization in the first place because immigrants could “improve” the savage’s way of life.

33
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC SOVEREIGNTY 2/2
6. Philosophical rejections of Natives are simply an apology for white supremacy and destroy positive political
change.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 243 [ev]

White male anarchists fret over possible "authoritarian" aspects of our societies— "You had leaders, didn't you? That's
hierarchy!" 81—while their feminist sisters worry that our societies may have been "sexist" in their functioning.82 (Oh
no, boss. We too managed to think our way through to a position in which women did the heavy lifting and men bore the
children. Besides, hadn't you heard? We were all "queer," in the old days, so your concerns about our being patriarchal
have always been unwarranted.83) Even the animal rights movement chimes in from time to time, discomfited that we
were traditionally so unkind to "non-human members of our sacred natural order" as to eat their flesh." (Hey, no sweat
boss. We'll jump right on your no-meat bandwagon. But don't forget the sacred Cherokee Clan of the Carrot. You'll have
to reciprocate our gesture of solidarity by not eating any more fruits and vegetables either. Or had you forgotten that
plants are non-human members of the natural order as well? Have a nice fast, buckaroo.) Not until such apologist and
ultimately white supremacist attitudes begin to be dispelled within at least that sector of Euroamerican society
which claims to represent an alternative to U.S./Canadian business-as-usual can there be hope of any genuinely
positive social transformation in North America. And only in acknowledging the real rather than invented nature of
their history, as the German opposition has done long since, can they begin to come to grips with such things.g5 From
there, they too will be able to to position themselves—psychologically, intellectually, and eventually in practical terms—
to step outside that history, not in a manner which continues it by presuming to appropriate the histories and cultural
identities of its victims, but in ways allowing them to recapture its antecedent meanings and values. Restated, Euroameri-
cans, like their European counterparts, will then be able to start reconnecting themselves to their indigenous traditions artd
identities in ways which instill pride rather than guilt, empowering themselves to join in the negation of the construct of
"Europe" which has temporarily suppressed their cultures as well as ours.

34
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC TRIBE K 1/2
1. Perm do both.

2. Churchill’s analysis of “tribe” rests on a flawed and artificial reading.


John Lavelle, Executive Director Of Center For The Spirit (Support And Protection Of Indian Religious And Indigenous
Traditions) In San Francisco, Winter 96, American Indian Quarterly Vol 20 No 1, “Reviewed work(s): Indians Are Us?:
Culture and Genocide in Native North America by Ward Churchill” JSTOR [ev]

First, Churchill's disdain for the word "tribe," by his own avowed reasoning, should extend with equal force to the word
"family," since each of these terms may denote a general category in the classification of plants, animals, and other living
organisms, within the science of taxonomy. Likewise, since the word "community" may denote any interacting population
of life forms (human and/or nonhuman) in the language of scientific ecology, Churchill logically should be just as
disgusted by any reference to human beings per se as constituting a "community." Clearly, if a person actually were to be
repulsed and enraged whenever words like "family," "community" and "tribe" were used in ordinary conversation—and
merely because these terms, like most words, have multiple, divergent meanings—then such a person would be in need of
psychological treatment for what would amount to a debilitating disorder in interpersonal communication. Second,
Churchill summons forth his sundry dictionary definitions in a noticeably lopsided manner. For instance, Churchill
chooses not to divulge the fact that Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary lists a definition for the word "peoples"
that has as much "animalistic emphasis" as Churchill's comparably obscure definition for the word "tribe." This omission
is especially noteworthy because Churchill admits that he in fact consulted this very same dictionary—Webster's Ninth—
in order to "cross-reference the 'old' definitions obtained [in the 1949 Webster's] with those in newer iterations of the same
dictionary, to see whether there have been changes" (pp. 332-333). According to a definition in Webster's Ninth
suppressed by Churchill, "peoples" may be defined as "lower animals usu. of a specified kind or situation ... 'squirrels and
chipmunks: the little furry [peoples]." In addition, Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language
calls to mind yet another amusing "nonhuman" meaning for the word "peoples." According to this particular Webster's
(not concededly referenced by Churchill), the word "peoples" may denote "supernatural beings that are thought of as
similar to humans in many respects . . . `kobolds, trolls, and such [peoples] are not to be trusted.'" Thus, it appears that
Churchill's pedantic argument against the word "tribe" rests not on any objective analysis of dictionary definitions at all,
but rather on a highly manipulative process of selectively disclosing those definitions that would appear consistent with
Churchill's antitribal thesis, while carefully concealing those definitions that would seem to contradict that thesis. So
much for the manifest silliness of competing (and, in Churchill's case, cheating) in a game of Trivial Pursuit with
"definitive" dictionaries to ascertain by what name Indian tribes will be permitted to identify themselves.

3. Self determination solves the impact—even if tribe discourse is dangerous we eliminate the devil’s choice
between poverty and coal mining—lack of self determination is the root cause of all exploitation of Natives because
when they’re powerless they can be manipulated by coal corporations—that’s Brooks, Churchill and AIRL.

4. Tribes’ right to self-definition outweighs Churchill’s obscure dictionary analysis.


John Lavelle, Executive Director Of Center For The Spirit (Support And Protection Of Indian Religious And Indigenous
Traditions) In San Francisco, Winter 96, American Indian Quarterly Vol 20 No 1, “Reviewed work(s): Indians Are Us?:
Culture and Genocide in Native North America by Ward Churchill” JSTOR [ev]

Yet another noteworthy problem in Indians Are Us? is Churchill's harangue in "Naming Our Destiny" against popular use
of the word "tribe." "[T]o be addressed as `tribal,'" Churchill insists, "is to be demeaned in a most extraordinarily vicious
way" (p. 295). The persuasiveness of Churchill's case against the word "tribe" is decisively undercut, however, by
Churchill's reliance on his contrived, indefensible position concerning the nonexistent "eugenics code" of the 1887
General Allotment Act, as critiqued previously in this essay. And so, Churchill's argument that "the preoccupation with
`blood lines' connoted by the term `tribe" (p. 296) is rooted in "a system of identifying Indians in accordance with a
formal eugenics code dubbed 'blood quantum' which is still in effect at the present time" (p. 333) is as fallacious and
unavailing as the tribal sovereignty-bashing conspiracy theory on which that argument entirely depends. In a section of
"Naming Our Destiny" entitled 'Tribes' versus `Peoples,'" Churchill endeavors further to rationalize his antipathy for the
word "tribe" by invoking "the definitive Oxford English Dictionary," which in one obscure definition,
35
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC TRIBE K 2/2
[NO TEXT DELETED]
according to Churchill, defines "tribe" as a group in the classification of plants, animals, etc., used as superior and
sometimes inferior to a family; also, loosely, any group or series of animals. [p. 294] Churchill then excerpts definitions
for the word "people" from the Oxford dictionary and, curiously, from a 1949 edition of Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, to decree that the word "people" in all ways is preferable to the word "tribe," since "tribe" embodies an
"expressly animalistic emphasis. . . . It follows that when indigenous peoples are passed off as tribes . . . they are
effectively cast as being subhuman" (p. 298). Of course, Churchill never explains why he so fervently insists on vesting in
English dictionaries the ironclad authority to dispose of an issue of self-naming that for Indian people is a matter
exclusively for the tribes themselves to decide. Be that as it may, it is instructive to examine a few of the wobbles in the
eccentric spin of Churchill's treatment of language.

5. Self definition key to empowerment—the ability to define who is and is not in a tribe is critical to give tribal
governments the ability to preserve their autonomy.
John Lavelle, Executive Director Of Center For The Spirit (Support And Protection Of Indian Religious And Indigenous
Traditions) In San Francisco, Winter 96, American Indian Quarterly Vol 20 No 1, “Reviewed work(s): Indians Are Us?:
Culture and Genocide in Native North America by Ward Churchill” JSTOR [ev]

Tribal sovereignty, in turn, is the collective endeavor of all the members of an Indian tribe to maintain, nourish, and
reinforce that fragile, living constellation of tribal values which comprises the tribe itself, rooted in a unique, spiritual
relationship with the land that has been passed down from generation to generation, since time immemorial, through
closely guarded tribal kinship systems. Tribal members carry on this heroic task of exercising tribal sovereignty—that is,
of safeguarding the survival of the tribe itself, as such—under the most difficult of circumstances because of the enormous
pressure to conform to an alien and often hostile system of values that constantly is being exerted by a dominant, non-
Indian society ill-equipped to comprehend, let alone appreciate, the beauty and significance of the values inhering in
Indian tribes. Genuine self-empowerment for Indian people, therefore, is inextricably attached to the dignity accorded
Indian tribes themselves as such, for real Indian self-empowerment is made manifest only when Indian tribes are granted
their due respect as sovereign nations, with an inherent, inalienable right of tribal self-determination. Any attempt to
dislodge the principle of Indian self-determination from the sovereignty inhering in Indian tribes as such is, in reality, an
attempt to tear asunder and destroy the unique tribal values that make up the very essence of Indian people's continuing
existence as Indians. The inherent right of Indian tribes to determine their own members is, of course, the most
critical factor in the process whereby Indian self- determination is transformed into Indian self-empowerment, for
if non- Indians can succeed in usurping this fundamental tribal prerogative and themselves seize control of the right to
ascertain who is and who is not an Indian, then by their sheer numbers these non-Indians will quickly overwhelm
whatever tenuous political power real Indian people have retained in American society. In this disastrous scenario, non-
Indians will rapidly supplant tribal values with their own invasive non-Indian values, in accordance with dominant
societal norms permitting and even encouraging individuals to accrue political power by any artifice whatsoever—
including that of opportunistically and capriciously defining themselves to be "Indians." Just such a blueprint for
disrupting Indian political affairs and disempowering Indian people would appear to underlie the architecture of anti-tribal
propaganda in Indians Are Us?—a kind of Trojan horse wheeled to the gate of an unsuspecting American public, cleverly
disguised in what Ward Churchill calls "a language of American Indian liberation" (p. 291).

36
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC ELIGIBILITY 1/2
1. Perm do both.

2. We never assign who is and who is not an Indian—plan gives PTC to the tribes so that they can determine how
it is used—Federal Indian policy allows tribes to decide who is and is not an Indian—that’s key to self
determination.
John Lavelle, Executive Director Of Center For The Spirit (Support And Protection Of Indian Religious And Indigenous
Traditions) In San Francisco, Winter 96, American Indian Quarterly Vol 20 No 1, “Reviewed work(s): Indians Are Us?:
Culture and Genocide in Native North America by Ward Churchill” JSTOR [ev]

In Indians Are Us? this problem is best illustrated in Churchill's recurring denunciations of the right of Indian tribes to
determine their own members. Tribal self-determination is, of course, an inherent attribute of tribal sovereignty, cherished
and fiercely guarded by Indian people against all efforts to deprive tribes of this fundamental right. What is intriguing
about Churchill's assault on tribal self-determination is that Churchill launches his attack, ironically, under the guise of
championing Indian rights, invoking, in the process, an altogether remarkable revisionist depiction of the history of
relations between Indian tribes and the United States government. Thus, in his essay "Nobody's Pet Poodle," Churchill
characterizes Indian tribes in the following disparaging manner: These entities' membership rolls originated in the
prevailing federal racial criteria of the late 19th century. The initial U.S. motive in quantifying the number of Indians by
blood was to minimize the number of land parcels it would have to assign native people under provision of the 1887
Dawes Act....Tribal rolls have typically been maintained in this reductionist fashion ever since.... [p. 92] This peculiar
wholesale condemning of Indian tribes by reference to the universally hated 1887 General Allotment Act (or Dawes Act)
—assigning blame, as it were, to the victims of nineteenth century federal Indian policy— derives from Churchill's
insistence that the General Allotment Act imposed an eligibility "standard" of "one-half or more degree of Indian blood"
(p. 62) on Indians seeking land parcels under the Act. According to Churchill, this insidious "standard" was then imitated
by -tribes, in puppet-like fashion, in formal enrollment procedures "as a matter of U.S. policy implementation" (p. 333).
And so, according to Churchill, Indian tribes today deserve to be violently opposed for implementing tribal citizenship
standards that, in Churchill's scheme, are nothing more than a mirror-image of the oppressive General Allotment Act's
"formal eugenics code" (p. 333). The main flaw in this federal/tribal conspiracy theory is that it rests on—and propagates
—demonstrably false information concerning the contents and impact of the General Allotment Act. Contrary to
Churchill's claims, the General Allotment Act did not require Indians to be "one-half or more degree of Indian blood" in
order to be eligible for land allotments. Churchill's asserted General Allotment Act "standard" does not exist anywhere in
the text of the Act. This, in turn, explains why Churchill never once provides a citation to any provision of the General
Allotment Act (25 U.S.C. § 331 et seq.) wherein that dubious "standard" can be found. While the General Allotment Act
itself simply does not define "Indians" (i.e., those whom the Act renders "eligible" for land allotments), a provision of the
Code of Federal Regulations implementing the Act specifies that such eligibility depends on whether the applicant is a
recognized member of an Indian tribe or is entitled to be so recognized. Such qualifications may be shown by the laws and
usages of the tribe. [C.F.R. § 2531.1(a)] Thus, the General Allotment Act's "standard" is not the "formal eugenics code"
asserted by Ward Churchill. Rather, that Act—like nearly all federal legislation in both historic and modern times—defers
to membership in an Indian tribe as the core criterion for triggering the law's applicability to individuals.

37
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC ELIGIBILITY 2/2
3. Deferring to tribes solves best—the ability to define who is and is not in a tribe is critical to give tribal
governments the ability to preserve their autonomy.
John Lavelle, Executive Director Of Center For The Spirit (Support And Protection Of Indian Religious And Indigenous
Traditions) In San Francisco, Winter 96, American Indian Quarterly Vol 20 No 1, “Reviewed work(s): Indians Are Us?:
Culture and Genocide in Native North America by Ward Churchill” JSTOR [ev]

Tribal sovereignty, in turn, is the collective endeavor of all the members of an Indian tribe to maintain, nourish, and
reinforce that fragile, living constellation of tribal values which comprises the tribe itself, rooted in a unique, spiritual
relationship with the land that has been passed down from generation to generation, since time immemorial, through
closely guarded tribal kinship systems. Tribal members carry on this heroic task of exercising tribal sovereignty—that is,
of safeguarding the survival of the tribe itself, as such—under the most difficult of circumstances because of the enormous
pressure to conform to an alien and often hostile system of values that constantly is being exerted by a dominant, non-
Indian society ill-equipped to comprehend, let alone appreciate, the beauty and significance of the values inhering in
Indian tribes. Genuine self-empowerment for Indian people, therefore, is inextricably attached to the dignity accorded
Indian tribes themselves as such, for real Indian self-empowerment is made manifest only when Indian tribes are granted
their due respect as sovereign nations, with an inherent, inalienable right of tribal self-determination. Any attempt to
dislodge the principle of Indian self-determination from the sovereignty inhering in Indian tribes as such is, in reality, an
attempt to tear asunder and destroy the unique tribal values that make up the very essence of Indian people's continuing
existence as Indians. The inherent right of Indian tribes to determine their own members is, of course, the most
critical factor in the process whereby Indian self- determination is transformed into Indian self-empowerment, for
if non- Indians can succeed in usurping this fundamental tribal prerogative and themselves seize control of the right to
ascertain who is and who is not an Indian, then by their sheer numbers these non-Indians will quickly overwhelm
whatever tenuous political power real Indian people have retained in American society. In this disastrous scenario, non-
Indians will rapidly supplant tribal values with their own invasive non-Indian values, in accordance with dominant
societal norms permitting and even encouraging individuals to accrue political power by any artifice whatsoever—
including that of opportunistically and capriciously defining themselves to be "Indians." Just such a blueprint for
disrupting Indian political affairs and disempowering Indian people would appear to underlie the architecture of anti-tribal
propaganda in Indians Are Us?—a kind of Trojan horse wheeled to the gate of an unsuspecting American public, cleverly
disguised in what Ward Churchill calls "a language of American Indian liberation" (p. 291).

38
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC CONSULT INDIANS 1/3
1. Perm do both—plan doesn’t mandate that Indians accept the deal, we offer it to them as a business option
which functionally consults them—they just consult twice.

2. Counterplan text flaw—they consult American Indians not American Indian tribes—this has a couples issues
A) No process for consulting individuals means no solvency.
B) Consult thousands of citizens means infinite changes—this renders the policy ineffective.

3. Perm pass the plan and implement it regardless of consultation—it’s not intrinsic, we do all parts of the plan
and part of the counterplan, just not the binding part.

4. Individual consultation is a voter:


A) Over 300 million individuals to consult kills clash—we can’t cut in depth arguments.
CIA 7/24/08 “The World Factbook—United States” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/print/us.html
Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

B) Illogical policy option—government doesn’t consult individuals means no literature.


C) Forces us to operate in 3 million squared worlds—have to prep for world where one person passes the plan and
2 million 999 thousand say no, etc—makes debate sloppy and uneducation.
D) Counterinterp they can consult international and domestic states.

5. Perm do the counterplan.

6. They’re in a double bind—either


A) They determine who they consult based on race—federal government determination of who is an “eligible”
Native American will eventually lead to the statistical extermination of natives.
Churchill 94 Ward Churchill, former professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Indians
Are Us?: Culture and Genocide in Native North America, Common Courage Press. 1994 pgs. 91-93

There is a basis to this, which haunts me. It is called, in the sort of Orwellian turn of phrase so characteristic of
colonializing bureaucracies, an “Act to Promote Development of Indian Arts and Crafts.” Drafted by then-Representative
(now Senator) Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado in combination with Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye’s Select
Committee on Indian Affairs, the law, Public Law 101-644 (104 Stat. 4662), was signed into effect by George Bush on
November 29, 1990. P.L. 101-644 makes it a crime punishable by up to $1 million in fines and up to fifteen years in
federal prison for anyone not federally recognized as being a Native American to “offer to display for sale or to sell any
good, with or without a Government trademark which…suggests it is Indian produced.” For galleries, museums, and other
“private concerns” which might elect to market or display as “Indian arts and crafts” the work of any person not meeting
the federal definition of “Indianness” a fine of up to $5 million is imposed. The government “standard” involved—usually
called “blood quantum” within the lexicon of “scientific” racism—is that a person can be an “American Indian artist” only
if he or she is “certifiably” of “one-quarter or more degree of Indian blood by birth.” Alternatively, the artist may be
enrolled as a member of one or another of the federally sanctioned Indian “tribes” currently existing within the U.S. These
entities’ membership rolls originated in the prevailing federal racial criteria of the late 19th century. The initial U.S. motive
in quantifying the number of Indians by blood was to minimize the number of land parcels it would have to assign native
people under provision of the 1887 Dawes Act, thereby freeing up about two-thirds of all reservation land for
“homesteading” by non-Indians or conversion into U.S. park and forest land. Tribal rolls have typically been maintained
in this reductionist fashion ever since, a matter which has served to keep federal expenditures in meeting the government’s
obligations—often deriving from treaty relationships with indigenous nations—at a very low level. Obviously involved is
what the Juaneno/Yaqui scholar M. Annette Haimes calls “a sort of statistical extermination” whereby the government
seeks not only to keep costs associated with its discharge of Indian Affairs at the lowest possible level, but to eventually
resolve its “Indian problem” altogether.

39
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC CONSULT INDIANS 2/3
The thinking is simple. As the historian Patricia Nelson Limerick frames it: “Set the blood quantum at one-quarter, hold
to it as a rigid definition of Indians, let intermarriage proceed as it has for centuries, and eventually Indians will be defined
out of existence.” Bearing out the validity of Jaimes’s and Limerick’s observations is the fact that, in 1900, about half of
all Indians in this country were “full-bloods.” By 1990, the proportion had shrunk to about twenty percent, and is
dropping steadily. Among certain populous peoples, such as the Chippewas of Minnesota and Wisconsin, only about five
percent of all tribal members are full-bloods. A third of all recognized Indians are at a quarter-blood cut-off point.
Cherokee demographer Russell Thornton estimates that, given continued imposition of purely racial definitions, Native
America as a whole will have disappeared by the year 2080.

OR

B) They let anyone who claims to be a Native decide—that means that even the oil companies, gas companies, etc
can vote—they’ll block the plan for their own political interest and once again America will put the good of the
wealthy over the good of the tribes—that’s the root cause of the functional genocide against Natives—that’s 1AC
Brook—here’s more evidence.
Robert B. Porter Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Tribal Law and Government Center, University of
Kansas; Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Sac & Fox Nation of Kansas and Missouri; Member (Heron Clan) and
former Attorney General of the Seneca Nation of Indians (1991-1995), 1998, University of Michigan Journal of Law
Reform, 31 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 899, “A Proposal To The Hanodaganyas To Decolonize Federal Indian Control Law”
Lexis [ev]

As recently as in the 1980s, the United States and the Indian nations dependent upon the federal trust responsibility faced
a difficult fiscal crisis. 291 Accordingly, the federal government made items of discretionary spending subject to cutbacks.
292 Even as the American economy has grown stronger, the Indians, one of the poorest and weakest voices within the
United States, stand to lose, as we always have. 293 Even worse, the policies that might be developed to help guide future
conduct may be too heavily influenced by this competition for scarce resources. Unless deliberate action is taken to resist
this pressure, Congress may be tempted at some time in the future to once again resolve America's troubles on the backs
of the Indigenous peoples located within its borders. 294

C) Allowing non-Natives to make decisions for Natives guarantees indigenous extinction.


Robert B. Porter Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Tribal Law and Government Center, University of
Kansas; Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Sac & Fox Nation of Kansas and Missouri; Member (Heron Clan) and
former Attorney General of the Seneca Nation of Indians (1991-1995), 1998, University of Michigan Journal of Law
Reform, 31 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 899, “A Proposal To The Hanodaganyas To Decolonize Federal Indian Control Law”
Lexis [ev]

As I see it, the complete destruction of the Indian nations will occur when the Indian people who comprise those nations
have become indistinguishable from the rest of American society. Viewed this way, when all of the people comprising an
Indian nation have become so assimilated into the dominant society as to be indistinguishable from the society at large,
then they will have, by definition, become members of the colonizing society. Regardless of whether Indian people
them [*956] selves perceive this transformation, their assimilation is surely relevant to an American society called upon
to make a policy decision concerning whom to recognize as members of separate sovereign nations. It is hard to defend
the position that a people who are no longer distinct from American society should nonetheless be afforded recognition as
such. This is especially true when this recognition may translate into a sovereign status that denies the application of the
laws of the recognizing people. If there is absolutely no way to distinguish a group of so-called Indigenous people from a
group not claiming to be Indigenous, on what basis does one deny that the same social contract should apply? It is wholly
illegitimate to deny equal treatment on the sole basis that one's ancestors, but not oneself, at some time in the past had a
distinct Indigenous existence. Colonization has had a dramatic effect on Indian nations solely by virtue of the many
generations of Indian people who have been forced to abandon their tribal way of life and who have otherwise assimilated
into the cultural and social fabric of the United States. 358

40
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC CONSULT INDIANS 3/3
[NO TEXT DELETED]
While there is some evidence that the number of people in the United States self-identifying as "Indian" has increased,
359 this may simply be the result of a broadening of the definition of Indian to include people of Indian ancestry who are
not tribal members, i.e., who are "Native American." Indeed, this phenomenon may be further evidence of a breakdown of
Indian identity where ethnicity and race, and not political and cultural affiliation, have become the defining criteria. 360

7. They consult American Indians means they consult indigenous peoples in Mexico and Canada too—they’ll say
no, they don’t care about what happens in the United States.

8. Perm pass the plan and consult on another issue—it’s not intrinsic, we pass all of the plan and the consulting
part of the counterplan.

9. Concrete individual stance is key—they make the wellbeing of Natives conditional on those who may or may not
face the same struggles, thus abandoning our unique ethical obligation to tribes for political satisfaction—that’s
ethically bankrupt.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 243-4 [ev]

At base, the same principle applies here that pertains "over there." As our delegation put it repeatedly to the Germans in
our closing remarks, "The indigenous peoples of the Americas can, have, and will continue to join hands with the
indigenous peoples of this land, just as we do with those of any other. We are reaching out to you by our very act of being
here, and of saying what we are saying to you. We have faith in you, a faith that you will be able to rejoin the family of
humanity as peoples interacting respectfully and harmoniously—on the basis of your own ancestral ways—with the
traditions of all other peoples. We are at this time expressing a faith in you that You perhaps lack in yourselves. But, and
make no mistake about this, we cannot and will not join hands with those who default on this responsibility, who instead
insist upon wielding an imagined right to stand as part of Europe's synthetic and predatory tradition, the tradition of
colonization, genocide, racism, and ecocide. The choice, as We've said over and over again, is yours to make. It cannot be
made for you. You alone must make your choice and act on it, just as we have had to make and act upon ours." In North
America, there will be an indication that affirmative choices along these lines have begun to emerge among self-
proclaimed progressives, not when figures like Robert Bly are simply dismissed as being ridiculous kooks, or condoned as
harmless irrelevancies," but when they come to be treated by "their own" as signifying the kind of menace they actually
entail. Only when white males themselves start to display the sort of profound outrage at the activities of groups like the
Men's Movement as is manifested by its victims—when they rather than we begin to shut down the movement's meetings,
burn its sweat lodges, impound and return the sacred objects it desecrates, and otherwise make its functioning impossible
—will we be able to say with confidence that Euroamerica has finally accepted that Indians are Indians, not toys to be
played with by whoever can afford the price of the game. Only then will we be able to say that the "Indians 'R’ Us" brand
of cultural appropriation and genocide has passed, or at least is passing, and that Euroamericans are finally coming to
terms with who they've been and, much more important, who and what it is they can become. Then, finally, these
immigrants can at last be accepted among us upon our shores, fulfilling the speculation of the Duwamish leader Seattle in
1854: "We may be brothers after all." As he said then, "We shall see."87

41
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC ESSENTIALISM K 1/3
1. Their K reflects the fundamental inability of America to comprehend unique tribal values.
John Lavelle, Executive Director Of Center For The Spirit (Support And Protection Of Indian Religious And Indigenous
Traditions) In San Francisco, Winter 96, American Indian Quarterly Vol 20 No 1, “Reviewed work(s): Indians Are Us?:
Culture and Genocide in Native North America by Ward Churchill” JSTOR [ev]

For there can be little doubt that for most Americans, Indian tribes will always be an enigma. After all, Indian tribes are
organized around distinctive values that in many ways are incompatible with and even diametrically opposed to the values
that inform the political nation-states of the modern West, including, most emphatically, the United States. These unique
tribal values—an emphasis on the well-being of the entire tribal community rather than the self-interest of the individual;
on a nature- centered spirituality rather than an acquisitive materialism; on an ethic that treats one's homeland and the
earth itself as a mysterious, living, dignified presence rather than as a lifeless repository of exploitable resources—are
what constitute the very core and substance of Indian tribes.

2. Perm do both.

3. We aren’t homogenizing Indian cultures, we’re creating a pattern for action.


Robert B. Porter Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Tribal Law and Government Center, University of
Kansas; Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Sac & Fox Nation of Kansas and Missouri; Member (Heron Clan) and
former Attorney General of the Seneca Nation of Indians (1991-1995), 1998, Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 8
Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 97, “Decolonizing Indigenous Governance: Observations on Restoring Greater Faith and
Legitimacy in the Government of the Seneca Nation” Lexis [ev]

One way in which to approach the issue of promoting greater legitimacy in tribal government is to consider
reincorporating notions of the aboriginal governing process into modern governmental institutions. 21 In this article, I
plan to discuss this proposition, but not against a general backdrop of what might be good for all Indian nations. With
hundreds of different Indigenous nations to deal with, it would not be appropriate to paint with too broad a brush and draw
conclusions that might be relevant for one particular Indian nation but not another. Accuracy would require a great deal of
study and investigation within a particular Indian nation to know exactly what kind of action should be taken to
reincorporate traditional governing concepts. Thus, in this article I will focus attention on the government of only one
specific Indian nation -- the Seneca Nation of Indians. In doing so, my objective is to develop an analytical approach that
might be useful to others looking to initiate a governmental reform process within their own Indigenous nations.

4. Not a net benefit to the counterplan—they’re uniquely worse because they treat American Indians as a racial
classification and assign traits off of genetics—we instead acknowledge self-ascribed traits chosen based on
political identity.

5. Perm do the aff and the alt.

6. We treat tribes as self-identified political entities—that’s best for self determination.


John Lavelle, Executive Director Of Center For The Spirit (Support And Protection Of Indian Religious And Indigenous
Traditions) In San Francisco, Winter 96, American Indian Quarterly Vol 20 No 1, “Reviewed work(s): Indians Are Us?:
Culture and Genocide in Native North America by Ward Churchill” JSTOR [ev]

Tribal sovereignty, in turn, is the collective endeavor of all the members of an Indian tribe to maintain, nourish, and
reinforce that fragile, living constellation of tribal values which comprises the tribe itself, rooted in a unique, spiritual
relationship with the land that has been passed down from generation to generation, since time immemorial, through
closely guarded tribal kinship systems. Tribal members carry on this heroic task of exercising tribal sovereignty—that is,
of safeguarding the survival of the tribe itself, as such—under the most difficult of circumstances because of the enormous
pressure to conform to an alien and often hostile system of values that constantly is being exerted by a dominant, non-
Indian society ill-equipped to comprehend, let alone appreciate, the beauty and significance of the values inhering in
Indian tribes.
42
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC ESSENTIALISM K 2/3
[NO TEXT DELETED]
Genuine self-empowerment for Indian people, therefore, is inextricably attached to the dignity accorded Indian tribes
themselves as such, for real Indian self-empowerment is made manifest only when Indian tribes are granted their due
respect as sovereign nations, with an inherent, inalienable right of tribal self-determination. Any attempt to dislodge the
principle of Indian self-determination from the sovereignty inhering in Indian tribes as such is, in reality, an attempt to
tear asunder and destroy the unique tribal values that make up the very essence of Indian people's continuing existence as
Indians. The inherent right of Indian tribes to determine their own members is, of course, the most critical factor in
the process whereby Indian self- determination is transformed into Indian self-empowerment, for if non- Indians
can succeed in usurping this fundamental tribal prerogative and themselves seize control of the right to ascertain who is
and who is not an Indian, then by their sheer numbers these non-Indians will quickly overwhelm whatever tenuous
political power real Indian people have retained in American society. In this disastrous scenario, non-Indians will rapidly
supplant tribal values with their own invasive non-Indian values, in accordance with dominant societal norms permitting
and even encouraging individuals to accrue political power by any artifice whatsoever—including that of
opportunistically and capriciously defining themselves to be "Indians." Just such a blueprint for disrupting Indian political
affairs and disempowering Indian people would appear to underlie the architecture of anti-tribal propaganda in Indians
Are Us?—a kind of Trojan horse wheeled to the gate of an unsuspecting American public, cleverly disguised in what
Ward Churchill calls "a language of American Indian liberation" (p. 291).

7. Perm pass the plan and reject every other instance of essentialism.

8. Self determination solves the impact—even if tribe discourse is dangerous we eliminate the devil’s choice
between poverty and coal mining—lack of self determination is the root cause of all exploitation of Natives because
when they’re powerless they can be manipulated by coal corporations—that’s Brooks, Churchill and AIRL.
Here’s more evidence—self-identifying solves.
Erik Larson, Department of Sociology at Macalester College, ‘08
(Emerging Indigenous Governance, Alternatives 33) [Bozman]

The process of identifying indigenous peoples provides a clear example of self-determination in practice. Debate concerning defining
“indigenous” has centered on an objectivist-subjectivist divide. An objectivist definition—based on a set of criteria to determine who
is indigenous—results in over- or underidentification due to the diversity of indigenous peoples’ experiences and the potential for state
interference with claims of indigenous status.17 Subjectivist definitions allow indigenous peoples to identify themselves; however, the
Working Group on Indigenous Populations’ experience of individual self-identification illustrates the difficulties, as demonstrated by
the controversy over Afrikaner/Boer participation in the working group in the middle of the 1990s. In response to these situations, the
chairperson-rapporteur prepared a document on the concept “indigenous,” concluding that a precise objectivist definition was
impossible and that a subjectivist definition better fit with self-determination.18 In practice, the working group went beyond a simple
subjectivist approach, identifying as indigenous “those who feel themselves to be indigenous and are accepted as such by members of
the group” and relying “upon organizations of indigenous peoples themselves to draw attention to any improper assertions of the
right to participate as ‘Indigenous’ peoples.”19 This practice represents a collective subjectivist definition of “indigenous”— that is,
indigenous peoples acting as a whole identify others who are indigenous. Indigenous peoples thereby possess a collective authority
that extends beyond an individual people and also possess self-determination as a collective actor in global governance. 20 For
instance, beyond serving to identify who is indigenous, the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus has effective power to nominate members of
the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

43
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC ESSENTIALISM K 3/3
9. The alternative puts Western political rhetoric over the wellbeing of tribes—this is racist Western logic that
justifies continued exploitation.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 243 [ev]

White male anarchists fret over possible "authoritarian" aspects of our societies— "You had leaders, didn't you? That's
hierarchy!" 81—while their feminist sisters worry that our societies may have been "sexist" in their functioning.82 (Oh
no, boss. We too managed to think our way through to a position in which women did the heavy lifting and men bore the
children. Besides, hadn't you heard? We were all "queer," in the old days, so your concerns about our being patriarchal
have always been unwarranted.83) Even the animal rights movement chimes in from time to time, discomfited that we
were traditionally so unkind to "non-human members of our sacred natural order" as to eat their flesh." (Hey, no sweat
boss. We'll jump right on your no-meat bandwagon. But don't forget the sacred Cherokee Clan of the Carrot. You'll have
to reciprocate our gesture of solidarity by not eating any more fruits and vegetables either. Or had you forgotten that
plants are non-human members of the natural order as well? Have a nice fast, buckaroo.) Not until such apologist and
ultimately white supremacist attitudes begin to be dispelled within at least that sector of Euroamerican society
which claims to represent an alternative to U.S./Canadian business-as-usual can there be hope of any genuinely
positive social transformation in North America. And only in acknowledging the real rather than invented nature of
their history, as the German opposition has done long since, can they begin to come to grips with such things.g5 From
there, they too will be able to to position themselves—psychologically, intellectually, and eventually in practical terms—
to step outside that history, not in a manner which continues it by presuming to appropriate the histories and cultural
identities of its victims, but in ways allowing them to recapture its antecedent meanings and values. Restated, Euroameri-
cans, like their European counterparts, will then be able to start reconnecting themselves to their indigenous traditions artd
identities in ways which instill pride rather than guilt, empowering themselves to join in the negation of the construct of
"Europe" which has temporarily suppressed their cultures as well as ours.

10. Alt can’t solve—only a tangible improvement in the status of native Americans can solve social harms of status
quo.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 266-7 [ev]

It's time to stop fantasizing and confront what this consummation might look like. To put it bluntly, colonialism is
colonialism, no matter what its trappings. You can't end classism in a colonial system, since the colonized by definition
comprise a class lower than that of their colonizers.13 You can't end racism in a colonial system because the imposed
"inferiority" of the colonized must inevitably be "explained" (justified) by their colonizers through contrived
classifications of racial hierarchy." You can't end sexism in a colonial system, since it functions—again by definition—on
the basis of one party imposing itself upon the other in the most intimate of dimensions for purposes of obtaining
gratification.15 If rape is violence, as feminists correctly insist,I6 then so too is the interculture analogue of rape: colonial
domination. As a consequence, it is impossible to end social violence in a colonialist system. Read Fancin and Memmi.
They long ago analyzed that fact rather thoroughly and exceedingly well.'? Better yet, read Sartre, who flatly equated
colonialism with genocide.1S Then ask yourself how you maintain a system incorporating domination and genocidal
violence as integral aspects of itself without military, police, and penal establishments? The answer is that you can't. Go
right down the list of progressive aspirations and what you'll discover, if you're honest with yourself, is that none of them
can really be achieved outside the context of Fourth World liberation. So long as indigenous nations are subsumed against
our aril within "broader" statist entities—and this applies as much to Canada as to the United States, as much to China as
to Canada, as much to Mexico and Brazil as to China, as much to Ghana as to any of the rest; the problem is truly global
—colonialism will be alive and well.'9 So long as this is the case, all efforts at positive social transformation, no master
how "revolutionary" the terms in which they are couched, will be self-nullifying, simply leading us right back into the
groove we're in today. Actually, we'll probably be worse off after each iteration since such outcomes generate a steadily
growing popular disenchantment with the idea that meaningful change can ever be possible. This isn't a zero-sum game
we're involved in. As Gramsci pointed out, every failure of supposed alternatives to the status quo serves to significantly
reinforce its hegemony.20
44
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC CAP K 1/5
1. We get to weigh the aff impacts—
A) Simulation gives best cost benefit analysis—we need to see effects of plan to judge merits.
B) Fairness—if they get links off the 1AC we should get to weigh it

2. Perm do the aff and the alt—if they can solve and still engage in capitalist logic through their Obama disad we
can too.

3. Ecocentric worldview solves.


Reginald Parsons and Gordon Prest, FNFP program manager and First Nations Coordinator for the University of British
Columbia's Faculty of Forestry, 11-06-03 [Jiajia Huang]

Aboriginal forestry stems from cumulative observations from which the Aboriginal worldview and value system have evolved over
time in a given ecosystem or homeland and passed forward orally from generation to generation. The Aboriginal worldview is
ecocentric, i.e., the biotic (organisms, including humans) and abiotic (non-living entities) have equal value. Brubacher et al. (2002)
state that Aboriginal people do not manage the forest; they manage their relationship with the forest. Aboriginal people have
been practicing forestry since time immemorial; however not in the manner that follows the current forest management practice
modal, as it is ecocentric, not anthropocentric.

4. We’re not based on guilt to the Earth—we believe the federal government has a unique moral obligation to
Natives because it has screwed them over and holds the only way to protect them—that’s Churchill—even
McWhortner agrees that wind power is unique—they have no link.

5. Their K reflects the fundamental inability of America to comprehend unique tribal values.
John Lavelle, Executive Director Of Center For The Spirit (Support And Protection Of Indian Religious And Indigenous
Traditions) In San Francisco, Winter 96, American Indian Quarterly Vol 20 No 1, “Reviewed work(s): Indians Are Us?:
Culture and Genocide in Native North America by Ward Churchill” JSTOR [ev]

For there can be little doubt that for most Americans, Indian tribes will always be an enigma. After all, Indian tribes are
organized around distinctive values that in many ways are incompatible with and even diametrically opposed to the values
that inform the political nation-states of the modern West, including, most emphatically, the United States. These unique
tribal values—an emphasis on the well-being of the entire tribal community rather than the self-interest of the individual;
on a nature- centered spirituality rather than an acquisitive materialism; on an ethic that treats one's homeland and the
earth itself as a mysterious, living, dignified presence rather than as a lifeless repository of exploitable resources—are
what constitute the very core and substance of Indian tribes.

6. Perm do both—we can pass the plan and rethink alternative energy and the general mode of consumption—
doing so is completely coherent with a Native worldview.

45
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC CAP K 2/5
7. We link comparatively less—their nuclear rhetoric props up capitalist regimes.
Kato 1993 Professor Of Political Science At The University Of Hawaii
Masahide, “Nuclear Globalism: Traversing Rockets, Satellites, and Nuclear War via the Strategic Gave,” Alternatives
18.3 339-360. (EV)

Nuclear War Imagined and Nuclear War as Real The vigorous invasion of the logic of capitalist accumulation into the last
vestige of relatively autonomous space in the periphery under late capitalism is propelled not only by the desire for
incorporating every fabric of the society into the division of labor but also by the desire for "pure" destruction
/extermination of the periphery." The penetration of capital into the social fabric and the destruction of nature and
preexisting social organizations by capital are not separable. However, what we have witnessed in the phase of late
capitalism is a rapid intensification of the destruction and extermination of the periphery. In this context, capital is no
longer interested in incorporating some parts of the periphery into the international division of labor. The emergence of
such "pure" destruction/extermination of the periphery can be explained, at least partially, by another problematic of late
capitalism formulated by Ernest Mandel: the mass production of the means of destruction." Particularly, the latest phase
of capitalism distinguishes itself from the earlier phases in its production of the "ultimate" means of destruction
/extermination, i.e., nuclear weapons)

8. We offer best way to solve capitalism


A) Respecting Native American viewpoints is key to shift our fundamental identification with production—instead
of striving to always consume more we can embrace a peaceful harmony with the Earth—only by embracing the
native viewpoint can we see the Earth as a living entity rather than a tool for exploitation—however if we ignore
the plight of Native Americans and continue on our path of endless consumption we guarantee ecological
destruction and extinction—that’s Fixico and Metenes.

B) Taking an individual stance allows us to embrace Indian mindset.


Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 243-4 [ev]

At base, the same principle applies here that pertains "over there." As our delegation put it repeatedly to the Germans in
our closing remarks, "The indigenous peoples of the Americas can, have, and will continue to join hands with the
indigenous peoples of this land, just as we do with those of any other. We are reaching out to you by our very act of being
here, and of saying what we are saying to you. We have faith in you, a faith that you will be able to rejoin the family of
humanity as peoples interacting respectfully and harmoniously—on the basis of your own ancestral ways—with the
traditions of all other peoples. We are at this time expressing a faith in you that You perhaps lack in yourselves. But, and
make no mistake about this, we cannot and will not join hands with those who default on this responsibility, who instead
insist upon wielding an imagined right to stand as part of Europe's synthetic and predatory tradition, the tradition of
colonization, genocide, racism, and ecocide. The choice, as We've said over and over again, is yours to make. It cannot be
made for you. You alone must make your choice and act on it, just as we have had to make and act upon ours." In North
America, there will be an indication that affirmative choices along these lines have begun to emerge among self-
proclaimed progressives, not when figures like Robert Bly are simply dismissed as being ridiculous kooks, or condoned as
harmless irrelevancies," but when they come to be treated by "their own" as signifying the kind of menace they actually
entail. Only when white males themselves start to display the sort of profound outrage at the activities of groups like the
Men's Movement as is manifested by its victims—when they rather than we begin to shut down the movement's meetings,
burn its sweat lodges, impound and return the sacred objects it desecrates, and otherwise make its functioning impossible
—will we be able to say with confidence that Euroamerica has finally accepted that Indians are Indians, not toys to be
played with by whoever can afford the price of the game. Only then will we be able to say that the "Indians 'R’ Us" brand
of cultural appropriation and genocide has passed, or at least is passing, and that Euroamericans are finally coming to
terms with who they've been and, much more important, who and what it is they can become. Then, finally, these
immigrants can at last be accepted among us upon our shores, fulfilling the speculation of the Duwamish leader Seattle in
1854: "We may be brothers after all." As he said then, "We shall see."87

46
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC CAP K 3/5
9. Perm pass the plan and advocate alternatives to energy—not severance, wind is unique in that it does not
capture power but rather fuels itself—it is an ethereal entity that we cannot fully understand.

10. Social change is impossible without a shift in the status of Natives—only by ending the colonial system can we
end the hegemonic aspirations of the status quo.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 266-7 [ev]

It's time to stop fantasizing and confront what this consummation might look like. To put it bluntly, colonialism is
colonialism, no matter what its trappings. You can't end classism in a colonial system, since the colonized by definition
comprise a class lower than that of their colonizers.13 You can't end racism in a colonial system because the imposed
"inferiority" of the colonized must inevitably be "explained" (justified) by their colonizers through contrived
classifications of racial hierarchy." You can't end sexism in a colonial system, since it functions—again by definition—on
the basis of one party imposing itself upon the other in the most intimate of dimensions for purposes of obtaining
gratification.15 If rape is violence, as feminists correctly insist,I6 then so too is the interculture analogue of rape: colonial
domination. As a consequence, it is impossible to end social violence in a colonialist system. Read Fancin and Memmi.
They long ago analyzed that fact rather thoroughly and exceedingly well.'? Better yet, read Sartre, who flatly equated
colonialism with genocide.1S Then ask yourself how you maintain a system incorporating domination and genocidal
violence as integral aspects of itself without military, police, and penal establishments? The answer is that you can't. Go
right down the list of progressive aspirations and what you'll discover, if you're honest with yourself, is that none of them
can really be achieved outside the context of Fourth World liberation. So long as indigenous nations are subsumed against
our aril within "broader" statist entities—and this applies as much to Canada as to the United States, as much to China as
to Canada, as much to Mexico and Brazil as to China, as much to Ghana as to any of the rest; the problem is truly global
—colonialism will be alive and well.'9 So long as this is the case, all efforts at positive social transformation, no master
how "revolutionary" the terms in which they are couched, will be self-nullifying, simply leading us right back into the
groove we're in today. Actually, we'll probably be worse off after each iteration since such outcomes generate a steadily
growing popular disenchantment with the idea that meaningful change can ever be possible. This isn't a zero-sum game
we're involved in. As Gramsci pointed out, every failure of supposed alternatives to the status quo serves to significantly
reinforce its hegemony.20

11. The alternative’s compulsive will to see everything through the eyes of capitalist harm prevents them from
being able to distinguish between harmful fossil fuel and benign wind power—in the status quo we literally DRILL
INTO THE EARTH but post plan we don’t disturb anything—the alt dooms any hope for improvement because it
groups everything capitalist as harmful whether or not it actually is—even if there’s a risk of harmful wind power
it’s comparatively better and solves the immediate harms of ecological destruction.

12. Perm pass the plan and reject every other instance of capitalist thought.

47
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC CAP K 4/5
13. Philosophical rejections of Natives are simply an apology for white supremacy and destroy positive political
change.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 243 [ev]

White male anarchists fret over possible "authoritarian" aspects of our societies— "You had leaders, didn't you? That's
hierarchy!" 81—while their feminist sisters worry that our societies may have been "sexist" in their functioning.82 (Oh
no, boss. We too managed to think our way through to a position in which women did the heavy lifting and men bore the
children. Besides, hadn't you heard? We were all "queer," in the old days, so your concerns about our being patriarchal
have always been unwarranted.83) Even the animal rights movement chimes in from time to time, discomfited that we
were traditionally so unkind to "non-human members of our sacred natural order" as to eat their flesh." (Hey, no sweat
boss. We'll jump right on your no-meat bandwagon. But don't forget the sacred Cherokee Clan of the Carrot. You'll have
to reciprocate our gesture of solidarity by not eating any more fruits and vegetables either. Or had you forgotten that
plants are non-human members of the natural order as well? Have a nice fast, buckaroo.) Not until such apologist and
ultimately white supremacist attitudes begin to be dispelled within at least that sector of Euroamerican society
which claims to represent an alternative to U.S./Canadian business-as-usual can there be hope of any genuinely
positive social transformation in North America. And only in acknowledging the real rather than invented nature of
their history, as the German opposition has done long since, can they begin to come to grips with such things.g5 From
there, they too will be able to to position themselves—psychologically, intellectually, and eventually in practical terms—
to step outside that history, not in a manner which continues it by presuming to appropriate the histories and cultural
identities of its victims, but in ways allowing them to recapture its antecedent meanings and values. Restated, Euroameri-
cans, like their European counterparts, will then be able to start reconnecting themselves to their indigenous traditions artd
identities in ways which instill pride rather than guilt, empowering themselves to join in the negation of the construct of
"Europe" which has temporarily suppressed their cultures as well as ours.

48
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Work Wave 3
Emma Serrano/Strange
2AC CAP K 5/5
14. Only realignment with Native culture can prevent the capitalist drive to produce—this drive dooms the world
to overpopulation and inevitable extinction.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 293-5 [ev]

Rephrased, this means it would be a violation of a fundament of traditional indigenous law to supplant or eradicate another
species, whether animal or plant, in order to make way for some greater number of humans, or to increase the level of material
comfort available to those who already exist. Conversely, it is a fundamental requirement of traditional law that each human
accept his or her primary responsibility, that of maintaining the balance and harmony of the natural order as it is encountered "9
One is essentially free to do anything one wants in an indigenous society so long as this cardinal rule is adhered to. The bottom
line with regard to the maximum population limit of Indian Country as it has been sketched in this presentation is some very
finite number. My best guess is that five million people would be pushing things right to the limit.120 Whatever. Citizens can
be admitted until that point has been reached, and no more. And the population cannot increase beyond that number over time,
no matter at what rate. Carrying capacity is a fairly constant reality; it tends to change over thousands of years, when it changes
at all. POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT What I'm going to say next will probably startle a few people (as if what's been
said already hasn't). I think this principle of population restraint is the single most important example Native North America can
set for the rest of humanity. It is the thing which it is most crucial for others to emulate. Check it out. I recently heard that Japan,
a small island nation which has so many people that they're literally tumbling into the sea, and which has exported about half
again as many people as live on the home islands, is expressing "official concern" that its birth rate has declined very slightly
over the last few years. The worry is that in thirty years there'll be fewer workers available to "produce," and thus to "consume"
whatever it is that's produced.' 21 Ever ask yourself what it is that's used in "producing" something? Or what it is that's being
"consumed"? Yeah. You got it. Nature is being consumed, and with it the ingredients which allow ongoing human existence. It's
true that nature can replenish some of what's consumed, but only at a certain rate. That rate has been vastly exceeded, and the
extent of excess is increasing by the moment. An overburgeoning humanity is killing the natural world, and thus itself. It's no
more complicated than that.122 Here we are in the midst of a rapidly worsening environmental crisis of truly global
proportions, every last bit of it attributable to a wildly accelerating human consumption of the planetary habitat, and you have
one of the world's major offenders expressing grave concern that the rate at which it is able to consume might actually drop a
notch or two. Think about it. I suggest that this attitude signifies nothing so much as stark, staring madness. It is insane:
suicidally, homicidally, ecocidally, omnici dally insane. No, I'm not being rhetorical. I meant what I've just said in the most
literal way possible,'23 but I don't want to convey the misimpression that I see the Japanese as being in this respect unique.
Rather, I intend them to serve as merely an illustration of a far broader and quite virulent pathology called "industrialism"—or,
lately, "postindustrialism"—a sickness centered in an utterly obsessive drive to dominate and destroy the natural order. (Words
like "production," "consumption," "development," and "progress" are mere code words masking this reality.)124 It's not only
the industrialized countries which are afflicted with this dis-ease. One byproduct of the past five centuries of European
expansionism and the resulting hegemony of eurocentric ideology is that the latter has been drummed into the conscious:. ness
of most peoples to the point where it is now subconsciously internalized. Everywhere, you find people thinking it "natural" to
view themselves as the incarna tion of God on earth—i.e., "created in the image of God"—and thus duty-bound to "exercise
dominion over nature" in order that they can "multiply, grow plentiful, and populate the land" in ever increasing
"abundance."125 The legacy of the forced labor of the latifundia and inculcation of Catholicism in Latin America is a
tremendous overburden of population devoutly believing that "wealth" can be achieved (or is defined) by having ever more
children.126 The legacy of Mao's implementation of "reverse technology" policy—the official encouragement of breakneck
childbearing rates in his already overpopulated country, solely as a means to deploy massive labor power to offset capitalism's
"technological advantage" in production—resulted in a tripling of China's population in only two generations.127 And then
there is India.. Make absolutely no mistake about it. The planet was never designed to accommodate five billion human beings,
much less the ten billion predicted to be here a mere forty years hence.1211 If we are to be about turning power relations around
between people, and between groups of people, we must also be about turning around the relationship between people and the
rest of the natural order. If we don't, we'll die out as a species, just like any other species which irrevocably overshoots its
habitat. The sheer numbers of humans on this planet needs to come down to about a quarter of what they are today,- or maybe
less, and the plain fact is that the bulk of these numbers are in the Third World.129 So, I'll say this clearly: not only must the
birth rate in the Third World come down, but the population levels of Asia, Latin America, and Africa must be reduced over the
next few generations. The numbers must start to come down dramatically, beginning right now.

49