Verbatim 4.6

Possible Plan Texts

1) The United States federal government should fulfill its treaty obligations to the Makah Indian Tribe in the area of cultural whaling.2) The United States federal government should fulfill its treaty obligations to the Makah Indian Tribe in the area of subsistence hunting of gray whales3) United States federal government should eliminate restrictions on whale hunting by the Makah Indian Tribe.4) The United States federal government should fulfill its 1885 Treaty of Neah Bay obligations to the Makah Indian Tribe in the area of cultural whaling.

1AC

The 1885 Treaty of Neah Bay granted the Makah Tribe the right to subsistence hunting of gray whales, but a complicated and frustrating legal history has continuously undermined those rights. Currently, the Makah are waiting for an Environmental Impact Statement to be drafted to grant them the right to whale.Gottlieb 12, Penninsula Daily News, Paul, US halts Makah whaling study after seven years over new scientific information, Penninsula Daily News, http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20120523/NEWS/305239987/us-halts-makah-whaling-study-after-seven-years-over-new-scientific)//EDNEAH BAY A 7-year-old study on the potential environmental impact of Makah whaling is being ditched, the federal government announced. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and Department of Commerce issued a notice to terminate the draft environmental impact statement Monday. This is the latest development in lengthy legal battles over the Makah tribe's treaty right to hunt whales and comes only days after the 13th anniversary of a Makah whaling crew legally killing a gray whale off Neah Bay. The agencies said they will start again, based on new evidence indicating that what opponents call resident gray whales off the Washington coast may be a genetically distinct, smaller cetacean subpopulation that needs to be managed and protected separately from the overall population of Eastern North Pacific gray whales. A new study will be prepared in light of substantial new scientific information, the notice said. The new draft environmental impact, which will replace a draft begun in 2005 and completed in 2008, likely will not be completed until 2013, NOAA spokesman Brian Gorman said Tuesday. I'm sure the Makah are tapping their feet, saying, 'When is this going to end?' Gorman said. Tribal Chairman Micah McCarty said Monday the Neah Bay-based tribe may release a prepared statement about the federal notice. Scrapping the draft EIS may further delay a determination on the tribe's 2005 request for a limited waiver of a whaling moratorium imposed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The waiver would allow the tribe to exercise its right to hunt whales under the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay. The Makah are the only tribe in the United States with a treaty expressly guaranteeing the right to whale. The tribe's whaling tradition dates back at least 1,500 years. Tribal members voluntarily stopped hunting whales in the late 1920s when they became endangered. When the animals came off the endangered species list in 1994, the tribe again sought to exercise its right to whale. On May 17, 1999, Makah tribal members in a cedar canoe successfully harpooned a 30-foot gray the tribe's first whale in more than 70 years amid anti-whaling demonstrations. There was an unsuccessful whale hunt in 2000 before court cases put the tribe's hunts on hold indefinitely. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that in order to hunt again, the tribe needed a waiver from the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The ruling was reaffirmed in 2004. An illegal hunt in September 2007 resulted in the death of gray whale, federal prison sentences for two Makah tribal members and demands by some wildlife and animal-rights groups that the tribe be forever banned from whaling. The new federal notice includes five alternatives: no action; waive the moratorium; allow hunting in offshore waters at least 3 miles from shore; a June 1-Nov. 30 hunt only; and an adaptive management hunt that would allow flexibility in permit terms, hunting seasons, allowable levels of whales struck and lost, and flexibility in landed whales up to the levels proposed by the tribe. NOAA's notice is simply giving more information to the public on how the agency is going to respond to the waiver application, Seattle attorney Brian Gruber, representing the tribe, said Tuesday. The notice does not make any conclusions about any of the science, he added. But whaling opponent Margaret Owens of Joyce, a co-founder of Peninsula Citizens for the Protection of Whales, said the new studies prove there are resident whales that ply the Washington coast that must be protected. They are genetically distinct, which means those mothers have been bringing their calves here for so many untold generations, Owens said. They are a legitimate subpopulation that needs to be managed separately from the main group, she said. New scientific evidence regarding the whale population that would be hunted by the Makah also might force the tribe to reapply for the whaling-moratorium waiver, Gorman said. The tribe wants to harvest up to 20 gray whales from the Eastern North Pacific gray whale population in any five-year period to a maximum of five whales annually. But a new feeding group has entered the picture: the Pacific Coast Feeding Group of whales. It is a subgroup of Eastern North Pacific whales that Gorman said was not known to exist in 2005, when the Makah applied for the waiver. In addition to denying them the right to whale, the history of the Makah tribe is weighted with an onslaught of cultural oppression and assimilation by the United States federal government.Miller 01 Robert, Exercising Cultural Self-Determination: The Makah Indian Tribe Goes Whaling, American Indian Law Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (2000/2001), pp. 165-273, University of Oklahoma College of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20070661.)//EDD. Federal Cultural Oppression and Assimilation The Anglo/American view of property, culture and religion differs radically from Native American viewpoints. Not surprisingly, the culture of the United States clashed with the Makah culture.181 In fact, the Makah suffered through overt cultural oppression under the guise of the various federal Indian policies adopted by the United States and through other policies which were specifically aimed at the Makah. In the first instance, the extent of the Makah territory and sovereign rights were limited under its treaty with the United States.182 Second, under the federal policy of assimilation, the Makah suffered an active and direct campaign to destroy their culture, religion, families, and government because those were the goals of the United States in the allotment and assimilation era.183 Finally, the Makah suffered specific actions by the federal Indian agents located at the Neah Bay Agency on the Makah Reservation to destroy the Makah language, families, culture and traditions.184 These types of federal actions were a serious and common problem throughout Indian country because only in the 1930s and even up to the 1950s did the federal government and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) rescind regulations prohibiting reservation Indians, who supposedly were living on their own lands, from wearing long hair, performing their religious ceremonies, and living their own lives.185 And it was well into the 1950s before the government stopped trying to eradicate Indian languages.186 In essence, the federal government did not act like Indian tribes were living on their own lands and according to their own cultures and religions. Instead, the United States acted more as if Indians were in prisons where the government could control every aspect of their lives.187 1. Cultural and Religious Oppression For over one hundred years, the federal government purposely tried to alter every aspect of Makah culture. The ultimate goal of the United States "was the complete assimilation of the ... Makahs into American society in as short a time as possible."188 The government wanted to transform the Makah culture and substitute its way of life with the American culture. The reports of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs demonstrated that the "official policy . . . [of] ruthless benevolence" was designed to extinguish the "Indianness" of all Indians and teach them "civilized" ways.189 As an example, notwithstanding Governor Stevens' promise to assist the Makah in their whaling and fishing economy, federal pressure was placed on the Makah to become farmers.190 The federal government tried to "civilize" the Makah Tribe by taking its culture, its religion, and its traditions.191 In a concerted and calculated strategy the federal agents stationed at the Neah Bay Indian Agency tried to wipe out the Makah language, and tried to withdraw the children from their culture and families and raise them as "white" children.192 The federal agents worked to completely change even the most basic parts of Makah life. The agents discouraged the longhouse style of communal living and helped Makahs build single family homes and tear down the remaining longhouses.193 Agents would visit Makahs in their homes to observe and to correct perceived deficiencies, such as encouraging the Makah to dress like white citizens.194 The federal agents tried to control every single aspect of Makah life, outlawing tribal games and dances and setting standards for Makah sexual life, and punishing any violators.195 Furthermore, the American legal system, with courts, judges and police, was imposed on the Tribe.196 The federal agents even interfered with the Tribe's internal class and governmental system by selecting the men who would serve as chiefs.197 The agents also tried to alter Makah ownership rights regarding coastal and ocean fishing sites.198 Even the Makah traditional healing methods were banned by the agents and Makah doctors were threatened with imprisonment.199 The government suppressed other cultural activities, such as the traditional Cloqually dances, because the agents considered them "heathenish and barbarous."200 The government even tried to end the tribal tradition of potlatching. The Indian agents tried to stop this activity because they thought it was not a good tradition.201 "Activities of a ceremonial or ritual nature were discouraged or prohibited. . . . Potlatches, gambling games, the performance of Indian dances were usually forbidden. The ceremonies of the secret religious and curing societies were . . . banned altogether."202 In Washington State in the 1880s, the United States made a special attempt to civilize Indians by "banning traditional native practices" and public gatherings, including dancing, gambling, and spiritual activities, and by requiring reservation Indians to carry identification cards.203 The Makah resisted the denial of their political, religious, and First Amendment rights by going underground with some potlatch and cultural and spiritual traditions or by reorganizing their traditional ceremonies around American holidays like Christmas, birthday parties, and Independence Day or by incorporating them into Christian practices.204 The Makah also resisted this oppression by traveling to Tatoosh Island, just off the tip of Cape Flattery, to hold ceremonies notwithstanding the threats of imprisonment.205 2. Attacks on Makah Families The United States agents at the Makah Reservation "concentrated their efforts on isolating the children from contact with tribal life and on indoctrinating them with American culture."206 The government literally tried to destroy Makah family life as part of its attempt to alter Makah culture and assimilate them into white society.207 The federal agents at Neah Bay wanted to segregate tribal members over fifty-five from the rest of the families because the agents thought that younger Indians would never learn civilized ways if they were being influenced and taught by their elders.208 At school, children were punished for speaking the Makah language and were taught to ridicule and to be ashamed of their own families, culture, and language.209 Boarding schools were used at Makah from roughly 1870-1940 the same as in the rest of Indian country to teach Indian children civilized ways and to eradicate Indian culture.210 Makah families were forced to send their children to the boarding school at Neah Bay or the parents would be arrested.211 The mandatory schooling at Neah Bay is the main reason why some of the other Makah villages came to be abandoned because families wanted to be near their children at school.212 In addition, in 1874, the Makah boarding school was purposely moved and located further away from the nearest village to stop any home influence of Makah culture on the children and to take the children "entirely out of barbarous surroundings and put them in the midst of a civilized Christian home."213 Makah children were then forced to attend school from seven to fourteen years of age, and the schools were usually conducted year round with only a few hours a week at home.214 "Where possible, [children] were prevented from acquiring the culture of their elders."215 The children were dressed in American clothing, taught the English language and American games, and forced to accept the Christian religion.216 This deliberate attack on Makah family life succeeded in weakening Makah culture because it alienated these generations of Makah children to some extent from their culture and families.21The Treaty of Neah Bay grants the Makah rights to cultural whaling that should not be denied on any basisHuelsback and Pine, 07 Huelsbeck has worked with the Makah for 30 years on archaeology and educational projects.Working with the Makah Cultural and Research Center, he has brought PLU students to Neah Bay to learn about Makah Culture January for the last 12 years.Pine has taught anthropology for 9 years.She took a class to Neah Bay last January to learn about the heroic efforts being made by the Makah Language Program to restore their language to health.Both are faculty at Pacific Lutheran University.(Huelsback and Pine, Respect the Makah Culture and the Whales http://www.plu.edu/anthropology/Makah--Neah-Bay/Respect-Makah-Culture/home.php http://www.plu.edu/anthropology/Makah--Neah-Bay/Respect-Makah-Culture/home.php)//EDAll humans view things through the lens of culture, and no one has a monopoly on the right way of looking at things. Some non-Makah feel that hunting whales is wrong. They have every right to feel that way. In our society, however, we expect vegetarians to accept the dietary practices of those who eat meat. We do not prohibit the consumption of pork or seafood because some of us believe these foods should not be consumed. Prohibiting Makah whale hunting would be a much more extreme than a mere dietary prohibition, it would deny the Makah a central element of their cultural heritage. For thousands of years, Whale has nourished the Makah. Excavation at the Makah village of Ozette revealed that whale accounts for as much as 85 percent of all of the food represented by the recovered food remains. Few sites older than Ozettes 1500 years have been sampled, but whale bones are common in sites of human activity as much as 4,000 years old. Makah Culture is alive. Their identity as whalers is an important part of the living culture. Although more than 70 years had passed since the last whale hunt in the 1920s, members of whaling families knew what they were supposed to do physically and spiritually to prepare for the revived hunt in 1999. The tribe selected the image of Thunderbird carrying a whale for the Tribal flag. Thunderbird hunts whales like an eagle hunts salmon and in the distant past, Thunderbird taught the Makah how to hunt whales. Traditional belief holds that if whale hunters are properly prepared both physically and spiritually, then Whale will give itself to them. To characterize Whale offering this gift as a victim asking for it (Bergman TNT 9/16) betrays a complete lack of cultural understanding and is deeply offensive. For the Makah, Whale is not a subordinate species under the dominion of Man, but rather a powerful, intelligent, generous entity who graciously provides food and material for various uses to the Makah people. The hunt on 9/8 violated tribal law, taking place without the required tribal authorization. It will be dealt with in Tribal Court where the penalties for violating tribal hunting regulations can be severe. Hunting gray whales is legal, a right that existed before the 1855 treaty with the U.S. that is guaranteed to the Makah by the treaty. The 1994 amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act states that Nothing in this Act is intended to alter any treaty with Indian Tribes. The gray whale no longer is endangered; the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission estimated in 2002 that more than 400 whales a year could be sustainably harvested annually. The Makah are proposing to take no more than 5 whales per year. The tribe has a strong record of managing their natural resources to enhance the resource base, including timber, fish, and wild life. The continued practice of many important aspects of Makah Culture requires a healthy natural environment. These efforts help to protect the marine environment of the region. It is not in the Makahs interest to harm the gray whale population; they have a detailed management plan based on strong natural resource conservation principles. Non-Makah are in no way obliged to adopt Makah practices or to become Makah, but neither are the Makah in any way obliged to cease to be Makah. Once, not all that long ago, Europeans did attempt to oblige the Makah and other Native Peoples to cease to exist. The continued existence of Native Americans is powerful evidence of the importance of identity to human beings. An assertion that the Makah should change their culture springs from an assumption that cultural difference is cosmetic, a stage dressing under which lies one universal way of being in the world. Anthropological research has taught us that, although we are universally human beings, members of the same species, there is no one universal human way of being in the world.Refusal to let the Makah people execute their cultural whaling practices is a violent form of Western colonialismKeshena 13 Canada-based Indigenous comrade of the Menominee Nation of Wisconsin and a member of the Uhuru Solidarity Movement. (Enaemaehkiw Tpac, The Makah Whaling Conflict andEco-Colonialism, http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/the-makah-whaling-conflict-and-eco-colonialism/)//EDTo a disturbing extent, whaling opponents have relied on colonialist or even racist arguments to develop opposition to the Makah whale hunt. These arguments follow themes that have existed since colonial times to maintain unequal power relationships between native and non-native peoples. Colonialism is not the immediate goal of anti-whaling organizations, and such arguments do not invalidate the other points raised by whaling opponents. As well, the actions and rhetoric of a few individuals and organizations cannot represent the beliefs and attitudes of an entire movement. However, I raise these arguments for criticism because I have not in my research come across a condemnation of the use of such colonialist arguments by whaling opponents, or even an indication that these arguments will not be used in the future.Native American political activity must be incited by outsiders because they cannot act by themselves. Whaling opponents such as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have frequently suggested that the Japanese are responsible for the Makah whale hunt. The only Japanese involvement in west coast whaling has been a $20,000 start-up grant for a Nuu-chah-nulth whaling organization, the World Council of Whalers. The Makah are not members of this organization. Ben Johnson (Makah Tribal Council) has said that Japan wanted to give us money, to help us buy boats, to show us how to kill the whales, everything.We said no because we knew it would be very controversial, and we want to do everything by the book. However, this lack of involvement has not stopped Sea Shepherds Paul Watson from explaining: The truth is that it is not the Makah who are our enemy. We were in Neah Bay to oppose the Japanese and the Norwegians, who manipulated the Makah into this situation. Sometimes strategy means having to fight an elusive enemy that takes on another guise in order to benefit the primary opposition. In this case, the Makah are pawns in a global Japanese chess game. Watson has not even accorded the Makah the status of co-conspirators in his chess match, instead drawing directly on an image of the Makah as a passive people easily manipulated by non-natives. This contradicts the statements of many Makah people, including Makah opponents of the hunt, about the importance of whaling and the reasons the Makah desire to hunt. Native American society can be reduced to a conflict between tradition and assimilation. Whaling opponents have extended their arguments about subsistence versus commercial whaling by speaking of a division between the Makah into traditional and assimilated camps. They suggest that Makah traditionalists oppose the hunt as something non-traditional, while the tribal council reputedly wants the hunt only for its economic potential. The Progressive Animal Welfare Society writes that though the tribe is divided over whaling, pro-whalers are in control of the tribal government. Opposition to whaling includes tribal elders. Strictly speaking, this is true, but the failure to note that elders also support the hunt clearly intends to feed into romantic stereotypes about traditional versus assimilated Indians. Non-natives know better than Native Americans what counts as authentic Indian culture. Whaling opponents have also opposed the hunt by suggesting that Makah cultural aspirations are inauthentic, usually in the process of telling the Makah what their culture was, is or ought to be. I really doubt that [the Makahs] ancestors would respect this modern day version of whale hunting, one woman writes. She continues: It is my understanding that native americans [sic] in the past have always taken (killed) animalsOnly [sic] as needed for survival and then in great respect and deep appreciation of the animal. This wanton act of killing certainly does not seem to be motivated by survival, respect for all of earths life forms, nor spirituality. This kind of romantic condemnation has been common historically in colonialist discourse about Native Americans. This opponent of the Makah hunt dismisses what the Makah say about themselves and their own experiences as if she possessed superior knowledge about the values and motivations of Native Americans. Technological change is cultural assimilation. Another favorite theme among animal rights activists is the assumption that technological change demonstrates the cultural assimilation of indigenous peoples. Speaking of the Makah, one whale tour operator writes: If they are so hell bent on going back to their roots, why the hell do they insist on: driving cars, using internal combustion engines, fibreglass, aluminum, roads, shopping centres, all the other stuff that has improved their lives since the coming of the White Man. Few people would confuse Americans and Japanese just because we share a fondness for Sony Playstations, yet the Makah are told their modernity proves they are no longer authentically Makah. More importantly, the Makah have a right to perpetuate their culture, adapting it to meet new needs. The Makah should not have to choose between putting their culture under glass, or abandoning it entirely in order to participate in American society and the world economy. If Native Americans disagree with non-natives, it is because they are barbaric. Whaling opponents often explain that the Makah must accept the progress and evolution of society. By this they mean the Makah must accept the forced end of whaling as the natural outcome of social evolution along with fibreglass and shopping centers. Sea Shepherd explains: A society can never evolve by adopting archaic or inhumane rituals. Progress affects everyone living in this new era of the Global Village. No legitimate argument can be made that the Makah, or any other ethnic group, can move their culture forward through ritual killing. This argument would be quite familiar to nineteenth century Americans, or to the European colonizers of any continent. It is exactly the same argument made under the banners of Manifest Destiny, assimilation policies, white supremacy and social Darwinism. Non-natives set a standard for cultural behavior in these arguments that only a small fraction of westerners follow (one estimate of vegetarians in the US places them at 12 million out of 248 million Americans). To lecture the Makah on ritual killing, while our society thinks nothing of killing chickens, cattle and pigs (with all the ritual precision of factory farms) seems hypocritical. Keith Johnson, President of the Makah Whaling Commission, calls this moral elitism. In short, whaling opponents frequently make colonialist arguments that delegitimize the Makahs right to whale by comparing the Makah unfavorably to an ahistorical and idealized portrait of Native Americans. Many non-natives appreciate in vague terms that Native Americans were in harmony with their environment. With our concern to create a environmentally sound culture and society, Native Americans form a ready target for the projection of our fears and fantasies. Just as long, of course, as real Native Americans with real needs do not intrude on these representations. Then an elaborate arsenal of colonialist arguments can be raised to suggest that it is not our own stereotypes but modern Native Americans who are wrong. Whatever one believes about the morality of whale hunting, these arguments are themselves an injustice to the Makah.The United States federal government should fulfill its 1885 Treaty of Neah Bay obligations to the Makah Indian Tribe in the area of cultural whaling.

Defense of treaty rights is VITAL to reclaiming indigenous sovereignty here and around the world and is the *cornerstone* of any effective struggle against other forms of oppressionChurchhill 97, (Ward, Suppression of Indigenous Sovereignty in 20th Century United States, Z MAGAZINE, http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/may97churchill.html)//EDThe route leading to an alternative destiny for native people is just as clear as that prescribed for us in the newly revised Draft Convention. By relentless and undeviating assertion of the basic rights of treatied peoplesat all levels, through every available venue, and excluding no conceivable means of doing sowe can begin to (re)secure them, restoring to ourselves and to our posterity our/their rightful status as sovereign and coequal members of the community of nations, free of such pretense as IRA-style "self-governance" and subterfuges like the 1975 "Indian Self-Determination" Act. Only by achieving success in this enterprise can we eventually position ourselves to tangibly assist our relatives in other quarters of the globe, untreatied and thus presently unrecognized as being imbued with the same self-determining rights as we, to overcome the juridical/diplomatic quandary in which this circumstance places them. Any such progression, of course, serves to incrementally disempower nation-states even as it steadily (re)empowers those upon whose subordination statism depends most heavily and directly for its very existence. This, for its part, undermines a cornerstone on which that rapidly metastasizing malignancy described by U.S. President George Bush in 1991 as constituting a "New World Order" is designed to rest. The inestimable benefit to all humanity deriving from a trajectory of this sort should be readily evident to anyone not already vested in the perpetuation of planetary business as usual, and may serve to explain why the agenda of indigenous liberation deserves the broadest imaginable prioritization and support among those who profess commitment to constructive sociopolitical and economic change.Failure to decolonize ensures our extinctionChurchill 99, (Ward, A Breach of Trust: The Radioactive Colonization of Native North America, AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURE AND RESEARCH JOURNAL v. 23 n. 4, ASP.)//EDIt is worth observing that the ensuing decolonization of Native North America would offer benefits to humanity extending far beyond itself. Every inch of territory and attendant resources withdrawn from U.S. "domestic" hegemony diminishes the relative capacity of America's corporate managers to project themselves outward via multilateral trade agreements and the like, consummating a New World Order in which most of the globe is to be subordinated and exploited in accordance with models already developed, tested, and refined through their applications to Indian country.(FN220) Overall, elimination of this threat yields the promise of an across-the-board recasting of relations between human beings, and of humans with the rest of nature, which is infinitely more equitable and balanced than anything witnessed since the beginnings of European expansionism more than 500 years ago.(FN221) In the alternative, if the current psychopolitical/socioeconomic status quo prevails, things are bound to run their deadly course. Felix Cohen's figurative miners will inevitably share the fate of their canary, the genocide they so smugly allow as an "acceptable cost of doing business" blending perfectly into their own autogenocide until the grim prospect of species extinction has at last been realized. There is, to be sure, a certain unmistakable justice attending the symmetry of this scenario ("What goes around, comes around," as Charles Manson liked to say).(FN222) But, surely, we--all of us, settlers and Natives--owe more to our future generations than to bequeath them a planet so thoroughly irradiated as to deny them the possibility of life itself.

Independently, the aff sparks global decolonization movements that are critical to averting environmental collapse and extinctionTinker 96 (George, Iliff School of Technology, 1996, Defending Mother Earth: Native American Perspectives on Environmental Justice, ed. Jace Weaver, p. 171-72)//EDMy suggestion that we take the recognition of indigenous sovereignty as a priority is an overreaching one that involves more than simply justice for indigenous communities around the world. Indeed, such a political move will necessitate a rethinking of consumption patterns in the North, and a shift in the economics of the North will cause a concomitant shift also in the Two-thirds World of the South. The relatively simple act of recognizing the sovereignty of the Sioux Nation and returning to it all state-held lands in the Black Hills (for example, National Forest and National Park lands) would generate immediate international interest in the rights of the indigenous, tribal peoples in all state territories. In the United States alone it is estimated that Indian nations still have legitimate (moral and legal) claim to some two-thirds of the U.S. land mass. Ultimately, such an act as return of Native lands to Native control would have a significant ripple effect on other states around the world where indigenous peoples still have aboriginal land claims and suffer the ongoing results of conquest and displacement in their own territories. American Indian cultures and values have much to contribute in the comprehensive reimagining of the Western value system that has resulted in our contemporary ecojustice crisis. The main point that must be made is that there were and are cultures that take their natural environment seriously and attempt to live in balance with the created whole around them in ways that help them not overstep environmental limits. Unlike the Wests consistent experience of alienation from the natural world, these cultures of indigenous peoples consistently experienced themselves as part of the that created whole, in relationship with everything else in the world. They saw and continue to see themselves as having responsibilities, just as every other creature has a particular role to play in maintaining the balance of creation as an ongoing process. This is ultimately the spiritual rationale for annual ceremonies like the Sun Dance or Green Corn Dance. As another example, Lakota peoples planted cottonwoods and willows at their campsites as they broke camp to move on, thus beginning the process of reclaiming the land humans had necessarily trampled through habitation and encampment. We now know that indigenous rainforest peoples in what is today called the state of Brazil had a unique relationship to the forest in which they lived, moving away from a cleared area after farming it to a point of reduced return and allowing the clearing to be reclaimed as jungle. The group would then clear a new area and begin a new cycle of production. The whole process was relatively sophisticated and functioned in harmony with the jungle itself. So extensive was their movement that some scholars are now suggesting that there is actually very little of what might rightly be called virgin forest in what had been considered the untamed wilds of the rainforest. What I have described here is more than just a coincidence or, worse, some romanticized falsification of Native memory. Rather, I am insisting that there are peoples in the world who live with an acute and cultivated sense of their intimate participation in the natural world as part of an intricate whole. For indigenous peoples, this means that when they are presented with the concept of development, it is sense-less. Most significantly, one must realize that this awareness is the result of self-conscious effort on the part of the traditional American Indian national communities and is rooted in the first instance in the mythology and theology of the people. At its simplest, the worldview of American Indians can be expressed as Ward Churchill describes it: Human beings are free (indeed, encouraged) to develop their innate capabilities, but only in ways that do not infringe upon other elements called relations, in the fullest dialectical sense of the word of nature. Any activity going beyond this is considered as imbalanced, a transgression, and is strictly prohibited. For example, engineering was and is permissible, but only insofar as it does not permanently alter the earth itself. Similarly, agriculture was widespread, but only within norms that did not supplant natural vegetation. Like the varieties of species in the world, each culture has contributed to make for the sustainability of the whole. Given the reality of eco-devastation threatening all of life today, the survival of American Indian cultures and cultural values may make the difference for the survival and sustainability for all the earth as we know it. What I have suggested implicitly is that the American Indian peoples may have something of values something corrective to Western values and the modern world system to offer to the world. The loss of these gifts, the loss of the particularity of these peoples, today threatens the survivability of us all. What I am most passionately arguing is that we must commit to the struggle for the just and moral survival of Indian peoples as peoples of the earth, and that this struggle is for the sake of the earth and for the sustaining of all life. It is now imperative that we change the modern value of acquisitiveness and the political systems and economics that consumption has generated. The key to making this massive value shift in the world system may lie in the international recognition of indigenous political sovereignty and self-determination. Returning Native lands to the sovereign control of Native peoples around the world, beginning in the United States, is not simply just; the survival of all may depend on it. Indigenous struggles must be the starting point for liberation its the only way to truly undermine worldwide capitalism and colonizationChurchill 97 (Ward, Suppression of Indigenous Sovereignty in 20th Century United States, Zmag Online http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/may97churchill.html)//ED The route leading to an alternative destiny for native people is just as clear as that prescribed for us in the newly revised Draft Convention. By relentless and undeviating assertion of the basic rights of treatied peoplesat all levels, through every available venue, and excluding no conceivable means of doing sowe can begin to (re)secure them, restoring to ourselves and to our posterity our/their rightful status as sovereign and coequal members of the community of nations, free of such pretense as IRA-style "self-governance" and subterfuges like the 1975 "Indian Self-Determination" Act. Only by achieving success in this enterprise can we eventually position ourselves to tangibly assist our relatives in other quarters of the globe, untreatied and thus presently unrecognized as being imbued with the same self-determining rights as we, to overcome the juridical/diplomatic quandary in which this circumstance places them. Any such progression, of course, serves to incrementally disempower nation-states even as it steadily (re)empowers those upon whose subordination statism depends most heavily and directly for its very existence. This, for its part, undermines a cornerstone on which that rapidly metastasizing malignancy described by U.S. President George Bush in 1991 as constituting a "New World Order" is designed to rest. The inestimable benefit to all humanity deriving from a trajectory of this sort should be readily evident to anyone not already vested in the perpetuation of planetary business as usual, and may serve to explain why the agenda of indigenous liberation deserves the broadest imaginable prioritization and support among those who profess commitment to constructive sociopolitical and economic change.Beginning with the Native populations of North America as a starting point to dismantle colonialism is key because of how they have been represented historically as discursively and ontologically Other. Friedberg 2K, author and political activist with a master's degree in the humanities from the University of Chicago and is currently a doctoral candidate in Germanic Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago. (Lillian, Dare to Compare: Americanizing the Holocaust, http://www.operationmorningstar.org/A_Holocaust_The_American_Brand.htm)//EDKatz argues that the Nazi Holocaust is "phenomenologically" unique based on the "merciless, exceptionless, biocentric intentionality of Hitler's 'war against the Jews.'"[ 22] Katz's argument centers on documented intentionality and governmental policy in the Nazi period. What Katz does not take into account is that a twelve-year period in a twentieth-century industrialized society lends itself more readily to documentation than a five-hundred-year period, most of which is historically and geographically situated in the midst of a preindustrial "virgin wasteland," nor does he significantly engage the discourse generated by Native American scholars in recent years. It does not, however, take a paragon of intellectual prowess to deduce an implied intent to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group," from the events that transpired in the process of"depopulating" the New World--a slaughter that Katz patently refuses to define as "genocide" even though it conforms precisely to the definition of the phenomenon as outlined by Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term in his 1944 Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.[ 23] The murder of 96 percent of any given population does not occur "inadvertently," especially when members of that group are viewed by their assassins as belonging to a separate (and inferior) national, ethnic, racial and religious order. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the introduction of diseases to the Native populations of North America was anything but an incidental byproduct of "westward expansion." In what is likely the world's first documented case of genocide accomplished by bacterial means, Lord Jeffrey Amherst suggested that smallpox-infected blankets be distributed to the Ottawa and Lenape peoples, stating in a 1763 letter to his subordinate, Colonel Henry Bouquet, "You will do well to [infect] the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this [execrable] race."[24] This statement indicates that the annihilation of the Indian population by way of disease was neither arbitrary nor incidental to the aims of the European settler population and its government. Even as early as 1763, the settler population and its sovereign representatives acted in full cognizance of the impact their introduction of disease would have on the Native populations. Stannard points out, with regard to the "enemy microbe" argument, that by focusing almost entirely on disease, by displacing responsibility for the mass killing onto an army of invading microbes, contemporary authors increasingly have created the impression that the eradication of those tens of millions of people was inadvertent--a sad, but both inevitable and "unintended consequence" of human migration and progress. This is a modern version of what Alexander Saxton recently has described as the "soft side of anti-Indian racism" that emerged in America in the nineteenth century and that incorporated "expressions of regret over the fate of the Indians into narratives that traced the inevitability of their extinction. Ideologically," Saxton adds, "the effect was to exonerate individuals, parties, nations, of any moral blame for what history had decreed." In fact, however, the near-total destruction of the Western Hemisphere's Native people was neither inadvertent nor inevitable.[25] Survivor testimony and statistical records from the Nazi death camps reveal that the uncontrolled spread of disease among inmates was also a major factor contributing to the death toll during the Nazi Holocaust, but that argument has never been forwarded in favor of exonerating the perpetrators--at least not in serious scholarship on the subject. If, as Yehuda Bauer contends, "[t] here was no governmental intention to exterminate the victim population" in the Americas, how else are we to understand the now well-known statement attributed to General Philip Henry Sheridan at Fort Cobb in January of 1889: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian?"[26] While Bauer concedes that "important figures in the U.S. administration expressed genocidal hopes and intentions," he still insists that "there was no clear governmental policy of total murder."[27] It would seem redundant, in this context, to point to the innumerable studies that have been conducted since 1945 in the attempt to ascertain whether or not Adolf Hitler himself had issued the order for the Final Solution. The introduction of diseases to indigenous populations was accompanied by a systematic destruction of "the indigenous agricultural base [in order to] impose starvation conditions upon entire peoples, dramatically lowering their resistance to disease and increasing their susceptibility to epidemics."[28] What is more, the ideology of Manifest Destiny is itself founded on an implied intent to kill--it is the "central constituent ideology translated into action" that Bauer posits as the defining characteristic that sets the Nazi Holocaust apart from all other genocidal campaigns in the history of humanity. Fortunately, pseudoscholarly revisionists who would deny the Nazi atrocities have been properly (and legally) excluded from legitimate academic and public discourse in many countries--Germany, Austria, France and Canada among them. But, As Ward Churchill has argued in A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492--Present: "the ugly enterprise of Holocaust denial has a flip side--indeed, a mirror image--which is equally objectionable but which has been anything but marginalized by the academy, popular media, or the public at large."[29] According to Churchill, exclusivists insisting on the uniqueness of the Nazi Holocaust succeed in "outstripping the neonazis" in terms of denial: Whereas the latter content themselves with denying the authenticity of a single genocidal process, exclusivists deny, categorically and out of hand, the validity of myriad genocides. Yet, unlike the neonazis, those holding to the postulates of Jewish exclusivism are not only treated as being academically credible, but are accorded a distinctly preferential treatment among the arbiters of scholarly integrity.[30] 2AC Impact Overview

Native American culture prevents global extinctionFriedberg 2K (Lilian, Executive Director Sojourner Truth Center for Ethnic Diversity, American Indian Quarterly, 24(3), Summer)But what is at stake today, at the dawn of a new millennium, is not the culture, tradition, and survival of one population on one continent on either side of the Atlantic. What is at stake is the very future of the human species. LaDuke, in her most recent work, contextualizes the issues from a contemporary perspective: Our experience of survival and resistance is shared with many others. But it is not only about Native people.. . . In the final analysis, the survival of Native America is fundamentally about the collective survival of all human beings. The question of who gets to determine the destiny of the land, and of the people who live on itthose with the money or those who pray on the landis a question that is alive throughout society.57 There is, as LaDuke reminds us, a direct relationship between the loss of cultural diversity and the loss of biodiversity. Wherever Indigenous peoples still remain, there is also a corresponding enclave of biodiversity. But, she continues, The last 150 years have seen a great holocaust. There have been more species lost in the past 150 years than since the Ice Age. (During the same time, Indigenous peoples have been disappearing from the face of the earth. Over 2,000 nations of Indigenous peoples have gone extinct in the western hemisphere and one nation disappears from the Amazon rainforest every year.) It is not about us as indigenous peoplesit is about us as a human species. We are all related. At issue is no longer the Jewish question or the Indian problem. We must speak today in terms of the human problem. And it is this problem for which not a final, but a sustainable, viable solution must be foundbecause it is no longer a matter of serial genocide, it has become one of collective suicide. As Terrence Des Pres put it, in The Survivor. At the heart of our problems is that nihilism which was all along the destiny of Western culture: a nihilism either unacknowledged even as the bombs fell or else, as with Hitler or Stalin, demonically proclaimed as the new salvation.Colonialism must be rejected its effects are more destructive than even the most intense warfareBarsh 93 (Russel, Professor of Native American Studies University of Lethbridge, United Nations Representative, Mikmaq Grand Council and Four Directions Council, Winter, 26 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 277, lexis)If there is a fundamental cause of American Indian isolationism, it is 500 years of abuse. Colonialism and oppression operate at a personal, psychological, and cultural level, as well as in the realms of political and economic structures. The children of dysfunctional, abusive parents grow up in a capricious world of arbitrary punishment, humiliation, and powerlessness. They suffer from insecurity, low self-esteem, and a loss of trust in others. n28 Colonialism is the abuse of an entire civilization for generations. It creates a culture of mistrust, defensiveness, and "self-rejection." n29 The effect is greatest on women, who already are suffering from patriarchal domination in some cultures, and in others, are subjected to patriarchal domination for the first time by the colonizers. n30 This can produce a politics of resignation, reactiveness, and continuing dependence on outsiders for leadership. n31Arguably the worst abuse of indigenous peoples worldwide has taken place in the United States, which not only pursued an aggressive and intrusive policy of cultural assimilation for more than a century, but also has preserved a particularly self-confident cultural arrogance to this day, denying Indians [*286] the recognition that they need to begin healing themselves. n32 The negative effects of cultural abuse are proportional to the thoroughness with which the colonizer intervenes in the daily lives of ordinary people. Intense warfare can be less damaging than the captivity and daily "disciplining" of an entire population, which characterized reservation life at the end of the last century. n33 Under these conditions, the only avenue of escape permitted is to embrace the habits and values of the oppressor, leaving people with a cruel choice between being victimized as "inferior" Indians or as second-class whites. In either case, much more was lost than cultural knowledge. Also lost was confidence in the possibility of genuine self-determination.

2AC Colonialism = ExtinctionTry-or-die colonialism makes every impact and extinction inevitableEckhardt 90 (William, Lentz Peace Research Laboratory of St. Louis, Journal of Peace Research, February, p. 15-16)Modern Western Civilization used war as well as peace to gain the whole world as a domain to benefit itself at the expense of others: The expansion of the culture and institutions of modern civilization from its centers in Europe was made possible by imperialistic war It is true missionaries and traders had their share in the work of expanding world civilization, but always with the support, immediate or in the background, of armies and navies (pp. 251-252). The importance of dominance as a primary motive in civilized war in general was also emphasized for modern war in particular: [Dominance] is probably the most important single element in the causation of major modern wars (p. 85). European empires were thrown up all over the world in this process of benefiting some at the expense of others, which was characterized by armed violence contributing to structural violence: World-empire is built by conquest and maintained by force Empires are primarily organizations of violence (pp. 965, 969). The struggle for empire has greatly increased the disparity between states with respect to the political control of resources, since there can never be enough imperial territory to provide for all (p. 1190). This disparity between states, not to mention the disparity within states, both of which take the form of racial differences in life expectancies, has killed 15-20 times as many people in the 20th century as have wars and revolutions (Eckhardt & Kohler, 1980; Eckhardt, 1983c). When this structural violence of disparity between states created by civilization is taken into account, then the violent nature of civilization becomes much more apparent. Wright concluded that Probably at least 10 per cent of deaths in modern civilization can be attributed directly or indirectly to war The trend of war has been toward greater cost, both absolutely and relative to population The proportion of the population dying as a direct consequence of battle has tended to increase (pp. 246, 247). So far as structural violence has constituted about one-third of all deaths in the 20th century (Eckhardt & Kohler, 1980; Eckhardt, 1983c), and so far as structural violence was a function of armed violence, past and present, then Wrights estimate was very conservative indeed. Assuming that war is some function of civilization, then civilization is responsible for one-third of 20th century deaths. This is surely self-destruction carried to a high level of efficiency. The structural situation has been improving throughout the 20th century, however, so that structural violence caused only 20% of all deaths in 1980 (Eckhardt, 1983c). There is obviously room for more improvement. To be sure, armed violence in the form of revolution has been directed toward the reduction of structural violence, even as armed violence in the form of imperialism has been directed toward its maintenance. But imperial violence came first, in the sense of creating structural violence, before revolutionary violence emerged to reduce it. It is in this sense that structural violence was basically, fundamentally, and primarily a function of armed violence in its imperial form. The atomic age has ushered in the possibility, and some would say the probability, of killing not only some of us for the benefit of others, nor even of killing all of us to no ones benefit, but of putting an end to life itself! This is surely carrying self-destruction to some infinite power beyond all human comprehension. Its too much, or superfluous, as the Existentialists might say. Why we should care is a mystery. But, if we do, then the need for civilized peoples to respond to the ethical challenge is very urgent indeed. Life itself may depend upon our choice.

That will culminate in endless wars and extinction Meszaros 03, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Sussex (England), (Estevan, "Militarism and the coming wars," Monthly Review, Vol.55, No.2, http://www.monthlyreview.org /0603meszaros.htm)

The dangers and immense suffering caused by all attempts at solving deep-seated social problems by militaristic interventions, on any scale, are obvious enough. If, however, we look more closely at the historical trend of militaristic adventures, it becomes frighteningly clear that they show an ever greater intensification and an ever-increasing scale, from local confrontations to two horrendous world wars in the twentieth century, and to the potential annihilation of humankind when we reach our own time. It is most relevant to mention in this context the distinguished Prussian military officer and practical as well as theoretical strategist, Karl Marie von Clausewitz (1780-1831), who died in the same year as Hegel; both of them killed by cholera. It was von Clausewitz, director of the Military School of Berlin in the last thirteen years of his life, who in his posthumously published bookVom Kriege (On War, 1833)offered a classic definition of the relationship between politics and war that is still frequently quoted: war is the continuation of politics by other means.This famous definition was tenable until quite recently, but has become totally untenable in our time. It assumed the rationality of the actions which connect the two domains of politics and war as the continuation of one another. In this sense, the war in question had to be winnable, at least in principle, even if miscalculations leading to defeat could be contemplated at the instrumental level. Defeat by itself could not destroy the rationality of war as such, since after thehowever unfavorablenew consolidation of politics the defeated party could plan another round of war as the rational continuation of its politics by other means. Thus the absolute condition of von Clausewitzs equation to be satisfied was the winnability of war in principle, so as to recreate the eternal cycle of politics leading to war, and back to politics leading to another war, and so on ad infinitum. The actors involved in such confrontations were the national states. No matter how monstrous the damage inflicted by them on their adversaries, and even on their own people (just remember Hitler!), the rationality of the military pursuit was guaranteed if the war could be considered winnable in principle. Today the situation is qualitatively different for two principal reasons. First, the objective of the feasible war at the present phase of historical development, in accordance with the objective requirements of imperialismworld domination by capitals most powerful state, in tune with its own political design of ruthless authoritarian globalization (dressed up as free exchange in a U.S. ruled global market)is ultimately unwinnable, foreshadowing, instead, the destruction of humankind. This objective by no stretch of imagination could be considered a rational objective in accord with the stipulated rational requirement of the continuation of politics by other means conducted by one nation, or by one group of nations against another. Aggressively imposing the will of one powerful national state over all of the others, even if for cynical tactical reasons the advocated war is absurdly camouflaged as a purely limited war leading to other open ended limited wars, can therefore be qualified only as total irrationality. The second reason greatly reinforces the first. For the weapons already available for waging the war or wars of the twenty first century are capable of exterminating not only the adversary but the whole of humanity, for the first time ever in history. Nor should we have the illusion that the existing weaponry marks the very end of the road. Others, even more instantly lethal ones, might appear tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Moreover, threatening the use of such weapons is by now considered an acceptable state strategic device. Thus, put reasons one and two together, and the conclusion is inescapable: envisaging war as the mechanism of global government in todays world underlines that we find ourselves at the precipice of absolute irrationality from which there can be no return if we accept the ongoing course of development. What was missing from von Clausewitzs classic definition of war as the continuation of politics by other means was the investigation of the deeper underlying causes of war and the possibility of their avoidance. The challenge to face up to such causes is more urgent today than ever before. For the war of the twenty first century looming ahead of us is not only not winnable in principle. Worse than that, it is in principle unwinnable. Consequently, envisaging the pursuit of war, as the Bush administrations September 17, 2002 strategic document does, make Hitlers irrationality look like the model of rationality.2AC Ethics First

Policymakers must be ethical in their political decisionsSimmons 03, (William Paul, Associate Professor, Social Sciences, Arizona State University, AN-ARCHY AND JUSTICE: AN INTRODUCTION TO EMMANUEL LEVINAS'S POLITICAL THOUGHT)Politically, Levinas asks whether politics has its own justification. Does not politics, left to itself, become tyrannical? Is there not something that stands outside of the scope of the ego, the totality, and history that can temper the tyranny of politics? Should it not be the goal of political thought to infuse ethics into the violent realm of the political? Instead of looking at world-historical figures, should we not look at the history of the widow, orphan, and stranger? He writes, "is it not reasonable from now on for a statesman, when questioning himself on the nature of the decisions that he is making, to ask not only whether the decisions are in agreement with the sense of universal history, but also if they are in agreement with the other history?

2AC Extinction Ethics Bad

Emphasis of extinction level impacts destroy fundamental human rights and valuesCallahan 73, Co-founder and former director of The Hastings Institute, PhD in philosophy from Harvard University, (Daniel, The Tyranny of Survival,p. 91-93)There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival,no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is easy, of course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland, to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. Butmy pointgoes deeper than that. Itis directedevenat a legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress, or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. The potential tyranny of survivalas a value is that itis capable,if not treated sanely,of wiping out all other values, Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing.We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, andif survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life- then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival, without in the process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival?To put it more strongly,if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories Yet it would be the defeat of all defeats if, because human beings could not properly manage their need to survive, they succeeded in not doing so.

Toleration of evil in the name of survival destroys the value to life

Callahan 73, (Daniel, The Tyranny of Survival: And other pathologies of civilized life Pg 91-93)That individuals, tribes, communities and nations have committed so much will, energy and intelligence to survival has meant that they have survived, and their descendants are present to tell the tale. Nothing is so powerful a motive force, for self or society, as the threat of annihilation, nothing so energizing as the necessity to live. Without life, all else is in vain. Leaving aside the question of whether we need more enlightened attitudes toward suicide in our society, which we may. it is still not for nothing that suicide has been looked upon with abhorrence, whether from a religious or a psycho- logical perspective. It seems to violate the most fundamental of human drives, and has always required a special explana- tion or justification. The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power.2 But abused it has been. In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including the right to life. The purported threat of Communist domina- tion has for over two decades fueled the drive of militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter what the cost to other social needs. During World War II, native Japanese-Ameri- cans were herded, without due process of law, into detention camps. This policy was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) in the general context that a threat to national security can justify acts otherwise bla- tantly unjustifiable. The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, the government of South Africa imposes a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights. The Vietnamese war has seen one of the greatest of the many absurdities tolerated in the name of survival: the destruction of villages in order to save them. But it is not only in a political setting that survival has been evoked as a final and unarguable value. The main rationale B. F. Skinner offers in Beyond Freedom and Dignity for the controlled and conditioned society is the need for survival.3 For Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity, sur- vival requires that we overthrow almost every known religious, ethical and political system.4 In genetics, the survival of the gene pool has been put forward as sufficient grounds for a forceful prohibition of bearers of offensive genetic traits from marrying and bearing children. Some have even suggested that we do the cause of survival no good by our misguided medical efforts to find means by which those suffering from such com- mon genetically based diseases as diabetes can live a normal life, and thus procreate even more diabetics. In the field of population and environment, one can do no better than to cite Paul Ehrlich, whose works have shown a high dedication to survival, and in its holy name a willingness to contemplate governmentally enforced abortions and a denial of food to starving populations of nations which have not enacted popu- lation-control policies. For all these reasons, it is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a "tyranny of survival." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival, no rights. liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is easy, of course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland, to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. But my point goes deeper than that. It is directed even at a legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy other funda- mental human rights and values. The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life-then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without, in the process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival? To put it more strongly, if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories. Yet it would be the defeat of all defeats if, because human beings could not properly manage their need to survive, they suc- ceeded in not doing so. Either way, then, would represent a failure, and one can take one's pick about which failure would be worse, that of survival at the cost of everything decent in man or outright extinction.2AC Standpoint Epistemology

Understanding the standpoint of the marginalized in specific contexts is necessary to break down systems that produce oppressive universal understandings of realityLenz 04, Assistant Professor of English at Saint Mary's University of Minnesota (Brooke, Postcolonial Fiction and the Outsider Within: Towards a Literary Practice of Feminist Standpoint Theory." NWSA Journal 16:2, pp. 98-120)//EDFeminist standpoint theory has undergone a number of theoretical and epistemological permutations since Nancy Hartsock first named and defined it in 1983, and it continues to provoke discussion among feminist theorists.2 Along with Hartsock, a number of scholars from diverse disciplines have contributed to and identified with standpoint theorizing, including Evelyn Fox Keller, Sandra Harding, Dorothy Smith, and Patricia Hill Collins. These scholars, working more or less independently of one another, have maintained that marginalized groups of people have less interest in preserving the status quo and occupy a unique position from which to view the culture from which they are marginalized. For these theorists, standpoint refers not to perspective or experience but to an understanding of perspective and experience as part of a larger social settingthat is, a standpoint is an intellectual achievement that refl ects political consciousness. Despite its more colloquial usage, the term standpoint refers not to a rigid or permanent stabilization of perspective, but rather to a fluid and dynamic negotiation of experience and point of view that can be temporarily stabilized in order to interrogate dominant ideologies. Standpoint theorists anchor their methodology in outsider within positionspositions inhabited by groups who are included in dominant cultural practices but are nevertheless, and for various reasons, unable to fully participate in them. The identification and exploration of such positions as places from which a less false standpoint on social, political, and historical power relationships originates characterize and motivate standpoint approaches. This theoretical position provokes a number of questions: What is the process through which a standpoint is achieved, and how can that standpoint be recognized? Is a stable, categorically clear identity a prerequisite for a standpoint? Is it possible to have multiple, changing standpoints, and if so, how can the insights and analyses provided by those standpoints be communicated? Does the outsider within really have a privileged (i.e., more objective or less false) standpoint? Such questions highlight the tension between individual and group knowledge, the problematic poles of epistemic relativism and universalism, that complicate (and often frustrate) both standpoint theory in particular and feminist theory more generally. On the one hand, feminist standpoint theory seeks to understand social structures from a variety of locations; indeed, as Susan Hekman reasons in her consideration of standpoint theory, If there are multiple feminist standpoints, then there must be multiple truths and multiple realities. This is a difficult position for those who want to change the world according to a new image (Hekman 2000, 19). This difficulty is addressed by Patricia Hill Collins, who insists in her response to Hekman, [T]he notion of a standpoint refers to historically shared, group-based experiences. Groups have a degree of permanence over time such that group realities transcend individual experiences . . . standpoint theory places less emphasis on individual experiences within socially constructed groups than on the social conditions that construct such groups (2000, 43).3 Because standpoint theory begins from the position of the marginalized, it necessarily posits difference as one of its operational variablesdifference, that is, as characterized by socio-economic status, race, gender, sexuality, and so on. And yet, such a focus on difference can foster the tendency to enforce rigid categorizations rather than to interrogate the social conditions that construct group perspectives, creating boundaries among different groups of women that, while clearly exposing the falsity of universals, simultaneously obscure the commonalities among women, the shared circumstances that foster similar and related, if not identical or equal, oppressions. Such a step limits the transformative potential of womens insights by removing their analyses from the particularities of their circumstances to an abstract, categorical realm. Such a step, that is, equates women with the categories into which they can be placed, rather than examining the conditions that solidify rigid categories and thus challenge solidarity among various groups. This move is, as Jamaica Kincaid so frankly puts it in describing her situation at the typewriter, limited and stupid. Standpoint theory can, I think, encourage the interrogation of rigid categorizations by confronting and questioning both highly individualistic and broadly essentialist claims, both of which discourage communication and solidarity among women who are differently situated. Though it does begin with the perspectives of marginalized peoples, standpoint theory acknowledges that individual experiences, and the interpretations of those experiences, vary among members of any social group. Likewise, standpoint theory recognizes that such variations, rather than mitigating the possibility for wider application, in fact deepen and strengthen our understanding of the positions at which various forms of oppression intersect. As Hekman argues: Feminist standpoint theory defines knowledge as particular rather than universal; it jettisons the neutral observer of modernist epistemology; it defines subjects as constructed by relational forces rather than as transcendent. . . . The new paradigm of knowledge of which feminist standpoint theory is a part involves rejecting the definition of knowledge and truth as either universal or relative in favor of a conception of all knowledge as situated and discursive.

2AC Util Bad

Dont evaluate our impacts in a utilitarian frameworksolving colonialism is never reasonable in the cost-benefit analysis of the colonizer.Churchill 03 professor of ethnic studies at University of Colorado, (Ward, Acts of Rebellion, The Earth is Our Mother, pg. 106-7 published by Taylor & Francis group)The question which inevitably arises with regard to indigenous land claims, especially in the U.S., is whether they are "realistic." The answer, of course, is "no they arent. Further, no form of decolonization has ever been realistic when viewed within the construct of a colonialist paradigm. It wasn't realistic at the time to expect George Washington's rag-tag militia to defeat the British military during the American independence struggle. Just ask the British. It wasn't realistic, as the French could tell you, at the Vietnamese should be able to defeat U.S.-backed France in 1954, or that the Algerians would shortly be able to follow in their footsteps. Surely, it wasn't reasonable to predict that Fidel Castros's pitiful handful of guerrillas would overcome Batista's regime in Cuba, another U.S. client, after only a few years in the mountains. And the Sandinistas, to be sure, had no prayer of attaining victory over Sornoza twenty years later. Henry Kissinger, among others, knew that for a fact. The point is that in each case, in order to begin their struggles at all, anticolonial fighters around the world have had to abandon orthodox realism in favor of what they knew (and their opponents knew) to be right. To paraphrase Daniel Cohn-Bendit, they accepted as their agendathe goals, objectives, and demands which guided thema redefinition of reality in terms deemed quite impossible within the conventional wisdom of their oppressors. And, in each case, they succeeded in their immediate quest for liberation. The fact that all but one (Cuba) of the examples used subsequently turned out to hold colonizing pretensions of its own does not alter the truth of thisor alter the appropriateness of their efforts to decolonize themselves in the least. It simply means that decolonization has yet to run its course, that much remains to be done. The battles waged by native nations in North America to free ourselves, and the lands upon which we depend for ongoing existence as discernable peoples, from the grip of U.S. internal colonialism is plainly part of this process of liberation. Given that our very survival depends upon our perseverance in the face of all apparent odds, American Indians have no real alternative but to carry on. We must struggle, and where there is struggle there is always hope. Moreover, the unrealistic or "romantic" dimensions of our aspiration to quite literally dismantle the territorial corpus of the U.S. state begin to erode when one considers that federal domination of Native America is utterly contingent upon maintenance of a perceived confluence of interest between prevailing governmental/corporate elites and common nonindian citizens.

Solely focusing on short term improbable disadvantages is irresponsible necessitates a sacrifice of justice. The plans push for accountability is a better path to peaceBassiouni 03, Distinguished Research Professor of Law, President, International Human Rights Law Institute, DePaul University College of Law; President, International Institute for Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences (Siracusa, Italy); President, International Association of Penal Law (Paris, France). (M. Cherif, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law)At the end of the Second World War, the world collectively pledged "never again." While the intention of this global promise may have been sincere, its implementation has proved elusive. There have been over 250 conflicts in the twentieth century alone, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 170 million persons. Both State and non-state actors routinely commit extra-judicial execution, torture, rape and other violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. In most cases, political considerations permit perpetrators of gross violations of human rights to operate with impunity. Yet, alongside the sad truth of our consistently violent world stands the moral commitment of the post-war pledge and the related vision of peace, justice and truth. The human rights arena is defined by a constant tension between the attraction of realpolitik and the demand for accountability. Realpolitik involves the pursuit of political settlements unencumbered by moral and ethical limitations. As such, this approach often runs directly counter to the interests of justice, particularly as understood from the perspective of victims of gross violations of human rights. Impunity, at both the international and national levels, is commonly the outcome of realpolitik which favors expedient political ends over the more complex task of confronting responsibility. Accountability, in contrast, embodies the goals of both retributive and restorative justice. This orientation views conflict resolution as premised upon responsibility and requires sanctions for those responsible, the establishment of a clear record of truth and efforts made to provide redress to victims. The pursuit of realpolitik may settle the more immediate problems of a conflict, but, as history reveals, its achievements are frequently at the expense of long-term peace, stability, and reconciliation. It is difficult to achieve genuine peace without addressing victims' needs and without [*192] providing a wounded society with a sense of closure. A more profound vision of peace requires accountability and often involves a series of interconnected activities including: establishing the truth of what occurred, punishing those most directly responsible for human suffering, and offering redress to victims. Peace is not merely the absence of armed conflict; it is the restoration of justice, and the use of law to mediate and resolve inter-social and inter-personal discord. The pursuit of justice and accountability fulfills fundamental human needs and expresses key values necessary for the prevention and deterrence of future conflicts. For this reason, sacrificing justice and accountability for the immediacy of realpolitik represents a short-term vision of expediency over more enduring human values.

Their impact calculus renders life meaninglessDillon 99 [Political Theory, Another Justice April 164-165]Quite the reverse. The subject was never a firm foundation for justice, much less a hospitable vehicle for the reception of the call of another Justice. It was never in possession of that self-possession which was supposed to secure the certainty of itself, of a self-possession that would enable it ultimately to adjudicate everything. The very indexicality required of sovereign subjectivity gave rise rather to a commensurability much more amenable to the expendability required of the political and material economies of mass societies than it did to the singular, invaluable, and uncanny uniqueness of the self. The value of the subject became the standard unit of currency for the political arithmetic of States and the political economies of capitalism.34 They trade in it still to devastating global effect. The technologisation of the political has become manifest and global. Economies of evaluation necessarily require calculability.35 Thus no valuation without mensuration and no mensuration without indexation. Once rendered calculable, however, units of account are necessarily submissible not only to valuation but also, of course, to devaluation. Devaluation, logically, can extend to the point of counting as nothing. Hence, no mensuration without demensuration either. There is nothing abstract about this: the declension of economies of value leads to the zero point of holocaust. However liberating and emancipating systems of valuerightsmay claim to be, for example, they run the risk of counting out the invaluable. Counted out, the invaluable may then lose its purchase on life. Here with, then, the necessity of championing the invaluable itself. For we must never forget that, we are dealing always with whatever exceeds measure.36 But how does that necessity present itself? Another Justice answers: as the surplus of the duty to answer to the claim of Justice over rights. That duty, as with the advent of another Justice, is integral to the lack constitutive of the human way of being. The event of this lack is not a negative experience. Rather, it is an encounter with a reserve charged with possibility. As possibility, it is that which enables life to be lived in excess without the overdose of actuality.37 What this also means is that the human is not decided. It is precisely undecidable. Undecidability means being in a position of having to decide without having already been fully determined and without being capable of bringing an end to the requirement for decision.2AC A2 T Development

Counter interpretation - Ocean development is utilization as a resourceOwen 3 Daniel Owen, Consultant to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Legal And Institutional Aspects Of Management Arrangements For Shared Stocks With Reference To Small Pelagics In Northwest Africa, FAO Fisheries Circular No. 988, http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4698b/y4698b04.htm1.2 The legal regime for management of shared stocks For a stock shared between two or more neighbouring coastal States and not ranging onto the high seas, the regime of Art 63(1) LOSC is appropriate. It states that: Where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur within the exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States, these States shall seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks without prejudice to the other provisions of this Part. Regarding the term development, Nandan, Rosenne and Grandy[4] state that: The reference to development... relates to the development of those stocks as fishery resources. This includes increased exploitation of little-used stocks, as well as improvements in the management of heavily-fished stocks for more effective exploitation. Combined with the requirement in article 61 of not endangering a given stock by overexploitation, this envisages a long-term strategy of maintaining the stock as a viable resource.We meet that whales are a resourceBoncheva 11 Msc in International Economic Consulting (Simona Vasileva, Whales as Natural Resources, Masters Thesis, http://pure.au.dk/portal-asb-student/files/34355886/Whales_as_natural_resources.pdf)//EDUtilization of whales as resources. What are the key features peculiar for cetaceans as natural resources and which distinguish them from other types of traded goods? First of all, they are both scarce and useful (have economical value ) in production or consumption, either living, in their raw state or after minimal amount of processing (WTR , 2010). Second, they are renewable: as living organisms they have the ability to reproduce, thus even if part of the stock is removed the remaining part will replenish, providing an opportunity for sustainable harvest. However, if overharvested (see explanation notes, Appendix I) they can turn into exhaustible resource. Third, the postulation that natural resources are unevenly distributed across countries still hold with the exception that whales are highly migratory species and they do not reside permanently in any country territorial waters. Additionally, the production (harvest) and consumption of given resource involves externalities. As part of the fishing sector whales face common threats of by - catch, pollution and predator - prey - tie destruction. Their harvest can impose negative externality on other industries (whale - watching tourism) too. Dr. Rob Tinch and Zara Phang (2009 ) categorize the values derived from the utilization of whales in direct , indirect and non - use values . Direct use can be consumptive use where different part of the animal are used for food, pharmaceutical, agricultural fertilizers and cosmetics, and non - consumptive . Non - consumptive means use of alive whales in their natural habitat for recreation (whale - watching), cultural and scientific activities (scientific research programs 12 , TV shows, documentaries, advertisement etc.).

2AC Cultural Relativism K1-Our 1ac is an impact turn-we believe the Makah tribe should be allowed to carry out their tribal traditions2-Permutation do the 1ac and reject all other instances. Our aff in itself isnt bad, and even if cultural relativism is bad in other instances, we reject those instancesBatr.org, no date(Batr.org, Solitary Purdah Cultural Relativism and Ethical Obscurity, no date, http://batr.org/solitary/022413.html, Accessed: 7/11/14, RH)The article by Gene Howington, Ethical Relativism: A Good Idea or a Path to Anarchy? cites a compelling example of an indisputable immorality performed that resulted in the deaths of innocents."One of the strongest arguments against ethical relativism comes from the assertion that universal ethical and/or moral standards can exist even if some practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, it is possible to acknowledge cultural differences and still find that some of these practices and beliefs are wrong. Consider that although the Aztec had a society that was in some ways more advanced that their contemporary European counterparts, that their practice of human sacrifice is simply wrong."3-Sequencing DA-We must understand the conditions of other cultures to truly understand why they make their own decisions-the Eskimos prove-means that even if some people think its immoral we must investigate the reasoning means the AFF is a prereq to the altRachel, 1999(James Rachel, graduated from Mercer University, received Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he taught at the University of Richmond, New York University, University of Miami, Duke University, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, 1999, http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/rachels--cultural%20relativism.htm, Accessed: 7/11/14, RH)Consider again the Eskimos, who often kill perfectly normal infants, especially girls. We do not approve of such things; a parent who killed a baby in our society would be locked up. Thus there appears to be a great difference in the values of our two cultures. But suppose we ask why the Eskimos do this. The explanation is not that they have less affection for their children or less respect for human life. An Eskimo family will always protect its babies if conditions permit. But they live in a harsh environment, where food is in short supply. A fundamental postulate of Eskimos thought is: "Life is hard, and the margin of safety small:' A family may want to nourish its babies but be unable to do so.As in many "primitive" societies, Eskimo mothers will nurse their infants over a much longer period of time than mothers in our culture. The child will take nourishment from its mother's breast for four years, perhaps even longer. So even in the best of times there are limits to the number of infants that one mother can sustain. Moreover, the Eskimos are a nomadic peopleunable to farm, they must move about in search of food. Infants must be carried, and a mother can carry only one baby in her parka as she travels and goes about her outdoor work. Other family members help whenever they can.Infant girls are more readily disposed of because, first, in this society the males are the primary food providersthey are the hunters, according to the traditional division of laborand it is obviously important to maintain a sufficient number of food providers. But there is an important second reason as well. Because the hunters suffer a high casualty rate, the adult men who die prematurely far outnumber the women who die early. Thus if male and female infants survived in equal numbers, the female adult population would greatly outnumber the male adult population. Examining the available statistics, one writer concluded that "were it not for female infanticidethere would be approximately one-and-a-half times as many females in the average Eskimo local group as there are food-producing males."So among the Eskimos, infanticide does not signal a fundamentally different attitude toward children. Instead, it is a recognition that drastic measures are sometimes needed to ensure the family's survival. Even then, however, killing the baby is not the first option considered. Adoption is common; childless couples are especially happy to take a more fertile couple's "surplus." Killing is only the last resort. I emphasize this in order to show that the raw data of the anthropologists can be misleading; it can make the differences in values