Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

Coal DA 

Affirming will be replaced by coal construction

Biello 13, David. "How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming," December 12, 2013. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/.**
As long as countries like China or the U.S. employ big grids to deliver electricity, there will be a need for generation from nuclear, coal or gas, the kinds of electricity generation that can be available at all times. A rush to phase out nuclear power privileges natural gas—as is planned under Germany's innovative effort, dubbed the Energiewende (energy transition), to increase solar, wind and other renewable power while also eliminating the country's 17 reactors. In fact, Germany hopes to develop technology to store excess electricity from renewable resources as gas to be burned later, a scheme known as "power to gas," according to economist and former German politician Rainer Baake, now director of an energy transition think tank Agora Energiewende. Even worse, a nuclear stall can lead to the construction of more coal-fired power plants, as happened in the U.S. after the end of the nuclear power plant construction era in the 1980s.

The ban causes a massive shift to coal- Japan Proves

Follet ’16 http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/the-end-of-nuclear-power-in-japan-is-bringing-back-coal/, Andrew Follet, Energy and Environment Reporter, 6/13/16, "The Daily Caller"
An analysis published Monday by Bloomberg states that coal power will become the largest source of electricity in Japan due to an effective ban on nuclear power. Nuclear power provided 29 percent of Japan’s total power output before 2011, but will decline to 13.6 percent by 2023 and 1.2 percent by 2040, according to the report. Japan got 24 percent of its electricity from coal in 2010 and the country plans to get more than a third of its power from coal by 2040. Japan previously shut down all of its nuclear reactors in the aftermath of the 2011 magnitude 9.0 earthquake, which triggered the Fukushima disaster. The country has since transitioned away from nuclear power. Prior to the disaster, Japan operated 54 nuclear power plants and the government planned to build enough reactors to provide 50 percent of the country’s electricity power. After the disaster, Japan pledged to effectivly abandon nuclear power by the 2030s, replacing it mostly with wind or solar power, causing the price of electricity to rise by 20 percent. The transition to green energy hasn’t gone well and the country likely won’t meet its goals, according to the report. Japan remains a top importer of oil, coal and natural gas and the government estimated that importing fuel costs the country more than $40 billion annually. Japan’s current government sees a revival of nuclear power ~is~ as critical to supporting economic growth and slowing an exodus of Japanese manufacturing to lower-cost countries, but has faced incredible pushback.

A decrease in nuclear power is directly correlated with an increase in coal production: countries are empirically proven to have higher emissions

Lynas 15 Lynas, Mark. "Why a Green Future Needs Nuclear Power." RSS. An Ecomodernist Manifesto, 18 June 2015. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.
The success of the antinuclear movement in the 1970s guaranteed an increased use of coal for decades to come, as proposed nuclear plants across the western world were canceled and replaced by coal plants. There are countless stories with specific examples; one of my favorites is of the Austrian plant at Zwentendorf, a mid-size nuclear station. It was fully completed and then closed down in 1978 before it could generate a single watt after antinuclear activists narrowly won a nationwide referendum. Today, although Austria has 60 percent hydropower, it still burns coal and oil for a third of its electricity: had Zwentendorf and the other proposed nuclear plants been allowed to run by the nascent Greens, Austrians might have enjoyed carbon-neutral electricity for the past 35 years. The Zwentendorf story has an irresistible coda: in 2009 it was ‘converted’ into a solar power plant. At the opening ceremony, backed by enormous Greenpeace banners declaring ‘Energy Revolution – Climate Solution’ and featuring Hollywood celebrities like Andie MacDowell, 1,000 new solar photovoltaic panels were inaugurated, having been installed at a cost of 1.2 million euros. "From radioactive beams to sunbeams – a global symbol for environmentally friendly and sustainable energy for the requirements of the future," said the website.  A quick look at the numbers tells a different story, however: average output from the solar panels will be 20.5 kilowatts (enough to run 12 hairdryers, according to one wag) whereas the 692 megawatts it would have generated as a nuclear station would have lit up Vienna. One can chuckle at that kind of foolish hype, but less amusing is the history of Ireland’s proposed Carnshore reactors, which were canceled after protests, rallies, and concerts were organized by antinuclear groups in the mid-1970s. A large coal plant was built instead, at Moneypoint in County Clare. Moneypoint’s two chimneys, as well as being among Ireland’s tallest constructions, are now the largest single point source of CO2 emissions in the entire country. Some of Ireland’s electricity even comes from the only source worse than coal: peat. Peat is not only more CO2-intensive than coal, but is based on the shameful industrial strip-mining of large areas of fragile and biologically irreplaceable raised peat bog. In Spain nearly 40 nuclear plants were proposed in the 1970s, but a strong antinuclear movement succeeded in forcing a national moratorium in 1984 and only 10 were ever built. Spain today has 18 coal power plants, supplying a fifth of its power. In Australia, perhaps the most coal-dependent country in the world (despite its abundance of both solar potential and uranium deposits) nuclear power is technically illegal, thanks to a thriving antinuclear lobby and a senate vote in 1998. Australia’s per-capita carbon dioxide emissions as a result are about 18 tonnes (20 tons), higher even than America’s, with coal supplying 85 percent of domestic power. In some places, half-built nuclear plants were converted directly to coal: an example was the William H. Zimmer plant in Ohio, whose containment building was converted to house a coal boiler instead of a reactor following protests and cost overruns in 1984. As the nuclear historian Spencer Weart writes, "Ever since the price of oil spiked in the late 1970s, wherever people refused to build more reactors almost every new electrical plant had been a coal burner." Each time this happened, determined antinuclear coalitions of thousands of environmentally concerned citizens melted away overnight once the embattled utility had agreed to change its proposed plant from nuclear to coal. Allens Creek, Texas; Bellefonte, Alabama; Cherokee, South Carolina; Erie, Ohio; Hartsville, Tennessee; Satsop, Washington… the full list of canceled US nuclear plants can be viewed on Wikipedia. At Shoreham in Long Island a nuclear plant was fully built, as at Zwentendorf in Austria, and then was immediately shut down due to enormous public opposition, much of it paid for and fanned by the efforts of diesel fuel delivery companies. Today it is a mausoleum – but had it been allowed to operate it would have helped make New York a carbon-neutral city for the last three decades. I calculate the total capacity of all the canceled nuclear plants to be about 140 gigawatts; roughly half the entire current installed coal capacity in the US. More than 1,000 nuclear plants were originally proposed; had they all been built, the US would now be running an entirely carbon-free electricity system. In the United States during the heyday of the antinuclear movement between 1972 and 1984, coal consumption by US utilities doubled from 351 million to 664 million tons. Although it is often claimed by greens that their antinuclear activities were less important than the 1970s oil shocks and economic slowdown in forcing the cancellation of planned nuclear plants, during the period 1972 to 1984 the US added 170 GW of fossil-fuelled capacity to its electricity grid, and consumed 74 percent more coal-fired electricity, hardly indicative of a major reversal in the growth of overall energy consumption. Certainly, the snowballing cost of nuclear plants was a major factor, but a significant proportion of those costs were being imposed by an ever-expanding nuclear regulatory burden which slowed or stopped development of new plants and spent fuel repositories – even more than environmental activism did. Nevertheless, constant objection by vocal antis generated increasing political risk and nuisance lawsuits and thus caused years of delays. That is not to say that the antinuclear activists liked coal. They said they wanted solar power, and the famous ‘nuclear power no thanks’ logo of course sported a smiling sun symbol. But just as they were spectacularly successful in stopping the growth of nuclear power, they were spectacularly unsuccessful in promoting the use of solar as an alternative. By 1984 the use of solar had risen from functionally zero to 0.002 percent of US electricity generation. The history of the antinuclear movement is therefore not lit by sunshine, but shrouded in coal smoke.

DA Turns Case

Stevenson 8—produces Gaia Health (Heidi, Coal Is the Worst Polluter of All, www.gaia-health.com/articles/000032-Coal-Pollution.shtml)
Image a list of the worst pollutants. Whatever is on your list almost certainly is produced by coal mining or burning, usually in greater quantities than any other polluting industry. Pollutants produced by burning coal include:¶ Carbon dioxide, the primary global warming gas.¶ Sulphur dioxide, which causes acid rain.¶ Nitrogen oxide, which creates ozone that leads to smog.¶ Hydrocarbons, which help create ozone that leads to smog.¶ Carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and is particularly harmful to people with heart disease.¶ Arsenic, which causes cancer.¶ Lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals.¶ Uranium and thorium, radioactive elements.¶ Mercury, known to cause autism and a host of other neurological and developmental disorders.¶ Coal-fired plants produce 100 times the radiation of nuclear plants to yield the same amount of energy.¶ Here's the kicker: Coal ash, the remains of the burning process, is more radioactive than nuclear waste—and we have not figured out what to do with the waste from nuclear energy production. Back in 1978, a scientist with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) reported in Science that the amount of radiation in the bones of people who live near coal plants is 3-6 times greater than in those who live near nuclear facilities. In fact, according to ORNL Associate Lab Director Dana Christensen and the aforementioned 1978 paper, when the amount of radiation produced by the two types of power plants is compared in terms of their energy output, the story is even worse. Coal-fired plants produce 100 times the radiation of nuclear plants to yield the same amount of energy.¶ Clean coal is a myth. The technology does not exist today and no one knows when—or if—it will exist. Yet the coal companies continue to push the idea, and politicians help them. In the U.K. the Labour Party pushes the false idea of clean coal as a necessary element of dealing with climate change. In the United States, President Obama has ballyhooed the lie.¶ The term "clean coal" is misleading in two ways. First is the fact that the technology for creating it doesn't exist, and even if it did, estimates are that it would cost several trillion dollars in the U.S. alone to switch to it, making it prohibitively expensive. Worse, though, is that the term references only the production of carbon dioxide. It has nothing to do with any of the other pollutants, including radiation.¶ The Sierra Club reports that coal-fired plants in the U.S. produce 59 of sulphur dioxide pollution and 18 of nitrogen oxide.¶ The EPA has reported that coal plants produce about 40 of America's mercury pollution, more than any other source. No other industry is doing as much to poison the fish that we eat, resulting in warnings to people not to eat fish too often. Three-time Emmy award winner, Jeremy Piven, recently fell ill from eating mercury-laced sushi. It is responsible for untold numbers of babies being born with neurological problems, including autism, mental retardation, blindness, and a variety of other neurological problems. It is found in mothers' breast milk, putting children at risk even after birth. It is known to increase and worsen coronary disease in men. The EPA reports that the number of pregnant women affected by mercury poisoning is so high that as many as 630,000 children in the U.S. are born each year with a strong likelihood of developing health problems.¶ The American Lung Association says that 24,000 people die annually in the U.S. from coal plant pollution, and there are 38,000 more heart attacks and 550,000 more asthma attacks. The American Journal of Public Health reports higher rates of cardiopulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes, and lung and kidney disease in coal mining areas.¶ Lead contamination is known to cause brain shrinkage, retardation, and violence, as documented in Lead Shrinks the Brain and Causes Violent Crime.¶ Arsenic is an insidious poison, causing convulsions, difficulty in urination and defecation, delirium, cell death, cancer, hemorrhages, and damage to the body's ability to metabolize food for energy. The general term, arsenicosis, refers to arsenic poisoning that results from long term exposure to arsenic in drinking water. As little as 0.17 parts of lead per billion in water has been shown to be harmful.¶ Climate change. Pollution. Health devastation. Mental retardation. Cancer. Devastation of food supplies. All of these can be laid at the doorstep of coal corporations. Big Coal is fighting to make us believe that coal power is the best thing since Europe was covered with forests. Continuing to use coal for energy can only destroy us. It destroys the lives of humans, animals, plants, and Gaia herself. Clean coal is a myth.

Allowing coal pollution to continue perpetuates racist inequalities

Hoerner 8—Former director of Research at the Center for a Sustainable Economy, Director of Tax Policy at the Center for Global Change at the University of Maryland College Park, and editor of Natural Resources Tax Review. He has done research on environmental economics and policy on behalf of the governments of Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States. Andrew received his B.A. in Economics from Cornell University and a J.D. from Case Western Reserve School of Law—AND—Nia Robins—former inaugural Climate Justice Corps Fellow in 2003, director of Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative (J. Andrew, "A Climate of Change African Americans, Global Warming, and a Just Climate Policy for the U.S." July 2008, http://www.ejcc.org/climateofchange.pdf)
Everywhere we turn, the issues and impacts of climate change confront us. One of the most serious environmental threats facing the world today, climate change has moved from the minds of scientists and offices of environmentalists to the mainstream. Though the media is dominated by images of polar bears, melting glaciers, flooded lands, and arid desserts, there is a human face to this story as well. Climate change is not only an issue of the environment; it is also an issue of justice and human rights, one that dangerously intersects race and class. All over the world people of color, Indigenous Peoples and low-income communities bear disproportionate burdens from climate change itself, from ill-designed policies to prevent it, and from side effects of the energy systems that cause it. A Climate of Change explores the impacts of climate change on African Americans, from health to economics to community, and considers what policies would most harm or benefit African Americans—and the nation as a whole. African Americans are thirteen percent of the U.S. population and on average emit nearly twenty percent less greenhouse gases than non-Hispanic whites per capita. Though far less responsible for climate change, African Americans are significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non- Hispanic whites. Health, housing, economic well-being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability. African Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S. Climate Justice: The Time Is Now Ultimately, accomplishing climate justice will require that new alliances are forged and traditional movements are transformed. An effective policy to address the challenges of global warming cannot be crafted until race and equity are part of the discussion from the outset and an integral part of the solution. This report finds that: Global warming amplifies nearly all existing inequalities. Under global warming, injustices that are already unsustainable become catastrophic. Thus it is essential to recognize that all justice is climate justice and that the struggle for racial and economic justice is an unavoidable part of the fight to halt global warming. Sound global warming policy is also economic and racial justice policy. Successfully adopting a sound global warming policy will do as much to strengthen the economies of low-income communities and communities of color as any other currently plausible stride toward economic justice. Climate policies that best serve African Americans also best serve a just and strong United States. This paper shows that policies well-designed to benefit African Americans also provide the most benefit to all people in the U.S. Climate policies that best serve African Americans and other disproportionately affected communities also best serve global economic and environmental justice. Domestic reductions in global warming pollution and support for such reductions in developing nations financed by polluter-pays principles provide the greatest benefit to African Americans, the peoples of Africa, and people across the Global South. A distinctive African American voice is critical for climate justice. Currently, legislation is being drafted, proposed, and considered without any significant input from the communities most affected. Special interests are represented by powerful lobbies, while traditional environmentalists often fail to engage people of color, Indigenous Peoples, and low-income communities until after the political playing field has been defined and limited to conventional environmental goals. A strong focus on equity is essential to the success of the environmental cause, but equity issues cannot be adequately addressed by isolating the voices of communities that are disproportionately impacted. Engagement in climate change policy must be moved from the White House and the halls of Congress to social circles, classrooms, kitchens, and congregations. The time is now for those disproportionately affected to assume leadership in the climate change debate, to speak truth to power, and to assert rights to social, environmental and economic justice. Taken together, these actions affirm a vital truth that will bring communities together: Climate Justice is Common Justice. African Americans and Vulnerability In this report, it is shown that African Americans are disproportionately affected by climate change. African Americans Are at Greater Risk from Climate Change and Global Warming Co-Pollutants ¶ • The six states with the highest African American population are all in the Atlantic hurricane zone, and are expected to experience more intense storms resembling Katrina and Rita in the future. ¶ • Global warming is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of heat waves or extreme heat events. African Americans suffer heat death at one hundred fifty to two hundred percent of the rate for non-Hispanic whites. ¶ • Seventy-one percent of African Americans live in counties in violation of federal air pollution standards, as compared to fifty-eight percent of the white population. Seventy-eight percent of African Americans live within thirty miles of a coal-fired power plant, as compared to fifty-six percent of non-Hispanic whites. ¶ • Asthma has strong associations with air pollution, and African Americans have a thirty-six percent higher rate of incidents of asthma than whites. Asthma is three times as likely to lead to emergency room visits or deaths for African Americans. ¶ • This study finds that a twenty-five percent reduction in greenhouse gases—similar to what passed in California and is proposed in major federal legislation—would reduce infant mortality by at least two percent, asthma by at least sixteen percent, and mortality from particulates by at least 6,000 to 12,000 deaths per year. Other estimates have run as high as 33,000 fewer deaths per year. A disproportionate number of the lives saved by these proposed reductions would be African American. African Americans Are Economically More Vulnerable to Disasters and Illnesses ¶ • In 2006, twenty percent of African Americans had no health insurance, including fourteen percent of African American children—nearly twice the rate of non-Hispanic whites. ¶ • In the absence of insurance, disasters and illness (which will increase with global warming) could be cushioned by income and accumulated wealth. However, the average income of African American households is fifty-seven percent that of non-Hispanic whites, and median wealth is only one-tenth that of non-Hispanic whites. ¶ • Racist stereotypes have been shown to reduce aid donations and impede service delivery to African Americans in the wake of hurricanes, floods, fires and other climate-related disasters as compared to non-Hispanic whites in similar circumstances. African Americans Are at Greater Risk from Energy Price Shocks ¶ • African Americans spend thirty percent more of their income on energy than non-Hispanic whites. • Energy price increases have contributed to seventy to eighty percent of recent recessions. The increase in unemployment of African Americans during energy caused recessions is twice that of non-Hispanic whites, costing the community an average of one percent of income every year. • Reducing economic dependence on energy will alleviate the frequency and severity of recessions and the economic disparities they generate. African Americans Pay a Heavy Price and a Disproportionate Share of the Cost of Wars for Oil • Oil company profits in excess of the normal rate of profit for U.S. industries cost the average household $611 in 2006 alone and are still rising. • The total cost of the war in Iraq borne by African Americans will be $29,000 per household if the resulting deficit is financed by tax increases, and $32,000 if the debt is repaid by spending cuts. This is more than three times the median assets of African American households. A Clean Energy Future Creates Far More Jobs for African Americans • Fossil fuel extraction industries employ a far lower proportion of African Americans on average compared to other industries. Conversely, renewable electricity generation employs three to five times as many people as comparable electricity generation from fossil fuels, a higher proportion of whom are African American. ¶ • Switching just one percent of total electricity generating capacity per year from conventional to renewable sources would result in an additional 61,000 to 84,000 jobs for African Americans by 2030. ¶ • A well-designed comprehensive climate plan achieving emission reductions comparable to the Kyoto Protocol would create over 430,000 jobs for African Americans by 2030, reducing the African American unemployment rate by 1.8 percentage points and raising the average African American income by 3 to 4 percent. 

Native Americans are especially vulnerable to climate change

Halpert 12 ~Julie Halpert, author at Yale Climate Connections, "Native Americans and a Changing Climate," Yale Climate Connections, June 21, 2012, http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/06/native-americans-and-a-changing-climate/~~
Native Americans are expected to be among the population groups most vulnerable to adverse effects of climate change. "The tribes are on the front lines of climate change," Garrit Voggesser, national director, tribal partnerships for the National Wildlife Federation, said in a recent phone interview. The organization’s August 2011 report, "Facing the Storm," found that extreme heat waves and drought projected in a warmer climate can harm plants, increase wildlife mortality and heighten risks of wildfires and habitat loss. Noting their heavy reliance on natural resources and their subsistence from plants and animals, Voggesser emphasized that Native Americans are wedded to their land and resistant to relocating to escape harsh consequences. Tribes manage 95 million acres, 11 million acres more than the National Park Service, with many reservations home to diverse habitats. The Wildlife Federation’s report seeks to demonstrate the tribes’ needs for more resources to adapt to a changing climate. Noting the public’s romantic notion of tribes and their connection to nature, Voggesser points to substantial variation among the 565 recognized tribes. "They’re a microcosm of American society. Some are very concerned about the environment," while others are more focused on short-term jobs and, for instance, increased drilling for oil and gas, he said. With overall unemployment rates at 45 percent, many tribes are eager to tap into resources on their land that generate revenue. However, he said, most also recognize adverse impacts of climate change and see a need to address those concerns. ‘… the Guardians of Mother Earth’ Native Americans’ drive to protect the earth is of course steeped in history. Alfredo Acosta Figueroa, now 77 and a descendant of the Chemehuevi Tribe, recalled in a phone interview a 113-day peaceful occupation he led to protest The Ward Valley Nuclear Waste Dump, leading to the government’s 1998 decision to abandon its plans for radioactive waste disposal. "We were placed here on Earth to be the guardians of Mother Earth," he said. Many Native Americans revere the inter-connectedness of the natural world. You can’t take action in one part of the environment and have no repercussions elsewhere, says Bob Gough, a descendant of the Lenape Tribe in Canada who is secretary of the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, a non-profit representing 15 tribes in the Upper Great Plain states. "We are all related," so "you behave differently" and treat resources as part of a big family, he said. James Steele, former chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, represented his tribal leadership at 2010 climate negotiations in Copenhagen. He said in a phone interview that other countries have done more than the U.S. to officially and effectively involve native populations in climate change talks. Native American tribes’ climate-related activities span numerous initiatives. Some focus on moving to "clean" renewable energy to bring electricity to those not now on the grid. Others are developing climate change action plans and fighting actions they see endangering the environment. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) in 2006 passed resolutions calling for a mandatory national program to address climate change. In December 2010, it sent a formal recommendation to the White House Tribal Nations Summit asking that tribes have a formal consultative role in developing federal climate change policy and seeking equal access to climate change adaptation funding. In 2011, the organization passed a resolution opposing the proposed Keystone XL

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 6 | Opponent: Marlborough GK | Judge: 

Indigenous K

The AC’s portrayal of indigenous populations’ life as universally being one of harmony with nature oversimplifies and essentializes their culture.

Minssieux 1 ~(Nelly Minssieux, Milene Minssieux and Kristoffer Sidenius) "The Impact of Essentialist Representations on the Native American in a Postcolonial Context" Project Report – Cultural Encounters, Fall 2013 – Supervisor: Prem Poddar, Senior Fellow at Zentrum Moderner Orient cultural and historical research institute~ 
We shall see how this is done through several examples in the following. We will base ourselves on Walt Disney’s Pocahontas, and a pro-environmental advertising starring actor Indian Iron Eyes Cody. The stereotype of the Indian living in harmony with Nature is a predominant one within Western representations of Native Americans (Lewis and Clark). This is the case of the Disney motion picture Pocahontas. This will be the film of reference in relation to analyzing the romanticized Native American. We are aware that Disney's Pocahontas is addressed first and foremost to children, which could in part account for this simplified view of Native Americans. In the first scene, we are presented to the Indians canoeing back to their tribe. The women are picking corn for the gathering, men are hunting fish with spears, some children are playing together while others are watching a 'shaman’' making animal shapes in the fire. These activities are undertaken with a smile whilst they are chanting a song in colorful surroundings (Ebert, 1995). The underlying discourse concerning Native Americans as living in harmony with Nature is innocence. This is observable in relation to the passage a above. Representing Native Americans in a way which limits their lived situations to living peacefully in harmony with Nature depicts this. As stated in the chapter concerning stereotypes, the power of the stereotype takes place when it is unnoticed. At first sight, what seems less innocent than a portrayal of Indians living peacefully in touch with Nature? Innocence here is a strong discourse as it does not seem to hold any underlying threats, appearing transparent. The irony is that the more it appears to be innocent, the more power it holds. This way Disney is able to present their own depiction of Native Americans neglecting lived experiences, history and political contexts of Native Americans. This permits them to rewrite their own history. Due to the symbolic power of stereotypes, viewers will take these representations as being the truth. Their life does not appear to us as engaging in struggles, where the atmosphere is very peaceful and calm. This somewhat trivializes their customs and way of life, as it is not a complete representation of their culture, undermining aspects such as spirituality or communality to an innocent portrayal which . These are core aspects of Native American culture (Erwin: 2-3). There is a major source of power in their hands, as they can 'manipulate' happenings and portray them as they wish to due to the control over factual events and underlying discourses. Indeed, the story of Pocahontas as presented by Disney is not representative of the historical facts, but facts as mediated (detolddisney.wordpress).

This is an independent link story because in the AC, the aff states how the destruction of the environment of the indigenous communities cause the destruction of their culture. 

And, Their representations of indigenous people as having a pre-development way of life symbolically affirms the West as superior, hierarchically imposes essentialist views on other cultures, and transform the "primitive" into a spectacle – the way you frame your arguments matters

Minssieux 2 ~(Nelly Minssieux, Milene Minssieux and Kristoffer Sidenius) "The Impact of Essentialist Representations on the Native American in a Postcolonial Context" Project Report – Cultural Encounters, Fall 2013 – Supervisor: Prem Poddar, Senior Fellow at Zentrum Moderner Orient cultural and historical research institute~ AT
The postcolonial subject is one which has frequently been represented in relation to Western imperialist discourse, benefitting and reinforcing prevailing dominant power structures. (Moreira- Slepoy: 11) Postcolonial dynamics are characterised by underlying power distributions between the coloniser and colonised, where the former exerts his power and authority over the colonized. Interferences with what were generally indigenous cultures have been conducted in the name of development, out of good will to help the colonized achieve similar "civilized" ways as the colonizer himself. This civilizing process was achieved in part through the use of representation as a means of control by spreading Western Imperialist discourse through essentialist views. In philosophy, the essential properties of an object, in contrast to accidental properties, are qualities which are necessary to an object’s being, and without which it could not possibly ‘be’. They are thus essential to its existence. Accidental properties, however, refer to certain qualities which an object might possess, but might also not have possessed (Robertson). In relation to this, one might have an essentialist view on culture. This leads one to understanding cultural ways as natural (common knowledge), not recognizing social construct, which presents a danger when one tries to impose these ‘truths’ on a culture presenting differing ways of life. We will investigate the impact of stereotypes on a population, and its use as an effective medium of coercion. During imperialist times, European colonial power was not solely maintained through military means. In fact, representations of the colonial subject were used as a tool in promoting their discourse. (MOREIRA-SLEPOY: 2) The images circulating depicting the colonized were controlled and manipulated which was a powerful tool of coercion. According to Said, "...we live in a world not only of commodities but also of representations, and representations-their production, circulation, history, and interpretation are the very element of culture-" (MOREIRA-SLEPOY: 1) These representations have represented the colonized as a deviant Other, bringing him to a fixed and static position. For Homi Bhabha, fixity is: "...the sign of cultural/historical/racial difference in the discourse of colonialism, which is a paradoxical mode of representation: it connotes rigidity and an unchanging order as well as disorder, degeneracy and daemonic repetition" (IBID). Thus, this fixity is a strategy used by essentialist dominating powers to enforce their ways over the colonies through representation whilst ensuring a continuation of their discourse. The ensuring of one’s power through representation will be developed later in the chapter. In terms of the colonized responses to the representations, Dubois has proposed what she refers to as double consciousness, which is: "...a peculiar sensation, ~...~ this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness" (Du Bois: 3-4). What Dubois is claiming here is that when being oppressed, the colonised starts to look at themselves through the eyes of the colonisers, internalising the stereotyped constructions of their identity which leads to a mimicking of the colonizer’s ways. However, while the colonised feel an urge to comply with the dominant discourse, they also intuitively feel the need to find alternative ways of resisting. The postcolonial subject will unconsciously try to gain acceptance by internalizing the dominant essential discourses, thereby mimicking the representations viewed. In Homi Bhabha’s words, this mimicry may be understood as "one of the most elusive and effective strategies of colonial power and knowledge". He adds that this strategy aims at creating «a reformed, recognizable Other, as a subject of a difference that is almost the same, but not quite." This implies that the colonized should internalise and embody Western discourse, while however still remaining an Other. These ideological representations were, naturally, derogative, portraying the colonized as a degenerate or primitive being (Bhabha: 85-86). In terms of aesthetics, Western works were considered as surpassing any other forms of art. These were left unquestioned, considered as universal truths. In fact, Schwarz states that: "...a conception of art which views itself as transcending ideology even as it raises a single object, English literature, to the status of self- contained totality" to point to the essentialist views of the prior (Schwarz: 21). Binary thought is characteristic of imperialist discourse, and can be seen when a representation is made through divisions of Self/Other. This Othering can also be done through the representing of Others as a mythical or exotic creature. Edward Said has contributed greatly to this process which he terms Orientalisation: "The Orient was almost a European invention, and had been since antiquity a place of romance, exotic beings, haunting memories and landscapes, remarkable experiences" (Said: 87). Thus, the Occident/Orient dichotomy is a socially constructed one which has a history and tradition. These mechanisms of representation established through degradation or exoticism are employed to symbolically force subjects into internalizing dominant discourses, entering the collective consciousness of the people, thus reinforcing governing power relations. This is obviously an essentialist stance where one does not question essentially natural and habitual ways of life, enforcing them on others who ‘do not know better’. Through this binary way of perceiving, a hierarchical view where the self is perceived as superior to the Other is established. The self is also the ‘normal’ one, and in this sense, the Other is a sort of alien. In this section, we will make a brief historical overview of the west ́s hegemonic power over the Native Americans. The image we have of the Native Americans today is a simplified western construction which is not adequate with the complexity of Native American culture, history and their self-representations. (Harlan et al: 202) This demonstrates the way power can be used to enforce dominant ideologies. In Robert Berkhoffer's The White Man’s Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present he writes that: "Since Whites primarily understood the Indian as an antithesis to themselves, then civilization and Indianness as they defined them would forever be opposites." (Robert Berkhofer, Jr., The White Man’s Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present, New York: First Vintage Books Edition, A Division of Random House, 1979, p. 29) Indians exist not as having their holistic culture and history but as a dichotomy to us, and therefore dependent on us. If the Indian exists only in relation to being what 'white is not', then the Indian is truly Indian if he remains excluded from civilization and maintains his traditional culture. He is therefore an ahistorical and decontextualized being. When American anthropology developed in the 1890's, artifact collecting became popular amongst intellectuals. Later, in the twentieth century, tourism expanded and the general public started collecting artifacts. According to Brody and Garmhausen, it is between 1900 and 1917 that white intervention amongst Native art began in the Southwest (Harlan et al: 217). Anthropologists or Indian traders went to various Indian tribes and provided the Natives with material for painting. They were asked to make paintings regarding tribal ceremonies. These paintings were bought and exhibited at museums or used for research. These paintings are therefore not 'authentic' in relation to the western definition of authentic which is not influenced by Western culture. They are paintings seeking to please the white market. By the 1920's, there were over a dozen of Indians who produced these 'Native paintings' for white customers in areas such as in Santa Fe, Taos and New Mexico. Two of these became a market which remains the largest 'Indian art' venues today (Gallup Inter Tribal Indian Ceremonial and Santa Fe Indian Market) (IBID). A larger event was held in 1931 in New York. This National Indian Art show emphasized that Indians were a dying race and that their culture needed preserving. As the demand for Native art increased, more Indians participated in the making of this art (IBID). From the 1930's onwards, art was seen as a process for economic growth. For this reason, art, which assured the continuation of 'Native art' was incorporated into boarding schools as part of the curriculum (Harlan et al: 216). The Santa Fe boarding school is an example of this. The teachers were non Native American and taught Native American students to use techniques and subjects which conformed to the idea of the Vanishing Indian. This school aimed to preserve Indian art through techniques which were said to be ‘authentic’. Dorothy Dunn, the director of the Santa Fe art school decided that the art produced was to be sold exclusively for the Indian Market. This way of making art was known as the Studio style. The students were told to look in their backgrounds for tribal themes to depict and were refused any other topic. The subjects were traditional ceremonial and tribal scenes, and plants and animals, using a flat, decorative, linear style. (Ojibwa) It is important to note that although Dorothy Dunn scholarized the studio style to fit the demands of the white market, several techniques were already present in Native American culture before the arrival of settlers. For example, she introduced the use of earth color paintings in 1933 to reproduce the colors traditionally used in painting pottery and ceremonial objects. (Ojibwa) example of a studio-style painting, by Joe Herrera, Cochiti "Men’s arrow Dance" 1938 In 1959, The Rockefeller conference took place at the university of Arizona. The aim of this conference was to discuss ways to preserve and expand Southwest Indian art. Dorothy Dunn supported the idea that Indian studio style art was ahistorical:."Indian painting is, first of all, art, but in the greater implications of human relationships and history it is something more—something perhaps of a genetic aspect in the riddle of mankind. Unless the legends, songs, ceremonies, and other native customs are recorded by the people themselves, painting must continue to be the principal contributor of Indian thought to the world art and history." (Harlan et al: 219) Dorothy Dunn is placing the Indians beyond history and context thus bringing them to a more universal and mystical level of mankind. Lloyd New went against the ideas held by the conference concerning the idea of the vanishing Indian: "Let’s admit, sadly if you must, that the hey-dey of Indian life is past, or passing. Let’s also admit that art with all peoples has been a manifestation of the lives of those people, reflecting the truth of the times. And if Indian culture is in a state of flux then we must expect a corresponding art" (IBID). In the late fifties and early sixties, there was a shift in Indian Art. Until then, it had only been outsiders who spoke on behalf of Native American culture. This started changing slowly. In October 1959, workshops were organized by organizers of the University of Arizona for young Indian artists. It was in order to help the younger generation during a time of conflict between traditional and contemporary viewpoints. The workshops did not only focus on Indian painting as seen in the Studio Art movement. They learned from both Indian anthropological resources and historic and contemporary Western art sources and were taught by both Indian and Anglo instructors (IBID). In 1962, the Santa Fe boarding school was replaced by the Institute of American Indian Arts (also known as IAIA). Three Native American instructors were hired as instructors of the school. They broadened the fields of Native Arts so it did not only encompass painting. This period was known as the post-studio style and golden period. American Indian studies later became available at universities which caused competition for the IAIA. Modern artists began detaching themselves from the techniques of the industry and developed their own techniques. The art produced was for a larger audience, in opposition to the Studio Style. New artists became renowned for being artists and not only Native Artists. Furthermore, by the mid- 2000s a new generation of artists started to create socially critical works (Harlan et al: 221). Museums have broadened the boundaries of Indian Arts so that they are in accordance with modernity (and not only the 'authentic' Indian image from the Indian Market.) This is the case of the exhibition New maternities in a post Indian world at the National Museum of the American Indian (IBID). This museum collaborates with Native communities and gives place to the voices of contemporary Indigenous as exhibitions are from the Native perspective. Theory of Representation of Stereotypes Stereotyping is defined as a "one-sided characterization of others, and as a general process, stereotyping is a unilinear mode of representing them." (Pickering: 47). The two stereotypes which are relevant in relation to the case of Native American representation are the concepts of the 'Other' and the 'primitive', which is derived from the former. As shall be investigated further in the project, Native Americans have been subjected to various stereotypes. Stereotypes are strong tools of representation as they allow symbolic control over the one who is stereotyped. As we have seen in the previous chapter, stereotypes are maintained by those in power. They have the ability to "reduce everything about the person to those traits, exaggerate and simplify them, and fix them without change or development to eternity" (Hall, 1997: 258). As a symbolic process it is effective, as people can take it as being true. Firstly, we shall attempt to explain that due to its naturalized appearance the stereotype can be efficient and thus create a symbolic control over the other. Secondly, we shall establish the various ways in which it maintains symbolic control. These manifest themselves partly through symbolic expulsion of the ‘Other’. The control over space and time is an important aspect here. This is primarily the case in the stereotyping of the primitive. We shall see that control over time and space leads to a denial of history. Stereotyping involves a process of objectification of the ‘Other’, which leaves the other in a position where his cultural identity will be damaged with no possibility for change. Stereotypes are able to have an effect on both those stereotyping and those being stereotyped. It is for this reason that we can speak of a symbolic control. It is not the stereotype in itself which is powerful, but the legitimacy that people grant it. When people start taking it as being true and act in accordance to it, the power of the stereotype takes place. As we have formerly observed, power relations play a role on representations. This is in relation to the hegemonic relations and structures within a society(ies). Bourdieu states that: "The cultural arbitrary is used by dominant groups or classes because it expresses completely although always in a mediated way the objective and material interests of the dominant group" (Rajan: 139). This means that representations can appear to us as natural, as they reflect underlying power relations. Indeed, due to the power relations at play, what is culturally arbitrary takes on a quasi- cognitive dimension, as if they could be demonstrated objectively or separately from culture (Pickering :70). If stereotypes take on a naturalized form, then they can hardly change. The association with essentialism is clear here. Cultural values take on naturalized dimensions and appear to have an innate and universal existence rather than taken as being cultural constructs (Merriam-Webster). Therefore, the stereotype appears to us as 'true' and ‘transparent'. The stereotype then reaches a neutral level and is disguised. It needs to be masked in order to exercise its power (Pickering: 70). The construction of the ‘Other’ can be explained in relation to power relations. In relation to hegemony, those who possess the power have the ability to regulate the norms of society in their interest. In order to maintain their position, they ensure the exclusion of those who do not possess power. (Hugh). Those who do not fit into society’s norms are deviants. They do not go unnoticed. For "what is taken as normal is usually taken for granted and left unquestioned" (Pickering: 70). The opposite also applies that what is not normal or deviant is noticed. In The Second Sex, de Beauvoir illustrates this in relation to gender: "He is the Subject, he is the Absolute - she is the ‘Other’" (Pickering: 64). This could be applied to other social categories such as race, ethnicity etc. Those who possess the power possess the means to construct the discourses. They define themselves in contrast to the ‘Others’. The ‘Others’ do not have the means of defining themselves, but instead identify themselves through the dominant groups’ self-definition. This is a denial of identity as it "...divests them of their social and cultural identities by diminishing them to their stereotyped definitions." (Pickering: 73). Furthermore, this recognition of oneself as ‘Other’ violates individual autonomy and independence as the subject is objectified as complementary to another subject in order to be. Stereotyping can thereafter cast the 'Other' on the social periphery. By distancing the 'Other', it unifies the sense of social identity of the ones placed at the symbolic center. The need for this symbolic centrality suggests two causes: "...either a fear of what cannot be admitted into an ordered identity, or a critical lack, an absence in the presence of identity which demands that the other be turned into an object of happy assimilation" (Pickering: 49) It can be said that the 'Other' is accomplishing the needs of solving fantasies of those engaged in the process of stereotyping. In this way, stereotypes reveal more about the ones stereotyping than the one being stereotyped: "The Other is always constructed as an object for the benefit of the subject who stands in a need of an objectified other in order to achieve a masterly self-definition" (Pickering: 71) Defining the Other is first and foremost to define the self. In order to understand the construction of the stereotype of the primitive, it is necessary to look back into history to when the term was first used, as the view on the primitive today is still based on this imperial history (Pickering: 52). The term primitive is the binary opposite of the term modernity. The notion of the 'primitive' became widely used in the nineteenth century (though it had existed since the Columbian times (Pickering: 51). As the concept of the 'Other', the primitive fulfilled the task of mirroring the West, more particularly in their own development. The primitive is seen as antithesis to development. Darwin's evolutionism was an important contribution to the transition from the traditional to the modern society (Pickering: 52). This led to an interest in studying 'primitive' societies, which lacked any sense of development concerning empirical and rational knowledge. The primitive was therefore the opposite of the civilized modern individual. Founded on evolutionism was the eugenics movement, initiated by Francis Galton who justified superiority of races by stating that physically inherent characteristics had bred Europeans into modern civilized beings (Pickering: 53). The dominion of Europeans over other less scientifically developed cultures was confirmed and the existence of races confirmed. The construction of races carries many consequences. Along with it is the idea that the 'primitive' cultures lack the innate abilities to develop, which Europeans have. This legitimizes Europeans' right to control these cultures, in order to develop them. It also puts the West at the symbolic center and every other culture on the margin due to being modern and therefore superior. We can note that due to the fact that the primitives serve as a mirror for Western development, Darwin's theory of Evolution brought a hierarchical model within social development where development was the dynamic of evolution (with the West at one end and the primitive cultures at the other). According to this thought, every culture goes through the same stages in relation to this scale of progress, following the path of Europe. This brings every culture as dependent to the West on an inferior level, as they will all follow the same stages of development the West has undergone. The Other serves to indicate how far Western civilization has developed. The West is therefore the reference point to other cultures as it is the most developed. These cultures serve the purpose of a "living fossil" for the West, as a mirror of the stage that Europe had gone through long ago. They are in fact so underdeveloped that they represent a form of human existence which is"...backward, unchanging, simple form of human existence which the West had long left behind" (Pickering: 54). As the primitive is placed into the past of the West, it creates a division in time around the globe where different cultures are living in different times. Living in the past does not leave space for them to change their position on a symbolic level. We can notice a temporalization of geographical spaces. As mentioned above, temporality is divided in stages regarding the Western model of modernity. The primitive is so underdeveloped that he does not have a place on the scale. Consequently, he is denied time. If he is denied time, then follows that he is denied history (Pickering: 56). It places them in a different time than the present of the producers of the discourse, which further excludes them. The ‘Others’ are symbolically muted by being in the past of the production of discourse. Primitives were exhibited as spectacles in Europe, such as African tribes as the 'Kaffir' in London in 1853 or bushmen displayed as little above monkeys (Pickering: 58). The exhibitions were degrading for these cultures. They permitted the West to keep a control over the 'unknown' savage. The savagery under spectacle is under control this way. The primitive makes its way into popular culture, as it is accessible and familiarized by the general population and made real in popular minds. This is a case of the happy assimilation of the unknown to fit the society's needs and adapt it as an object of fascination. Furthermore, it brings forth the development of the West.

This also turns case as the AC renders indigenous culture as primitive and inoffensive, which essentializes and justifies exclusion and mass violence

Minssieux 3 ~(Nelly Minssieux, Milene Minssieux and Kristoffer Sidenius) "The Impact of Essentialist Representations on the Native American in a Postcolonial Context" Project Report – Cultural Encounters, Fall 2013 – Supervisor: Prem Poddar, Senior Fellow at Zentrum Moderner Orient cultural and historical research institute~ 
Additionally, as mentioned earlier, a stereotype is usually made when the Other is perceived as a threat. According to Hall, infantilization is a key method used in this case, emphasizing the menace. Here, we have a clear discourse of innocence which can directly be linked to this infantilization process where the Indian is rendered inoffensive. This might be due to the fact that "hybridity" was perceived as the worst alienation, the colonizers thereby fearing the natives as a threat to their integral culture. The fact that the tribes were placed in reservations and not integrated within the settler society strongly reinforces this. It might not be the case that there is still this fear of ‘racial degeneration’ today, however, as stated earlier, imperialist discourses are still present in our modern society. There is another important aspect involved in representing Native Americans as living peacefully and innocently with Nature which involves symbolic control over the 'other'. In films, it is easy to note contrasts between the Natives and settlers (as these films often take place during the discovery of the New World). This can be observed in the 'primitiveness' of the Natives and the 'modernism' and 'development' of the Settlers. In Pocahontas, The settlers appear with their ships, guns, metal armor and other items representative of the modernized world. In contrast the Indians are represented as wearing animal clothing, fighting with spears and archery and believing in 'magic'. This lack of technology on the Natives' side clearly explicates that they are inferior to the settlers as they are in no way a threat to them. Indeed, if desired they can be killed at any time.

It also results in radical exclusion and domination of indigenous people

Minssieux 4 ~(Nelly Minssieux, Milene Minssieux and Kristoffer Sidenius) "The Impact of Essentialist Representations on the Native American in a Postcolonial Context" Project Report – Cultural Encounters, Fall 2013 – Supervisor: Prem Poddar, Senior Fellow at Zentrum Moderner Orient cultural and historical research institute~ 
In the chapter concerning stereotypes, we have elicited how primitives are denied history as they are refused a place on the scale which divides time according to stages of progress. As we have observed, Indians have often been depicted as living in conditions which are contrary to progress. They are thus denied time. This is a symbolic exclusion. Due to not having a past or history, they are 'fixed' in a stagnating notion of time. It does not leave them the possibility for change. They are left symbolically excluded from our globalized society with no chances of belonging to it. The stereotype is therefore serving the function of symbolically excluding the 'Other' and maintaining him excluded

How you should view this piece of argument is that this turns the AC’s winter and leighton Framing argument as the aff just re-entrenches the domination of indigenous communities and creates the moral exclusion of indigenous people. 

Our alternative is to reject the AC for fluid cultural identity – vote neg to endorse cultural difference as socially constructed and historically contingent – only this can solve

Minssieux 5 ~(Nelly Minssieux, Milene Minssieux and Kristoffer Sidenius) "The Impact of Essentialist Representations on the Native American in a Postcolonial Context" Project Report – Cultural Encounters, Fall 2013 – Supervisor: Prem Poddar, Senior Fellow at Zentrum Moderner Orient cultural and historical research institute~ 
Stuart Hall gives an analysis of what cultural identity is and stands for and how it is constructed and its complexities. He states that there are at least two different ways of thinking about cultural identity (Hall, 1993: 223). The first of these two, which Hall acknowledges but doesn’t favor, understands identity as individuals bound together by either ethnicity or race, who share a common history and that this history is fixed and unchangeable. This fixed history, he says, gives common points of references and frames of meaning. Hall uses Frantz Fanon in explaining that the colonizing power "distorts", "disfigures" and "destroys" the past of a colonized people, and therefore that a rediscovery of a beautiful past is very important to postcolonial societies. Hall also states that colonizing power even has the power to make the colonized people see themselves as others (Hall, 1993: 225). Hall discusses if the search for a beautiful past is not only a rediscovery of a past, but that it also serves another purpose: an attempt to retell the past. He states that: "‘Hidden histories’ have played a critical role in the emergence of many of the most important social movements of our time - feminist, anti-colonial and anti-racist" (Hall, 1993: 224). One can have a tendency to think of identity as an already established and finished product, but Hall’s view on cultural identity differs: "Instead of thinking of identity as an already accomplished fact, which the new cultural practices then represent, we should think, instead, of identity as a ‘production’, which is never complete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside, representation. This view problematizes the very authority and authenticity to which the term, ‘cultural identity’, lays claim" (Hall: 222). Hall recognizes that people can share many similarities, but that we can’t really say that there exists any ‘one experience’ or identity; cultural Identity is historical but it is still in ‘constant transformation’ and is "...subject to the continuous ‘play’ of history, culture and power" (Hall, 1993: 225)
Continues
Through the project we have seen how essentialist views with myth of purity have shaped western understandings of the Other, and thus representations of the Other. As previously argued, these views have advanced the Other in binary terms and alleged him to a fixed position, where stereotypes were beneficial strategies to promote these visions whilst ensuring the maintenance of power. In fact, this position does not allow space for change. Common essentialist stereotypes included infantilization, authentication, villainization and fetishism. These simplified versions of the natives served to attenuate the threat of a eugenic population which haunted the white colonizers at the time, and are still present now. Furthermore, as discussed in the chapter on Representation, when the Other is not understood, he is ‘translated’ as These essentialist ways of perceiving still dominate our understanding of the Others now, where imperialism is embedded within the collective consciousness of the people. In order to confront the static and derogatory position which the native has been subject to, responses to this essentialist way of representing have been made. One way of countering essentialist representations is to call for hybridity. In fact, the term is enticing, calling for the refusal of a fixed position and providing an alternative to binary thinking, agency for the oppressed and a destructuring of power (Prabhu: 1). This seems to be a relevant and beneficial tool to counter dominant and oppressive discourses in a postcolonial context. The discussion will aim to examine this aspect of Native American responses to mainstream representations, namely how hybridity is used to counter common essentialist views on cultures. To understand how this is done, we will study two photographs taken by the American Indian artists Hulleah Tsinhnahjinnie and Zig Jackson, who are renowned for their use of irony in playing with the Indian stereotype. We will now demonstrate how the selected photographies support hybridity.