Summary

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

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,23 +1,0 @@
1		-CP Text: Consult indigenous groups before the prohibition of nuclear power.
2		-Its competitive: You implement the aff immediately, I say we consult with native groups before doing the aff to see if its ok with them.
3		-Solves the aff – If Native groups see that NP is bad, they will reject waste dumping and do the aff.
4		-Gover, Kevin, and Jana L. Walker (Native American Attorneys at Gover, Stetson and Williams). "Escaping Environmental Paternalism: One Tribe's Approach to Developing a Commercial Waste Disposal Project in Indian Country." University of Colorado Law Review 63 (1992): 933. With respect to waste disposal, there are two issues facing Indian tribes today. First, how do tribes dispose of the solid waste generated on their reservations, and second, does a tribe want to use its land as a site for a commercial waste project as a form of economic development? Almost without exception, over the last year the media has focused its entire attention on the issue of commercial projects. We cannot count the number of articles in magazines and newspapers titled "Dances with Garbage."2 The media has created a steady drumbeat of stories about tribes all over the country building landfills and taking in hazardous waste, implying that the waste industry is marauding unchecked in Indian country, immune from any environmental regulation whatsoever. Is it true? In our experience over the last few years, this is just not the case, and we believe that much of the media attention has been misguided and uninformed. Even if we assume that some waste companies are targeting Indian country, tribes theyhave almost always repelled these so-called attacks.3 In most cases, tribes are not even giving these companies an interview. Of the dozens of proposals that apparently have been made to tribes, only a small number remain under serious consideration.4 Tribal governments quite clearly have demonstrated that they are fully capable of deciding whether or not a project will serve their best interests.
5		-Net Benefits
6		-Some indigenous people see waste facilities as good. To clarify, my argument is not that all groups should do this, but they need the option- the aff denies that.
7		-Gover, Kevin, and Jana L. Walker (Native American Attorneys at Gover, Stetson and Williams). "Escaping Environmental Paternalism: One Tribe's Approach to Developing a Commercial Waste Disposal Project in Indian Country." University of Colorado Law Review 63 (1992): 933.
8		-The second and more controversial issue facing tribes involves the use of reservation lands as sites for commercial solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities. Looking at the waste industry as a form of economic development, in many respects it can be a good match for tribal communities. The industry is usually willing to pay the costs of developing new projects without requiring a tribe to put any cash up front. Since most tribes just do not have the money to independently fund large-scale economic development, this makes the industry attractive to Indian communities desperate for development. The waste industry needs isolation and an abundance of land, and, again, because of the overall lack of tribal economic development, undeveloped land is a resource that many tribes have. The waste industry also provides numerous opportunities for unskilled and semi-skilled workers, including training in the construction and environmental compliance fields. On most reservations, unemployment is extremely high and opportunities for training Indians very limited. Finally, the waste industry is and must be recognized as an indispensable and legitimate part of the services sector of the economy, and as such, can be an extremely profitable form of development for tribes. All of this means that, under certain circumstances, a solid or hazardous waste disposal project may represent a viable and appropriate form of industrial development for some tribes and can provide extraordinary opportunities for economic development on some reservations. It is not appropriate for every community, and we certainly are not urging tribes to site waste facilities on their reservations. Each tribe must decide for itself if it is interested in such development. Our intent is merely to put things in a more honest perspective and to describe one process that, when and if a tribe seriously considers a commercial waste proposal, it can use to evaluate the proposal effectively and, if it's feasible, plan for its development.
9		-
10		-
11		-CLAIMING TO PROTECT INDIANS FROM THEIR DECISION TO HOST WASTE FACILICITES IS A FORM OF RACIAL PATERNALISM. CP solves, because the Indians now have control over whether the ban is implemented in their specific tribe. TURNS CASE
12		-Sachs, Noah (Professor of Law Director, Robert R. Merhige Jr. Center for Environmental Studies at Richmond School of Law). "The Mescalero Apache and monitored retrievable storage of spent nuclear fuel: A study in environmental ethics." Natural Resources Journal 36 (1996): 641.
13		-Second, if a community has decided for itself that the benefits outweigh the costs of a facility, denying the community the facility on equity grounds (because it is poor or minority) undermines its opportunity to improve its own welfare. In the case of the MRS, it is important to remember that the project would have brought several million dollars per year to the Tribe. If the federal government blocked a non-nuclear economic development project of that magnitude on an Indian reservation, it would rightly be criticized. There is an element of paternalism in some environmental justice arguments that offends the ethical principle that individuals and communities, rich or poor, should be free to consider and pursue economic options on their own.' The tribal leadership expressed this belief forcefully. Decrying outsiders such as Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council who came to the reservation to speak against the MRS, Silas Cochise, a tribal official, said: "These outsiders are ignorant. How dare they tell us how to live and what is good for us."" Another tribal official, Jennifer Sundayman-Byers, echoed this view: 'They come to save the poor Indian from himself. This creates great anger and resentment. What do they know of our way of life?"' Keven Gover and Jana Walker, two Native American attorneys from Albuquerque, New Mexico, criticized economic paternalism in an article in the Colorado Law Review: Too often, the environmental community appoints itself the officious protector of the Indians... To people like ourselves, Indians who have devoted our careers to the defense of Indian rights, this is unspeakably arrogant... Much of the environmental community seems to assume that, if an Indian community decides to accept such a project, it either does not understand the potential consequences or has been bamboozled by an unprincipled waste company. In either case, the clear implication is that Indians lack the intelligence to balance and protect adequately their own economic and environmental resources.
14		-
15		-
16		-DOING THE AFF, EVEN AFTER INDIGENOUS PEOPLE REJECT THE BAN, IS A FORM OF CONTROL THAT IS BASED ON THE SAME RACIST ASSUMPTION THAT WAS USED TO PERPETRATE GENOCIDE. Turns case and outweighs Kevin and Walker
17		-Gover, Kevin, and Jana L. Walker (Native American Attorneys at Gover, Stetson and Williams). "Escaping Environmental Paternalism: One Tribe's Approach to Developing a Commercial Waste Disposal Project in Indian Country." University of Colorado Law Review 63 (1992): 933. Tribes also have become the focus of uninformed media coverage like the "Dances with Garbage" articles.3" These authors, many of them environmentalists, managed to glean from the movie "Dances with Wolves" only the "noble savage" stereotype that leads one to believe that "real Indians" do not produce trash, would never harm their environment, are simple in their approach to complex issues-in short, that Indians are just not smart enough to develop or regulate waste disposal responsibly. This Indian stereotype is insulting to say the least, and it smacks of the same arrogance that led fifteenth-century Europeans to conclude that they had "discovered" America. This is what we find troubling in the "environmental racism" issue. Too often, the environmental community appoints itself the officious protector of the Indians. We read with amazement a recent article in an environmental journal in which the author-presumably a non-Indian, haughtily proclaimed that, "in the newly-revived cosmology of Indian people, Indian lands and waste projects are simply incompatible.",39 The author so concluded after having spent all of a week with some three hundred Indians gathered to discuss, among other things, the matter of environmental racism. To people like ourselves, Indians who have devoted our careers to the defense of Indian rights, this is unspeakably arrogant. CONCLUSION For tribes considering developing commercial waste projects on their reservations, the major issue they face will not be an environmental one, but instead one of power and racism. Much of the environmental community seems to assume that, if an Indian community decides to accept such a project, it either does not understand the potential consequences or has been bamboozled by an unprincipled waste company. In either case, the clear implication is that Indians lack the intelligence to balance and protect adequately their own economic and environmental interests. This is clearly a racist assumption; the same assumption that guided the federal policies that very nearly eradicated Indian people in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 4° It is "environmentalist racism," and ultimately every bit as destructive as the open hostility to Indian people that we experience in many parts of this country. We need the support and understanding of the environmental community, not its protection. Indian people are uniquely qualified to protect their own interests. Left to apply their own intelligence, beliefs, and values to a situation, they will make the right decision. The environmental community must respect that decision-whatever it may be-rather than attacking the decision and a tribe's right to make it. In closing, we would like to share with you an observation by Bill Largo, a youth counselor for the Campo Band: People don't seem to understand that sharing is part of surviving. People have to sacrifice certain things in order for another to survive. People here are trying to put away waste that non-Indians have created, and all we're trying to do is dispose of that so we, too, can live.
18		-
19		-THE NOTION OF PROTECTING INDIANS FROM HARM IS BASED ON ESSENTIALISM AND RACISM
20		-Collins, Nancy (From 1989 to 1993 she was an Assistant Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law and had served as a Trial Attorney in the Environmental Enforcement Section and in the Torts Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice), and Andrea Hall. "Nuclear Waste in Indian Country: A Paradoxical Trade." Law and Ineq. 12 (1993): 267.
21		-American law, literature, and mass media contribute to the dominant culture's view of Native Americans as historical artifacts, frozen in prehistory. Indians are imbued with society's romantic notions.356 Modern "New Age" ideas contribute to these romanticized ideas of Indian culture, environmental values, wisdom, and religion. While many of these ideas may represent long overdue respect for Native Americans from members of the dominant society, 3 5 7 the ideas also essentialize and homogenize widely diverse peoples into one single entity. The vision of Indians that emerges is that they are shrouded in history and in need of the dominant culture's protection. These ideas have developed into a "malignant romanticism"358 which infests our notions of what Indian peoples should do with their lands. Environmentalists, in pursuit of "Indian's best interests" may engage in stereotypical thinking, characterized by romanticism, which effectively deprives Native Americans of the right to make their own decisions about accepting waste on their lands. It is important to break down this malignant romanticism into its major component stereotypes so that we recognize them and strip them from our law and policy. Some of these stereotypes include viewing "real Indians" as historical, primitive, unsophisticated, and rapidly on their way to extinction; essentializing the hundreds of Indian tribes into one group; assigning Indians the role of guardian of our environment as well as theirs; failing to recognize Native American tribes as modern, twentieth century sovereign nations within the United States; and viewing Indians as dependent and in need of our protection and guidance. Each of these stereotypes interferes with equitable environmental treatment of tribes and will be discussed individually. First, the dominant society often embraces the view that Indian nations are historical, and that Indians are primitive creatures of some past age. In this view, Indians will soon disappear from the nation, through either death or assimilation. This stereotype is utterly inconsistent with Indian nations' decision to enter into sophisticated, twenty-first century ventures like nuclear waste disposal. Second, American culture tends to essentialize vastly diverse Native American cultures, treating them all as uniformly "Indian." Indian tribes represent diverse and distinct peoples with their own languages, traditions, governments, religions, and values. They vary enormously in socio-economic status and in business development. To accommodate these different nations with their different approaches to environmental regulation, environmental law must adopt a flexible approach that incorporates a variety of negotiable rights, capable of adapting to the unique circumstances of each tribe. Third, environmentalists repeatedly treat Indian tribes as the guardians of nature, imposing upon them a special responsibility to preserve our environment. Many environmentalists homogenize and romanticize all Native Americans as environmentalists who desire to keep their land free of all economic development. Dominant society feels entitled to deny Indians the right to engage in the waste trade on the assumption that this is what Indians want. Environmentalists are willing to deny Indian autonomy in the name of enforcing so-called "Indian values." Indian self-determination requires that Indians decide their degree of participation in the nuclear waste trade. Fourth, the sovereign status of Indian nations is recognized by law but is repeatedly and steadfastly ignored by communities surrounding Indian reservations. Fifth, the dependent status of Indian tribes is a matter not only of legal doctrine, but also of deeply imbedded racist ideas about Indians. One over-riding theme of Indian/white relations in the United States is the notion that Indians, like children, need the protection and guidance of the "Great White Father." They are unfairly perceived as unsophisticated, uneducated people who must be protected from making wrong decisions. These notions underlie the paternalistic "trust" doctrine, which forms the basis of the dominant society's control over Indian land. Repeatedly, authors assert that they revere the ancient values of Indians and consider them models for our modern, technological society. Yet they do not trust these same tribes to exercise their own values wisely. They seek to impose limitations on Indian rights to accept nuclear waste on Indian lands in order to "protect" Indians. Such solutions substitute white paternalism for Indian power.367 Yet Native Americans, without such "protectionist" intervention in their tribal environmental affairs, repeatedly make the difficult and costly choice of refusing to bring waste onto their land. Although many private companies and the government target Indian country for waste dumps, tribal governments refuse these "attacks" almost without exception.368 If we are to create equitable law and policy relating to nuclear waste in Indian country, we must make deliberate and concerted efforts to overcome the stereotypical thinking which characterizes so much of American legal history regarding Native Americans. The solution to our nuclear waste problem is not to be found by imposing our values and visions, already clouded by racism, upon Native Americans.
22		-The CP is necessary to recognize the tribal sovereignty of indigenous groups. NAIA 12
23		-Recently, there has been a growing awareness that federal-tribal interactions, particularly consultation, can be improved and enhanced. One means for Reclamation to achieve that end is by providing guidance about developing and implementing appropriate protocol for conducting tribal consultation. Protocol is a tool for establishing mutually agreed-upon principles and procedures for interacting and communicating, and for better understanding Reclamation and tribal expectations. Once established, agreements about Reclamation-tribal protocol can be used as a basis for conducting meaningful and proactive consultations, maintaining government-togovernment relationships, and entering into partnerships and collaborative efforts. Each tribe in the 17 Reclamation states1 is a distinct legal-political entity, and the message presented here is that the tribes are not to be treated as though they are alike or only another member of the general public. Indian tribes are sovereign governments. Each tribe has its own unique set of needs, concerns, and interests that are often shaped or influenced by historical events and cultural values. Developing protocol, conducting consultation, maintaining a government-to-government relationship requires openness and understanding, patience and flexibility, and an appreciation and acceptance of the fact that there are no linear solutions or cookbook answers. This reference tool has been prepared to provide Reclamation management and staff with guidance about protocol, consultation, and the government-to-government relationship. These topics are interrelated and closely connected to a suite of underlying doctrines and concepts. As such, background and advisory information is presented about Indian law, cultural awareness, and planning for and conducting meetings with tribes. It is intended to encourage and facilitate meaningful interactions and communications with tribal governments and their members

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-09-17 19:01:15.0

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Consult CP

Tournament

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