Neg - SetCol UBI - Michigan 7 2023 CPSW

Set Col - Neg
Plan Pic
The state is incompatible with decolonization, every effort coopts Indigenous movements and maintains the global encroachment on Indigenous lands, resources, cultures and communities. Only a framework of Red Pedagogy that embraces indigenous voices can develop transcendent theories of decolonization that resolves the systemic impacts of settler colonialism
Grande 15 (Sandy Grande is associate professor and Chair of the Education Department at Connecticut College. Her research interfaces critical Indigenous theories with the concerns of education. She has also published several book chapters and articles including: Accumulation of the Primitive: The Limits of Liberalism and the Politics of Occupy Wall Street; Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought; Rowman & Littlefield; 2015; https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781610489898/Red-Pedagogy-Native-American-Social-and-Political-Thought-10th-Anniversary-Edition) //nooodless
The current historical conjuncture is not simply the most recent moment in the continuous procession of Indigenous dispossession by U.S. empire and settler colonialism. Just as neoliberalism is not simply an extension of classical liberalism but is instead a reactive formation that aims to dismantle the conciliatory regulatory mechanisms of mid-twentieth century liberal capitalism in pursuit of the upward redistribution of wealth in the “ Global North, ” Indigenous dispossession assumes specific tactical forms in response to present-day practices of and possibilities for indigenous self-determination. The intensified redeployment of colonial predation and necropolitical inclusion takes many forms, some of which manifestly accentuate the constitutive contradictions of neoliberal multiculturalism. As a way of marking this continuance and its impact on Indigenous youth, one need only to consider the recent 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Adoptive Couple v Baby Girl . The highly controversial case effectively undermined key provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 and used a reactionary post– civil rights era discourse of racial preference and alleged “ special rights ” of tribal nations to undermine protective gains made by the 1978 law. Indeed, much like the recent U.S. legislation that discarded core aspects of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by claiming that the racist practices that necessitated the law were now resolved, commentary in support of the 2013 Supreme Court ruling suggested that Indian Child Welfare Act was outdated, emphasizing that the legislation was “ more than thirty years old. ” In the context of the ruling, efforts by organizations such as the National Indian Child Welfare Association and the Lakota People ’ s Law Project to stop the ongoing theft and abuse of Indigenous children have shifted to address the particularities of contemporary U.S. colonial governmentality, specifically, “ post-racial ” assertions of white entitlement and retooled ideologies of anti-tribalism that aim to justify further erosion of Indigenous sovereignty. In the neoliberal offensive of the past forty years, the uneasy historical entwining of Indigenous education, a particular version of self-determination, and the reduction of life to the calculus of market relations appear in at least two modes of containment and hegemonic realignment. On the one hand, neoliberal multiculturalism extends the simultaneous promise of autonomy and inclusion. On the other hand, an insistence on accountability for the conditions of colonial and racialized dispossession has been diverted to support standardized testing and assessment that accelerates inequities and devaluations under the aegis of settler normativity. For instance, the anti-colonial movement for control of schooling by and for Native peoples — from the Navajo Nation ’ s Rough Rock Demonstration School established in 1966 to the Red Power community survival schools to the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards to Deganawidah-Quetzalcoatl University — helped compel the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Yet, although the 1975 legislation established significant changes in federal Indian policy, its mandate for Indigenous self governance devolved administrative authority to tribes in ways that did not fundamentally challenge the ultimate plenary power of congress. Likewise, the U.S. settler state responded to grassroots pressure for more adequate investment in education for both impoverished communities of color and Indigenous peoples with the rhetoric of accountability set out in the means-tested disciplinary regime of No Child Left Behind — a regime that has only intensified since the original publication of Red Pedagogy . 4 As intimated by Grande, both trajectories partially build from and work to dismember preceding strategies for Indigenous liberation and sovereignty. Nevertheless, the colonial norms of recognition that seek, as Audra Simpson argues, to instantiate an Indigenous autonomy that “ is exercisable only because recognition is conferred ” are always also symptomatic of the pernicious “ ambivalences of exigencies of settlement itself ” and “ the needs and desires of states that are new, that are in process, that are complicated, and struggling always not to fissure. ” 5 Similarly, in response to the student movements of the 1970s and 1980s for ethnic studies and Native American self-determination, the U.S. educational system responded with inclusive pedagogies for minoritization and neoliberal multiculturalism. Indeed, the notion of “ minority ” here is precisely a consequence of the colonial attrition that has in fact minoritized peoples through circuits of conquest, displacement, and slavery. Roderick Ferguson points out that during this moment state and capital began to adopt a simultaneously affirmative and preemptory discourse of anti-racist diversity “ through the regulated incorporation of minorities and minoritized intellectual and cultural production ” so as “ to forestall the redistribution of resources to economically and racially disfranchised communities. ” 6 Although such forms of minoritization operate primarily through a logic of race that concertedly disavows colonial difference and Indigenous sovereignty, it is imperative nonetheless to attend to the tensions, entanglements, and disjunctures — what Jodi Byrd describes as “ cacophony ” — between subalternized racialized groups and Indigenous peoples that remain more complex than the normative lens of the U.S. state, educational system, and neoliberal multiculturalism allows. 7 Since the 1970s, U.S. Indian policy affirming recognition of Indian self-determination has operated in tandem with new forms of economic disposability, social abandonment, and environmental plunder. As Grande observes, “ Indian education was never simply about the desire to ‘ civilize ’ or even deculturalize a people, but rather, from its very inception, it was a project designed to colonize Indian minds as a means of gaining access to Indian labor, land, and resources ” (p. 19). She makes clear that both contesting the possessive and extractive logics of colonization and creating the possibilities for a “ new Red pedagogy ” demand grappling with how Indigenous ways of being and knowing cannot be reduced to these conditions of material expropriation. At the same time, neither Euro-American forms of knowledge nor Indigenous forms of knowledge are thoroughly discrete 8 ; instead, each are heterogeneous and — to various degrees — unevenly entwined, even if the arrogance of Euro-American knowledge production continues to disclaim its debts and culpability for the death worlds of logocentricism. As settler colonialism and decolonization are increasingly invoked by non-Indigenous scholars and activists, it becomes especially important to engage the specificity, social etymology, and complex genealogies of each term. Decolonization is not an analogy for struggles against domination in general. 9 Decolonization is least helpful when used to suggest a binary relation to colonialism or the retrieval of a more authentic prior to colonial rule. Yet, as much as international law has codified decolonization as a series of mandates and protocols susceptible to the ongoing maintenance of neocolonial and imperial formations, it nevertheless serves to evoke other possible relations and refusals. As Grande contends, “ ‘ decolonization ’ (like democracy) is neither achievable nor definable, rendering it ephemeral as a goal, but perpetual as a process ” (p. 166). Decolonization is thus a shifting configuration of strategies and actions, not an event, even as it is nonetheless eventful. Decolonization is a means without end. It is a creative response that necessarily exceeds legibility and reconciliation from the perspective of the conditions from which it arises. The terrain of struggle mapped by Red Pedagogy a decade ago continues to exceed the political boundaries, militarized borders, and knowledge regimes of imperial nation-states. Scholars and activists have grounded their work in ways that both confront the imposed limitations and elisions of the state form and build anti-colonial alliances born of shared conditions of colonial possibility. 10 The practice of “ red pedagogy ” so forcefully charted by Grande entails the sustained and difficult labor of discerning and enacting these multiple forms of struggle in relation to one another without losing sight of their mutual frictions, tensions, and incommensurabilities. 11 In this sense, the ethics of being accountable to one another as living radical relationality is itself the possibility of contesting and further disrupting the colonial conditions that continue to be undone. A declaration of radical hope and potentiality, Red Pedagogy theorizes with the insurgent forms of knowledge that arise from and sustain decolonization as a collective overcoming and becoming in perpetuity by Indigenous peoples. The urgency of this declaration only intensified in the ten years since Red Pedagogy was first published.
XT State bad
Settler colonialism rests on the elimination of indigenous population--genocide, forced removal, confinement to reservations, assimilation. It creates a structure that persists to shape relations between the colonists and the colonized—only an alternative that dismantles those structures solve
Glenn 15; Evelyn Nakano Glenn is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Settler Colonialism as Structure: A Framework for Comparative Studies of U.S. Race and Gender Formation. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 1(1), 52–72; January 1, 2015; https://doi-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1177/2332649214560440; //nooodless
I now turn to an exposition of settler colonialism as an alternative starting point for a framework that can generate a more historically and structurally grounded analysis of racial inequality in the United States, one that pays attention to variation across time and place while also being attentive to structures that link these differing cases. It is a framework that is amenable to intersectional understanding because it is widely understood that colonial projects simultaneously structure race, gender, class, and sexual relations within and between colonists and the colonized. Moreover, since settler colonial projects are transnational in scope, a settler colonialism framework invites investigation of cross-national connections and comparisons.
The concept of settler colonialism has been most clearly elaborated by scholars of indigenous studies, especially in Australia, Canada, and the United States. It is a framework that highlights commonalities in the history and contemporary situation of indigenous peoples in many parts of the world. However, although it may seem to be best suited to explain the racialization and treatment of indigenous peoples, I agree with Patrick Wolfe (1999) that settler colonialism should be seen not as an event but as an ongoing structure. The logic, tenets, and identities engendered by settler colonialism persist and continue to shape race, gender, class, and sexual formations into the present.
Scholars of settler colonialism argue that it is a distinct form of colonialism that needs to be theorized separately from colonialism more generally. In contrast to classic colonialism whose aim is to take advantage of resources that will benefit the metropole, settler colonialism’s objective is to acquire land so that colonists can settle permanently and form new communities. Lorenzo Veracini (2011) compares the narrative arc of classic colonialism and settler colonialism to the difference between a circle and a line. In classic colonialism, the narrative, as in the Odyssey, takes a circular form, “consisting of an outward movement followed by interaction with exotic and colonized ‘others’ in foreign surroundings, and by a final return to an original location” (p. 205). In contrast, “the narrative generally associated with settler colonial enterprises rather resembles the Aeneid, where the traveler moves forward along a story line that can’t be turned back” (p. 206). Settler colonists do not envision a return home. Rather, they seek to transform the new colony into “home.”
The differing goals of classic colonialism and settler colonialism lead to a second major difference: their confrontation with indigenes. In classic colonialism, the object is to exploit not only natural resources but also human resources. Native inhabitants represent a cheap labor source that can be harnessed to produce goods and extract materials for export to the metropole. They also serve as consumers, expanding the market for goods produced by the metropole and its other colonies. Goods and raw materials, like colonists, follow a circular path in classic colonialism.
In settler colonialism, the object is to acquire land and to gain control of resources. To realize these ambitions, the first thing that must be done is to eliminate the indigenous occupants of the land. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways: genocide, forced removal from territories desired by white settlers, and confinement to reservations outside the boundaries of white settlement. It can also be accomplished through assimilation. Assimilation can be biological (e.g., through intermarriage to “dilute” indigenous blood) and/or cultural (e.g., by stripping indigenes of their culture and replacing it with settler culture).
The second thing that must be done is to secure the land for settlers. This can be accomplished by imposing a modernist property regime that transforms land and resources (sometimes including people) into “things” that can be owned. This regime consists of such elements as mapping and marking boundaries to delimit an object that is to be owned, a system for recording ownership, and legal rules for ownership and sale of objects defined as property. Indigenous people generally understand the land and their relationship to it very differently, viewing themselves as being provided for by the land and in turn as living in harmony with the land and having a sense of responsibility for its welfare. Settler society does not recognize indigenous conceptions and from their own perspective of land as property, views indigenes as failing to make productive use of it.
The logic of colonization is elimination—forcing Natives to take part in the colonial economy is assimilationist and recreates their impacts
Patrick Wolfe 2006; Wolfe is a historian who has written and lectured, in comparative vein, on colonialism, race, genocide, theories of imperialism, Aboriginal histories, and the history of anthropology. He has had a number of visiting appointments at universities in the United States and is currently an honorary research associate in History at La Trobe University. Publications include Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology (1999), and articles such as ‘Land, Labor, and Difference: Elementary Structures of Race', American Historical Review, 106 (2001), ‘Against the Intentional Fallacy: Legocentrism and Continuity in the Rhetoric of Indian Dispossession’, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 36 (2012), and ‘Purchase By Other Means: The Palestine Nakba and Zionism’s Conquest of Economics’; 21 Dec 2006; Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native, Journal of Genocide Research, 8:4, 387-409, DOI: 10.1080/14623520601056240
But if the natives are already agriculturalists, then why not simply incorporate their productivity into the colonial economy? At this point, we begin to get closer to the question of just who it is (or, more to the point, who they are) that settler colonialism strives to eliminate—and, accordingly, closer to an understanding of the relationship between settler colonialism and genocide. To stay with the Cherokee removal: when it came to it, the factor that most antagonized the Georgia state government (with the at-least-tacit support of Andrew Jackson's federal administration) was not actually the recalcitrant savagery of which Indians were routinely accused, but the Cherokee's unmistakable aptitude for civilization. Indeed, they and their Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Seminole neighbours, who were also targeted for removal, figured revealingly as the “Five Civilized Tribes” in Euroamerican parlance. In the Cherokee's case, two dimensions of their civility were particularly salient. They had become successful agriculturalists on the White model, with a number of them owning substantial holdings of Black slaves, and they had introduced a written national constitution that bore more than a passing resemblance to the US one.Footnote41 Why should genteel Georgians wish to rid themselves of such cultivated neighbours? The reason why the Cherokee's constitution and their agricultural prowess stood out as such singular provocations to the officials and legislators of the state of Georgia—and this is attested over and over again in their public statements and correspondence—is that the Cherokee's farms, plantations, slaves and written constitution all signified permanence.Footnote42 The first thing the rabble did, let us remember, was burn their houses. Brutal and murderous though the removals of the Five Civilized Tribes generally were, they did not affect each member equally. This was not simply a matter of wealth or status. Principal Cherokee chief John Ross, for example, lost not only his plantation after setting off on the Trail of Tears. On that trail, one deathly cold Little Rock, Arkansas day in February 1839, he also lost his wife, Qatie, who died after giving her blanket to a freezing child.Footnote43 Ross's fortunes differed sharply from those of the principal Choctaw chief Greenwood LeFlore, who, unlike Ross, signed a removal treaty on behalf of his people, only to stay behind himself, accept US citizenship, and go on to a distinguished career in Mississippi politics.Footnote44 But it was not just his chiefly rank that enabled LeFlore to stay behind. Indeed, he was by no means the only one to do so. As Ronald Satz has commented, Andrew Jackson was taken by surprise when “thousands of Choctaws decided to take advantage of the allotment provisions [in the treaty LeFlore had signed] and become homesteaders and American citizens in Mississippi.”Footnote45 In addition to being principal chiefs, Ross and LeFlore both had White fathers and light skin. Both were wealthy, educated and well connected in Euroamerican society. Many of the thousands of compatriots who stayed behind with LeFlore lacked any of these qualifications. There was nothing special about the Choctaw to make them particularly congenial to White society—most of them got removed like Ross and the Cherokee. The reason that the remaining Choctaw were acceptable had nothing to do with their being Choctaw. On the contrary, it had to do with their not (or, at least, no longer) being Choctaw.

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.