| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,16 @@ |
|
1 |
+THE 1AC PERFORMATIVELY HOMOGENIZES NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES’ DISCRETE IDENTITIES INTO THE SIGNIFIER OF THE UNIVERSAL INDIAN. By doing so the affirmative recreates a colonizing binary that understands the native American tribes as sharing a singular identity, aligned oppositionally to the colonizers’. |
|
2 |
+Carson 06 |
|
3 |
+(James Taylor, Queens University Kingston, Ontario, Canada; “American Historians and Indians,” The Historical Journal, 49: 921–933 – Kurr) |
|
4 |
+The people he met posed a particular challenge. He called them indios, a |
|
5 |
+AND |
|
6 |
+to new questions and new ways of thinking about our shared pasts.10 |
|
7 |
+ |
|
8 |
+This notion of “The Indian” causes linguistic imperialism through homogenizing Indigenous peoples into a singular identity, which reproduces colonialism and racism and strips these groups of their individual sovereignty and culture that turns the aff. |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+Our alternative is to reject the affirmative’s singular notion of “Indian.” |
|
11 |
+Bird 95 |
|
12 |
+(Dr. Michael Yellow Bird, a citizen of the Sahnish (Arikara) and Hidatsa First Nations, is Assistant Professor and Director of the Office for the Study of Indigenous Social and Cultural Justice in the School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas, “Indian, American Indian, and Native Americans: Counterfeit Identities,” |
|
13 |
+ http://www.aistm.org/yellowbirdessay.htm) |
|
14 |
+¶In our cultural renaissance there are certain concepts and movements which we should understand |
|
15 |
+AND |
|
16 |
+" that has been maintained far too long by Europeans and European Americans.¶ |