Tournament: Colleyville | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll CP | Judge: Simpkins Rich
Indigenous Harm K
Link
Indigenous people were overlooked in the aff. Indigenous people’s harm from space debris needs to be solved. We cannot overlook these harms for examples of war, and extinction which are highly unlikely. And for that reason I negate the resolution.
1}The harm Indigenous communities have faced has had a long history of being overlooked. TW mention of r*pe and racism
Johnson 20 https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/indigenous-views-christopher-columbus
Indigenous communities have been persecuted in the Americas since Christopher Columbus first came ashore on the island of Guanahani in the present-day Bahamas 528 years ago. They (We) have had their (our) land stolen, people slaughtered, enslaved, and infected with diseases, women raped, children kidnapped, treaties broken, and possessions and goods plundered and looted. There were between 5 million and 15 million Indigenous people living in North America in 1492. By the late 1800s, there were fewer than .238 left. The so-called “Age of Discovery” has begot (started) centuries of genocide.
2} Smith 13 We cannot continue to overlook poc harm in the debate space. A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate." Victory Briefs. Opinion, 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2013/9/a-conversation-in-ruins-race-and-black-participation-in-lincoln-douglas-debate. BS
It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many “socially acceptable” choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that POC debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by “hypothetically” defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, “just like we did that guy Troy Davis”.Community norms would have competitors and do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse POC debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issue at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential .
Impacts
Indigenous harm
Devrupa 21 https://theswaddle.com/more-sunlight-reflecting-from-satellites-space-junk-is-blinding-astronomers-to-space-exploration/
space debris comprising launch vehicles and fragments that have broken away from such objects, are distributed in orbit around the Earth. These objects are reflecting sunlight and scattering it (or in other words light pollution) — often in the direction of the Earth, hindering space observation. (Which harms indigenos communities also.)
Deondre 20 (171) - Light pollution is cultural genocide Smiles, Deondre. “The Settler Logic Of (Outer) Space.” Society + Space. October 26, 2020. Web. December 11, 2021. ..
Hamacher et al (2020) presented a compelling argument that light pollution is a form of cultural genocide (please note that in the context of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission we will use the term Indigenous erasure instead). In their article, the authors noted that a significant amount of Indigenous knowledge is based on star lore and observations of the sky. Those observations are connected to Indigenous stories about the land and nature - for some peoples the sky is a reflection of the land (Cajete 2000). Those observations, however, are based on a dark night sky without substantive light pollution. As such, light pollution acts to disconnect Indigenous peoples from the land they live, and as such, is a form of erasure.
Alt
Moore 21-The key to stopping harm to indegenous people caused by space debris is privately owned satellites According to Moore 21
Orbital debris management is not well organized within the government. Right now, the Department of Defense (DOD) does most tracking of space debris for the U.S. out of the need to protect military satellites and national security interests. NASA has its own less advanced systems for tracking debris. However, orbital debris management is not just about tracking debris anymore. It is also about forming collision warning systems and safely managing traffic in space. To do this efficiently, we need a civil repository for all orbital debris components, something that many commercial space companies have already created on their own to stay aware of orbital debris and help protect their satellites in space. Tracking debris may be a national security priority, but providing space traffic control is not really in the Defense Department’s mission. We should be utilizing the private sector’s expertise and advancements in this area. For example, Astroscale has contracts with both the Japanese and European space agencies to develop orbital debris removal capability. And responsibility for developing collision warnings and space traffic management would be best suited for the Office of Space Commerce, an office with existing connections to the commercial space industry, NASA and DOD. Partnering with the debris tracking and removal systems private companies are developing while freeing up DOD to focus on military awareness and NASA to focus on research and development would be the most efficient way forward.
Astroscale 21https:astroscale.com/astroscale-celebrates-successful-launch-of-elsa-d/
Astroscale(‘s) demonstration (ELSA-d) mission. This marks the start of the world’s first commercial mission to prove the core technologies necessary for space debris docking and removal. ELSA-d, which consists of two satellites stacked together — a servicer designed to safely remove debris from orbit and a client satellite that serves as a piece of replica debris was launched by GK Launch Services into a 550 km orbit on a Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on Monday, March 22 (21), at 6:07 am (UTC).
Fortune Business Insights
According to Fortune Business Insights
https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/space-debris-monitoring-and-removal-market-104070
There are 9 other companies also working on debris removal. The three most promising are Airbus SAS (Usa) Electro-Optic Systems Pty Ltd. (Australia) and Surrey Satellite technology (Uk)Voyager Space Holdings (USA) Lockheed Martin Corporation (Usa) Northrop Grumman Corporation (USA) POA SP Korolev RSC Energia (Russia) Raytheon Company (USA) The boeing company (USA).
https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/space/in-space-infrastructure/removedebrisAirbus launched their RemoveDEBRIS satellite was released from the International Space Station in June 2018. They alone plan to clean up 2 tons of space debris.
Also
The only big risk imposed by space debris is light pollution and in turn cultural genocide.
Paradies 01 (Collision risks)
Lee A. Paradise, writer for Science Clarified encyclopedia. 2001, accessed July 29 2015 "Does the accumulation of "space debris" in Earth's orbit pose a significant threat to humans, in space and on the ground?" www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-1/Does-the-accumulation-of-space-debris-in-Earth-s-orbit-pose-a-significant-threat-to-humans-in-space-and-on-the-ground.html
Considering the small size of objects like satellites or the shuttle placed against an environment as vast as space, the risk of severe collisions is minimal. Even when an object in space is hit by space debris, the damage is typically negligible even considering the high rate of speed at which the debris travels. Thanks to precautions such as debris shielding, the damage caused by space debris has been kept to a minimum. Before it was brought back to Earth via remote control, the MIR space station received numerous impacts from space debris. None of this minor damage presented any significant problems to the operation of the station or its various missions. The International Space Station (ISS) is designed to withstand direct hits from space debris as large as 0.4 in (1 cm) in size.¶ Most scientists believe that the number of satellites actually destroyed or severely damaged by space debris is extremely low. The Russian Kosmos 1275 is possibly one of these rare instances. The chance of the Hubble Space Telescope suffering the same fate as the Russian satellite is approximately 1 according to Phillis Engelbert and Diane L. Dupuis, authors of The Handy Space Answer Book . Considering the number of satellites and other man-made objects launched into space in the last 40 years, the serious risk posed to satellites is astronomically low.¶ In fact, monitoring systems such as the Space Surveillance Network (SSN) maintain constant track of space debris and Near Earth Orbits. Thanks to ground-based radar and computer extrapolation, this provides an early warning system to determine if even the possibility of a collision with space debris is imminent. With this information, the Space Shuttle can easily maneuver out of the way. The Space Science Branch at the Johnson Space Center predicts the chance of such a collision occurring to be about 1 in 100,000, which is certainly not a significant enough risk to cause panic. Soon the ISS will also have the capability to maneuver in this way as well.
Villizon (Atmosphere)
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/does-the-debris-around-earth-affect-the-atmosphere/
There is no direct effect {that space debris has on the atmosphere}
Both these cards show you that there is no other harms caused by space debris so you are only solving for an indigenous cultural genocide
Impact: By negating you are agreeing that private entities appropriating outer space is just because they help remove space debris that cause a cultural genocide As stated in my evidence, orbital debris management isn't well organized in the government. The only companies that are helping end native harm are private entities.
Framework
Alston and Timmons 14 It is the role of the judge to not overlook poc harm in debate.
https://www.vbriefly.com/2014/04/28/20144nobody-knows-the-trouble-i-see-and-in-national-circuit-lincoln-douglas-debate-does-anyone-really-care/
A person of color who is told by judges that it is okay if people who look like them are slaughtered isn’t listening to the conclusions of a hypothetical debate. People who look like them have been slaughtered in various forms in various ways for over four hundred years. Being white means not ever having to think about it. The suggested role of the judge according to Kristof, Massey, and Reiter is to care nothing about the safety of the environment and the people in the room. Kill Africans, rape women, don’t let people of color vote. While the role of the judge is to vote for the better debater, we feel strongly that the judge in any given debate must adopt both the role of a decision-maker and educator. Evaluating the better debater must be considered as a matter of both performance and substance. Most scholars agree that the judge’s role is twofold. Richardson writes: ”A judge describes what occurs in the round while a critic/educator prescribes what should have occurred in the round. However, the prevailing opinion is that judges have the obligation to serve beyond the role of descriptor, and they are indeed capable of performing two types of evaluations simultaneously – that of a judge and that of a critic (Patterson and Zarefsky). In fact, debate is first and foremost an educational activity (Decker and Morello). If indeed the purpose of debate is to teach, judges must also serve as educators (Rowland, Ganer). Debate, while a competitive game, is an educational game—an extension of the classroom. The idea that regardless of what is done in a debate, the judge has no jurisdiction or obligation to act as a critical educator seems short sighted at best, and sociopathic in our current environment. In a world of “just vote for the better debater”, judges would be under no obligation to give a reason for decision in either a written, or oral form. The concept of “just vote for the better debater” absolves the judge of any real responsibility to give constructive feedback to students, either good or bad. In a worst case scenario a student could use language that was racist, sexist or homophobic, and if they won the “substance” of the debate, the language and behavior would be ignored. In fact, if things became physical between the students, and the aggressor “won” the debate, using a literal interpretation of the position of Kristof et al, the judge would be under no obligation to act. Morris and Herbeck elucidate: “Such judge passivity is responsible for the often dramatic decline in the quality of debate arguments and the promotion of shallow practice nearly devoid of educational utility. Ganer (1987) has observed: Many of the problems in contemporary debate can be traced to those who persist in divorcing debate from general academic concerns of argumentation and viewing debate as nothing more than a “game,” in the antitheoretical rather than theoretical sense, to be played under the sponsorship of an academic institution.” (p. 387) Muir adds in a discussion of Ehninger:“Questioning the power of such a perspective (the gaming model of debate), Ehninger offers several concerns about the game metaphor. Pedagogically, Ehninger cautions that viewing debate as a game violates a balance of technique and subject matter, fragmenting the instruction of the whole. The emphasis on technique reduces the real world applicability of debate skills; a specialized terminology, coupled with a focused perspective on how the game is played, renders debate increasingly esoteric and irrelevant. Morally, the game metaphor is questionable because if debate is just a game, then it is very easy to cheat and distort the truth. Even if ‘the game’ is played ethically, Ehninger argues, it is separated and isolated and makes ‘little or no direct contribution to the solving of mankind’s present and future problems.'” Muir furthers his characterization of Ehninger’s argument, “Fostering the idea of debate as a game renders a discussion of contemporary predicaments and their solutions a mere pastime, rather than a way of learning how to participate democratically in such solutions. Debate, Ehninger concludes, cannot afford to be ethically neutral- it must be a positive force for good.” Morris and Herbeck impact our position by stating: “We insist that coaches, competitors, and judges stop treating debate as a game. If debate is merely a game, it may be appropriate for judges to act as referees assigning points to the participants. By contrast, debate should be an educational exercise designed to serve as a “laboratory for teaching argumentation skills”. (McBath, 1974; Thomas, 1980). Forensic educators must intervene as necessary to redress some of the “irrational practices currently emphasized in academic debate” (Rowland and Deatherage, 1986, p. 246). What makes the Kristof et al article so despicable is that they want judges to beat students down who implore those judges to resist privilege and stand for something more. We are not calling for judges to randomly intervene against racist, sexist and homophobic arguments. In our current climate, that is too much to ask, and we are not that optimistic. The adults in the Lincoln-Douglas community have consistently failed to do anything to protect young people and have actively encouraged the sociopathic pseudo pedagogy embodied in the Kristof, Massey, and Reiter article. We can’t help but think that the role of the judge demonstrated by too many adults strongly resembles the actions of bystanders who watched as Kitty Genovese was murdered in the streets of New York. But when students understand that the debate space is hostile to women and people of color and try to do something about it, don’t join the attacker. Don’t murder them. Don’t wish they go away. Be constructive. Be educational. Be humane. We must prove why genocide is bad? They should be ashamed, and we should be ashamed for accepting it. Being white in America means never having to think about it. But they should think about it. People who face structural oppression have to think about it. We (Poc) are assaulted without warning and dismissed with smiles and politeness or barbs and arrows. The debate community by deliberate aggression or privileged non-consideration declared war on students of color long before Chris Randall’s rallying cry. Being white in America means never having to think about it. Never thinking about it makes for ignorant, destructive, careless people without any clue how they relate to the rest of the planet. They believe that they live in a hostile world without any understanding that they are the source of the hostility. They want people who call out their privilege to just go away. The good news about our community is that a critical mass of students have decided to not go away. It is up to the adults in our community to make space for them. We cannot know how this conflict will end. But in the process, adults must not remain silent and watch structural violence replicated and reinforced. In our community, we must encourage people to expand their libraries, read new literature, and enter new search terms in Google in order to understand and engage these positions. The conversations and debates will often be hard, but they already are. We believe our role as educators is to welcome hard conversations that question and deconstruct privilege, not reinforce it. There is no neutral ground.
Summary
Vote neg because only my side is helping end native harm. In my
Devrupa 21 card I explain that space debris are causing light pollution. My Deondre 20 card helps explain that light pollution is a form of erasure to indigeous peoples religions. The way the negs solves this is explained in my moore 21 card. Private entities are trying to remove space debris. Space debris removal is only being done by private entities. In my Fortune Business Insider card I say that there are 9 other private entities working on debris removal other than astroscale. Lastly, my paradies 01 card and Villizon card both show that theres no other impacts space derbis have other than a cultural genocide. A vote for the neg is to help the already oppressed indigenous people and help stop structural violence from prevailing.
Rebuttal
His value is bad because he completely ignores indigenous people
His Vc is util Utilitarianism is used to justify racial injusticesColeman 2020(august 12, 2020, “The Racial Consequences of Utilitarianism” https://medium.com/@writtenbyfc/the-racial-consequences-of-utilitarianism-30ee71f26be7) nethJohn Mill’s moral theory of rule utilitarianism proposes that there should be a set of general rules that everyone follows to reach the greatest amount of happiness. The rules are based on the principle of utility meaning that rules should be created to benefit the majority rather than the minority. Another version of utilitarianism, which is credited to Jeremy Bentham, is act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism proposes that whatever action produces the most happiness is justifiable. Unlike rule utilitarianism, act utilitarianism focuses on the single action of an individual rather than the rules. Both Bentham and Mill’s theories of utilitarianism have numerous shortcomings, so I will argue that utilitarianism justifies racial injustice towards African Americans in the U.S.. The problem with utilitarianism is that it can be applied to an ideology or system rooted in racism. After slavery was abolished in America and African Americans were declared free people, they began to faced issues within white American society. Buying a home in new, urban areas was extremely difficult because of a racist strategy called “redlining.” In the 1930’s, redlining was a racist tactic used by banks that denied black Americans and other minorities from obtaining mortgages to purchase homes and loans to renovate homes, regardless of their credit history; at this time, this practice was supported by the U.S. government. Being the majority has more advantages than being the minority; white Americans, which were the majority, feared that African Americans would tarnish these neighborhoods and because the government was mostly white, the U.S. government acted in the favor of white America. In act utilitarianism, this would be permissible because the majority was able to keep the neighborhoods “safe” and avoid living in fear with one action. In rule utilitarianism, this would be permissible to the utilitarians that agreed with the racist system put in place that allowed them to feel safe and happy while putting the minorities’ happiness and safety after theirs. If an action or a rule is made to benefit the majority, then equality can not exist under it; therefore, utilitarianism will always discriminate against the minority in every predicament. To this day, white Americans are still the majority in the U.S., and throughout history, rules and tactics like redlining, separate but equal laws, and so on were put in place to appease them.
His c1 ignores that indigenous people need private appropriation to stop a cultural genocide. His impact of climate change leads to extinction
Using threats of extinction to justify denying self determination to colonized peoples is unethical genocide and is racist-This method of decision making must be rejected—It is a voting issue.
Mitchell 17 (Audra Mitchell, CIGI Chair in Global Governance and Ethics, Balsillie School of International Affairs, and Associate Professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, former Senior Lecturer in International Relations, department of Politics, University of York, Ph.D. Queen's University of Belfast, "Decolonizing against extinction part II: Extinction is not a metaphor – it is literally genocide," Worldly, 9-27-2017, https://worldlyir.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/decolonizing-against-extinction-part-ii-extinction-is-not-a-metaphor-it-is-literally-genocide/, accessed on 10/31/18
Extinction has become an emblem of Western, and white-dominated, fears about ‘the end of the(ir) world’. This scientific term is saturated with emotional potency, stretched and contorted to embody almost any nightmare, in academic and public contexts alike, it is regularly interchanged with other terms and concepts – for instance, Diffused into sublime scales – mass extinctions measured in millions of (Gregorian calendar) years, a planet totalized by the threat of nuclear destruction – ‘extinction’ has become an empty superlative, one that that gestures to an abstract form of unthinkability. It teases Western subjects with images of generalized demise that might, if it gets bad enough, even threaten us, or the figure of ‘humanity’ that we enshrine as a universal. This figure of ‘humanity’, derived from Western European enlightenment ideals, emphasizes individual, autonomous actors who are fully integrated into the global market system; who are responsible citizens of nation-states; who conform to Western ideas of health and well-being; who partake of ‘culture’; who participate in democratic state-based politics; who refrain from physical violence; and who manage their ‘resources’ responsibly (Mitchell 2014). Oddly, exposure to the fear of extinction contributes to the formation and bolstering of contemporary Western subjects. Contemplating the sublime destruction of ‘humanity’ offers the thrill of abjection: the perverse pleasure derived from exposure to something by which one is revolted. Claire Colebrook detects this thrill-seeking impulse in the profusion of Western blockbuster films and TV shows that imagine and envision the destruction of earth, or at least of ‘humanity’. It also throbs through a flurry of recent best-selling books – both fiction and speculative non-fiction (see Oreskes and Conway 2014; Newitz 2013; Weisman 2008). In a forthcoming intervention, Noah Theriault and I (2018) argue that these imaginaries are a form of porn that normalizes the profound violences driving extinction, while cocooning its viewers in the secure space of the voyeur. Certainly, there are many Western scientists, conservationists and policy-makers who are genuinely committed to stopping the extinction of others, perhaps out of fear for their own futures. Yet extinction is not quite real for Western, and especially white, subjects; it is a fantasy of negation that evokes thrill, melancholy, anger and existential purpose. It is a metaphor that expresses the destructive desires of these beings, and the negativity against which we define our subjectivity. But extinction is not a metaphor: it is a very real expression of violence that systematically destroys particular beings, worlds, life forms and the relations that enable them to flourish. These are real, unique beings, worlds and relations – as well as somebody’s family, Ancestors, siblings, future generations – who are violently destroyed. Extinction can only be used unironically as a metaphor by people who have never been threatened with it, told it is their inevitable fate, or lost their relatives and Ancestors to it – and who assume that they probably never will. This argument is directly inspired by the call to arms issued in 2012 by Eve Tuck and Wayne K. Yang and more recently by Cutcha Risling-Baldy. The first, seminal piece demonstrates how settler cultures use the violence of metaphorical abstraction to excuse themselves from the real work of decolonization: ensuring that land and power is in Indigenous hands. Risling-Baldy’s brilliant follow-up extends this logic to explain how First People like Coyote have been reduced to metaphors through settler appropriation. In both cases, engagement with Indigenous peoples and their relations masks moves to innocence: acts that make it appear as if settlers are engaging in decolonization, while in fact we are consolidating the power structures that privilege us. In this series, want to show how Western, and white-dominated, discourses on ‘extinction’ appear to address the systematic destruction of peoples and other beings while enacting moves to innocence that mask their culpability and perpetuate structures of violence. As I argued in Part I of this series, extinction is an expression of colonial violence. As such, it needs to be addressed through direct decolonization, including the dismantling of settler colonial structures of violence, and the resurgence of Indigenous worlds. Following Tuck, Yang and Risling-Baldy’s lead, I want to show how and why the violences that drive extinction have come to be invisible within mainstream discourses. Salient amongst these is the practice of genocide against Indigenous peoples other than humans. …it is literally genocide. What Western science calls ‘extinction’ is not an unfortunate, unintended consequence of desirable ‘human’ activities. It is an embodiment of particular patterns of structural violence that disproportionately affect specific racialized groups. In some cases, ‘extinction’ is directly, deliberately and systematically inflicted in order to create space for aggressors, including settler states. For this reason, it has rightly been framed as an aspect or tool of colonial genocides against Indigenous human peoples.
His c2 about space mining isn’t happening
So therefore his impacts aren’t happening.
He agrees that extinction is used to justify racial injustice but then goes on to use a threat of extinction.
Using threats of extinction to justify denying self determination to colonized peoples is unethical genocide and is racist-This method of decision making must be rejected—It is a voting issue.
Mitchell 17 (Audra Mitchell, CIGI Chair in Global Governance and Ethics, Balsillie School of International Affairs, and Associate Professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, former Senior Lecturer in International Relations, department of Politics, University of York, Ph.D. Queen's University of Belfast, "Decolonizing against extinction part II: Extinction is not a metaphor – it is literally genocide," Worldly, 9-27-2017, https://worldlyir.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/decolonizing-against-extinction-part-ii-extinction-is-not-a-metaphor-it-is-literally-genocide/, accessed on 10/31/18
Extinction has become an emblem of Western, and white-dominated, fears about ‘the end of the(ir) world’. This scientific term is saturated with emotional potency, stretched and contorted to embody almost any nightmare, in academic and public contexts alike, it is regularly interchanged with other terms and concepts – for instance, Diffused into sublime scales – mass extinctions measured in millions of (Gregorian calendar) years, a planet totalized by the threat of nuclear destruction – ‘extinction’ has become an empty superlative, one that that gestures to an abstract form of unthinkability. It teases Western subjects with images of generalized demise that might, if it gets bad enough, even threaten us, or the figure of ‘humanity’ that we enshrine as a universal. This figure of ‘humanity’, derived from Western European enlightenment ideals, emphasizes individual, autonomous actors who are fully integrated into the global market system; who are responsible citizens of nation-states; who conform to Western ideas of health and well-being; who partake of ‘culture’; who participate in democratic state-based politics; who refrain from physical violence; and who manage their ‘resources’ responsibly (Mitchell 2014). Oddly, exposure to the fear of extinction contributes to the formation and bolstering of contemporary Western subjects. Contemplating the sublime destruction of ‘humanity’ offers the thrill of abjection: the perverse pleasure derived from exposure to something by which one is revolted. Claire Colebrook detects this thrill-seeking impulse in the profusion of Western blockbuster films and TV shows that imagine and envision the destruction of earth, or at least of ‘humanity’. It also throbs through a flurry of recent best-selling books – both fiction and speculative non-fiction (see Oreskes and Conway 2014; Newitz 2013; Weisman 2008). In a forthcoming intervention, Noah Theriault and I (2018) argue that these imaginaries are a form of porn that normalizes the profound violences driving extinction, while cocooning its viewers in the secure space of the voyeur. Certainly, there are many Western scientists, conservationists and policy-makers who are genuinely committed to stopping the extinction of others, perhaps out of fear for their own futures. Yet extinction is not quite real for Western, and especially white, subjects; it is a fantasy of negation that evokes thrill, melancholy, anger and existential purpose. It is a metaphor that expresses the destructive desires of these beings, and the negativity against which we define our subjectivity. But extinction is not a metaphor: it is a very real expression of violence that systematically destroys particular beings, worlds, life forms and the relations that enable them to flourish. These are real, unique beings, worlds and relations – as well as somebody’s family, Ancestors, siblings, future generations – who are violently destroyed. Extinction can only be used unironically as a metaphor by people who have never been threatened with it, told it is their inevitable fate, or lost their relatives and Ancestors to it – and who assume that they probably never will. This argument is directly inspired by the call to arms issued in 2012 by Eve Tuck and Wayne K. Yang and more recently by Cutcha Risling-Baldy. The first, seminal piece demonstrates how settler cultures use the violence of metaphorical abstraction to excuse themselves from the real work of decolonization: ensuring that land and power is in Indigenous hands. Risling-Baldy’s brilliant follow-up extends this logic to explain how First People like Coyote have been reduced to metaphors through settler appropriation. In both cases, engagement with Indigenous peoples and their relations masks moves to innocence: acts that make it appear as if settlers are engaging in decolonization, while in fact we are consolidating the power structures that privilege us. In this series, want to show how Western, and white-dominated, discourses on ‘extinction’ appear to address the systematic destruction of peoples and other beings while enacting moves to innocence that mask their culpability and perpetuate structures of violence. As I argued in Part I of this series, extinction is an expression of colonial violence. As such, it needs to be addressed through direct decolonization, including the dismantling of settler colonial structures of violence, and the resurgence of Indigenous worlds. Following Tuck, Yang and Risling-Baldy’s lead, I want to show how and why the violences that drive extinction have come to be invisible within mainstream discourses. Salient amongst these is the practice of genocide against Indigenous peoples other than humans. …it is literally genocide. What Western science calls ‘extinction’ is not an unfortunate, unintended consequence of desirable ‘human’ activities. It is an embodiment of particular patterns of structural violence that disproportionately affect specific racialized groups. In some cases, ‘extinction’ is directly, deliberately and systematically inflicted in order to create space for aggressors, including settler states. For this reason, it has rightly been framed as an aspect or tool of colonial genocides against Indigenous human peoples.
I solve for his c2 impact of space debris because by voting neg you directly clean up these space debris.