Affirmative Extension Cards

Native American PTC Affirmative
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
T-Money, *P-Wang*, Jeffy, & Double B’s
Native Americans PTC Affirmative File

Native Americans PTC Affirmative File.................................................................................................................1
1AC.................................................................................................................................................................................3
Inherency 1/3.........................................................................................................................................................21
Inherency 2/3.........................................................................................................................................................22
Inherency 3/3.........................................................................................................................................................23
Solvency: Natives relations key to Environment..................................................................................................24
PTC K/T Solvency................................................................................................................................................25
Solvency: Indigenous knowledge k/t Policy.........................................................................................................26
Solvency: Critical thinking k/t Environment 1/2..................................................................................................27
Solvency: Critical thinking k/t Environment 2/2..................................................................................................28
Solvency: Natives benefit State/Corporations......................................................................................................29
Ext: Solvency........................................................................................................................................................30
Solvency: Rights k/t Protection.............................................................................................................................31
Solvency: Economic Survival...............................................................................................................................32
Solvency: Cooperation Key..................................................................................................................................33
Solvency: Critical Perspective Key.......................................................................................................................34
Wind K solvency 1/2.............................................................................................................................................35
Wind K/T Solvency 2/2.........................................................................................................................................36
Impact: Colonialism..............................................................................................................................................37
Ext: Colonialism-I/L Exploitation.........................................................................................................................39
Ext: Colonialism: I/L............................................................................................................................................40
Impact: Racism.....................................................................................................................................................41
Ext: US Key..........................................................................................................................................................42
Topicality: Energy Source.....................................................................................................................................43
AT: Discourse K....................................................................................................................................................44
AT: Politics (Ignored)............................................................................................................................................45
AT: Politics (Support)............................................................................................................................................46
Toxic Waste Add-On.............................................................................................................................................47
AT: Current Legislation Solves.............................................................................................................................52
AT: Status Quo Solves...........................................................................................................................................53
AT: Can’t Produce AE...........................................................................................................................................54
AT: States CP........................................................................................................................................................55
1
I know how to beat the 9-0 counterplan! Teeheehee~
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: States CP........................................................................................................................................................56
Biopower Impacts.................................................................................................................................................57
Racism Impacts.....................................................................................................................................................62
Racism Impact Calc..............................................................................................................................................63
US Policy=Genocidal............................................................................................................................................64
US Policy=Racist..................................................................................................................................................65
US Policy=Racist..................................................................................................................................................66
No AE Now...........................................................................................................................................................67
AE Solves Poverty................................................................................................................................................68
Natives want AE....................................................................................................................................................69
AT: Sovereignty in Staus Quo...............................................................................................................................70
PTCs K/T AE........................................................................................................................................................71
AT: Topicality........................................................................................................................................................72
AT: T increase................................................................................................................................................................73
AT: T not part of US......................................................................................................................................................75
AT: Generic K 1/2.................................................................................................................................................76
AT: Generic K 2/2.................................................................................................................................................77
2
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
1AC
Observation 1 is Inherency:
1. Current tax policy hurts Native Americans denying them access to tax credits key to
energy production.
Mark Shahinian, third-year law student at the University of Michigan 2008, “SPECIAL FEATURE:
THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS
INDIAN TRIBES,” American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267.
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy," has become a shibboleth of any economic reading of
U.S. constitutional law. n1 Yet behind Justice Marshall's oft-repeated words lies an important insight into
the balance of power between sovereign entities. That insight is essentially this: the ability of an entity to
maintain its sovereignty depends on economic power, and that economic power can be taken away by
taxation. With the power to tax also comes the power to push, to encourage, to foster and to favor. If
taxation can sap economic power, tax policy can also confer vast economic rents on certain favored groups.
However, America's Indian tribes are a group not favored by federal tax policy. n2 This paper is
concerned with elements of U.S. tax policy that do [*269] unrecognized harm to Indian tribes. In the
standard analysis, Indian tribes benefit from tax-free status - it is a bright line rule of U.S. tax policy that
tribes and their subsidiary corporations do not pay federal income taxes. However, the guarantee of tax-free
status for Indian tribes also guarantees the tribes cannot use tax credits granted by the federal government.
In certain industries, federal tax credits play such an important financial role that entities unable to use
those tax credits are at a significant financial disadvantage to entities able to utilize the tax credits. Federal
tax credits play a key role in the coal bed methane extraction industry, n3 the low-income housing
development industry n4 , and the wind power industry, n5 among others. In some of these fields, tribes
cannot make use of the tax credits, and so face a severe financial handicap as compared to entities
that can utilize the tax credits. Perversely, this handicap is present in precisely the industries the federal
government has decided to nurture and encourage - for instance, the wind energy industry
3
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
2. Current approaches to reservation development fail – Direct grants are
insufficient and natives remain mired in poverty.
Stephen Cornell and Joseph P. Kalt, Cornell is Director of the Udall Center for Studies
in Public Policy and Professor of Sociology and of Public Administration and Policy at
The University of Arizona where he also serves as a faculty associate with the Native
Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy. Kalt is Ford Foundation
Professor of International Political Economy. 1998. American Indian Studies Center.
Tribes that work with the “jobs and income” approach begin by saying, in effect, we’ve got a problem here. The
problem is not enough jobs and not enough income, and the solution is to get some businesses going on the
reservation.’’ Often that means calling in the tribal planner and saying, ”Go get some businesses going.” The
tribal planner goes off and writes some grant proposals or looks for some investors or comes up with some
business ideas, and everyone hopes that somehow the problem will be solved. A persuasive logic is attached to
this approach to economic development: There aren’t enough jobs on most reservations; there isn’t enough
income; too many people are poor; too many people are on welfare. So jobs and income are critical. The
problem is that this approach typically doesn’t work. It may produce lots of ideas but it seldom produces lasting
businesses. The stories are familiar. An enterprise gets started but fails to live up to its advance billing. Or the
tribe obtains a grant that provides start-up funding for a project, but when the grant runs out there’s no more
money and the project starts going downhill. Or an investor shows up but gets entangled in tribal politics, loses
heart, and eventually disappears. Or a new business gets underway with lots of hoopla and has a good first year,
but then the tribal govemment starts siphoning off the profits to meet its payroll or some other need, and as a
result there’s no money to fix the leaky roof or upgrade the accounting system, and soon the business is in
trouble. Or the enterprise becomes primarily an employment service as people demand that it provide lots of
jobs, costs rise, it finds itself unable to compete with non-reservation businesses whose labor costs are less, it
becomes another drain on the tribal treasury, and two years later it folds and the jobs it provided disappear. Or
the new tribal chair decides the business is a source of patronage, personnel are hired based on their votes in
tribal elections instead of their business skills, with each election the business gets a new manager and a new set
of operating guidelines, customers get cynical, quality declines, and the business collapses. One way or another,
the tribe ends up back at square one, once again asking the planner to ”get something going,” and the cycle
starts over. Eventually, planners and tribal council feel as if they’re banging their heads against the wall. This
pattern, familiar on many reservations, makes one wonder if the economic development problem can be reduced
to “jobs and income,” and if the solution can be reduced to ”getting some businesses going” or winning grants
or talking an investor into a joint venture. Maybe it’s time for a new approach.
4
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Observation 2: Advantages
Advantage 1 is Colonialism
1. The Western ideologies of capitalism and materialism propagated by the federal

government have assaulted traditional indigenous views of nature.
Linda Robyn, the assistant professor in the Criminal Justice Department at Northern
Arizona University, 2002. “Indigenous Knowledge and Technology: Creating
Environmental Justice in the Twenty-First Century”. The American Indian Quarterly, 26.2
(2002), p. 203.
The contrasting views of the value and technology system of the Chippewa versus the European-American
capitalistic values of power, materialism, economic efficiency, and immediacy have led to confusion and
misunderstanding about other people and their ways. European-American views toward family and religion are
different than the views of many American Indians. While not all European-Americans are of the Christian
religion, much of the knowledge contained in the exploitive dynamics of the Christian religion are closely tied
to the concepts of our capitalistic society and are not connected to the earth or environment as is the spirituality
of The Way of American Indians. 13 The result is a culture conflict in which both sides see their values and
methods of looking at life as the only correct way. In this context, the unequal balance and hierarchical social
structure produced by the expansionary needs of capitalism are, to many American Indian people, highly
destructive to their perception of the need for balance between physical and spiritual worlds. The sharp contrast
between these two sets of cultural views is a major point of contention between dominating cultures and
Indigenous peoples today. These differences could also be a contributing factor to changes that are beginning to
take place in many Indigenous communities. Native peoples who have not been included in decision-making
concerning the potentially environmentally devastating impact of corporate intrusion upon their lands are
critically thinking about, assessing, and demanding that their voices be heard and not discounted or ignored as
in times past.
2. Native Americans face the harshest environmental devastation in the nation as a

result of colonialist environmental policies.
Linda Robyn, the assistant professor in the Criminal Justice Department at Northern Arizona
University, 2002. “Indigenous Knowledge and Technology: Creating Environmental Justice in
the Twenty-First Century”. The American Indian Quarterly, 26.2 (2002), p. 210. T-Jacob
The state and multinational corporations have consistently used their historically structured hierarchical positions of
power to keep Indian people powerless and in a position of relative disadvantage in the past. Clearly, when the
efforts of those privileged by power have been blocked by resistance based in treaty rights, unethical practices in
dealing with the tribes have occurred which have caused them injury and harm. Those in powerful positions have
countered Indian resistance by using the force of racism. Sociologist Robert Bullard argues that "[W]hether by
conscious design or institutional neglect, communities of color in urban ghettos, in rural 'poverty pockets,' or on
economically impoverished Native-American reservations face some of the worst environmental devastation in the
nation." 41 The struggle engaged in by the Chippewa to protect their natural resources from the state of Wisconsin
and huge multinational corporations is but one such example. Environmental racism experienced by the Chippewa is
evident in the systematic efforts put forth to exclude them from participation in the decision-making process. In an
effort to "neutralize" the opposition, corporations have narrowly defined issues that can be raised in environmental
impact statements and have ignored the objections of those opposed to the destruction caused by mining. And, as we
have seen, with the increasing power of mining opponents, other methods of "neutralizing" the opposition must be
found by the state and corporations. As illustrated earlier in this article, the state government and corporations have
resorted to using the climate of race hatred to weaken and divide potential coalitions active against their
multinational corporate vision of industrial development. Examining these situations from a critical perspective
5
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
helps facilitate an understanding of the way in which those in power are participants in creating an environmentally
harmful atmosphere which maintains current hierarchical positions of power. The critical perspective presented here
can be applied to deconstruct the unequal relationship between the state/corporate entities and those who are less
powerful, to reconstruct a better form of balance.
3. Currently Native American perspectives are excluded from policy decisions – this
systematic exclusion replicates the colonial policies of the last 500 years.
the Twenty-First Century”. The American Indian Quarterly, 26.2 (2002), p. 210. T-Jacob
Social control is always an exercise of power. Linear colonial logic argues that those who are "less civilized"
(that is, Indigenous peoples who have different ways of utilizing knowledge) are unable to properly exploit the
land and its resources, so therefore, those deemed to be "civilized" (the colonizers) would make decisions about
the land and decide on the "who" and "why" when making the laws concerning that land and the environment.
Ward Churchill is a well-known scholar, activist, and coordinator of American Indian studies with the Center for
Studies of Ethnicity and Race in America at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Churchill and LaDuke have
written extensively on issues of Native peoples worldwide. In discussing issues of social control and land they
write, land has always been the issue of greatest importance to politics and economics in this country. Those
who control the land are those who control the resources within and upon it. No matter what the resource issue
at hand is, social control and all the other aggregate components of power are fundamentally interrelated. 40
The many stories of resistance are not solely about Indian resistance, but involve an environmental social
movement that is able to counteract corporate power as well. The assertion of Native land rights takes place in
the context of an environmental movement willing to accept other ways of "knowing" and "understanding," to
appreciate the knowledge Native people have about the environment, and to accept Native leadership in
environmental battles. As has been demonstrated in previous examples, Native peoples today are challenging
[End Page 209] the most powerful institutions of a large nation-state by using their capabilities to blend
assertion of treaty rights with innovative forms of environmental activism. The state and multinational
corporations have consistently used their historically structured hierarchical positions of power to keep Indian
people powerless and in a position of relative disadvantage in the past. Clearly, when the efforts of those
privileged by power have been blocked by resistance based in treaty rights, unethical practices in dealing with
the tribes have occurred which have caused them injury and harm. Those in powerful positions have countered
Indian resistance by using the force of racism. Sociologist Robert Bullard argues that "[W]hether by conscious
design or institutional neglect, communities of color in urban ghettos, in rural 'poverty pockets,' or on
economically impoverished Native-American reservations face some of the worst environmental devastation in
the nation." 41 The struggle engaged in by the Chippewa to protect their natural resources from the state of
Wisconsin and huge multinational corporations is but one such example.
4. Native Americans desire the ability to generate their own energy to become self-
sufficient.
Ronald L. Neiss, 1/1/2002, Rosebud Utility Commission President, Rosebud Reservation, South
Dakota, Interview with the DOE,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=699
Generating our own energy will help our tribe develop a sustainable homeland economy on the reservation in
the short term and strengthen our tribal sovereignty in the long term. A tribe is only as sovereign as its economy
and finances permit. One of our tribal goals is energy self-sufficiency, and developing our renewable energy
resources will help us achieve that goal. What better way is there than using non-polluting tools for economic
development? Sometimes Indians are called to be the "Stewards of the Earth." But are we really? As my
6
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
cousin, James "Tony" Iron Shell, says the Lakota are the Tateya Topa Ho Oyate - the Voice of the Four Winds
People. That's quite a responsibility to live up to!
7
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
5. Colonialism inflicts massive daily suffering. The impact is systemic. It
outweighs their one-shot impact.
Russel Lawrence Barsh, Professor of Native American Studies at the University of Lethbridge
and United Nations Representative of the Mikmaq Grand Council and Four Directions Council,
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Winter, 1993, 26 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 277
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. Colonialism is the abuse of an entire
civilization for generations. It creates a culture of mistrust, defensiveness, and "self-rejection."
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. This
can produce a politics of resignation, reactiveness, and continuing dependence on outsiders for
leadership. Arguably 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 the recognition that they need to begin healing themselves. 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. 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.
8
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Advantage 2 is Biopower
1. The story of the reservation is the story of the management of an entire indigenous
population. The USFG’s approach towards the control of the land of the natives has
been one of biopolitical regulation and oppression.
Dana E Powell, 2006, “Technologies of Existence: The indigenous environmental justice

movement,” Development (2006) 49, 125–132. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100287
A similar history runs through Native America, as this 'Fourth World' population was a target of regulation,
management, and biological speculation from the moment of Contact, over 500 years ago. Indigenous populations
worldwide have experienced the effects of biopower, especially in terms of the management and extraction of
natural resources (including bodies and, more recently, genetic information), but in the Americas the situation is geo-
historically particular, given the sweeping catastrophe of disease, decimating what some have estimated to be 95 per
cent of the pre-Contact population. Another particularity of the North American situation is that, over the long
history of occupation since 1492, tribal populations have been alternately exterminated, removed, recombined,
relocated, and politically reorganized by state institutions, often under the guise of care and patrimony. In the 19th
and early 20th centuries, tribes as populations were regulated and made to live through land enclosures, creating
spatial patterns of security, on frontier lands considered undesirable to European colonists. This desirability was,
however, based on the visible alone; the resources that laid beneath the surface of the often barren, dry reservations
would emerge in the 20th century as some of the most coveted commodities on earth
2. Past court decisions have shunned Native American environmental perspectives in

favor of Western ideas of environmental regulation.
the Twenty-First Century”. The American Indian Quarterly, 26.2 (2002), p. 198. [T-Jacob].
As we begin to examine the relationship between American Indians and environmental justice, it is important to note
that American courts have many times in the past criminalized, whether consciously or not, traditional knowledge.
Indian people who have challenged multinational corporate giants and the government through political activism in
an effort to halt environmentally destructive projects on their lands have been criminalized and arrested to silence
their claims. Leaving traditional knowledge out of environmental policy is a grave injustice because it is socially
injurious to Native peoples and, in effect, all people, not only in the United States but worldwide. When writing
about Indigenous peoples, the exclusion of environmental issues also establishes an injustice because it does not
recognize the origins of social institutions among all human beings. Therefore, everything in American Indian
culture is associated with an environmental perspective, even issues that filter through the American court system.
As will be examined, Native peoples today are using their sophisticated traditional knowledge, combined with
militant strategies in some cases, to effect change. Providing equitable justice for Indigenous people establishes an
important precedent that can put social institutions like criminal justice in a context where the connection between
society and the environment is recognized.
9
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
3. The USFG has maintained its policy of management of natives while
trivializing indigenous knowledge in favor of colonialist narratives that assert
the primacy of Western thought – only tribal sovereignty can overcome the
perception of reservations as politically and economically exploitable areas.
the Twenty-First Century”. The American Indian Quarterly, 26.2 (2002), p. 198.
Specifically within the United States, loss of power and autonomy through the process of colonialism
relegated Indigenous peoples to a position on the lower end of the hierarchical scale in U.S. society. The
legacy of fifteenth-century European colonial domination placed Indigenous knowledge in the categories of
primitive, simple, "not knowledge," or folklore. It comes as no surprise then that through the process of
colonization Indigenous knowledge and perspectives have been ignored and denigrated by the vast majority
of social, physical, biological and agricultural scientists, and governments using colonial powers to exploit
Indigenous resources. Colonization is more than just a convenient economic domination of one group by
another. In its present-day form, colonization continues to undermine the political, military, social, psycho-
culture, value systems, and knowledge base of the colonized and imposes on them the values and culture of
the colonizer. For the sake of economic control—the main impetus behind any colonization—the colonizer
must constantly devise new means of oppressing the colonized. 8 Colonialism continues today, but with
different foreign powers than in the past, that is, banks, corporations, speculators, governments, and various
development agencies. Today Indigenous peoples are on the frontline of contemporary colonial struggles.
They are sitting on resources the rest of the world wants at the lowest possible cost. Their territories are still
considered frontier lands, un-owned, underutilized, and, therefore, open to exploitation. Because
Indigenous populations are small, politically weak, and usually physically isolated, their vast environmental
knowledge base is, for the most part, denigrated by these new colonizers, making Indigenous populations
easy targets as resource colonies. Central to the concept of resource colonization is, as John Bodley
emphasizes in his work, Victims of Progress, "that the prior ownership rights and interests of the aboriginal
inhabitants are totally ignored as irrelevant by both the state and the invading individuals." 9
10
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
4. The control of the indigenous population fostered by disciplinary power
results in systemic genocide and necessitates cycles of violence that culminate
in extinction.
Boaventura de Sousa Santos director of the Center for Social Studies at the University of
Coimbra, 2003 “Collective Suicide?” http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2003/63/santos.html
According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save
humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the
need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over
which it is supposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous
peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused
millions of deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism,
with the Gulag, and under Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism,
with the collective sacrifice of the periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world system. With the war
against Iraq, it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new genocidal and sacrificial illusion, and
what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the
radicalization and the ultimate perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of humanity in the
illusion of saving it. Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that
there are no alternatives to the present-day reality, and that the problems and difficulties confronting it
arise from failing to take its logic of development to ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment,
hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of
market laws not having been fully applied. If there is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the
conditions that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact that total violence has not been employed to
physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists. This political logic is based on the supposition of
total power and knowledge, and on the radical rejection of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it
aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo. Inherent to it is the notion of the end of history. During the
last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions of this logic, and, therefore, seen three versions
of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic
of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the market. The first two
periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one trivializes democracy, disarming it in the face
of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the state and international institutions in their
favor. I have described this situation as a combination of political democracy and social fascism. One
current manifestation of this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion,
worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly
democratic rulers. At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of a
looming collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other. Paradoxically, the
broader the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the more likely collective suicide
becomes. In its sacrificial genocide version, neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization,
neoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of
"discardable populations", referring to citizens of the Third World not capable of being exploited as
workers and consumers, to the concept of "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of
thousands of innocent civilians. The last, catastrophic heroism, is quite clear on two facts: according to reliable
calculations by the Non-Governmental Organization MEDACT, in London, between 48 and 260 thousand civilians will
die during the war and in the three months after (this is without there being civil war or a nuclear attack); the war will
cost 100 billion dollars, enough to pay the health costs of the world's poorest countries for four years. Is it
possible to fight this death drive? We must bear in mind that, historically, sacrificial destruction has always
been linked to the economic pillage of natural resources and the labor force, to the imperial design of
radically changing the terms of economic, social, political and cultural exchanges in the face of falling
efficiency rates postulated by the maximalist logic of the totalitarian illusion in operation. It is as though
hegemonic powers, both when they are on the rise and when they are in decline, repeatedly go through
times of primitive accumulation, legitimizing the most shameful violence in the name of futures where, by
definition, there is no room for what must be destroyed. In today's version, the period of primitive
11
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
accumulation consists of combining neoliberal economic globalization with the globalization of war. The
machine of democracy and liberty turns into a machine of horror and destruction
5. Wind power production breaks down traditional biopolitical approaches to
reservation development by allowing indigenous people to rethink their existence.
Renewables represent an alternative form of knowledge that fuels indigenous
movements and instigates tribal sovereignty.
Dana E Powell, 2006, “Technologies of Existence: The indigenous environmental justice

movement,” Development (2006) 49, 125–132. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100287
This trend, embedded in a broader network of environmental justice projects in Native America, is a move
towards renewable energy technologies on reservations: wind power and solar power in particular. While
these projects engage wider energy markets, global discourses on climate change and the 'end of oil', and
funds from federal agencies, they also embody an alternative knowledge grounded in an historical,
indigenous social movement in which economic justice for indigenous peoples is intimately intermeshed
with questions of ecological wellness and cultural preservation. As such, wind and solar technologies are
being presented and implemented as alternative approaches to dominant practices of economic
development and carry with them a history of centuries of struggle, as well as the hope for a better future.
These emerging practices of a social movement-driven development agenda draw our attention to the
cultural politics, meanings, histories, and conceptual contributions posited by unconventional development
projects. As part of an emerging movement in support of localized wind and solar energy production on
tribal lands, these projects are responses to the biopolitical operations of 20th century development
projects. They respond to a long history of removal, regulation, knowledge production, and life-propagating
techniques administered on reservation-based peoples. The movement itself addresses controversies in a
way that interweaves the economic, the ecological, the cultural, and the embodied aspects of being and
being well in the world; as a member of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) said to me: The
movement is really about health and people dying ... people can't have an enjoyable life anymore. The work
of the movement is never about the power plant itself, but about how all the EJ (environmental justice)
issues come together and link up to affect people's lives ... its about having a good life (B Shimek, 2004,
personal communication).
12
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Advantage 3: Self-determination
1. Support for self-determination is sub-par and problems do not receive attention.
David Callahan, Director of Research at Demos and domestic and foreign policy writer, 2002, “The
Enduring Challenge: Self Determination and Ethnic Conflict in the 21st century”,
http://www.carnegie.org/pdf/ethnicconflict.pdf.
A second idea is that conflict between modern and traditional populations, manifested by clashes of
religions and cultures, will be a major driver of world politics. This vision of the future is closely
related to a third idea with a wide following: That world politics will increasingly be defined by
battles between the rich and poor—between those who are benefiting from the fruits of an increasingly
globalized world economic system and the great masses of people who are shut out of such prosperity.
Each of these ideas holds important clues about the future. But something is sorely missing from
current debates: An appreciation of the decisive role that self-determination movements and
ethnic conflict will likely have in shaping world politics and American foreign policy in the
decades ahead.*During much of the 1990s, self-determination issues received a tremendous amount of
attention, and for good reason. Conflicts between different ethnic groups in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo,
and the former Soviet Union dominated international news and drew NATO, America and the United
Nations into several major interventions. And yet, even before September 11th, self-determination
issues had largely lost their central place in debates about world affairs and U.S. foreign policy. The fast
changing currents of these debates had carried elite attention to other problems: managing globalization
and its backlash; trading off cold war arms control agreements for the dream of national missile
defense; dealing with growing Chinese power; and so on. Before September 11th, even as international
aid workers worked to rebuild Kosovo and Bosnia, and even as Macedonia teetered on the brink of full-
fledged ethnic warfare, self determination problems ceased to receive a great deal of attention.
2. Energy independence for American Indian promotes self determination and tribal
sovereignty.
Mark Shahinian, third-year law student at the University of Michigan 2008, “SPECIAL
FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY
OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES,” American Indian Law Review 2007 /
200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267.
Tribal sovereignty may be the number one concern of tribes. Indeed, one prominent legal scholar
identifies the right of self-government as the tribes' most valuable reserved right. n90 Historically,
tribes have had good reason to fear a loss of sovereignty, n91 and modern jurisprudence has done little to
assure them of their long-term status. n92In narrow terms, allowing tribes to develop and own their own
wind generation will give them more control over their resources, thus increasing tribal sovereignty.
In broader terms, increased economic self-determination - and specifically the ability of a local
population to use and manage resources - is at the heart of many of the concerns about sovereignty
around the world, from the debate over free trade n93 to the rapidly developing jurisprudence concerning
the efforts of California and northeastern states to impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
n94Policymakers have thrown strong weight behind the idea that increased development of tribal
energy and natural resources leads to increased tribal sovereignty.
13
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
3. U.S. action is key to indigenous modeling for the rest of the world
Glenn T. Morris, (Native American, he formerly served as Co-Director and is now a member of
the Leadership Council of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, associate professor of
political science at the University of Colorado at Denver) 1999
http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/International/int.txt
Although this chapter has implications for the status of all indigenous peoples, its concentration is
primarily within of the United States toward indigenous nations has frequently been emulated by
other states. The fact that a treaty relationship exists between the United States and indigenous
nations, and the fact that indigenous nations within the U.S. retain defined and separate land bases
and continue to exercise some degree of effective self-government, may contribute to the successful
application of international standards in their cases. Also, given the size and relative power of the
United States in international relations, and absent the unlikely independence of a majority- indigenous
nation-state such as Guatemala or Greenland, the successful application of decolonization principles to
indigenous nations within the U.S. could allow the extension of such applications to indigenous peoples in
other parts of the planet
Scenario 1: Kashmir
1. Tensions in Kashmir have reached an all time high.
BBC NEWS, world leader in news, June 27 2008 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7478008.stm]
The BBC's Altaf Hussain says that it appeared as if the entire population of the Muslim-majority Kashmir
Valley had taken to the streets. It is the fifth consecutive day of protests over the land transfer. In the
summer capital, Srinagar, at least 30,000 people converged on the historic Lal Chowk monument.
Similar protests have taken place across the Kashmir valley, with many shouting "We want
freedom!" and "Stop the sale of Kashmir!" Eye witnesses say that police fired teargas shells to break up
a huge demonstration in the town of Pulwama, south of Srinagar. The authorities have now imposed
restrictions on assemblies of more than four people. Schools, banks, shops and offices have all been closed
and paramilitary soldiers and police have been patrolling the streets. "We are not against the pilgrimage,"
one demonstrator told the BBC. "It has been going on for centuries and it should continue... But we do not
want our land to be occupied by anyone." Our correspondent says that surprisingly, the protests have
passed off peacefully in most of places and the police have not made any attempt to stop them. Every year,
thousands of Hindus flock to Amarnath cave, considered one of the holiest shrines of the Hindu faith. The
protests began after the state government transferred 40 hectares of forest land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine
Board - the organisation which organises the pilgrimage. The government said the land was needed for
construction of pre-fabricated huts and toilets for the pilgrims. Local environmentalists protested against
the decision and local politicians joined them. Three Kashmiris have died in protests this week and
nearly 200 have been injured, bringing back memories of widespread protests that swept the region
after a separatist insurgency began in 1989. Separatist groups say the transfer of land to the Shrine
Board is part of a "conspiracy to settle non-local Hindus in the valley with a view to reducing the Muslims
to a minority". The main separatist leaders have been placed under house arrest and many tourists have
hurriedly left the region. The BBC's Chris Morris in Delhi says that ownership of land in Kashmir is an
issue of great sensitivity, but the way these protests have spread has surprised many people after a
prolonged period of calm when the focus shifted to investment and regeneration. Our correspondent
says that the trouble is that none of the underlying political issues which prompted years of insurgency have
gone away.
14
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
2. The Kashmir conflict represents the most dangerous self-determination struggle in

the world—the US must act
Callahan, 2002.(David, Director of Research at Demos. Carnegie Challenge, “The Enduring Challenge: Self
Determination and Ethnic Conflict in the 21st Century,” http://www.carnegie.org/pdf/ethnicconflict.pdf)
The South Asian subcontinent is among the most ethnically fragile regions in the world and has recently
shown signs of growing instability. In late 2001 and early 2002, the long simmering war in Kashmir
escalated to new levels of intensity and galvanized the attention of world leaders. While this
conflict is often characterized as a territorial dispute, it is also a classic struggle for self-
determination, with Kashmir’s majority Muslim population struggling against Indian Hindu rule
and getting support for this effort from Pakistan. The possession of nuclear weapons by both
Pakistan and India makes the Kashmir conflict among the most dangerous self-determination
struggles in the world. Beyond the Kashmir conflict, South Asia is home to serious ethnic tensions
within Pakistan, which is divided by significant ethnic and clan cleavages; and in India, where self
determination struggles in the Punjab and other regions periodically flare up, and where recent Muslim-
Hindu violence has the potential to undermine stability within the country. The ethnic conflict in Sri
Lanka is also a long-standing problem.
3. The US must present a model of internal of self-determination to solve the Indo-

Paki conflict.
Patricia Carley, United States Institute of Peace, 7-1997 , “U.S. RESPONSES TO SELF-
DETERMINATION MOVEMENTS: Strategies for Nonviolent Outcomes and Alternatives to
Secession,” Report from a Roundtable Held in Conjunction with the Policy Planning Staff of the
U.S. Department of State, http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks16.pdf
Although the Kashmir issue involves both India’s domestic politics and its relations with neighboring
Pakistan, the immediate problem is the insurrection in Kashmir itself. Kashmir’s inclusion in the state
of India carried with it provisions for considerable autonomy, but the Indian government over the
decades has undermined that autonomy, a process eventually resulting in anti-Indian violence in
Kashmir in the late 1980s. A lasting solution to the Kashmir problem is unlikely unless that autonomy
issue is addressed. Pakistan and India have gone to war more than once over the Kashmir issue, and
the two countries are currently polarized in their positions; indeed, the primary concern for the
United States on this issue has been to avoid another Indo-Pakistani war. To that end, the United
States may have to exert more effort to solve the problems inside Kashmir, which will probably not
be possible without some return to the autonomy established in the original accession agreement.
4. A struggle over Kashmir will escalate into a nuclear war.

Daniel S. Geller, January 2003 [Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at
Wayne State University, JSTOR]
There exist a number of speculative but plausible avenues along which a nuclear war between India and
Pakistan might begin. For example, one scenario involves escalation, beginning with the use of
conventional military forces in a struggle over Kashmir. Such a military engagement could
escalate to the nuclear level if one side found itself losing the war on the conventional battlefield.
The introduction of battlefield nuclear weapons could be a tactic for manipulating risk or be
pursued as a last, desperate means of avoiding defeat. A second possibility involves crisis-generated
preemption. In the case of a crisis, one side, fearing a first-strike by the other during the confrontation,
launches a preemptive nuclear attack on its opponent's nuclear forces thereby hoping to minimize
damage to itself. A third scenario involves preventive war. A "bolt out of the blue" attack could be
15
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
initiated by either side not as the result of some provocation or crisis, but rather as the outcome of an
expectation that war will inevitably occur at some future date, and, given a calculation that war now-
under current circumstances-is preferable to war later under circumstances which may be less favorable,
a decision is made to strike against the opponent's ungenerated forces.
And thus the plan: The United States Federal Government should authorize
the Native American tribal eligibility for a permanent tradable Production
Tax Credit . Funding and enforcement are guaranteed. We’ll clarify.
16
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Observation 3: Solvency
1. USFG action is key, only they can do the plan due to the Indian Commerce Clause.
Leslie R. Dubois, attorney and writer for Energy Law Journal, 2006, “Comment:
Curiosity and Carbon: Examining the Future of Carbon Sequestration and the
Accompanying Jurisdictional Issues as Outlined in the Indian Energy Title of the 2005
Energy Policy Act”. Energy Law Journal”.
The federal government exercises jurisdiction over tribes concerning environmental and energy issues through
administrative agencies exercising authority granted by Congress. 121 The courts have used the government's
fiduciary or trust duty as a basis for awarding damages for the "mismanagement of Indian resources ..." when the
federal agency "has been assigned comprehensive responsibility to manage them for the benefit of tribes." The
federal government holds much of tribal land in trust and may exercise control over the tribes by requiring federal
governmental approval for contracts made regarding Indian interests in land. 123 For example, the Secretary of the
Interior, or a designee thereof, must approve agreements or contracts with tribes that encumber "Indian lands for a
period of 7 or more years." 124 Thus, if energy contracts regarding sequestration last for more than seven years, the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior would be necessary in order for the contract to be valid unless the contract is
covered under the new procedures in the Indian Energy Title. It should be noted, however, that Secretarial review is
applicable only to tribal trust lands and not agreements regarding tribal land held in fee. Therefore, if sequestration
and subsequent carbon trading occurred on tribally held fee land, Secretarial approval of carbon trading agreements
would not be necessary. The EPA, an administrative agency, has a subsidiary American Indian Environmental Office
that exercises jurisdiction over enforcing environmental protection laws on Indian reservations. 126 While there is
no definitive answer on how the federal government will treat carbon trade and sequestration on tribal lands, the
EPA currently exercises authority over various aspects of tribal environmental issues. 127 In addition, it authorizes
tribes to assume responsibility [*616] to adopt water or air quality standards for their reservations under the Clean
Water Act and the Clean Air Act. 128 As such, it is logical that tribes may extend this power to regulation of carbon
sequestration and the carbon trade internally.
17
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
2. Self-sufficiency solves Native American dependence on the federal government. All
of the energy produced goes to the reservation and not the grid.
FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX
CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES,” American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am.
Indian L. Rev. 267.
Increasing tribal revenues from wind energy production - or any other economic activity that
prospers off- meet federal goals of reducing tribal dependence. The reduction of tribal dependence has
been a congressional goal since the nineteenth century. Even during the passage of the Allotment Acts in
the late nineteenth century, the twisted logic of the time said that forcing tribal members into farming
would push the Indians toward "real and permanent progress." n83 This goal of reduced tribal dependence
was first codified in the economic development context nearly 100 years ago - in the Buy Indian Act of
1908. n84 The Act directs the Department of Interior to give preference to Indians as far as is practicable in
hiring and procurement. n85 The Buy Indian Act has been expanded over the years. In 1974, it was made to
apply to all federal contracts. n86 Congress has been willing to extend the same type of support evinced by
the Buy Indian Act to tribal energy programs. For example, in 2001, the full House of Representatives
passed the Hayworth amendment to the proposed energy bill adding "energy products and energy by-
products" to the categories of materials covered under the Buy Indian Act. n87 That bill, House Bill 4, died
in conference committee in 2002. However, the ideas from the Hayworth amendment are incorporated into
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 - the Act provides for federal purchases of power generated by Indian tribes.
n88Even outside the energy development or economic development contexts, the Federal Government has
made clear administration advocated reduced tribal dependence in an important policy statement issued in
1983. "It is important to the concept of self-government that tribes reduce their dependence on
federal funds by providing a greater percentage of the cost of their self-government," the
administration wrote. n89Any measures that give the tribes a leg up in the economic development game
reduce their economic dependency on the federal government. Wind power development could play a
role in this economic development, but only if tribes have access to the PTC. Wind power
development would provide the "greater percentage of the cost of [tribal] self government" that the
Reagan administration sought and it would push the tribes toward "real and permanent progress".
3. PTC for Tribes is a narrow targeted fix to a problem enhancing sovereignty,

economic self-sufficiency and solving energy resource shortfalls.
Indian L. Rev. 267.
To help resolve the problems outlined above, Congress should institute tax- credit tradability for tribes,
including a tradable PTC. Congress should change the current non-assignable status of tax credits
and allow tribes to trade their tax credits to business partners with tax liabilities in return for cash,
equity or other consideration equal to the value of the credits minus any (presumably minor) transaction
costs. This is a narrow, targeted fix to a problem, which does not require large-scale revisions of the tax
code or of the federal-tribal [*283] relationship. With this sort of provision in place, tribes could become
involved in businesses that make heavy use of tax credits.A. Tradable PTC is Win-Win Tradable tax
credits would be an ideal solution for all parties - tribes, government and private business. Tribes would
gain economic development opportunities; government would be able to further promote the business
ventures it is trying to encourage through the tax code and would reduce tribal dependency on federal
dollars; private business would be able to partner (and profit) with tribes in developing an important natural
resource. Each party would bring something to the table. The tribes would contribute the resources -
land, wind and labor. The outside investor would contribute the capital. The federal government
would contribute the tax credits. The tribes and the outside investor would be partners, both sharing
18
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
in the venture's profits. The tribe would take much of the cash flow, while the outside equity investor
would take all of the tax credits and, depending on the arrangement, some of the cash flow from the project.
4. Tradable tax credits reduce dependency on federal grants and promote economic
development on reservations.
Indian L. Rev. 267.
Tradable tax credits would be an ideal solution for all parties - tribes, government and private business. Tribes
would gain economic development opportunities; government would be able to further promote the business
ventures it is trying to encourage through the tax code and would reduce tribal dependency on federal dollars;
private business would be able to partner (and profit) with tribes in developing an important natural resource.
Each party would bring something to the table. The tribes would contribute the resources - land, wind and labor.
The outside investor would contribute the capital. The federal government would contribute the tax credits. The
tribes and the outside investor would be partners, both sharing in the venture's profits. The tribe would take
much of the cash flow, while the outside equity investor would take all of the tax credits and, depending on the
arrangement, some of the cash flow from the project. The idea of a tradable tax credit is not a new one, nor is it
without precedent. A group advocating renewable energy development on Indian lands originally proposed the
idea for tribes n72 and the Western Governors' Association has supported it. n73 In Oregon, the state's Business
Energy Tax Credits allow renewable energy project owners to trade ("pass through" is the Oregon term) state
renewable energy tax credits to taxable entities. Project owners can be non-profit organizations, tribes or public
entities that partner with Oregon businesses or residents with an Oregon tax liability
5. Tribally controlled energy development breaks down the Western ideology that has
been forced upon Native Americans and restores indigenous cultural practices. Self-
sufficiency is key to self-determination.
Stephen Cornell and Joseph P. Kalt, Cornell is Director of the Udall Center for Studies in
Public Policy and Professor of Sociology and of Public Administration and Policy at The
University of Arizona where he also serves as a faculty associate with the Native Nations
Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy. Kalt is Ford Foundation Professor of
International Political Economy. 1992, American Indian Studies Center.
None of this is to say that there is an inherent conflict between economic development and social
sovereignty. Although the hard data is scarce, field experience suggests that strong assertions of sovereignty,
supported by tribal government policies and institutions capable of backing up that sovereignty, have
reinvigorated tribal identities on reservations such as Mississippi Choctaw, Mescalero Apache, White
Mountain Apache, and Cochiti. It even appears that in some cases, tribally controlled development may be
accompanied by such phenomena as a resurgence of indigenous language and reductions in reservation
crime. Resolving conflicts surrounding the cultural appropriateness of various economic activities is not a
problem unique to Indian Country, nor is it a problem new to contemporary tribes, many of whom have had to
manage such disputes ever since Europeans arrived in North America and probably long before. We return to
our central theme: effectively resolving conflicts over development activities today requires capable
governmental and nongovernmental social institutions. If these institutions are not able to lay in place an
environment in which conflicts can be resolved and productive investments in the future can be made,
reservation economic development— of whatever kind—will be impeded. On the other hand, once those
institutions are in place, then the choices tribes make over development activities will have a much
greater chance of leading to sustainable—and culturally appropriate—development
19
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
6. Kashmir conflict key to solving the Indo-Pak conflict.
D. Suba Chandran, Assistant director of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi,
2008, “Swords and Ploughshares: The Future of Kashmir, The bulletin of the Program in Arms Control,
Disarmament, and International Security University of Illinois at Urbana, Volume 16, No. 1, Winder 2007-
2008, http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/S&Ps/S&P-wi2007-8.pdf)
There are two sets of conflicts relating to Jammu and Kashmir—the conflict in Kashmir and the conflict of
Kashmir. The conflict of Kashmir is primarily linked to the larger Indo-Pak conflict and its actors
include India, Pakistan, and Kashmiris. In the initial decades following the 1947 partition, India’s
primary objective in the conflict of Kashmir was to internationalize the issue to its advantage, based
on its legal claim over the entire Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) region including the Mirpur, Muzaffarabad,
Gilgit, and Baltistan regions. These four regions, under direct and indirect control of Pakistan, are
administered through two different political entities. The regions of Mirpur and Muzaffarabad—called
“Azad Kashmir”—have limited autonomy, while the Gilgit and Baltistan regions are referred as the
Northern Areas and fall under the total control of Islamabad.
20
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Inherency 1/3
Native Americans have become silenced by the government and corporate behemoths.
As we begin to examine the relationship between American Indians and environmental justice, it is important to note
that American courts have many times in the past criminalized, whether consciously or not, traditional knowledge.
Indian people who have challenged multinational corporate giants and the government through political activism in
an effort to halt environmentally destructive projects on their lands have been criminalized and arrested to silence
their claims. Leaving traditional knowledge out of environmental policy is a grave injustice because it is socially
injurious to Native peoples and, in effect, all people, not only in the United States but worldwide. When writing
about Indigenous peoples, the exclusion of environmental issues also establishes an injustice because it does not
recognize the origins of social institutions among all human beings. Therefore, everything in American Indian
culture is associated with an environmental perspective, even issues that filter through the American court system.
As will be examined, Native peoples today are using their sophisticated traditional knowledge, combined with
militant strategies in some cases, to effect change. Providing equitable justice for Indigenous people establishes an
important precedent that can put social institutions like criminal justice in a context where the connection between
society and the environment is recognized.
Current policy fails.
Stephen Cornell and Joseph Kalt, Cornell is Director of the Udall Center for Studies in Public
Policy and Professor of Sociology and of Public Administration and Policy at The University of
Arizona where he also serves as a faculty associate with the Native Nations Institute for
Leadership, Management, and Policy. Kalt is Ford Foundation Professor of International Political
Economy. 2006. “Two Approaches to Economic Development on American Indian Reservations:
One Works, the Other Doesn’t”
There’s a brain drain as a lot of the people with good ideas—particularly younger tribal members—leave home
for somewhere else, desperate to support their families and discouraged by political favoritism, bureaucratic
hassles, and the inability of tribal government to deal with the basic problems. Patterns of failure,
mismanagement, and corruption encourage outside perceptions of Indian incompetence and reservation
chaos that make it even harder to defend tribal sovereignty. The ultimate economic result is continued
poverty. In short, the standard approach doesn’t work
21
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Inherency 2/3
Government funding is allocated onto reservations in the status quo, but many still live in
poverty.
Kate Burke and Linda Sikkema, Burke is NCSL energy program manager and Sikkema is
director of NCSL’s Institute for State-Tribal relations, 6/2007, “Native American Power”
Developing renewable energy just may be a booming industry for many tribes in Indian Country. More and more
tribes are looking at clean alternative energy sources to power their homes and bring in jobs, all while
respecting Mother Earth’s resources. They are tapping power from solar and geothermal sources, and from
wind, biomass, hydrogen and ocean waves. “Renewable energy has the potential to be as big—or bigger—a
revenue generator for tribes as casinos are for some of them today,” says Lizana Pierce of the U.S. Department of
Energy in Golden, Colo. “Currently, tribal land encompasses about 5 percent of the land in the lower 48 states and
contains about 10 percent of all energy resources— conventional and renewable.” Wind and solar energy
especially have great potential on tribal lands. The wind energy capacity on tribal lands is approximately 14
percent of the annual U.S. electric generation. The solar energy potential is 4.5 times the annual U.S. electric
generation. The two-dozen reservations in the northern Great Plains have a combined wind power potential that
exceeds 300 gigawatts—half of the current electrical generation in the United States. New energy projects are
popping up all around the country. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs in Central Oregon are on their way to
becoming a major energy supplier in the Pacific Northwest. The tribes’ own interest in two large hydroelectric
projects and a biomass project that operates on wood waste from the tribes’ lumber mill. Another project in the
works is a large biomass plant that will use forest waste to generate renewable electricity for more than 15,000
homes. With funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, Warm Springs also is working on a wind energy
assessment, and is studying geothermal resources on the reservation. There are more examples around the
country. A wind turbine powers Four Bears Casino near Ft. Berthoud, N.D. The Mohegan Nation in Uncasville,
Conn., tapped the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund to finance two giant fuel cells that use hydrogen and operate like
a battery. This cleaner power replaces diesel generators as the source of emergency power for the tribe’s gambling
facility. The tribe plans eventually to go off-grid by adding more fuel cells for their main power source as well. One-
third of the 2.4 million Native Americans living on or near tribal lands live in poverty. The unemployment
rate is double national. There are an estimated 18,000 families in the Navajo Nation alone still living without
electricity.
Small form of plan exists in status quo, but requires more funding to be fully effective.
Kate Burke and Linda Sikkema, Burke is NCSL energy program manager and Sikkema is
director of NCSL’s Institute for State-Tribal relations, 6/2007, “Native American Power”
Funding for new projects can be a challenge, however. Many tribes have been able to invest their own money,
while others have turned to banks, the federal government and other tribes. Since 1992, the Tribal Energy
Program at the U.S. Department of Energy has supported tribes with renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies to encourage self-sufficiency, economic development and employment opportunities. So far, the
DOE has invested $12.4 million in 76 projects in Indian Country with tribes putting in around $3.3 million. Tribes
can also benefit by selling the environmental benefits of clean energy through energy certificates called
“green tags.” Anyone who wants to offset the polluting effects of personal energy use can purchase clean
energy—that is powered by wind, solar or other renewable resources—by buying these green tags, instead of or
to complement traditional power. Native Energy, for example, bought green tag credits from the Rose- bud Sioux
22
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
wind turbine project in South Dakota. Native Energy purchased the green tags for the life of the project—rather than
on a year- by-year basis—allowing the tribe to acquire upfront capital to fund the wind turbine project. Native
Energy is reselling the tags, which represent clean, carbon-free electricity, to people and businesses who want to
support renewable energy. Since March 2003, the sale of green tags and excess power to a regional electric company
has brought $500,000 in profit. The Native Energy and Rosebud Sioux deal will produce enough energy to power
approximately 220 South Dakota homes a year, and will offset an estimated 2,100 tons of carbon dioxide
pollution annually over the turbine’s expected lifespan.
Inherency 3/3
Natives currently suffer a wide range of social and economic problems, and current
strategies fail.
Stephen Cornell and Joseph P. Kalt, Cornell is Director of the Udall Center for Studies in Public
Policy and Professor of Sociology and of Public Administration and Policy at The University of
Arizona where he also serves as a faculty associate with the Native Nations Institute for
Leadership, Management, and Policy. Kalt is Ford Foundation Professor of International Political
Economy. 1992, American Indian Studies Center.
This strength is still being tested. Among the most formidable challenges facing native peoples today are those
rooted in economic conditions. American Indians living on the nation's nearly 300 reservations are among the
poorest people in the United States. On most reservations, sustained economic development, while much
discussed, has yet to make a significant dent in a long history of poverty and powerlessness. Despite the many
federal programs and the large sums of federal and philanthropic money that have been used over the years,
many Indian reservations continue to experience extremely high unemployment rates; high dependency on
welfare, government jobs, and other transfer payments; discouraging social problems; and an almost
complete absence of sustainable, productive economic activity
23
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Solvency: Natives relations key to Environment
Native Americans produce a sustentative life through a mutual relationship with the
environment.
Winona LaDuke, a member of the Anishinabe Nation, author, activist, and scholar of environmental and Indigenous
issues, writes that "sustainability in these marginal habitats did not simply rely on a matter of 'luck.'" For thousands
of years, American Indian people maintained a sustainable way of life based on the concept of reciprocity or
reciprocal relations. Reciprocity, based on natural law, defines the relationship and responsibility between people
and the environment. All parts of the environment—plants, animals, fish, or rocks—are viewed as gifts from the
Creator. These gifts should not be taken without a reciprocal offering, usually tobacco or saymah, as it is called in
the Ojibwa language. 1 Colonial-style policies and practices concerning the environment and sustainability were
formulated with false assumptions that the people of the Americas were primitive uncivilized savages who impeded
the growth of technology and progress. If we put aside our fascination with technology and material wealth, we find
that for many people in today's modern society, life is primitive and stunted in terms of family values, spiritual life,
commitment to the community, and opportunities for rewarding work and creative self-expression. These are the
very areas most richly developed in the traditional communities of the Americas. In her research, LaDuke argues
that social and economic systems based on this type of life are usually decentralized, communal, and self-reliant.
These societies live closely with and depend on the life contained in that particular ecosystem. This way of living
enabled Indigenous communities to live for thousands of years in continuous sustainability. 2
Woodland culture practiced by the indigenous is the ideal thinking for environmental
policy.
the Twenty-First Century”. The American Indian Quarterly, 26.2 (2002), p. 202-203. [T-Jacob].
An example of woodland culture spirituality comes from the Anishinabe (Chippewa) people who developed a code
of ethics and a value system which guides the behavior of many in accordance with natural law—or mino
bimaatisiiwin—translated as the good life or continuous rebirth. LaDuke writes that mino bimaatisiiwin "guides
behavior toward others, toward animals, toward plants and the ecosystem, and it is based on tenets of reciprocity and
cyclical thinking." 11 In contrasting the value system and knowledge base of the Chippewa with capitalistic values, it
is reciprocity or reciprocal relations that define responsibilities and ways of relating between humans and the world
around them. This, in turn, affects the technology used by Indigenous groups, such as the Chip pewa, by ensuring
methods of harvesting resources that will not deplete supplies needed for survival. LaDuke writes: [End Page 202]
Within this act of reciprocity is also an understanding that "you take only what you need and leave the rest." Implicit
in the understanding of Natural Law is also the understanding that most of what is natural is cyclical: whether our
bodies, the moon, the tides, seasons, or life itself. Within this natural cycling is also a clear sense of birth and rebirth,
a knowledge that what one does today will affect us in the future, on the return. These tenets, and the overall
practice of mino bimaatisiiwin imply a continuous inhabiting of place, an intimate understanding of the relationship
between humans and the ecosystem, and the need to maintain balance. For the most part, social and economic
systems based on these values are decentralized, communal, self-reliant, and very closely based on the land of that
ecosystem. This way of living has enabled Indigenous communities to live for thousands of years upon their land as,
quite frankly, the only examples of continuous sustainability which exist on Turtle Island (North America). We hope
there will be more. 12
24
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
PTC K/T Solvency
PTC’s key to attracting private investors and develop Alternative energy.
Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians, 3/1/2004, Native American
Interview: Tex Hall, National Congress of American Indians,
Q. What can the U.S. government do to assist in the development of wind resources on Tribal lands? A. A number
of national energy policy issues could support native renewable energy development, particularly wind
energy development. Tribes need to have equal access to the federal renewable energy incentives. In the Great
Plains, we are running into a variety of overriding policy issues, as well as local nuts-and-bolts concerns in the
practical application of wind development on Tribal lands. As a member of Intertribal Council on Utility Policy
(COUP), we have proposed several specific policy directions and actions by the executive and legislative branches
that will do a great deal to assist Tribes in the development of wind energy. I will address these issues in three areas,
which are equally important: First, it is essential to continue funding the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
grants program for renewable energy projects because they provide funding for planning, feasibility, and
development of real projects. The DOE and the Wind Powering America program have initiated a meaningful
outreach to Tribes through the Native American Wind Interest Groups and technical assistance partnerships. This is a
great model that demonstrates the trust responsibility of the U.S. Government to the Tribal Nations. Second,
Congress must authorize the Tribal eligibility for the Production Tax Credit (PTC) that drives all wind
projects in this country. Tribes are now penalized in that they cannot attract the private investor to develop
partnerships for projects on Tribal lands.
Non-PTC incentives fail.
Currently, because Tribes are not taxed entities (a status we secured from the United States in return for our giving
them most of this continent), any developer that teams up with a Tribe in a joint venture for wind development
is penalized by only being able to use a portion of the available PTCs, which are apportioned under federal
law by the percentage of ownership in the production facility. So if a tribe has any ownership in a project on
Tribal lands, our partner must forego any incentives represented by our ownership. The PTC is the main
driver for wind development in this country, but this federal incentive policy steers investment capital away
from Indian lands.
25
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Solvency: Indigenous knowledge k/t Policy
Indigenous knowledge is essential to environmental policy making, Belizean rainforest

proves.
the Twenty-First Century”. The American Indian Quarterly, 26.2 (2002), p. 199-200. [T-Jacob]
Louise Grenier is a scholar working in the realms of international development and environmental and Indigenous
issues through utilizing Indigenous knowledge. Grenier writes that Indigenous knowledge (IK) refers to the unique,
traditional, local knowledge existing within and developed around the specific conditions of women and men
indigenous to a particular geographic area.... The development of IK systems, covering all aspects of life, including
management [End Page 199] of the natural environment, has been a matter of survival to the peoples who generated
these systems. Such knowledge systems are cumulative, representing generations of experiences, careful
observations, and trial-and-error experiments. 3 Since the very survival of Native peoples depended on their being
able to utilize knowledge in balance with the natural environment, one could make the argument that Indigenous
Knowledge is technology. Grenier writes that Indigenous knowledge is stored in peoples' memories and activities
and is expressed in stories, songs, folklore, proverbs, dances, myths, cultural values, beliefs, rituals, community
laws, local language and taxonomy, agricultural practices, equipment, materials, plant species, and animal breeds.
Indigenous knowledge is shared and communicated orally, by specific example, and through culture. Indigenous
forms of communication and organization are vital to local level decision making processes and to the preservation,
development, and spread of Indigenous knowledge. 4 In her researchers' guide for working with Indigenous
knowledge, Grenier writes about an example of Native knowledge exclusion which comes from American
anthropologist Richard Wilk in his article on sustainability and technology transfer. 5 Grenier writes about Wilk's
discussion of a folder of material containing twenty-five separate project proposals, feasibility studies,
implementation plans, and project assessments covering a period of one hundred years. All these studies were
concerned with commercializing the production of edible palm oil from a tree native to the Belizean rainforest.
Technologies developed for use in other tropical palm oil industries were tried. Even with government subsidies and
easy access to dense, high-yield tree stands, every one of the projects failed while, at the same time, the Indigenous
people continued production of edible oil by using a variety of simple, local technologies based on knowledge
passed down for generations.
Policy must be established upon reciprocal power and holistic way of viewing the
environment.
Policy is built on a variety of philosophical and epistemological arguments, ultimately grounded in subjective
choice, and developed using the political skills of strategy and persuasion. Based on this, the central question
becomes: What philosophical and epistemological frame of reference is best suited for developing and initiating
policy leading to environmental justice and power relations that are based on reciprocity rather than hierarchical
domination? The critical perspective used here stresses the significance of values in rethinking how environmental
policy should be dealt with and is tested by placing [End Page 211] views about the environment into an American
Indian, specifically Chippewa, way of life. In other words, there is a need to reconceptualize neocolonial values
deemed to be authoritative. When making decisions, policy should be grounded in doctrines and principles that
stress reciprocal power and a holistic way of viewing the environment.
26
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Solvency: Critical thinking k/t Environment 1/2
Critical examination of policy is essential for environmental action.
Along the same lines, political scientist Mary Hawkesworth argues that in order to effectively examine policy, the
underlying values which drive decision making must be acknowledged. Most importantly, for Hawkesworth, sources
of power must be critically examined. Indeed, the critical study of any subject should take into account the
hierarchies of power that are inherent in our society. 45 The critical perspective proposed here challenges policy
analysts to place themselves within an environmental justice framework which would attempt to uncover the
underlying assumptions that may contribute to and produce unequal protection. A framework such as this addresses
the ethical and political questions of "who gets what, why, and how much." 46 Addressing ethical and political
questions such as these is important because one frame of reference by itself does not inform the whole of the
problems associated with negative environmental impacts on people of color and low income groups. The critical
perspective challenges the policy analyst to choose among social values, and, because values underlie decisions, the
policy analyst should recognize that by choosing only one framework, their frame of reference is culturally bound
and dependent. This point is made by critically examining the values and lifestyle of American Indians.
Critical perspectives on policy produce different realities and mutual relations with the
environment.
A critical perspective offers a new frame of reference for policy-making grounded in the doctrines and principles of
many American Indian people regarding the environment. This perspective demands critical thinking about the
policies of both private and public sectors developed by those privileged with power in response to environmental
issues. The critical perspective questions the assumptions upon which current policies are based, examines
traditional solutions, and advocates new ways of thinking about the environment. While not perfect by any means,
this perspective allows for different realities and reciprocal relations of power based upon mutual respect and insists
that these different realities should be reflected in decisions and policies made to include Indigenous peoples.
Formulating environmental policies from a critical perspective includes taking into consideration questions about
responsibilities toward the environment and how these responsibilities ought to be reflected in the policies adopted
by the government, in the private sector, and in the habits of the population as a whole.
27
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Solvency: Critical thinking k/t Environment 2/2
Community based ideology is effective in utilization of the environment.
As expressed by our ancestors, we are part of nature and must begin to express an idea of community rather than
conquest. Native teachings can help us understand our relationship with life and creation as well as expand our
awareness of nature and natural cycles. We can begin to see that the earth is a resource for all our needs, in fact, our
only resource. As human beings, it becomes increasingly valuable for us to recognize this relationship so that we
may benefit by using the gifts of creation effectively and efficiently. By utilizing the environment and eliminating
waste in appropriate ways, we begin to establish a way of seeing the future from the perspective of generations to
come; not only with respect to oil and luxury items, but by placing value on clean air, water, and soil in ways that
will sustain us and our societies into the future. Such an awareness of life can begin to have a profound effect on our
whole global society. As a community sharing life with the earth, we can see our dependence with, not independence
from, nature. Through the realization that holistic Indigenous knowledge concerning the environment is important
and essential to our survival as a whole, the teachings that Native peoples of the Americas present to our global
society can be utilized in many ways, if given the chance.
28
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Solvency: Natives benefit State/Corporations
Native American influence on environmental politics benefits large corporations and serve
the interests of the state.
Even though American Indian perspectives have a greater impact today on environmental politics and policy than
previously, American Indian philosophies, values, and knowledge are not included in those policy decisions that
benefit large corporations and serve the interests of the state. There is a vast social distance between the parties
involved in corporate land and mineral issues that causes a breakdown in communication as well as
misinterpretations of each party's actions. Walter Bresett, activist and member of the Red Cliff band of Chippewa,
argues that Indians and non-Indians alike are being victimized by large corporations that reduce economic options. 50
Activist and author Al Gedicks writes, "the sooner we stop labeling 'native issues' as something separate and distinct
from our own survival, the sooner we will appreciate the critical interconnections of the world's ecosystems and
social systems." 51 Environmental concerns can be absolutely crucial within the context of reservation politics; even
before the most hostile of tribal councils, the kind of "Mother Earth" talk that would make Anglo corporate
executives [End Page 215] or legislators roll their eyes can make all the difference. 52 In dealing with American
Indian people when making important decisions, such as formulating environmental policy, corporate America and
the federal government would be wise to realize that among American Indian tribes there is a growing respect and a
demand for the inclusion of generations of cumulative Indigenous knowledge which is essential in balancing
business practices with sustainability. Environmental harms follow the path of least resistance and are connected to
many things such as the air we breathe, our food, water, lifestyles, and legal decisions. Developing economically
sustainable alternatives will depend on many variables, such as research, effective organizing and lobbying, legal
representation, effective use of the media, interactive utilization of Native rights and environmental movements by
Indigenous groups and state/local governments, and an essential inclusion of Native beliefs and values concerning
the environment.
29
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Ext: Solvency
Native American alternative energy lifestyle is the only way to survive.
the Twenty-First Century”. The American Indian Quarterly, 26.2 (2002),[T-Jacob].
Corporations and the state would have us believe there is no other way, other than their way, to survive
economically. They do not want to look at other ways of knowing because those ways might be more powerful than
they are. As Mander writes, the only group of people, so far, who are clear-minded on this point are Native peoples,
simply because they have kept their roots alive in an older, alternative, nature-based philosophy that has remained
effective for tens of thousands of years and that has nurtured dimensions of knowledge and perceptions that seem
outdated to many. It is crucial that Euro-centrism be reassessed for its impacts on the environment, tradition, and
Native peoples, because Native societies and their knowledge of the environment, not our own, may well hold the
key to future survival. 54 In times past, Native nations in the Americas achieved an ecological balance with their
environment. The great success that Native people experienced using natural patterns and strategies for survival is
available to us now. It may be time for us to begin to examine the alternatives used throughout history to achieve the
survival of Native societies. For example, Gedicks suggests investing in locally-owned small firms and in labor-
intensive technologies such as tribal fish hatcheries, renewable energy, recycling, forest products, and organic
farming, which would create far more jobs than mining, while at the same time contributing to an environmentally
stable economy. Gedicks also suggests encouraging utilities to buy locally-produced renewable energy rather than
encouraging electric utilities to build coal-fired power plants. He cites Northern States Power, a company building a
wind farm in Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, as an example of available, cost effective technology. 55 From an American
Indian context it is important, once again, to recognize the influence of past history, cultural perspectives, and
environmental relationships. The logic that led us into the problems our society faces today is not adequate to
develop informed solutions to these contemporary concerns.
30
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Solvency: Rights k/t Protection
Assertions of treaty rights are mandatory for protection of natural resources.
An extremely important strategy that will continue to be used in the protection of natural resources is that of
asserting treaty rights. According to LaDuke, one of the most important aspects of Indian treaty rights "is the power
of the treaties to clarify issues which would otherwise be consigned to nation-state apologists to the realm of
'opinion' and 'interpretation.' The treaties lay things out clearly, and they are matters of international law." 18 Being
victimized by a long history of exploitation has taught American Indian leaders new ways to defend the natural
resources on their lands by using the law and trust relations with the United States as weapons in federal court. By
recognizing that a trust relationship exists between the United States and Indian tribes, and that this relationship
binds the federal government to a set of responsibilities to tribes, courts and laws are being used to ensure that those
responsibilities are met. Important lessons learned in the environmental battles of the 1970s include using trust status
to the tribes' maximum advantage to protect their natural resources and lands, as well as reminding the federal
government of its obligations as they have been established in treaties. 19 To understand this trust relationship, the
definition of "trust" must be considered. Trust is "a right in property held by one person, called the trustee, for the
benefit of another, called the beneficiary, or cestui que trust." 20 The federal government has been active as trustee in
this relationship by carrying out its trust responsibilities through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of
the Interior. This occurred amidst criticism from the tribes for paternalism and ineffectiveness. 21
31
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Solvency: Economic Survival
Alternative methods of rebalancing the environment are key to economic survival.
As mentioned earlier, balance is a very old and important concept to almost all Indian people and affects every facet
of life. Today, it is widely recognized that our environment is drastically out of balance. We are in a state of
environmental deterioration that requires alternative approaches to economic survival. Underneath the rhetoric of the
environmental problem lies the inseparable issue of power and what Stephen Pfohl describes as powerful rituals of
control, which affect human rights as a whole. 42 The point is not only to [End Page 210] understand the problem,
but also to solve it. The common denominator is direct action aimed against the status quo. With the assertion of
Native rights comes a firm rejection of business-as-usual. Structured arrangements of power within our society have
given us images of those who deviate from the dominant order. In a world constructed as much by symbolic action
as physical behavior, being a person who has disparate political beliefs or has skin of a different color may be reason
enough to call in forces of control. This "natural" or commonsensical character of a social order is really not natural
at all but synthetic, artificial, and feigned.
32
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Solvency: Cooperation Key
Cooperation with indigenous methods is vital for environmental policy.
As tribes continue to challenge state and corporate power, new definitions of who they are as Indian people and the
role they play economically will emerge. Circular ways of viewing profitable business by utilizing environmentally
sustainable methods will assist in redefining the ways Indian people, corporations, and the state do business and will
redefine relationships between these groups. New and different ways to take what is needed from the environment
without causing total environmental devastation must be examined in the future. Decreasing the environmental
deterioration occurring today will require alternative approaches to economic security through sustainable land use
practices. Sharing the knowledge that American Indian people have in this area will place the focus on cooperation
rather than on hierarchical control. Rearranging this focus will have enormous impacts in the area of policy
implementation.
33
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Solvency: Critical Perspective Key
Native Americans have been ignored in environment policy decisions, critical perspectives
are vital.
The state and multinational corporations have consistently used their historically structured hierarchical positions of
power to keep Indian people powerless and in a position of relative disadvantage in the past. Clearly, when the
efforts of those privileged by power have been blocked by resistance based in treaty rights, unethical practices in
dealing with the tribes have occurred which have caused them injury and harm. Those in powerful positions have
countered Indian resistance by using the force of racism. Sociologist Robert Bullard argues that "[W]hether by
conscious design or institutional neglect, communities of color in urban ghettos, in rural 'poverty pockets,' or on
economically impoverished Native-American reservations face some of the worst environmental devastation in the
nation." 41 The struggle engaged in by the Chippewa to protect their natural resources from the state of Wisconsin
and huge multinational corporations is but one such example. Environmental racism experienced by the Chippewa is
evident in the systematic efforts put forth to exclude them from participation in the decision-making process. In an
effort to "neutralize" the opposition, corporations have narrowly defined issues that can be raised in environmental
impact statements and have ignored the objections of those opposed to the destruction caused by mining. And, as we
have seen, with the increasing power of mining opponents, other methods of "neutralizing" the opposition must be
found by the state and corporations. As illustrated earlier in this article, the state government and corporations have
resorted to using the climate of race hatred to weaken and divide potential coalitions active against their
multinational corporate vision of industrial development. Examining these situations from a critical perspective
helps facilitate an understanding of the way in which those in power are participants in creating an environmentally
harmful atmosphere which maintains current hierarchical positions of power. The critical perspective presented here
can be applied to deconstruct the unequal relationship between the state/corporate entities and those who are less
powerful, to reconstruct a better form of balance.
34
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Wind K solvency 1/2

Wind power is key to allowing Native American sovereignty – US federal government key
Q. Why is wind important to the Tribes of the Great Plains? A. Wind is an incredible untapped energy resource
that could go a long way toward making this country energy independent. It has been said that an ocean of
energy crosses the Great Plains every day. Tribes here have many thousands of megawatts of potential wind
power blowing across our reservation lands. Tribes in the Great Plains could look to the wind as a constant
source of renewable energy to help meet our own local energy needs in a way that protects our air, water, and
land. Tribes are interested in protecting their sovereignty and providing for their reservation communities.
Tribally owned wind projects can provide an opportunity to generate power locally in a clean way that meets
our needs in an affordable way, now and for the future. Wind power can provide several sources of revenue to
the tribe, through the sale of energy, the sale of green tags, and the use of production incentives. But to realize this
potential, tribes need technical assistance from the federal government to assess our resources and site
projects. We need to level the economic playing field so that tribes can use the production incentives available
to off-reservation development. Tribes need access to the federal grid to bring our value-added electricity to
market throughout our region and beyond. Wind is part of our culture. Most of the Great Plains Tribes have
distinct names and stories about the winds that recognize the different personalities and characteristics of the
winds coming from the four directions. Today, our persistent winds represent a fabulous opportunity for all people
on the Great Plains to generate clean, reliable electricity without digging up our lands or polluting our air or water.
Wind power solves self-determination
As to the nuts-and-bolts issues, we have learned the significance of using wind to meet off-grid applications
versus interconnecting to the local and regional power grids. Off-grid applications require back-up power or storage
systems. These systems can operate independently, although it can be more costly due to the back-up
requirements, but it can be economic if it would actually cost more to run transmission lines to serve a remote
load. Interconnecting to the local and regional grids that are owned and operated by non-Tribal utilities raises
a host of issues, including jurisdiction, rights of way, demand charges, net metering, and others. When Tribes
evolve from consumers of electricity to actual power generators, we are moving into a new territory that is
already occupied by established interests who may not be so willing to let us participate on an equal footing.
We can look for partnerships and for fair dealing with the contributions we can make to the nation's energy
supply, but we will need to address many technical and policy obstacles along the way.
35
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Wind K/T Solvency 2/2
Wind power empowers Native Americans and lowers US fossil fuel usage.
A. In the West, we have seen more than four years of drought. Most of the utility-scale energy generated in the
West is from burning fossil fuels, a non-renewable energy source. Today, the world uses so much fossil fuel that
we see the impacts on the price we pay at the gas pump, on the quality of our air (even in rural America), and as the
scientists tell us and as Indian people have seen first hand, on our larger regional and global climate. Carbon
dioxide is a prime greenhouse gas that is associated with the long-term weather changes we are now
experiencing. Our current energy policies contribute to the drought conditions that reduce the snowpack in the
Rockies where the Missouri River starts and throughout the northern plains. Our cheap electricity may contribute
significantly to the ruin of our ranching and farming economies through the prolonged drought associated
with climate change and increased weather extremes and variability. With less hydropower due to the low
water levels, the current federal policy is to buy and burn more fossil fuels, creating more greenhouse gases
and filling the sky with sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon gases. Our current coal, gas, and nuclear generators also
consume a tremendous amount of precious water through steam generators and power plant cooling systems. In the
face of this, wind power projects on the Great Plains can generate electricity on a large, utility scale without
consuming water in the process. People may even pay an extra premium for wind power if it can help to
preserve our regional water supply. Tribal wind projects could replace diminished hydropower in the federal
grid system while building up sustainable Tribal homeland economies.
36
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Impact: Colonialism
37
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Contrasting views on the environment from colonialism and woodland culture are severely
cataclysmic to the Native American perception on the environment killing their being.
The contrasting views of the value and technology system of the Chippewa versus the European-American
capitalistic values of power, materialism, economic efficiency, and immediacy have led to confusion and
misunderstanding about other people and their ways. European-American views toward family and religion are
different than the views of many American Indians. While not all European-Americans are of the Christian religion,
much of the knowledge contained in the exploitive dynamics of the Christian religion are closely tied to the concepts
of our capitalistic society and are not connected to the earth or environment as is the spirituality of The Way of
American Indians. 13 The result is a culture conflict in which both sides see their values and methods of looking at
life as the only correct way. In this context, the unequal balance and hierarchical social structure produced by the
expansionary needs of capitalism are, to many American Indian people, highly destructive to their perception of the
need for balance between physical and spiritual worlds. The sharp contrast between these two sets of cultural views
is a major point of contention between dominating cultures and Indigenous peoples today. These differences could
also be a contributing factor to changes that are beginning to take place in many Indigenous communities. Native
peoples who have not been included in decision-making concerning the potentially environmentally devastating
impact of corporate intrusion upon their lands are critically thinking about, assessing, and demanding that their
voices be heard and not discounted or ignored as in times past.
Assured destruction due to corporate exploitation awaits us.
In exploring the concept of critical thinking, criminologist Richard Quinney writes that "[W]ithout critical thought
we are bound to the only form of social life we know—that which currently exists. We are unable to choose a [End
Page 203] better life; our only activity is in further support of the system in which we are currently a part and which
continues to exploit us." 14 Nowhere is this more true than with multinational corporations who engaged in colonial-
style projects on many reservations with disastrous results for the people and the environment. As the effects of
these disasters emerged, Indian people on other reservations targeted for corporate exploitation began to take notice.
Armed with knowledge about the environmental stability of their homelands, many tribes decided that the inevitable
destruction caused by corporate exploitation was not worth the price of letting their resources be taken from the
earth. By utilizing their knowledge about environmental devastation and not accepting the colonial-style offers of
multinational corporations at face value, the tide on reservations is beginning to turn. Today, Native peoples are
calling for inclusion in these decisions by challenging powerful corporations and governmental institutions through
a critical perspective on power and control.
38
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Ext: Colonialism-I/L Exploitation
Colonial domination has exploited the indigenous and labeled them as primitive resource
colonies.
Until recently, those seeking to exploit Indigenous lands did not consider drawing upon the vast wealth of
Indigenous knowledge. Specifically within the United States, loss of power and autonomy through the process of
colonialism relegated Indigenous peoples to a position on the lower end of the hierarchical scale in U.S. society. The
legacy of fifteenth-century European colonial domination placed Indigenous knowledge in the categories of
primitive, simple, "not knowledge," or folklore. It comes as no surprise then that through the process of colonization
Indigenous knowledge and perspectives have been ignored and denigrated by the vast majority of social, physical,
biological and agricultural scientists, and governments using colonial powers to exploit Indigenous resources.
Colonization is more than just a convenient economic domination of one group by another. In its present-day form,
colonization continues to undermine the political, military, social, psycho-culture, value systems, and knowledge
base of the colonized and imposes on them the values and culture of the colonizer. For the sake of economic control
—the main impetus behind any colonization—the colonizer must constantly devise new means of oppressing the
colonized. 8 Colonialism continues today, but with different foreign powers than in the past, that is, banks,
corporations, speculators, governments, and various development agencies. Today Indigenous peoples are on the
frontline of contemporary colonial struggles. They are sitting on resources the rest of the world wants at the lowest
possible cost. Their territories are still considered frontier lands, un-owned, underutilized, and, therefore, open to
exploitation. Because Indigenous populations are small, politically weak, and usually physically isolated, their vast
environmental knowledge base is, for the most part, denigrated by these new colonizers, making Indigenous
populations easy targets as resource colonies. Central to the concept of resource colonization is, as John Bodley
emphasizes in his work, Victims of Progress, "that the prior ownership rights and interests of the aboriginal
inhabitants are totally ignored as irrelevant by both the state and the invading individuals." 9 When two different
groups of people come together in the process of colonization, lives are changed, sometimes for the better but often
for the worse. The Europeans' search for gold, precious metals, and fossil fuels demonstrates how such meetings
adversely transformed regions
39
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Ext: Colonialism: I/L
Native American land has been warped into a waste disposal for the USFG.
Daniel Brook, professor of Sociology at UC-Davis, American Journal of Economics and

Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 1, (Jan., 1998), pp. 105 – 113. [T-Jacob].
Genocide against Native Americans continues in modern times with modern techniques. In the past, buffalo were
slaughtered or corn crops were burned, thereby threatening local native populations; now the Earth itself is being
strangled, thereby threatening all life. The government and large corporations have created toxic, lethal threats to
human health. Yet, because "Native Americans live at the lowest socioeconomic level in the U.S." (Glass, n.d., 3),
they are most at risk for toxic exposure. All poor people and people of color are disadvantaged, although "[f]or
Indians, these disadvantages are multiplied by dependence on food supplies closely tied to the land and in which
[toxic] materials . . . have been shown to accumulate" (ibid.). This essay will discuss the genocide of Native
Americans through environmental spoliation and native resistance to it. Although this type of genocide is not
(usually) the result of a systematic plan with malicious intent to exterminate Native Americans, it is the consequence
of activities that are often carried out on and near the reservations with reckless disregard for the lives of Native
Americans.(1) One very significant toxic threat to Native Americans comes from governmental and commercial
hazardous waste sittings. Because of the severe poverty and extraordinary vulnerability of Native American tribes,
their lands have been targeted by the U.S. government and the large corporations as permanent areas for much of the
poisonous industrial by-products of the dominant society. "Hoping to take advantage of the devastating chronic
unemployment, pervasive poverty and sovereign status of Indian Nations", according to Bradley Angel, writing for
the international environmental organization Greenpeace, "the waste disposal industry and the U.S. government
have embarked on an all-out effort to site incinerators, landfills, nuclear waste storage facilities and similar polluting
industries on Tribal land" (Angel 1991, 1).
40
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Impact: Racism
The government has labeled Native Americans as un-American savages perpetuating

intense racism causing ethnocides.
the Twenty-First Century”. The American Indian Quarterly, 26.2 (2002), p. 206-207. [T-Jacob]
In order to maintain control over the land and resources of others, (in this case, the Chippewa of Wisconsin)
corporate/state actors must effectively neutralize the efforts of those who would oppose this control. As a tactic to
mobilize public opinion in favor of corporations, American Indians who have resisted the environmentally
destructive corporate mega-projects on tribal lands have been portrayed by the media as deviant and un-American
because they are supposedly impeding progress. We need only to look to past examples of American Indians as
victims of ethnocide and ethnoviolence. 25 American Indians, as a whole, have been systematically portrayed as
deviant since first contact with Europeans, and later, European-Americans who have engaged in deculturating and
redefining them as inferior beings. 26 Historic rituals of embedding in the Anglo mind images of Native peoples as
"savages," "backward," "uncivilized," and "unintelligent," justified the continued repression of traditional ways and
forced assimilation into the dominant culture through violence when deemed necessary. 27 Their construction as the
"deviant other" along with political and economic disempowerment provides the context for multinational
corporations and the state of Wisconsin to wage a war of aggression against the Chippewa for their natural
resources. This can be seen in the intense racial conflicts between the Chippewa and non-Indians experienced in
Wisconsin for the past twenty [End Page 206] years. These conflicts are a relevant political fact. Since off-
reservation treaty rights allowing the Chippewa to spearfish outside reservation boundaries were reaffirmed by the
Supreme Court in the 1983 Voigt case, many northern communities in Wisconsin have been bitterly divided. 28
Sportfishers and hunters find the traditional practices of spearing, gill-netting, and "shining" (night hunting) used by
the Chippewa concerned with following their traditions rather than sport, objectionable. Opponents of the court's
decision consider it "unjust" for the Chippewa to have "special privileges" denied to other Wisconsin residents—like
longer hunting seasons and the right to shoot deer from vehicles—just because of some "old treaties." 29 Limited by
very strict state regulations, many sportfishers were upset that the efficient Chippewa methods of harvesting fish for
subsistence were not available to non-Indians. The opposition started in small groups protesting the regained
Chippewa treaty rights. As the groups enlarged, the controversy turned into racial slurs and violence. Bait shops in
northern towns sold "Treaty Beer" with labels protesting Indian spearfishing and claiming to be the "True Brew of
the Working Man," while many restaurants and taverns displayed and dispensed literature attacking spearfishing and
called for the abrogation of Chippewa treaties. 30 Victimizing the Chippewa also included hurling rocks, insults,
racial epithets like "timber niggers," waving effigies of speared Indian heads like props from a horror movie,
displaying signs with slogans like "Save Two Walleye, Kill a Pregnant Squaw," and using large motorboats trailing
anchors to capsize Indian boats. 31 The intense racism experienced by the Chippewa prompted Archbishop William
Wantland of the Episcopalean Diocese of Eau Clair, Wisconsin, to state that "of all the states I've lived in this Union,
Wisconsin is the most racist. I grew up in the South. And I said that before the Voigt Decision was handed down. It's
obvious—the racism, the hatred, the bitterness, the prejudice." 32 Wantland's reflection on the hostility and racism
toward the Chippewa since the court's decision in 1983 is particularly telling: "I felt I was caught in a time warp this
spring in Wisconsin. I thought I saw the '50s and '60s. I thought I saw Selma and Little Rock and Montgomery." 33
None of the racism described here is unrelated to multinational corporations and the ongoing war of aggression
against Native peoples and natural resources. Even though the Supreme Court made its position on the Voigt
Decision abundantly clear when the it refused to hear the state of Wisconsin's appeal, and even though the U.S.
Constitution states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, Governor Tommy Thompson criticized the
Chippewa for exercising their treaty rights. It is important to note that every study conducted on the impact of
Chippewa spearfishing, from both the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wild life Commission, [End Page 207] to the most recent report commissioned by Congress, has failed to find
41
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
any evidence to support the accusations that the Chippewa are threatening the fish resource. 34 This gives one pause
to wonder why Thompson and the corporate CEOs would hide behind false hysteria.
Ext: US Key
US action is key, only they can do the plan due to the Indian Commerce Clause.
Leslie R. Dubois, attorney and writer for Energy Law Journal, 2006, “Comment: Curiosity and
Carbon: Examining the Future of Carbon Sequestration and the Accompanying Jurisdictional
Issues as Outlined in the Indian Energy Title of the 2005 Energy Policy Act”. Energy Law
Journal”. [T-Jacob].
The federal government exercises jurisdiction over tribes concerning environmental and energy issues through
administrative agencies exercising authority granted by Congress. 121 The courts have used the government's
fiduciary or trust duty as a basis for awarding damages for the "mismanagement of Indian resources ..." when the
federal agency "has been assigned comprehensive responsibility to manage them for the benefit of tribes." The
federal government holds much of tribal land in trust and may exercise control over the tribes by requiring federal
governmental approval for contracts made regarding Indian interests in land. 123 For example, the Secretary of the
Interior, or a designee thereof, must approve agreements or contracts with tribes that encumber "Indian lands for a
period of 7 or more years." 124 Thus, if energy contracts regarding sequestration last for more than seven years, the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior would be necessary in order for the contract to be valid unless the contract is
covered under the new procedures in the Indian Energy Title. It should be noted, however, that Secretarial review is
applicable only to tribal trust lands and not agreements regarding tribal land held in fee. Therefore, if sequestration
and subsequent carbon trading occurred on tribally held fee land, Secretarial approval of carbon trading agreements
would not be necessary. The EPA, an administrative agency, has a subsidiary American Indian Environmental Office
that exercises jurisdiction over enforcing environmental protection laws on Indian reservations. 126 While there is
no definitive answer on how the federal government will treat carbon trade and sequestration on tribal lands, the
EPA currently exercises authority over various aspects of tribal environmental issues. 127 In addition, it authorizes
tribes to assume responsibility [*616] to adopt water or air quality standards for their reservations under the Clean
Water Act and the Clean Air Act. 128 As such, it is logical that tribes may extend this power to regulation of carbon
sequestration and the carbon trade internally.
42
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Topicality: Energy Source
Indigenous technology is defined as an energy source.
the Twenty-First Century”. The American Indian Quarterly, 26.2 (2002), p. 200-201. T-Jacob
Indigenous technology is defined as "hardware (equipment, tools, instruments, and energy sources) and software (a
combination of knowledge, processes, skills, and social organization) that focus attention on particular tasks." 6 This
definition describes the technology utilized by the Indigenous people presented in Wilk's story and prompts Grenier
to ask several important questions: Did anyone bother to ask local people the who, how, where, when, and why of
their local palm oil production system? Could costly failures have been avoided if the entrepreneurs had bothered to
learn about the local production system? If a combination of Indigenous and foreign inputs had been tried, could
hybrid technologies have yielded successful ventures? The most important question [End Page 200] Grenier raises
is, "what would have been the outcome had any of these proponents worked with Indigenous knowledge?" 7
43
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: Discourse K
Specific names are not divisive amongst native peoples.
Borgna Brunner, infoplease writer, 8/2007, infoplease database,

<http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html>
No doubt the most significant reason that an inclusive attitude toward these terms of identity has developed is
their common usage among Native peoples. A 1995 Census Bureau Survey of preferences for racial and ethnic
terminology (there is no more recent survey) indicated that 49% of Native people preferred being called
American Indian, 37% preferred Native American, 3.6% preferred "some other term," and 5% had no
preference. As The American Heritage Guide to English Usage points out, "the issue has never been
particularly divisive between Indians and non-Indians. While generally welcoming the respectful tone of
Native American, Indian writers have continued to use the older name at least as often as the newer one."
The criticism that Indian is hopelessly tainted by the ignorant or romantic stereotypes of popular American
culture can be answered, at least in part, by pointing to the continuing use of this term among American Indians
themselves. Indeed, Indian authors and those sympathetic to Indian causes often prefer it for its unpretentious
familiarity as well as its emotional impact, as in this passage from the Kiowa writer N. Scott Momaday's memoir
The Names (1976): 'It was about this time that [my mother] began to see herself as an Indian. That dim native
heritage became a fascination and a cause for her.' "Names and Labels: Social, Racital, and Ethnic Terms:
Indian", The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary
English. 1996. As Christina Berry, a Cherokee writer and producer of the website All Things Cherokee,
counsels: In the end, the term you choose to use (as an Indian or non-Indian) is your own personal choice.
Very few Indians that I know care either way. The recommended method is to refer to a person by their
tribe, if that information is known. The reason is that the Native peoples of North America are incredibly
diverse. It would be like referring both a Romanian and an Irishman as European. [W]henever possible an Indian
would prefer to be called a Cherokee or a Lakota or whichever tribe they belong to. This shows respect because
not only are you sensitive to the fact that the terms Indian, American Indian, and Native American are an over
simplification of a diverse ethnicity, but you also show that you listened when they told what tribe they belonged
to. When you don't know the specific tribe simply use the term which you are most comfortable using. The worst
that can happen is that someone might correct you and open the door for a thoughtful debate on the subject of
political correctness and its impact on ethnic identity. What matters in the long run is not which term is used
but the intention with which it is used.
44
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: Politics (Ignored)
Native Americans are being ignored in congress
Jessica Lee, independent writer for various online current event databases, 7/19/08 “walking for
the earth”,
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/07/18/walking-for-the-earth/ [T-Jacob]
The long trek gathered firsthand accounts of how Nations are grappling with adverse affects of 500 years of
colonization, borders, capitalism, environmental injustice and racism. “We have witnessed the desecration of sacred
sites by the United States government, corporations, developers and individual citizens,” said Jimbo Simmons, a
Longest Walk 2 organizer. Millions of Native Americans live on the front lines of U.S. energy policy and warefare,
coping with the effects of the extraction, processing, and dumping of coal, natural gas and uranium. Since 1940, it is
estimated that more than 50 percent of all uranium extracted for nuclear energy and weapons has been mined from
indigenous lands, leaving massive radioactive contamination. “To a traditional indigenous person, land means life.
… Today they call those things resources,” says Western Shoshone grandmother Carrie Dann, quoted in the
Manifesto. The current debate about “clean coal” fails to address myriad environmental justice concerns regarding
the toxic reality of coal mining, processing and burning. In the Navajo and Hopi Nations, the community continues
to fight Peabody Coal’s strip mining, which has forced people off their ancestral lands, depleted a pristine aquifer
and caused toxic spills. “For over 500 years, those holding economic power backed with weaponry have imposed
upon us their agenda,” says the Manifesto. “… there must be a systemic radical change so that those who pray the
land and those who have lived on the land for thousands of years determine the destiny of their lands.”
Despite elections, congress perceives that natives don’t need aid

Dave Palermo, (Dave Palermo is a freelance writer and president of Native First
Communications) 7/11/08, “Palermo: We can sway perception and policy”,
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417707.
About two years ago, tribal leaders gathered at Portland State University to discuss how tribal government gaming
and the evolving image of Native America was impacting American Indian policy on Capitol Hill. The gathering
took place as convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff was dominating headlines, the 109th U.S. Congress was taking shots
at tribal sovereignty, and there was a growing concern tribal gaming was tarnishing the public perception of
American Indians. ''Public polls seem to suggest our support has eroded in recent years due to the backlash created
by the Abramoff scandal and negative images surrounding tribal gaming,'' said Alan Parker, professor of Native
American law and a citizen of the Chippewa Cree Tribal Nation. ''It seems a large segment of the public believe that
what Indian people are about is operating casinos.'' ''Casinos ... are not who we are,'' Nisqually tribal elder Billy
Frank Jr. told those at the meeting. ''We are our languages, our culture, our natural resources, our spirituality and our
prayers.'' That was two years ago. Abramoff has since faded from the front pages of the Washington Post and New
York Times. The Senate Indian Affairs and House Resources committees are focusing on more urgent, non-gaming
tribal issues such as education, health care and natural resources. And tribes can rejoice at the attention the
presumptive Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are giving to tribal issues. ''We're seeing for the
first time, the candidates are reaching out,'' Kalyn Free, founder of the Indigenous Democratic Network and a citizen
45
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, told the Denver Post. ''They are recognizing the power of the Indian vote and
that Indians could be pivotal in this election.'' But many remain concerned about the nationwide, public perception
of American Indians, particularly the notion that, thanks to tribal government gaming, indigenous Americans are no
longer economically and socially disadvantaged. There is a nagging fear the ''myth of the rich Indian'' is prompting
Congress, federal policy makers and bureaucrats with the U.S. Department of Interior and BIA to ignore the nation's
trust responsibility for the more than 2.4 million citizens of more than 560 federally recognized tribes and Alaska
Native villages; promises etched in treaties made in exchange for Native lives and lands. Statistics show economic
growth on tribal lands is three times the national average, a trend that to a large degree can be attributed to a federal
policy of tribal self-determination introduced in 1975, U.S. Supreme Court rulings upholding the right to game on
tribal lands, and enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.
AT: Politics (Support)
There is congressional support for Native American aid
Shana Starkand, online independent writer for news organizations such as market watch, 7/9/08
“American diabetes association applauds us”,
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/american-diabetes-association-applauds-
us/story.aspx?guid={0D98D83B-1E7A-49D6-BB4B-465ACAE3B556}&dist=hppr , [T-Jacob]
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) applauds the U.S. Congress for voting in favor of extending the Special
Diabetes Programs (SDP) for two more years. Today, the U.S. Senate voted in support of a Medicare package that included
a two-year extension of the Special Diabetes Programs. The measure recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives as
well. These programs consist of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) and the Special Statutory Funding Program for
Type 1 Diabetes Research (SDP-type1) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Both require periodic joint Congressional re-
authorization and will now continue through September 2011. "We applaud Congress for their vote to extend the Special
Diabetes Programs," said R. Stewart Perry, Chair of the Board of the American Diabetes Association. "We know the value of
these programs and the real difference they make in the quality of life for millions of people with diabetes and, in changing the
future for all people with diabetes." 23.6 million Americans -- or 7.8 percent of the population -- have diabetes.
Diabetes is among the leading causes of death by disease in the United States. SDPI helps to implement prevention,
education and treatment programs in Native American communities. At 17 percent, American Indians and Alaska
Natives have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes among all U.S. racial and ethnic groups. Recent
government studies have demonstrated that the program's prevention and treatment efforts have contributed to
significant reductions in diabetes complications in these targeted populations.
Native American aid is popular, Obama and McCain want their vote
MARTIN GRIFFITH, Writer for the LA times and Associated Press, 7/14/08, “Young Native
Americans mull Obama, McCain at Event”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glorPeYbVNfQ7Si2wvXl0nIAOapQD91THI4O0
Hundreds of young Native Americans gathering for a five-day conference here are being urged to become politically
active because the American Indian vote could make a difference in this year's presidential election.
Jackson Slim Brossy, legislative associate of the nonpartisan National Congress of American Indians, said the Indian
vote — which traditionally has been Democratic — is up for grabs this year as Sens. Barack Obama and John
McCain both try to woo it. He said the Indian vote was a factor in Obama's defeat of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in
June's Montana primary, as well as in past victories of U.S. Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Jon Tester, D-Mont.,
and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M. "The Native American vote has been overlooked in the past, but there's a trend of
it making a difference and I think 2008 will continue the trend," Brossy told The Associated Press. "The vote will go
to the candidate who reaches out more to Indian country and has the best policies for Indian country," he added.
Both McCain and Obama tried to do just that with messages for the 1,000-odd attendees at the annual United
46
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
National Indian Tribal Youth conference in Reno. The gathering ends Tuesday. Jose Martinez Jr., 17, a Pima from Arizona's
Salt River Reservation, praised McCain after hearing the Arizona senator's videotaped message. He said the Republican is better
plugged into the concerns of Native Americans because he represents a state with more than 15 reservations and is former
chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "He has to live beside us and he understands how we live and think," Martinez
said. "He's a simple man and simplicity has a way of winning the heart of people. He offers us stuff that he can actually deliver
on." But Mykhal Colelay Mendoza, 16, of Arizona's White Mountain Apache Reservation, said she supports Obama because she
thinks his commitment to Indians and the environment is more sincere. The concerns of the nation's 11.9 million American
Indians gained renewed attention in May as Obama visited Montana's Crow Indian reservation and was adopted into the nation
during a private ceremony. In Reno, a surrogate delivered a message from the Democratic candidate. "He inspires me a lot
because he's not white," Mendoza said. "Maybe this country would change with a person of color in the White House. We've been
doing the same routine and it's getting boring." But Mendoza added: "Both of my parents think the country is not ready for a
person of color yet." J.R. Cook, a Cherokee who is director of nonpartisan UNITY based in Oklahoma City, Okla., said neither
candidate is automatically assured of the Indian vote. "Either way, it's a win-win for Native Americans because of the
commitments of McCain and Obama to provide a greater voice for Native Americans in their administration," Cook
said.
Toxic Waste Add-On
The cycle of genocide faced by Native Americans during colonial times has not been
stopped – current environmental are uniquely detrimental to natives due to their
socioeconomic status
Dan Brook, Cal Berkeley Sociology, Professor, 1-1998, "The Environmental Genocide: Native
Americans and Toxic Waste." American Journal of Economics and Sociology,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_n1_v57/ai_20538772/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
accessed 7/3/08
Genocide against Native Americans continues in modern times with modern techniques. In the past, buffalo were
slaughtered or corn crops were burned, thereby threatening local native populations; now the Earth itself is being
strangled, thereby threatening all life. The government and large corporations have created toxic, lethal threats to
human health. Yet, because "Native Americans live at the lowest socioeconomic level in the U.S." (Glass, n.d., 3),
they are most at risk for toxic exposure. All poor people and people of color are disadvantaged, although "[f]or
Indians, these disadvantages are multiplied by dependence on food supplies closely tied to the land and in which
[toxic] materials . . . have been shown to accumulate" (ibid.). This essay will discuss the genocide of Native
Americans through environmental spoliation and native resistance to it. Although this type of genocide is not
(usually) the result of a systematic plan with malicious intent to exterminate Native Americans, it is the consequence
of activities that are often carried out on and near the reservations with reckless disregard for the lives of Native
Americans.
Due to a perceived lack of economic status and lack of tribal sovereignty, reservations have
become the dumping ground for nuclear waste.
accessed 7/3/08
One very significant toxic threat to Native Americans comes from governmental and commercial hazardous waste
sitings. Because of the severe poverty and extraordinary vulnerability of Native American tribes, their lands have
47
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
been targeted by the U.S. government and the large corporations as permanent areas for much of the poisonous
industrial by-products of the dominant society. "Hoping to take advantage of the devastating chronic unemployment,
pervasive poverty and sovereign status of Indian Nations", according to Bradley Angel, writing for the international
environmental organization Greenpeace, "the waste disposal industry and the U.S. government have embarked on an
all-out effort to site incinerators, landfills, nuclear waste storage facilities and similar polluting industries on Tribal
land" (Angel 1991, 1).
Toxic Waste Add-On
The plan solves all of the reasons that natives agree to have waste dumped on their land.
accessed 7/3/08
Indeed, since so many reservations are without major sources of outside revenue, it is not surprising that some tribes
have considered proposals to host toxic waste repositories on their reservations. Native Americans, like all other
victimized ethnic groups, are not passive populations in the face of destruction from imperialism and paternalism.
Rather, they are active agents in the making of their own history. Nearly a century and a half ago, the radical
philosopher and political economist Karl Marx realized that people "make their own history, but they do not make it
just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly
found, given and transmitted from the past" (Marx 1978, 595). Therefore, "[t]ribal governments considering or
planning waste facilities", asserts Margaret Crow of California Indian Legal Services, "do so for a number of
reasons" (Crow 1994, 598). First, lacking exploitable subterranean natural resources, some tribal governments have
sought to employ the land itself as a resource in an attempt to fetch a financial return. Second, since many
reservations are rural and remote, other lucrative business opportunities are rarely, if ever, available to them. Third,
some reservations are sparsely populated and therefore have surplus land for business activities. And fourth, by
establishing waste facilities some tribes would be able to resolve their reservations' own waste disposal problems
while simultaneously raising much-needed revenue.
Even if protective measures are taken the waste will still poison the environment.
accessed 7/3/08
48
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Unfortunately, it is a sad but true fact that "virtually every landfill leaks, and every incinerator emits hundreds of
toxic chemicals into the air, land and water" (Angel 1991, 3). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concedes
that "[e]ven if the . . . protective systems work according to plan, the landfills will eventually leak poisons into the
environment" (ibid.). Therefore, even if these toxic waste sites are safe for the present generation - a rather dubious
proposition at best - they will pose an increasingly greater health and safety risk for all future generations. Native
people (and others) will eventually pay the costs of these toxic pollutants with their lives, "costs to which [corporate]
executives are conveniently immune" (Parker 1983, 59). In this way, private corporations are able to externalize
their costs onto the commons, thereby subsidizing their earnings at the expense of health, safety, and the
environment.
Toxic Waste Add-On
Sovereignty solves – stronger tribal governments deter waste dumpers
accessed 7/3/08
There are two major categories of people who illegally dump waste on tribal land. They have been called "midnight
dumpers" and "native entrepreneurs." Midnight dumpers are corporations and people who secretly dump their
wastes on reservations without the permission of tribal governments. Native entrepreneurs are tribal members who
contaminate tribal land, without tribal permission, for private profit or personal convenience. Both midnight
dumpers and native entrepreneurs threaten Native American tribes in two significant ways: tribal health and safety,
and tribal sovereignty.
49
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Toxic Waste Add-On
Cross-apply Powell – By fueling indigenous movements the plan combats environmental

racism while maintaining native culture and lands.
accessed 7/3/08
Native Americans have always altered their environment, as well as having it altered by others. The environment,
like culture, is inherently dynamic and dialectical. Native Americans "used song and ritual speech to modify their
world, while physically transforming that landscape with fire and water, brawn and brain. They did not passively
adapt, but responded in diverse ways to adjust environments to meet their cultural as well as material desires"
(Lewis 1994, 188). However, the introduction of toxic waste and other environmental hazards, such as military-
related degradation, have catastrophically affected the present and future health and culture of Native Americans.
Yet, Native Americans and other people of color, along with poor people, women, and environmentalists, have been
organizing against toxic waste and fighting back against the government and the corporations. Indeed, "the
intersection of race discrimination and exposure to toxic hazards", according to Andrew Szasz, Professor of
Sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, "is one of the core themes of the [anti-]toxics movement"
(Szasz 1994, 151).(4) In spite of the often desperate poverty of Indian tribes, "a wave of resistance has erupted
among Indian people in dozens of Indian Nations in response to the onslaught of the waste industry" (Angel 1991,
5). Sporadic resistance has also developed into organized and sustained opposition. Facing the threat of a toxic waste
facility on their land in Dilkon, Arizona, in 1989, the Navajo formed a group called Citizens Against Ruining our
Environment, also known as CARE. CARE fought the proposed siting by educating and organizing their
community, and their success inspired other similarly situated Native Americans. (CARE later merged with other
Navajo groups fighting for the community and the environment, to create a new organization, called Dine CARE).
The following year, in June 1990, CARE hosted a conference in Dilkon called "Protecting Mother Earth: The Toxic
Threat to Indian Land", which brought together "over 200 Indian delegates from 25 tribes throughout North
America" (ibid.).
50
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Toxic Waste Add-On
Toxic waste dumping harms reservations – disease and loss of tribal sovereignty. The plan
solves by breaking down the paternalist relationship between the state and the reservations
that is the root cause of the dumping by the government.
Rob Capriccioso, Journalist, 4-11-2008, Tribes look for federal wind energy incentives, Indian
Country Today, www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417026
First, toxic waste poses a severe health and safety risk. Some chemical agents cause leukemia and other cancers;
others may lead to organ ailments, asthma, and other dysfunctions; and yet others may lead to birth defects such as
anencephaly. Toxic waste accomplishes these tragic consequences through direct exposure, through the
contamination of the air, land, and water, and through the bioaccumulation of toxins in both plants and animals. And
because of what Ben Chavis in 1987 termed "environmental racism," people of color (and poor people) are
disproportionately affected by toxic waste. Native Americans are especially hard hit because of their ethnicity, their
class, and their unique political status in the United States.
A second problem that Native Americans must confront when toxic waste is dumped on their lands is the issue of
tribal sovereignty, and more specifically the loss of this sovereignty. "Native American governments retain all power
not taken away by treaty, federal statute, or the courts. As an extension of this principle, native governments retain
authority over members unless divested by the federal government" (Haner 1994, 109-110). Jennifer Haner, a New
York attorney, asserts that illegal dumping threatens tribal sovereignty because it creates the conditions that make
federal government intervention on the reservations more likely (ibid., 121). The federal government can use the
issue of illegally dumped toxic waste as a pretext to revert to past patterns of paternalism and control over Native
American affairs on the reservations; Native Americans are viewed as irresponsible, the U.S. government as their
savior.
51
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: Current Legislation Solves
Clean Energy Bill doesn’t solve – the credits aren’t applicable to wind energy projects.
''We're not really holding our breath for Congress to step in with funding,'' said Bruce Renville, a wind energy
planner with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe. ''But certainly, grants or other incentives would be helpful.'' In
recent weeks, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., co-sponsored the bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, which
would extend the renewable energy production tax credit for one year. The current production tax credit incentive of
2 cents per kilowatt-hour is scheduled to expire in December. Thune's proposed production tax credit would only
benefit entities that already have profits from wind energy production, but the legislation also includes bond funding
that tribes could apply for to help establish wind energy projects. Thune and other wind energy proponents in the
Senate say they want to extend the production tax credit so that wind energy developers have certainty when it
comes to future projects. Whether their mission includes certainty for tribal entities remains to be seen. Few, if any,
tribes have been able to take advantage of the production tax credits offered to date because many tribes that have
been able to create wind energy projects have relied on non-Native developers to help them get projects off the
ground. Under current law, tribes are not entitled to the tax credits provided to non-Native developers for renewable
energy production because tribes have a tax-exempt status. Tribal energy experts say it's important for tribes to be
reaching out to Congress regarding the tax-exempt issue, since it likely discourages non-Native developers from
wanting to work with tribes.
52
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: Status Quo Solves
Past legislative efforts have failed – legislators have not earmarked any funds for
alternative energy projects.
Recent legislative developments have also made it challenging for tribes to obtain federal wind energy seed funding.
In 2007, Thune proposed the Wind Energy Development Act, which included $2.25 billion in funding for Clean
Renewable Energy Bonds that tribes could have used to fund pilot wind energy programs. Under Thune's plan, 20
percent of this bonding would have been specifically set aside for tribes; however, the set-aside did not make it into
the current version of the wind energy tax credit legislation, and it was not in the energy bill that passed last
December. Some tribal energy advocates believe supporting new legislation that promotes Clean Renewable Energy
Bonds may be the best hope for tribes that want to receive federal funding to begin wind energy development.
Thune's current legislation proposes $400 million in funding for the bonds, which energy experts say tribes should
be eligible to apply for via the IRS.
Status quo efforts are disincentives
As the Senate and House consider extensions of the renewable energy tax credit, the Intertribal Council on Utility
Policy, which represents 10 tribes, is pushing for legislation that would support tribal wind projects. Officials with
the group note that none of the federal incentives currently in place involving wind energy were designed expressly
for tribes, which they say is ironic since tribes are the only group that the federal government has an explicit trust
responsibility to assist in economic development.
''The federal renewable energy incentives, as designed, are problematic for tribes, in that they are both insufficient
and inappropriate as drivers of tribal development as presently configured,'' the group noted in a recent policy paper.
''The presently formulated federal incentives have actually worked as disincentives in the unique context of tribal
renewable energy development.''
53
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: Can’t Produce AE
Indian reservations have the capability to produce huge amounts of wind power
Research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that many of the windiest areas in the U.S. are
located close to and on reservations. The laboratory has estimated that the total tribal wind generation potential is
about 535 billion kwh per year, or 14 percent of the total U.S. electric generation in 2004. South Dakota alone is
capable of producing 566 gigawatts of electrical power from wind, which is the equivalent of 52 percent of the
nation's electricity demand. Wind energy potential is also great in tribe-rich states including Montana, Minnesota
and Wyoming. ''We have always known that we have some of the best wind energy resources in the country,'' said
Renville, and recent wind measurement assessments have confirmed that assumption. His tribe is currently
preparing to find a partner to help them harness wind energy and ultimately sell it to electric companies.
54
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: States CP
Congressional action key to wind development
As growing numbers of tribes pursue wind energy projects, tribal energy advocates are cautiously hoping that new
developments in Congress could eventually lead to tax credits and incentives to aid tribal economies. ''We're not
really holding our breath for Congress to step in with funding,'' said Bruce Renville, a wind energy planner with the
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe. ''But certainly, grants or other incentives would be helpful.''
55
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: States CP
Only the federal government has authority over Indian affairs.
Dean B Suagee, lawyer specializing in Native American law and environmental law, May 19,
1998
“Renewable Energy in Indian Country: Options for Tribal Governments”, Renewable Energy in
Indian Country, Issue Brief 10, Lexis
In brief, while Congress is said to have "plenary power" over Indian affairs, tribal governments hold inherent
sovereignty and also exercise power pursuant to delegations of authority from Congress. Within reservation
boundaries, states generally have only limited powers over Indian lands and Indian persons.
56
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Biopower Impacts
Biopolitics creates a logic of extermination, justifying the worst atrocities in history
Anne Stohler, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan, Race and the Education
of Desire, 1995, P. 81-82
Biopower was defined as a power organized around the management of life, where wars were waged on behalf of
the existence of everyone, entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of the
life necessity, massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and that so many regimes have been able to
wage so many wars, causing so many to be killed, at stake is the biological existence of a population. If genocide is
indeed the dream of modern powers, it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the
race, and the large scale phenomena of the population. The sovereign right to kill appears as an "excess" of biopower
that does away with life in the name of securing it. How does this power over life permit the right to kill, if this is a
power invested in augmenting life and the quality of it? How is it possible for this political power to expose to death
not only its enemies, but even its own citizens. This is the point where racism intervenes. "What inscribes racism in
the mechanisms of the state is the emergence of biopower.... racism inscribes itself as a fundamental mechanism of
power that exercises itself in modern states" racist discourse it is a "means of introduction a fundamental division
between those who must live and those who must die. It fragments the biological field it establishes a break inside
the biological field, it establishes a break inside the biological continuum of human beings by defining a hierarchy of
races, a set of subdivisions in which certain races are classified as "good," fit, and superior. It establishes a positive
relation between the right to kill and the assurance of life. It posits that the more you kill and let die, the more you
will live." It is neither racism nor that state that invented this connection, but the permanency of war-like relations
inside the social body. Racism now activates this discourse in a novel way, establishing a biological confrontation
between "my life and the death of others" The enemies are those identified as external and internal threats to the
population. "Racism is the condition that makes it acceptable to put certain people to death in a society of
normalization" The murderous function of the biopolitical state can only be assured by racism, which is
indispensable to it. Racism will develop in modern societies where biopower is prevalent and with colonizing
genocide." How else, could a biopolitical state kill civilizations if not by activating the themes of evolutionism and
racism. War "regenerates" one's own race. In conditions of war proper, the right to kill and the affirmation of life
productively converge. Discourse has concrete effects; its practices are prescribed and motivated by the biological
taxonomies of the racist state.
57
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Biopower Impacts
The State, through its monopolization of violence gives itself the power to choose who lives
and who dies.
Alrx Houen 2006 [, author and lecturer in Modern Literature and American Studies in the
Department of English Literature at the University of Sheffield, UK, “Sovereignty, Biopolitics,
and the Use of Literature: Michel Foucault and Kathy Acker”]
First, then, let's return to Society Must be Defended and the notion of martial power that Foucault links to political
sovereignty. Sovereignty was the predominant structure of western power from the middle ages to the sixteenth
century, Foucault argues, and essentially it involved instituting the state's absolute power over its territory. Contrary
to the forms of disciplinary power that develop out of sovereignty, sovereign power was "exercised over land and
the produce of the land, much more so than over bodies and what they do..." (SMD, 36). As figureheads of this
power, sovereign rulers were thus charged with the responsibility for presiding over the common good. But as
Thomas Hobbes suggested in Leviathan (1651), the sovereign is also the embodiment of the people's renunciation of
power, a living symbol of their willingness to pledge their lives for the good of the "common-wealth."6 In that
respect, the sovereign does have power over individual bodies, for it is the sovereign alone who ultimately has the
right to decide which subjects live and die. Accordingly, Foucault argues, "in terms of his relationship with the
sovereign, the subject is, by rights, neither dead nor alive. From the point of view of life and death, the subject is
neutral, and it is thanks to the sovereign that the subject has the right to be alive or, possibly, the right to be dead"
(SMD, 240). Investing the sovereign with power over such matters clearly militates against citizens taking law and
life into their own hands. But as Max Weber argued, this also implies that the state's power and "right" are
predicated on giving the state a monopoly on violence. As Foucault points out: "The immediate effect of this State
monopoly was that what might be called day-to-day warfare, and what was actually called Ôprivate warfare,' was
eradicated from the social body..." (SMD, 48). In other words, sovereignty prevents war from taking place within the
state by claiming war all for itself. Consequently, says Foucault, the state subsumes war and centralizes it, with the
consequence that war increasingly takes place between states. The internal peace within political realms thus arises
as a result of the state's arrogation of the right to violence. And it is on this basis that Foucault asserts that "War is
the motor behind institutions and order. In the smallest of its cogs, peace is waging a secret war" (SMD, 51).
The underside of biopower is nuclear annihilation. The power over ultimate death is
directly tied to the power to organize life
Peter Coviello, Assistant Professor of English at Bowdoin College, "Apocalypse from Now On,"
Queer Frontiers,2000, p. 41
Power, he contends, "exerts a positive influence on life ... [and] endeavors to administer, optimize, and multiply it,
subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations." In his brief comments on what he calls "the atomic
situation," however, Foucault insists as well that the productiveness of modern power must not be mistaken for a
uniform repudiation of violent or even lethal means. For as "managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race;'
agencies of modern power presume to act "on the behalf of the existence of eve one." Whatsoever mi ht be
construed as a threat to life and survival in this way serves to authorize an egression of force, no matter how
invasive or, indeed, potentially annihilating. "If genocide is indeed the dream of modern power," Foucault writes,
"this is not because of a recent return to the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the
level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population." For a state that would arm itself not
with the power to kill its population, but with a more comprehensive power over the atterns and functioning of its
collective life the threat of demise, nuclear or otherwise, seems a civic initiative that can scarcely be done without.
58
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Biopower Impacts
Biopower causes numerous atrocities in the name of protecting life
Jon Simons, Lecturer of Critical Theory @ Univ. of Nottingham, 1995 Foucault and the Political
(Thinking the Political), Routledge, p. 34
Initially it had been the bourgeoisie that affirmed itself through its sex, which ‘appeared to be the source for an
entire capital for the species to draw from’. It was believed that if sexual perversions were permitted, the hereditary
stock of the class-race would degenerate (118). When, as the nineteenth century advanced, bio-politics was deployed
throughout the population, state racism was born (119). The life of the species became a political issue, giving rise to
projects for the eugenic ordering of society (149), as well as wars in which whole populations were mobilized and
massacred in the name of the preservation of the species or race (137). Life- affirming bio-power may only kill
when it does so in the name of the life of the species. Against the background of the doctrine of ‘survival of the
fittest’, racism justifies not only the killing of others but also the endangering of one’s own race, as war is a means
of purifying the race. Although Nazism is the most extreme case of bio-power, Foucault argues that the play between
the affirmation of life and the right to kill functions to some degree in all modern states, both capitalist and socialist
(1991: 52—9)
Disciplinary Power threatens the end of humanity.
James Bernauer, Ph.D. State University of New York, Professor of Philosophy at Boston
College, 1990
Michel Foucault's Force of Flight: Toward an Ethics for Thought, Humanities Press
International, Inc., New Jersey, p. 141-142)
This capacity of power to conceal itself cannot cloak the tragedy of the implications contained in Foucault's
examination of its functioning. While liberals have fought to extend rights and Marxists have denounced the
injustice of capitalism, a political technology, acting in the interests of a better administration of life, has produced a
politics that places man's `existence as a living being in question.’77 The very period that proclaimed pride in having
overthrown the tyranny of monarchy, that engaged in an endless clamor for reform, that is confident in the virtues of
its humanistic faith this period's politics created a landscape dominated by history's bloodiest wars. What
comparison is possible between a sovereign's authority to take a life and a power that, in the interest of protecting a
society's quality of life, can plan, as well as develop the means for its implementation, a policy of mutually assured
destruction? Such a policy is neither an aberration of the fundamental principles of modern politics nor an
abandonment of our age's humanism in favor of a more primitive right to kill; it is but the other side of a power that
is "situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population."78
The bio-political project of administering and optimizing life closes its circle with the pro-duction of the Bomb.
"The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the
underside of a power to guarantee an individual's continued existence."79 The solace that might have been expected
from being able to gaze at scaffolds empty of the victims of a tyrant's vengeance has been stolen from us by the
noose that has tightened around each of our own necks
59
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Biopower Impacts
BIOPOLITICS PURPOSELY DIVIDES POPULATIONS BETWEEN ‘NORMAL’ OR

‘ABNORMAL’ IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE EXTERMINATION OF THE
UNWANTED
Ransom, John S. 1997 (Professor of Political Science at Duke University, pgs 46- 55, Foucault's
Discipline: The Politics of Subjectivity, Duke University Press, MNDI MW/NH)
There is for Foucault undoubtedly something demonic about the blurring of these two senses of truth: the normal
body as observed scientific fact and the normal individual as a standard of valuation. As a standard of valuation, of
course, this set of "scientific truths" about human beings is mobilized to achieve a variety of exclusions from the
human community, of which Foucault highlights two in his discussion leading up to that of Bentham's Panopticon:
lepers and plague victims. Two very different ways of dealing with these populations, based on their own
peculiarities, were developed. For the leper there was what Foucault calls a rejecting confinement. Lepers were
herded onto boats and sent to islands to die. For plague victims, as we have already seen, a more strictly disciplinary
approach is taken: all individuals in a city were pinned down and exhaustively accounted for in a life-or-death battle
with the disease. "The leper was caught up in a practice of rejection, or exile-enclosure; he was left to his doom in a
mass among which it was useless to differentiate." No need for disciplines here. Victims of the plague, on the other
hand, "were caught up in a meticulous tactical partitioning in which individual differentiations were the constricting
effects of a power that multiplied, articulated, and subdivided itself." 78 Complete separation from the community
for the leper; creation of a visually penetrable space for the plague city, like a beehive that has been cut away,
allowing the observer to see what happens in each cell without exception. The first group is marked and set aside,
and the second, held and squeezed in the tightening fist of social control.
These are different projects, Foucault says, that reveal "two ways of exercising power over men (sic), of controlling
their relations, of unravelling their dangerous blendings." They also correspond to different political dreams: the
pure community produced by exclusion and the disciplined city produced by unimpeded observation. But while
different, these projects were not incompatible. 79 Lepers and all others symbolized by the lepers could be subjected
to discipline in a way that would intensify their exclusion even if this no longer included actual banishment (though
this practice was by no means dropped). Rather than leaving the manifestly abnormal to remain in an unorganized
and undifferentiated state, the excluded are themselves individualized. And this very individualization continues the
task of excluding and separating. From the other side, individuals in a disciplinary setting find themselves subject to
practices of exclusion. The plague victim is turned into a leper. The soldier who cannot aim and fire the rifle
properly is deformed, an idiot, unnaturally slow; the same is true of a worker who cannot meet "normal" assembly
line speeds or a student who cannot learn a lesson after three repetitions of an exercise. "On the one hand, the lepers
are treated as plague victims; the tactics of individualizing disciplines are imposed on the excluded; and, on the other
hand, the universality of disciplinary controls makes it possible to brand the 'leper' and to bring into play against him
the dualistic mechanisms of exclusion. . . . All the mechanisms of power which, even today, are disposed around the
abnormal individual, to brand him (sic) and to alter him (sic), are composed of those two forms from which they
distantly derive." 80 It is just at this moment in DP that Foucault introduces Bentham's Panopticon, the "architectural
figure" of this combination of marking lepers and distributing individuals. 81
60
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Biopower Impacts
BIOPOLITICS IN AN ATTEMPT TO SECURE LIFE MAKES GENOCIDE AND

HOLOCAUSTS JUSTIFIABLE AND INEVITABLE
Newman, Saul Department of Political Science--University of Western Australia, 2004 “Terror,

Sovereignty and Law: On the Politics of Violence”, German Law Journal, No. 5,
This inscription of violence and war in the framework of the social finds its modern permutation in what Foucault
terms “biopolitics.” The “race wars” of earlier periods have now become codified in modern political discourses that
have as their central concern the preservation of the biological life of the species. The target of politics in
contemporary societies, according to Foucault, is the administration of life itself. This designates a new form of
power – “biopower.” The operation of power is now aimed at the regulation, calculation and administration of
populations. Violence is still inscribed at the heart of these modern societies. However, the crucial difference with
modern regimes of biopower is that, unlike sovereign regimes, where blood was shed symbolically on behalf of the
sovereign, now wars are waged on a massive scale by states on behalf of the populations they administer. Sovereign
societies, according to Foucault, were characterised by the symbol of the sword and the right of the sovereign to
either take life or to spare it. The symbolic register of these societies was a supreme power over life and death: “The
sovereign exercised his right of life only by exercising his right to kill… Its symbol was, after all, the sword.”[24]
Sovereign societies were characterised by the power of the spectacle – witness the “spectacle of the scaffold,” whose
grotesque horrors and excessive violence Foucault described in the execution of the regicide Damiens.[25] Power
was exercised here in a highly symbolic fashion, through a violence that was excessive, spectacular and ritualised.
Punishment involved, for instance, the literal sacrifice of the body of the condemned. Foucault argues that this
notion of violence as spectacle and symbolic sacrifice is no longer characteristic of modern societies, in which
power operates in a quiet, methodical, regulative fashion. Modern societies, by contrast, are characterised by an
entirely different register and technology of power – one in which the symbolic power of the sovereign to take life
has been supplanted by a power that operates at the level of population and whose principle is to secure life. This
modern technology of power is no less bloody, according to Foucault – having produced unprecedented genocides
and holocausts. However, its symbolic order is non-violent. That is to say, it is based on the principle of the
preservation, rather than the sacrifice, of life.
61
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Racism Impacts
RACISM AND THE EXTERMINATION OF THE INFECTED “RACE” IS THE

ULTIMATE IMPACT OF BIOPOLITICS—WHICH JUSTIFIES ITS UTILITARIAN
GENOCIDE FOR THE “WELL-BEING” OF ALL OF SOCIETY.
Brett Levinson, 2005 , Professor of Comparative Literature at the State University of New York,
"Biopolitics and Duopolies", DIACRITICS, Project MUSE, MNDI/NH)
Biopolitics consequently feeds racism, the true name (according to Foucault) for all modern State injustice: "Once
the State functions in the biopower mode, racism alone can justify the murderous function of the State" ["Society"
256]. Why racism and why racism alone? Why, indeed, does Foucault insist that, according to Marx, the race
struggle—the battle between one people and another—precedes both the class struggle and racism itself ["Society"
79]. AIDS victims may not "officially" be a race. Yet for Foucault the "gay life" so facilely associated with these
sufferers is ostracized or marginalized precisely as a "race" that menaces the population (according to the imaginary
behind the idea of "the population") by sexually and biologically blending "its" fatal illness into the population's
"well-being" (and also into the "sanctity" of propagation and the "clean pleasure" of "good" sex). The masturbator,
too, is within biopolitics seen as a "race." He is the signal of a biological degeneracy—one passed down through the
generations—that will eventually spread throughout the human pedigree, infecting it ["Society" 252]. Immigrants,
refugees, and foreigners, likewise, "flood" the nation with cheap labor, "take food out of the mouth of," thereby
killing—as a biological race—not the state but, once more, the "species." An unhealthy society is taken for an unjust
one. I want to emphasize that fear of these peoples (AIDS victims, sexual deviants, immigrants) is not rooted in the
possibility that "I," my body, family, even country, will be damaged. The fright sprouts from the idea that "man
himself" will be ruined, even if "I" am not affected. Thus, for example, antipathy toward the city, given massive
urban immigration, is often voiced by those who do not live in, indeed rarely visit, metropolitan areas. The concern
here is not for one's own body (as in disciplinary society), untouched by the city, but biological "well-being" as such.
BIOPOLITICS IS AT THE ROOT OF RACISM—IT JUSTIFIES THE

EXTERMINATION OF RACES THAT THREATEN THE IDEAL VISION OF THE
STATE
Monahan, Torin 2006 (Professor of Justice and Social Inquiry at Arizona State University
“Securing the Homeland: Torture, Preparedness, and the Right to Let Die” Social Justice.
Volume: 33 MNDI MW)
In a normalizing society, race or racism is the precondition that makes killing acceptable. Once the State functions in
the biopower mode, racism alone can justify the murderous function of the State.When I say "killing," I obviously
do not mean simply murder as such, but also every form of indirect murder: the fact of exposing someone to death,
increasing the risk of death for some people, or, quite simply, political death, expulsion, rejection, and so on (Ibid.:
256). The construction of citizen-subjects as defenders of security, therefore, indicates new relationships among
states and populations. Individuals are conscripted and blamed, in advance, for failures in social infrastructure. The
demise of social services and programs, in turn, normalizes the fact that the "right to let die," as a form of
governance, infects the state with the pathogens of racism. The vulnerable are made more vulnerable in the pursuit
of preparedness.
62
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Racism Impact Calc
REJECTING RACISM IS APRIORI IN THIS ROUND—OPPRESSION IS INEVITABLE

IN THE WORLD OF THE AFF
Joseph Barndt, African American Minister, 1991 (Dismantling Racism)

To study racism is to study walls. We have looked at barriers and fences, restraints and limitations, ghettos and
prisons. The prison of racism confines us all, people of color and white people alike. It shackles the victimizer as
well as the victim. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other; in our
separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential that God intends for us. The limitations
imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and powerlessness are cruel, inhuman, and unjust; the effects
of uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison, will inevitably destroy us as
well. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate,
but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual,
institutional, and cultural racism can be destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who
know it is time to tear down once and for all, the walls of racism.
63
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
US Policy=Genocidal
Status quo US policy towards natives amounts to genocide
accessed 7/3/08
Fighting for environmental justice is a form of self-defense for Native Americans. As the Report of Women of All
Red Nations declared, "To contaminate Indian water is an act of war more subtle than military aggression, yet no
less deadly . . . Water is life" (February 1980, in Collins Bay Action Group 1985, 4). Toxic pollution - coupled with
the facts of environmental racism, pervasive poverty, and the unique status of Native Americans in the United States
-"really is a matter of GENOCIDE The Indigenous people were colonized and forced onto reservations . . . [Native
Americans are] poisoned on the job. Or poisoned in the home . . . Or forced to relocate so that the land rip-offs can
proceed without hitch. Water is life but the corporations are killing it. It's a genocide of all the environment and all
species of creatures" (Bend 1985, 25; emphasis in original). In effect, toxic pollution is a genocide through geocide,
that is, a killing of the people through a killing of the Earth.
64
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
US Policy=Racist
Racism manifests itself in discriminatory environmental policies
Peter Newell, Associate Professor at University of Warwick, Race, Class and the Global Politics
of
Environmental Inequality, Global Environmental Politics - Volume 5, Number 3, August 2005,
pp. 70-94
Whereas racism is rarely invoked in the explicit sense it was in colonial times, as a mechanism for justifying
extraction, violence and segregation, there is contemporary evidence of continued racism in the consequences of
environmental action and inaction, intervention and neglect. These are structural outcomes in so far as access,
entitlements and life expectancy continue to be strongly shaped by people’s racial identities. Most pertinently, the
racial dimension of environmental inequality surfaces around the question of who has rights to environmental
protection and who bears the burden of waste and pollution.
65
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
US Policy=Racist
The USFG has taken advantage of the problems of the Indian Nations through exploitative
environmental policy.
Peter Newell, Associate Professor at University of Warwick, Race, Class and the Global Politics
of
Environmental Inequality, Global Environmental Politics - Volume 5, Number 3, August 2005,
pp. 70-94
Angel argues, “Hoping to take advantage of the devastating chronic unemployment, pervasive poverty and
sovereign status of Indian Nations, the waste disposal industry and the US government have embarked on an all out
effort to site incinerators, landfills, nuclear waste storage facilities and similar polluting industries on Tribal
land.”31 The pattern observed in North America resonates with the experience of indigenous peoples in parts of the
developing world. Such groups often inhabit the frontline of areas opened up for global investment in activities such
as mining and are often in conºict with the state over
land rights and the distribution of revenues derived from resources on their lands.
Social exclusion denies value to life based on our identifications with these people
Jon Simons, Lecturer of Critical Theory @ Univ. of Nottingham, 1995

Foucault and the Political (Thinking the Political), Routledge, p. 32-3
As a consequence of the subjection of others, of all those like the insane and delinquent who are marginalized by
society, everyone else who is normal is indirectly subjected in contradistinction to them. Subjection operates through
‘dividing practices’ (1982a: 208). Initially, Foucault focused on apparatuses of exclusion and confinement, claiming
that lepers in Europe were replaced by the mad in the mid-seventeenth century (1965: 3—7, 38—64). By confining
our neighbours, we convince ourselves that we are sane, although Foucault cites Dostoevsky, who asserts the
opposite (xi). It is, then, not only the excluded and abnormal who pay the cost of the humanist regime, but all the
rest of us who must suppress that part of ourselves that identifies with these excluded others in order to remain
normal, We can all identify with this other, which was conceived by Freud as the unconscious and by Marx as
alienated man. So, although resistance is more likely to come from those who are most put upon and marginalized
by modem government, and who are therefore most likely to refuse that identities l1982a: 212). everyone is a
potential opponent to humanism.
66
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
No AE Now
Reservations have tremendous ability to produce alternative energy – however the

potential sources aren’t being tapped now.
1998
Many reservations enjoy abundant renewable energy resources: solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal. Tribes
in the northern plains have tremendous wind power resources; southwestern reservations have the most direct solar
radiation; some western reservations have geothermal resources; and tribes in many regions have biomass resources.
Renewable energy advocates in Indian Country tend to be tribal employees and community activists rather than
elected officials, however. Transforming their enthusiasm into governmental policies presents some of the same
challenges in Indian Country that it does throughout the nation. Although quite a few demonstration projects have
been developed, no tribal government has yet made renewable energy development a matter of high priority, at least
according to coverage in the national media or the Indian press. If they considered the matter, tribal authorities
would no doubt see that renewable energy systems offer wide benefits compared with conventional energy. These
include lower operating costs, less vulnerability to fuel price increases, softer environmental impacts, and greater
local self-reliance.
67
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AE Solves Poverty
Renewable energy is a unique internal link to economic recovery for Native Americans –
the ability to provide energy to heat reservation homes will greatly reduce poverty levels.
1998
On the many reservations where the unemployment rate dwarfs the national average and families live in poverty,
policies that limit the cost of home heating should find broad support. Since renewable energy development tends to
be more labor-intensive than the extraction of nonrenewable energy resources, supporting it should help bring jobs
to communities -- recycling money spent on energy and related services into the local economy rather than sending
it off the reservation.5 Tribal governments could develop tax policies to ensure that some of these funds provide
revenue streams for governmental services (although, as noted later, taxation in Indian Country is a complex
subject). A number of renewable energy technologies, particularly photovoltaics (PVs) and small-scale wind power,
are well suited to provide electric power for scattered homes and communities. Some reservations have widely
dispersed homes and small communities unconnected to the electric power grid, and most reservations include many
potential nonresidential uses for these technologies. Tribal policies to promote renewable energy development in
Indian Country need not be limited to meeting local energy needs.
68
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
Natives want AE
Natives feel an obligation to end their dependence on non-renewable sources of energy in

accordance with their perception of their relationship to nature.
1998
Many reservations have experienced firsthand the environmental damage caused by conventional energy
development, including the side effects of mining coal and uranium, pollution caused by oil and gas extraction, and
the disruption caused by large-scale hydroelectric dams. These communities offer fertile ground for renewable
energy development. Moreover, given growing awareness of the risks of climate change, many people who care
about the Earth and the living things with which we share it feel a sense of personal responsibility to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases. Among many Indian people, care for the Earth and for living things constitutes a
broadly defined but deeply held cultural value.7 Although tribal cultures differ significantly, traditional tribal
worldviews display some common attributes, including a "concept of reciprocity and balance that extends to
relationships among humans, including future generations, and between humans and the natural world."8 Tribal
government policies that promote the use of renewables and that are expressly based on such cultural values should
receive broad support from tribal people.
69
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: Sovereignty in Staus Quo
Although natives are commonly perceived to have developed sovereignty as a result of

gaming developments, they have become further entrenched in poverty.
1998
Within the last two decades, a large number of tribes have begun to generate revenue through gaming operations
conducted in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.20 This has brought a relatively small number of
tribes phenomenal financial success, although it has also caused some members of the general public to assume
mistakenly that tribes in general are now doing so well from gaming that they no longer need federal assistance.
This illustrates the risk of making generalizations about Indian Country. Over the past quarter-century, Indian
peoples have made considerable progress in developing real local control over their lands through the federal policy
of self-determination, and they have seen some significant improvements in socioeconomic conditions. Many Indian
communities, however, remain among the poorest in the country. One key lesson that the American public should
draw from more than two centuries of dealings with Indian tribes and nations is that the material welfare of Indian
communities tends to improve when the larger society respects and supports the tribal right of self-government.
Thus although renewable energy development will certainly improve the quality of life in Indian communities,
outsiders who want to help realize these benefits should do so in ways that respect tribal self-government.
70
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
PTCs K/T AE
Political will and financial mechanisms are key to bring about renewable development.
1998 “Renewable Energy in Indian Country: Options for Tribal Governments”, Renewable
Energy in Indian Country, Issue Brief 10, Lexis.
The report identified four critical needs that must be addressed if renewable are to fill the electricity gap in the
developing world: political will, locally available renewable energy resources and knowledge about them, the
creation of local technical capacities, and the creation of appropriate funding mechanisms.21 These needs are
generally applicable to renewable energy development in Indian Country as well. These four needs may seem
obvious, yet they remain critical. A community can only develop the renewable resources it has available. The use of
relatively new technologies will more likely succeed over the long term if the people using the technologies also
develop the capability to maintain them, and more people will be likely to invest in renewables if there are local
sources of expertise in design and installation. Financing mechanisms are especially important for renewable.
71
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: Topicality
PTCs create revenue for the government
Taub 07. [Steve Taub. Senior Vice President of GE Energy Financial Services. “GE ENERGY FINANCIAL
SERVICES STUDY: Impact of 2007 Wind Farms on US Treasury.”]
Over the long-term, wind projects pump money into the US Treasury. Tax revenues flow mainly from the
projects, which become significant taxpayers once the PTCs run out. Income taxes on corporate profits and
individual workers’ income associated with wind projects also help offset the US Treasury’s cost of the PTC.
Calculations in this study are based on GE Energy Financial Services’ extensive experience investing in real projects
and the “Jobs and Economic Development Impact” (JEDI) Model from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory…. Using this model, GE Energy Financial Services estimates that wind farms built in 2007 generates for
the US Treasury: $1.9 billion in NPV of taxes on project income4, $540 million in NPV of income tax on
individuals’ wages, $280 million in NPV of income tax on vendors’ profits, $30 million in NPV of income tax on
lease payments and royalties to landowners. The total NPV to the US Treasury was an estimated $2.75 billion,
greater than the $2.5 billion total cost of the PTCs – resulting in a net inflow to the Treasury of $250 million
Alternative energies are those other than fossil fuels

Materials Management Services, 07/16/2008
http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/Definitions.htm
Alternative energy: Fuel sources that are other than those derived from fossil fuels. Typically used
interchangeably for renewable energy. Examples include: wind, solar, biomass, wave and tidal energy.
72
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: T increase
We meet: no tax credits to having tax credits is a substantial gain. A gain from nothing to something is an infinite
gain.
And, Counter definition:
Substantially increase means an enlargement of at least 30%.
Joseph Ferraro, Partner at Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells, 2002
[Joseph, American University Law Review, April, Lexis]
[The Federal Circuit noted that, in this case, the specification defines “substantially increased” as
an increase of at least thirty percent and provides reasonable guidance through the examples of
how the increase should be measured. 534 The court also observed that the specification
discloses suggestions for how long a “period sufficient” might be, and the parties agreed that a
“period sufficient” could be determined by doing activity checks. 535 The Federal Circuit noted
that, “when a word of degree is used the district court must [*691] determine whether the
patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” 536 In this case, the
specification provided guidance as to what was meant by “substantial absence” with a reasonable
degree of particularity and definiteness. 537 Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the
summary judgment of invalidity and remanded the case to the Court of Federal Claims. 538 ]
a. Predictable limits: There are plenty of cases that are “large” which are unnecessary, our
interpretation centers the debate around a valuable and worthy case.
b. Unique Education: we increase education by providing clear limits
c. Negative underlimits with their definition, this makes debate stagnant debating the same thing
over and over again, killing education and making negative side bias.
d. Their definition is arbitrary and is predicated off of nothing.
e. They don’t impact why allowing these kinds of affirmatives are bad, these affs are critical to
affirmative ground and allow more affirmative flexibility.
f. No warrants as to why “small” incentives are bad.
g. It’s not a small affirmative, it goes to all native Americans in all of 73merica.
h. Go cut some better args if you’ve really lost ground.
i. They don’t give specific examples of arguments they lose.
j. Even if they could name arguments, the links would be based on alternative energy, not
substantially.
2. Don’t vote on topicality:
73
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
a. Competing interps are like gas and fire bad – they create a race to the bottom to determine who
can limit out the most affs and remove the focus from the actual topic. That means as long as we
are within the topic of Alternative Energy, vote affirmative.
b. Fairness – Even if they have to research more advantages it gives them more disadvantage ground
forcing the affirmative to also research. A good research balance creates educational debate.
c. Lit checks abuse
d. Clash checks abuse
74
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: T not part of US
We meet: Native American territories are part of the 50 states,
And counter interpretation:
Native American territories are part of the united states
Michael Pollick, 2008
http://www.wisegeek.com/are-native-americans-dual-citizens.htm
In the strictest legal sense, Native Americans do not have duel citizenship between their tribal
lands and the United States, since the tribal territories are still not recognized as separate and
sovereign nations. A controversial Bureau of Indian Affairs still addresses issues between the
federal government and individual tribal leaders, not the office of Secretary of State. This lack of
official recognition as independent sovereign nations continues to be a source of contention
between Native American political leaders and the US government.
If an individual Native American tribal territory should succeed in obtaining true sovereign
nation status, Native Americans may indeed be in a position to claim dual citizenship, with
duplicate legal documentation and equal rights to participate in political elections and other civic
duties. The question of loyalty to a particular nation may become an issue if a new Native
American nation chooses to raise up its own military within the geographical boundaries of the
United States, however.
As of this writing, it would appear that Native Americans are considered citizens of the United
States or Canada first, then legal residents of their chosen tribal lands second. It would be the
equivalent of a state resident being legally considered a US citizen but residing in Ohio or
Nebraska or California. Those states are allowed to form their own governments and enforce
their own laws, but they are still subject to the rules and regulations of the United States as a
whole.
a. Predictable limits: its arbitrary to say that there are random portions of the United States aren’t
part of it.
b. Unique Education: we increase education by providing predictable geographic definition of the

U.S.
c. Negative underlimits with their definition, this makes debate stagnant debating the same thing
over and over again, killing education and making negative side bias.
d. Their definition is arbitrary and is predicated off of nothing.
e. It’s not a small affirmative, it goes to all native Americans in all of america.
f. Go cut some better args if you’ve really lost ground.
g. They don’t give specific examples of arguments they lose.
h. Even if they could name arguments, the links would be based on alternative energy, not
substantially.
i. And this is what our aff is about, the Native Americans are ignored and become the other.
75
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
3. Don’t vote on topicality:
a. Competing interps are like gas and fire bad – they create a race to the bottom to determine who
can limit out the most affs and remove the focus from the actual topic. That means as long as we
are within the topic of Alternative Energy, vote affirmative.
b. Fairness – Even if they have to research more advantages it gives them more disadvantage ground
forcing the affirmative to also research. A good research balance creates educational debate.
c. Lit checks abuse
AT: Generic K 1/2

1. The case turns the K – Only USFG action can solve the harms of colonialism and
biopower – that’s Powell
2. Alternative energy development is key to the revival of indigenous culture which

solves the K – that’s Robyn
3. Perm – Do plan and all non-competitive parts of the alternative – Combining

individual action and state action is the best way to overcome the politics of
domination seen in the status quo.
4. Case outweighs – Biopower causes cycles of race-based violence and replicates the
colonial genocides of the past – that’s Santos. Extend Barsh – colonialism makes the
impacts of the K inevitable, and it’s systemic. Also, our Geller evidence indicates
that absent the self-determination spurred by the plan India and Pakistan conflict
will escalate into nuclear war. Only the case solves.
76
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
AT: Generic K 2/2

5. Politicization of indigenous knowledge is key to break free from traditional
conceptions of the native in American culture. No other approach can solve
colonialism.
Leanne R. Simpson, Past director of Indigenous Environmental Studies at Trent University, 2004
Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge, American
Indian Quarterly, 28:3&4
I have made a conscious effort to publish papers on IK and TEK in journals dealing with natural resource
management, conservation biology, and ecology since 1997 with little success. Editors have consistently
removed references to colonialism from my manuscripts because it is "too off topic"; at the same time I
have been asked to write introductory articles about TEK that would appeal to scientists. Native studies
journals have accepted and published the same papers. Unfortunately, scientists do not often read out of their
field, and so the body of knowledge around TEK written by non-Native scientists comfortable manipulating
IK into the frameworks, definitions, and conceptualizations dictated by non-Native scientists is building up.
The depoliticizing of Indigenous Peoples and TEK serves to make the discussion of TEK more palatable
to scientists by sanitizing it of the ugliness of colonization and injustice, so scientists can potentially
engage with the knowledge but not the people who own and live that knowledge. Disconnecting TEK
from the colonial oppression of Indigenous Peoples also disconnects academics from their
responsibilities as beneficiaries and perpetrators of both political and intellectual colonialism,
entrenching the relationship between the colonizers and colonized. By depoliticizing we lose a potential
opportunity to transform and to decolonize settler society, and it is the transformative potential of the
processes and concepts embodied in Indigenous Knowledge systems that hold the greatest possibility
for this kind of change. Removing Indigenous Knowledge from a political sphere only reinforces the
denial of the holocaust of the Americas and trains a generation of scientists to see contemporary
Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Knowledge as separate from our colonial past, as an untapped
contemporary resource for their own exploitation and use.13 This serves as a reminder that it is not
enough to recover certain aspects of Indigenous Knowledge systems that are palatable to the players in
the colonial project. We must be strategic about how we recover and where we focus our efforts in
order to ensure that the foundations of the system are protected and the inherently Indigenous
processes for the continuation of Indigenous Knowledge are maintained. The most vulnerable and
fragile components are often those that are subversive in nature and that are a direct [End Page 376]
threat to those who maintain their power as beneficiaries of the colonial system.
77
DDI’08
Clark/Martin
78

Affirmative Extension Cards

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Affirmative Extension Cards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Native American PTC Affirmative

Native Americans PTC Affirmative File

1. The Western ideologies of capitalism and materialism propagated by the federal

2. Native Americans face the harshest environmental devastation in the nation as a

Dana E Powell, 2006, “Technologies of Existence: The indigenous environmental justice

2. Past court decisions have shunned Native American environmental perspectives in

Dana E Powell, 2006, “Technologies of Existence: The indigenous environmental justice

2. The Kashmir conflict represents the most dangerous self-determination struggle in

3. The US must present a model of internal of self-determination to solve the Indo-

4. A struggle over Kashmir will escalate into a nuclear war.

3. PTC for Tribes is a narrow targeted fix to a problem enhancing sovereignty,

6. Kashmir conflict key to solving the Indo-Pak conflict.

Current policy fails.

Non-PTC incentives fail.

Indigenous knowledge is essential to environmental policy making, Belizean rainforest

Solvency: Critical thinking k/t Environment 1/2

Critical examination of policy is essential for environmental action.

Solvency: Critical thinking k/t Environment 2/2

Community based ideology is effective in utilization of the environment.

Solvency: Natives benefit State/Corporations

Native American alternative energy lifestyle is the only way to survive.

Solvency: Rights k/t Protection

Assertions of treaty rights are mandatory for protection of natural resources.

Solvency: Economic Survival

Alternative methods of rebalancing the environment are key to economic survival.

Solvency: Cooperation Key

Cooperation with indigenous methods is vital for environmental policy.

Wind K solvency 1/2

Wind power solves self-determination

Assured destruction due to corporate exploitation awaits us.

Ext: Colonialism-I/L Exploitation

Ext: Colonialism: I/L

Daniel Brook, professor of Sociology at UC-Davis, American Journal of Economics and

The government has labeled Native Americans as un-American savages perpetuating

Topicality: Energy Source

Indigenous technology is defined as an energy source.

Borgna Brunner, infoplease writer, 8/2007, infoplease database,

AT: Politics (Ignored)

Native Americans are being ignored in congress

Despite elections, congress perceives that natives don’t need aid

AT: Politics (Support)

There is congressional support for Native American aid

Toxic Waste Add-On

Toxic Waste Add-On

Toxic Waste Add-On

Sovereignty solves – stronger tribal governments deter waste dumpers

Toxic Waste Add-On

Cross-apply Powell – By fueling indigenous movements the plan combats environmental

Toxic Waste Add-On

AT: Current Legislation Solves

AT: Status Quo Solves

Status quo efforts are disincentives

AT: Can’t Produce AE

Congressional action key to wind development

Only the federal government has authority over Indian affairs.

Biopolitics creates a logic of extermination, justifying the worst atrocities in history

Biopower causes numerous atrocities in the name of protecting life

Disciplinary Power threatens the end of humanity.

BIOPOLITICS PURPOSELY DIVIDES POPULATIONS BETWEEN ‘NORMAL’ OR

BIOPOLITICS IN AN ATTEMPT TO SECURE LIFE MAKES GENOCIDE AND

Newman, Saul Department of Political Science--University of Western Australia, 2004 “Terror,

RACISM AND THE EXTERMINATION OF THE INFECTED “RACE” IS THE

BIOPOLITICS IS AT THE ROOT OF RACISM—IT JUSTIFIES THE