Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,32 +1,0 @@
1		-=Postcolonialism K (2:45 → 3:05 with Byrd 2)=
2		-
3		-
4		-====Tribal sovereignty is a vehicle of colonialism. The concept perpetuates colonial dominion over tribes and thus, internal colonialism. D’Errico 2K^^ ^^====
5		-The legal history of "tribal sovereignty" starts with colonialism. From their earliest contacts with the "new world," colonizing powers asserted sovereignty over indigenous peoples, based a theological-legal theory built on "divine right." Spain, Portugal, France, England, and other colonial regimes explicitly based their sovereignty claims on religious doctrines decreed by the Pope, who was regarded as having power to grant titles to portions of the earth for purposes of Christian civilization. The result of colonial assertions of sovereignty was that indigenous nations were legally stripped of their independent ~~independence~~ status. Their existence was in some instances not recognized at all and their lands treated as legally "vacant" (terra nullius). In other instances, indigenous peoples were declared to have a "right of occupancy" but not ownership of their lands. In either instance, the fundamental principle was that supreme legal authority lay outside the indigenous nations. In 1823, in Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543, the Supreme Court adopted for the United States the "right of occupancy" version of colonial sovereignty. This remains the basic legal position of federal Indian law, despite the fact that "divine right" is not accepted elsewhere in United States law. The Johnson v. McIntosh decision may be seen as a laundry for sovereignty theory, washing out the theology and transferring "divine" powers to a secular state. The debate about legal authority versus political and economic power also informs the definition of sovereignty in federal Indian law. In the earliest treaties, statutes, and cases, indigenous nations were regarded as having a "subordinate" sovereignty related to their "right of occupancy." Denied full sovereignty as independent nations, they were nevertheless regarded as having authority over their own relations amongst themselves —an "internal" or "tribal" sovereignty. In Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 (1832), for example, the Supreme Court declared that the Cherokee Nation possessed "its right to self-government," even though it was "dependent" on the United States. Justice McLean concurred, saying, "At no time has the sovereignty of the country been recognized as existing in the Indians, but they have been always admitted to possess many of the attributes of sovereignty." McLean went on to question whether there could be any end to this "peculiar relation": "If a tribe of Indians shall become so degraded or reduced in numbers as to lose the power of self-government. the protection of the local law, of necessity, must be extended over them." The Court picked up Justice McLean's suggestion in 1886, in United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, when it reduced indigenous sovereignty almost to a nullity, declaring, "...Indians are within the geographical limits of the United States. The soil and the people within these limits are under the political control of the Government of the United States, or of the States of the Union. There exist within the broad domain of sovereignty but these two." The Court did not base its assertion of a broad federal power over Indians on any clause of the Constitution, but on the "right of exclusive sovereignty which must exist in the National Government." The Court went on to state, "The power of the General Government over these remnants of a race once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers, is necessary to their protection, as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell." In half a century, Justice McLean's suggestion that political and economic factors might override legal sovereignty was manifested in the Court's broad assertion of general federal power over Indians.
6		-
7		-
8		-====Internal colonialism creates the state as the subject and erases indigenous sovereignty.^^^^ 2 warrants.====
9		-**1. Byrd 1**^^ ^^
10		-In this chapter, I am particularly interested in how the idea of "internal" as modifier to "colonialism" has emerged as a critical race and postcolonial theoretical category through which to engage U.S. systems of disenfranchisement on the North American continent. Taking the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma’s 2007 popular vote to disenfranchise descendants of Cherokee slaves— some who and some who do not have Cherokee "blood"— as my occasion to elucidate the dialectics of race and colonialism still at play in the United States, I hope to begin to provide a means through which the radical inclusion of the Cherokee Freedmen in the Cherokee Nation does not have to result in the radical exclusion of the Cherokee Nation from itself. The problem is that, as the concept of "internal colonialism" to discuss race in the United States continues to circulate, the distinctions between indigenous political sovereignty recognized by treaties and the individual sovereignty that forms the basis for inclusive personhood within U.S. multicultural democracy collapse as the United States is cathected as master. 21 Thus, when colonialism is used to describe indigenous peoples’ experiences of land loss and genocide, often the "internal" is layered as supplement onto such discussions by a U.S. hegemony that asserts the internal within the symbolic order of juridical colonization at the expense of the external "real" for indigenous nations. Interrogating the emergence of and limits to "internal colonialism," which many scholars acknowledge as a not always sufficient analogy even for race, may allow a site of intervention through which scholars might center indigenous experiences of U.S. colonialism as that which exceeds discussions of race. Doing so may help point the way for more robust intersections between postcolonial, subaltern, and indigenous worlds.
11		-**2. Bruyneel 07**^^ ^^
12		-As Shattuck and Norgren assert, Lone Wolf not
13		-AND
14		-nor excluded from the American polity, neither fully colonized nor fully decolonized.
15		-
16		-
17		-====Colonialism destroyed indigenous peoples’ agency.====
18		-Byrd 2^^ ^^
19		-But what seems to me to be further disavowed, even in Lowe’s important figuration
20		-AND
21		-they are the transit through which the dialectic of subject and object occurs.
22		-
23		-
24		-====An anti-colonial discursive framework is key to decolonizing debate and challenging institutionalized power. **Wane, et al 9**^^ ^^**====**
25		-We use a critical anti-colonial discursive framework (Dei and Asghazadesh, 2001) to situate our discussion on spirituality and teaching in higher education. It is our belief that no anti-colonial work would be complete without attending to the spirit, the broken spirit, the spirit that the colonizers managed to convince the colonized subject was poor and in need of salvaging (see Pearce, 1998; Mazama, 2002). Wane (2006) argues that when missionaries met Indigenous people of the world, the first thing they claimed to notice was the spiritual poverty of the people. The missionaries embarked upon a project of decolonization by continually eroding and destroying all vestiges of the indigenous people’s spirituality (see Battiste and Henderson, 2000; Some, 1994). Adopting an anti-colonial discursive theory, it is critical to place issues of spirituality of the colonized people at the center of our discussion (Shahjahan, 2005a). This framework provides the basis from which to challenge the foundations of institutionalized power and privilege and the power congrautions embedded in ideas, cultures, and histories of knowledge production (see Dei, 2000). By embracing anti-colonial thought, we acknowledge spiritual practices which have survived the colonial and neo-colonial powers. We view these acts of survival as forms of resistance that need to be acknowledged and legitimated in the academy. Anti-colonial theorizing rises out of alternative, oppositional paradigms, which are in turn based on indigenous concepts and analytical systems and cultural frames of reference (Dei, 2000). It recognizes the displacement of spirituality and other non-dominant ways of knowing the world by Western knowledge systems as significant (Graveline, 1998; Smith, 2001). Hence, as Zine(2004) has written about using an anti-colonial framework to understand issues of spirituality: "addressing the erasures of spiritual knowledge in academic and discursive contexts is part of an anti-colonial politics of knowledge construction, reclamation, and inclusion" (p. 5). Furthermore, the anti-colonial discursive framework provides a political ontology which serves to decolonize academic knowledge and pedagogical practices, by valuing and employing spiritual ways of knowing (Magnusson, 2004). Indigenous knowledges are central in the process of de colonization and an important entry point for theorizing issues of spirituality (see Graveline, 1998). Within indigenous cultures, narrative and storytelling are primarily pedagogical tools. In considering how such practices may contribute to the project of decolonizing the academy, Iseke-Barnes (2003) contends that: Through story telling we can highlight how knowledge production in the academy reinforces colonial and neo-colonial relations and the considerable implications of these struggles over knowledge for claims of Indigenousness, agency, and resistance in community activities and academic pursuits focused on cultural vitalization and self-determination. (p. 218)¶ Building on this understanding, we offer the following narrative, a tapestry of dialogical insights into our theorizing of how spirituality may be incorporated into teaching in higher education.
26		-
27		-
28		-====Thus, the Alt is to engage in the politics of the impossible and imagine the world when we kick the U.S. off the planet. Prioritization is key. Ward Churchill ’96^^ ^^====
29		-(*Not to be confused with Winston Churchill*)
30		-The question, which inevitably arises with regard to indigenous land claims, especially in
31		-AND
32		-won’t work, it has. Restructure society with Natives included in discussions.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-09-14 02:53:03.0

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-West Ranch JW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-0

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Quarry Lane Karavadi Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Loyola - Round 2 - West Ranch Aff - Quarry Lane Neg

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Loyola Invitational