Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[3]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[3]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-14 05:02:20.768
	1	+2016-11-14 05:02:20.0

Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,18 @@
	1	+Banning nuclear power is a form of imperial paternalism – it just re-inscribes colonialism by creating blanket policy decisions without case-by-case consent. Natives have their own energy and economic infrastructure to be concerned about.
	2	+Jefferies ‘8: Sierra M. Jefferies, J.D. candidate, “ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND THE SKULL VALLEY GOSHUTE INDIANS' PROPOSAL TO STORE NUCLEAR WASTE,” Journal of Land, Resources and Environmental Law, 2008
	3	+Second, opposition to the Band’s attempt to make use of its land seems to imply that the Band does not have the ability to make to make informed decisions regarding the use of its land. In response to similar environmental opposition to tribal attempts at commercial waste development, Native American attorneys Keven Gover and Jana Walker criticized the paternalistic undertones of opposition, "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. 03 For the Skull Valley Goshutes, this was a rare opportunity to benefit financially from the undesirable land they have been granted. The surrounding toxic land uses, barren desert nature of the land and lack of other resources undoubtedly weighed heavily in their decision to move forward with the project. Leon Bear, tribal leader has stated, "We don’t have an energy source like oil or gas or coal, we feel that we're being prejudiced against as far as gaming."94 Interestingly, tribes that were not similarly restricted in land use options also participated in the federal selection process for the MRS and pursued private storage facilities. Among them was the Mescalero Apache tribe of New Mexico. Unlike the Goshutes, the Mescalero were not limited in opportunities to develop their land for profit. By contrast, at the time of the federally proposed MRS, the Mescalero were already operating several multi-million dollar businesses. 95 The Mescalero were not compelled by limited available uses for their land. Grace Thorpe, "a member of the Sac and Fox Tribe, an opponent of the MRS program, and President of the National Environmental Coalition of Native Americans" stated "Ithe Mescalero don't need this nuclear waste ... they have a five star resort, a casino, two ski lifts, forestry resources and a sawmill m98
	4	+Media and other outlets keeps distorting Native needs – assumptions need to STOP
	5	+Gover and Walker ‘92: (Kevin, Prof of Law ASU, Jana L, ESCAPING ENVIRONMENTAL PATERNALISM: ONE TRIBE'S APPROACH TO DEVELOPING A COMMERCIAL WASTE DISPOSAL PROJECT IN INDIAN COUNTRY http://faculty.virginia.edu/ejus/ESCAPE.htm)
	6	+We have been asked to address the issue of environmental racism in the context of commercial solid and hazardous waste projects on Indian reservations. Let us say at the outset that we have no quarrel with those who believe that undesirable facilities-such as waste disposal facilities more likely to be found in a poor minority community than in a wealthy white one.' However, the environmental community must come to understand that not all such facilities are unwanted by the host community and that, in those cases where a community wishes to have such a facility, its decision is to be respected. As an example of such a host community located in Indian country, we will use our experience in helping the Campo Band of Mission Indians of California develop a solid waste project on its reservation. 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 have 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. To set the record straight, the bigger problem is not that the waste industry is beating a path to the tribal door. Rather, it is the unauthorized and illegal dumping occurring on reservations. For most Indian communities the problem of open dumping on tribal lands is of much greater concern than the remote prospect that a commercial waste disposal facility may be sited on a reservation. Until 1986, Congress had left tribal governments completely out of the federal environmental scheme. In 1986, Congress enacted the first tribal amendments to federal environmental laws. Those amendments allowed tribes to be treated as states for program enforcement and grants under the Safe Drinking Water Act.5 Congress enacted similar amendments to Superfund in 1986,6 the Clean Water Act in 1987,7 and the Clean Air Act in 1990. 8 Unfortunately, Congress has not yet enacted tribal amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)9 authorizing tribes to assume primary enforcement authority for solid and hazardous waste programs.
	7	+American imperialism dominates society to destroy indigenous culture – turns case and outweighs.
	8	+Galeota ‘4: Julia Galeota placed first in the thirteen-to-seventeen-year-old age category of the 2004 Humanist Essay Contest for Young Women and Men of North America. “Cultural Imperialism: An American Tradition.” 2004 Humanist Essay Contest Winner. Getrun.info. The Humanist. 2004. http://www.getrun.info/pdf/tradition/5.pdf
	9	+Travel almost anywhere in the world today and, whether you suffer from habitual Big Mac cravings or cringe at the thought of missing the newest episode of MTV’s The Real World, your American tastes can be satisfied practically everywhere. This proliferation of American products across the globe is more than mere accident. As a byproduct of globalization, it is part of a larger trend in the conscious dissemination of American attitudes and values that is often referred to as cultural imperialism. In his 1976 work Communication and Cultural Domination, Herbert Schiller defines cultural imperialism as: the sum of the processes by which a society is brought into the modern world system, and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even to promote, the values and structures of the dominant center of the system. Thus, cultural imperialism involves much more than simple consumer goods; it involves the dissemination of ostensibly American principles, such as freedom and democracy. Though this process might sound appealing on the surface, it masks a frightening truth: many cultures around the world are gradually disappearing due to the overwhelming influence of corporate and cultural America. The motivations behind American cultural imperialism parallel the justifications for U.S. imperialism throughout history: the desire for access to foreign markets and the belief in the superiority of American culture. Though the United States does boast the world’s largest, most powerful economy, no business is completely satisfied with controlling only the American market; American corporations want to control the other 95 percent of the world’s consumers as well. Many industries are incredibly successful in that venture. According to the Guardian, American films accounted for approximately 80 percent of global box office revenue in January 2003. And who can forget good old Micky D’s? With over 30,000 restaurants in over one hundred countries, the ubiquitous golden arches of McDonald’s are now, according to Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, “more widely recognized than the Christian cross.” Such American domination inevitably hurts local markets, as the majority of foreign industries are unable to compete with the economic strength of U.S. industry. Because it serves American economic interests, corporations conveniently ignore the detrimental impact of American control of foreign markets. Corporations don’t harbor qualms about the detrimental effects of “Americanization” of foreign cultures, as most corporations have ostensibly convinced themselves that American culture is superior and therefore its influence is beneficial to other, “lesser” cultures. Unfortunately, this American belief in the superiority of U.S. culture is anything but new; it is as old as the culture itself. This attitude was manifest in the actions of settlers when they first arrived on this continent and massacred or assimilated essentially the entire “savage” Native American population. This attitude also reflects that of the late nineteenth-century age of imperialism, during which the jingoists attempted to fulfill what they believed to be the divinely ordained “manifest destiny” of American expansion. Jingoists strongly believe in the concept of social Darwinism: the stronger, “superior” cultures will overtake the weaker, “inferior” cultures in a “survival of the fittest.” It is this arrogant belief in the incomparability of American culture that characterizes many of our economic and political strategies today.
	10	+The alternative is to allow indigenous communities to decide whether or not they want the use of nuclear power through a case-by-case basis; this means no blanket prohibition.
	11	+Claiming that Natives generally don’t want nuclear power is still a blanket assumption which re-inscribes oppressive colonialism because some tribes still may want nuclear.
	12	+Gover and Walker ‘92: 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.
	13	+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.
	14	+The alt best addresses historical injustice by allowing natives to control their own destinies and decide how to move forward – nuclear jurisdiction is a fundamental step.
	15	+
	16	+Segal ‘12: (Alice, URANIUM MINING AND THE NAVAJO NATION - LEGAL INJUSTICE Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice 21 S. Cal. Rev. L. and Social Justice 355)
	17	+As a result of this one-way relationship, courts were able to strip away Navajo children from their families. This injustice was not corrected until Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act, which provided the Navajo with greater authority. n281 To compensate for historical injustices such as this, as well as to allow them to define for themselves their own people groups, the Navajo Nation should be granted greater authority over its land as a sovereign tribe. However, Congress has resisted efforts to increase Navajo authority because this would reduce the federal government's power. An optimal solution that would satisfy the interests of both Congress and the Navajo Nation would be to give the Navajo authority over uranium mining. Under the NRC's lax oversight, federal agencies have proven inept at regulating uranium mining and cleanup. Courts have deferred to the agencies' poor decisions, perpetuating inefficient and reckless mining. On the other hand, the Navajo government has both the interest and organizational capacity to regulate uranium mining because the Nation has a personal stake in protecting its people from further exposure to radioactive material. The interests of the Navajo suggest that, with congressional help, the Navajo government would work to resolve the unfair treatment of its people through careful management of uranium mining.
	18	+Mutually exclusive with the aff since tribes that want nuclear power can continue to use it.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-14 05:02:22.313

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sunset bhat Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1 - SO - Native Paternalism K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Marks