Fellows - Anti-Blackness K

1ncs
Greater Horn of Africa

The reduction of military presence is the fluidity of white
policing. The US grand strategy will withdraw troops from
________ only to give the signal of a benign authority, all to have
those troops replaced by air strikes and private contractors
and then sent to the blackest of their enemies Yemen and
Somalia.
Smith12
(Ashley smith, Smith is a long time contributor to many subversive sources. Smith
has written for the ISR in their 2012 issue Trayvon Martin and the New Jim crow.
The following can be found here: http://isreview.org/issue/83/obamas-newimperialist-strategy)
Faced with the growing rivalry with China and Americas diminished power in the Middle East, the Obama
administration has been compelled to adjust the grand strategy of global
domination. Obama still intends for the United States to be, in his words, the indispensable
nation,the worlds policeman. He will therefore continue to project American power into
its traditional spheres of influence like Latin America, as well as expand its activity into other areas such as
Africa, for example, through AFRICOM. Contrary to liberal self-delusion, Obama

is not really cutting the military budget. As he declared at the Pentagon announcement of his
new Guidance, Over the next ten years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of
the matter is this: it will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In
fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration.5
Washington is simply recalibrating its military hardware, personnel, and deployment

to fit its new objectives. This involves reducing its military presence in Europe. More
importantly, given the costs and questionable results of its Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it involves moving
away from direct military invasions and occupations, and putting a stronger emphasis
on the use of counterterrorist tactics that rely on Special Forces and drone strikes, as well
as on proxy military forces. To carry this shift through, the Obama administration is cutting
the size of the Army, and increasing spending on the Navy, Air Force, Special Operations Forces, and
high-tech weaponry. Obama has also abandoned the Pentagons longtime plan to have the capacity to
fight two simultaneous ground wars. In its place he has put forward an alternative plan that would enable the
United States to fight one war and deny the objective ofor imposing unacceptable costs onan opportunistic
aggressor in a second region.6 Ominously, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta offered one scenario as an example.
He said the Pentagon would be set up to carry out a land war in Korea and at the same time defeat Iran in a
administration wants to avoid extended

use American air
power and a local proxy army to conduct any regime changes. As the Wall Street Journal
reports, Many Obama administration officials see last years international military intervention in Libya as a
model for future conflicts, with the United States using its air power up front while also relying on its
confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz. In such wars, the Obama
occupations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. For future operations Obama wants to
allies, and on local force to fight on the ground.7 Americas European allies and especially NATO will figure
prominently in the new US strategy. Obama intends for NATOs European members to take on greater responsibility
both on the continent and in out-of-area operations like Libya. The United States is also putting pressure on
Europeto little effect, howeverto invest more in their militaries, modernize them, and make them technically
compatible with the far more advanced US forces. The United States plans to shift two brigades out of Germany and
Italy, which would leave only one in each country.
The squabbling over things like removal of troops is but a

distraction mechanism from the dispossession of the black
object. US imperialism and anti-imperialism are based in antiblackness. The discussion of the AFF crowds out the analysis of
slavery and anti-blackness.
Sexton06
(Race, Nation, and Empire in a Blackened World, Jared Sexton, 2006, Jared Sexton is
a professor at Cal Irvine)
ln the consternated deliberations of national security, official and unofficial, from the
founding of the republic to the trumpeting of the new world order, the social control and
crisis management of the black population has always figured centrally, even or
especially when matters of emancipation or racial equality have by no means the
focus of debate. Across the sweep of U.S. history, policing the color line has required no credible threat of
invasion, no evidence of insurrectionary design, no proven stockpile of illicit chemical agents or radioactive
material, no particular breach of domestic or international law, no sensational moral or ethical transgression
(though all of these items, real or imagined, have factored in the relevant discourses, public and private). It has only
required the presence-within the polity, economy, culture, and society-of a so-called problem people, dwelling as
the institution of transatlantic racial

slavery-whose political and economic relations constitute, present tense, the social fabric
of Western modernity in general, of the Americas in particular, and of the United States most
acutely-cannot be explained (away) by the acquisition of fixed capital, the minimimtion of variable
capital, or the maximization of profits, much less by the dictates of gunboat diplomacy , the
expansion of strategic overseas military installations, or the
idiosyncrasies of the White House. It may seem so at times, but only insofar as
contemporary observers, or our historical counterparts, fundamentally misrecognize
the nature of racial slavery: as a brutal regime of labor exploitation; as the atrocious adjunct
to land conquest and the extermination, containment, and /or forced
assimilation of indigenous peoples; or as an endeavor functional to, rather than in excess of and
at times at odds with, the advent and maturation of Eurocentric capitalism. Of course, all of these
procedures have been important to the history of racial slavery (and vice
versa), but none is essential to its origins, its development and, above all,
its pernicious afterlife.' Rather, enslavement-the inaugural enterprise for the age of Europe,
the precondition for the American century and its coveted sequel- is enabled by and dependent on the most
basic of operations: symbolic and material immobilization, the absolute divestment of
sovereignty at the site of the black body: its freedom of movement, its conditions of labor, its
the absence of human presence. We can note further that
physical and emotional sustenance, its social and sexual reproduction, its political and cultural representation.
rendering of the black as the object of dispossession

the
historical proliferation of modem conceptions of sovereignty that now dominate
political and legal discourse globally and provide the crucial frames of intelligibility for
both imperialism and anti-imperialism, empire and its discontents . With blacks
Beyond its economic utility, this
par excellence-object of accumulation, prototypical commodity, captive flesh- structures indelibly
barred by definition from the very notion of the sovereign (whatever their nominal legal status, wherever their
those not marked by the material and symbolic stigma

of slavery have the exclusive and positive capacity to debate about
sovereignty: to trivialize its importance and rationalize its violation or to
struggle in its defense, to name and lament its loss, and wage war for its
recovery. Blacks, then, suffer a peculiar relation to the U.S. empire in the historic instance: neither its subjects
tentative place of residence),
(certainly not its authors or beneficiaries) nor its objects (at least not in the most direct sense). This peculiarity was
underscored dramatically during the notorious U.S. war in Southeast Asia (1965-75) wherein black soldiers,
overwhelmingly conscripted, were not only disproportionately offered up as cannon fodder (after long being
segregated and retained in noncombat functions, depicted as cowardly and inept, denied access to the social
capital of military hero- ism, etc.-all components of the typical critique of the racism internal to the armed forces)
but were also differentiated by the enemies of the U.S. military invasion and occupation. Racially targeted
propaganda appealed to the cruel ironies of black military service (ironies already well known and articulated by
mid-century) and offered ideological support to the struggle for freedom, justice, and equality that was, at the time,
intensifying and mutating stateside as it raised the galvanizing cry of Black Power.
Imperialism is a reproduction of anti-black racism. Imperialism

as a system pits minorities against each other and forces
individuals to assimilate into the white system of black
policing. Any promotion of the imperial system should be
rejected as unethical.
Blackfoxx13
(Blackfoxx is an avid twitter writer about race and racism. Black foxx has put
together some of the most forward statements about anti-blackness and the way it
is promoted through the American system.)
anti-black racism, particularly reasons

why its not so simple and why its not as important or devastating as we make it out to be, but they only
talk about it in reference to Black people in the United States. So what
about the world full of Black people you continue to dehumanize ? That lets me
I know everything I need to know when people are talking about
know whether its anti-blackness you are interested in, or dodging accountability and resisting changing your antiblack behavior. Because using a straw man of U.S. imperialism that structurally we have nothing to do with (Im not
talking about a small minority of black ppl who slip through the cracks), in order to excuse antiblack racism can only
fly in 1.) a U.S. context and 2.)an anti-black one. Allow me to explain. I wont repeat all of the things Ive talked
to understand systems of power, we look at

frameworks not at exceptions. And if you want to get really realIf you want to take a walk through
about earlier this week.But Again,
the Pentagon and the State Department. I have been through both Aside from all the white people, You will find
more of yall then you will of us. You will find folks from your own countries and their children. This is not something
unique to Black people and it is not appropriate to bring up when discussing/excusing your anti-black racism.
There will always be a minority of poc present, but those are things that need to be
understood in the broader context of a large STRUCTURE. This is why you never see me pointing to them. It means
THAT IS WHAT
IMPERIALISM/COLONIALISM IS. That part of Imperialism is limiting options
for poc, ripping them from the context of their culture, removing options,
indoctrinating them with its own messages in the absence of all those
things, providing its own options, and then churning those people in the
cogs of the machine. As casualties, means of production, pieces of the prisonindustrial, complex, and a small minority as the faces and agents of imperialism, etc. Part of
how it operates, while and after it destroys everything, is selecting a small minority of
little to nothing in the broader context of Imperialism and what that means.
people to carry out its agenda. I also dont mean to say its completely unimportant within the proper context, but for
the purpose of discussing anti-black racism or blaming a collective group without that access, its irrelevant. It is
intellectually dishonest to look at this minority of people chosen, specifically for how well they have internalized
imperialist ideology, as representative of an entire group and A REASON AS TO WHY YOU SHOULD NOT
DECOLONIZE YOUR THINKING IN RELATION TO IT. You do not look at the black overseer or plantation manager when
you are understanding the implications of slavery. It has a meaning, but it is an intracommunity and structural one.
The meaning is to be found in the devastation that colonialism wreaks on our communities. European and U.S.
nations, IN YOUR OWN COUNTRIES, historically and current day appointed representatives from your countries to
carry out its goals. You do not look at actions and state of those people as representative of your everyday reality
and place in the system of oppression. No, you look it at, and rightly so, as a tactic of colonialism to be understood
on a larger scale. You do not look at the rich Mexican who immigrated to the U.S. when trying to understand the
implications of the reality of undocumented people. You do not look at white woman as representative of the plight
of women in the world and then conclude that women dont have it as bad as you think and should pipe down. And
you can apply that to whatever context works in whatever country or situation you are in. Sure you can look at it to
fully understand the system. BUT YOU DO NOT POINT TO THOSE THINGS AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A COLLECTIVE
EXPERIENCE IN AN ATTEMPT TO OVERLOOK OR MINIMIZE THEM. I rarely see this comparison made with other
people need to realize that they are so heavily invested in antiblack racism, in order to truly really see the lengths that they are going .
groups. I think
People need to realize that investment and start to challenge and deconstruct it before anything will be
accomplished. You should start to wonder not They are always bellyaching, How bad are those black people
This
is antiblackness in its best form. And people will get upset at Black Americans all day long as an
excuse. Meanwhile there is an entire world of Black people, of which we are a
very small minority, that is being subjected to your anti-black racism. But
you are silent about them. But Black Americans are particularly good about calling people on their
REALLY? and start to wonder Why am i so invested? and follow that stream of thought to its conclusions.
shit, because we have had to develop an intimate understanding of the matrix of oppression, as a means of survival
in the belly of the beast. We have developed a very specific language to discuss it, and thus are a convenient point
of attack. And if you really want to get down to it, folks just dont like uppity n*ggers calling them on their shit,
telling them what to do, and backing all that shit up with breathtaking revolutionary theory, intellectualism, and
Basically you
dont like the Black folks who talk back. And that makes you an anti-black
racist motherfucker. And I say this with love. I will love and kiss all my fellow poc after I
say it. Blackfoxx is always dropping knowledge. It really cant be stressed enough but anti-blackness is
the fulcrum of white supremacy and any poc that forget that are anti-black
and need to shut the entire fuck up.
scholarship. How I dare I have to be accountable to some raggedy Black folks is all I hear.
<INSERT ADVANTAGE LINK HERE>
Whiteness perpetuates a system of abuse of the black. The

normativity of whiteness creates a hyper visibility for blacks.
The result of this hyper visibility is being received as a body
that is already marked and already dead. The perception of
being already dead legitimizes the slaughter of black flesh.
Yancy13
(George Yancy is Professor of Philosophy at Duquesne University and Coordinator of
the Critical Race Theory Speaker Series. He is the author of Black Bodies, White
Gazes: The Continuing Significance of Race, which received an Honorable Mention
from the Gustavus Myers Center for the Study of Bigotry and Human Rights. He has
also edited twelve influential books, three of which have received Choice Awards.
He was also recently nominated for the Duquesne University Presidential Award for
Excellence in Scholarship http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/walkingwhile-black-in-the-white-gaze/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0#more-148458)
Despite the ringing tones of Obamas Lincoln Memorial speech, I find myself still often thinking of a more informal
Im still
thinking about someone who might be considered old news already:
Trayvon Martin. In his now much-quoted White House briefing several weeks ago, not long after the verdict
in the trial of George Zimmerman, the president expressed his awareness of the everpresent danger of death for those who inhabit black bodies . You know,
when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my
son, he said. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have
been me 35 years ago. I wait for the day when a white president will say, There is no way that I could
and somber talk he gave. And despite the inspirational and ethical force of Dr. King and his work,
have experienced what Trayvon Martin did (and other black people do) because Im white and through white
privilege I am immune to systemic racial profiling.
Obama also talked about how black men
in this country know what it is like to be followed while shopping and how
black men have had the experience of walking across the street and
hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. I have had this experience on
many occasions as whites catch sight of me walking past their cars: Click,
click, click, click. Those clicks can be deafening. There are times when I
want to become their boogeyman. I want to pull open the car door and
shout: Surprise! Youve just been car-jacked by a fantasy of your own
creation. Now get out of the car. The presidents words , perhaps consigned to a
long-ago news cycle now, remain powerful: they validate experiences that blacks have
undergone in their everyday lives. Obamas voice resonates with those philosophical voices
(Frantz Fanon, for example) that have long attempted to describe the lived interiority of racial experiences. He has
also deployed the power of narrative autobiography, which is a significant conceptual tool used insightfully by
critical race theorists to discern the clarity and existential and social gravity of what it means to experience white
violence that blacks often face

as they are stereotyped and profiled within the context of quotidian social
spaces. III. David Hume claimed that to be black was to be like a parrot who speaks
a few words plainly. And Immanuel Kant maintained that to be black from head to foot was clear
racism. As a black president, he has given voice to the epistemic
proof that what any black person says is stupid. In his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote: In imagination
In the first American Edition of

the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1798), the term Negro was defined as
someone who is cruel, impudent, revengeful, treacherous, nasty, idle,
dishonest, a liar and given to stealing. My point here is to say that the
white gaze is global and historically mobile. And its origins, while from Europe, are
deeply seated in the making of America. Black bodies in America continue to
be reduced to their surfaces and to stereotypes that are constricting and
false, that often force those black bodies to move through social spaces in ways that put white people at ease.
they [Negroes] are dull, tasteless and anomalous, and inferior.
We fear that our black bodies incite an accusation. We move in ways that help us to survive the procrustean gazes
of white people. We dread that those who see us might feel the irrational fear to stand their ground rather than
finding common ground, a reference that was made by Bernice King as she spoke about the legacy of her father
The white gaze is also hegemonic, historically

grounded in material relations of white power: it was deemed disrespectful for a black
at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
person to violate the white gaze by looking directly into the eyes of someone white. The white gaze is also ethically
solipsistic: within it only whites have the capacity of making valid moral judgments. Even with the unprecedented
White House briefing, our national discourse regarding Trayvon Martin and questions of race have failed to produce
a critical and historically conscious discourse that sheds light on what it means to be black in an anti-black America.
Trayvon Martin, like so many black boys

was under surveillance (etymologically, to keep watch). Little did he know that
on Feb. 26, 2012, that he would enter a space of social control and bodily policing ,
If historical precedent says anything, this failure will only continue.
and men,
a kind of Benthamian panoptic nightmare that would truncate his being as suspicious; a space where he was,
paradoxically, both invisible and yet hypervisible. RELATED More From The Stone Read previous contributions to this
series. I am invisible, understand, simply because people [in this case white people] refuse to see me. Trayvon
was invisible to Zimmerman, he was not seen as the black child that he was, trying to make it back home with
As
black, Trayvon was already known and rendered invisible. His childhood
and humanity were already criminalized as part of a white racist narrative
about black male bodies. Trayvon needed no introduction: Look, the black; the criminal! IV. Many
have argued that the site of violence occurred upon the confrontation between
Trayvon and Zimmerman. Yet, the violence began with Zimmermans nonemergency dispatch call, a call that was racially assaultive in its discourse, one that
Skittles and an iced tea. He was not seen as having done nothing wrong, as one who dreams and hopes.
used the tropes of anti-black racism. Note, Zimmerman said, Theres a real suspicious guy. He also said, This guy
looks like hes up to no good or hes on drugs or something. When asked by the dispatcher, he said, within
seconds, that, He looks black. Asked what he is wearing, Zimmerman says, A dark hoodie, like a gray hoodie.
Later, Zimmerman said that now hes coming toward me. Hes got his hands in his waist band. And then, And
hes a black male. But what does it mean to be a real suspicious guy? What does it mean to look like one is up
to no good? Zimmerman does not give any details, nothing to buttress the validity of his narration. Keep in mind
that Zimmerman is in his vehicle as he provides his narration to the dispatcher. As the looker, it is not
Zimmerman who is in danger; rather, it is Trayvon Martin, the looked at, who is the target of suspicion and
possible violence. After all, it is Trayvon Martin who is wearing the hoodie, a piece of racialized attire that
apparently signifies black criminality. Zimmerman later said: Somethings wrong with him. Yep, hes coming to
check me out, and, Hes got something in his hands. Zimmerman also said, I dont know what his deal is. A
black young male with something in his hands, wearing a hoodie, looking suspicious, and perhaps on drugs, and
The history of white

supremacy underwrites this interpretation. Within this context of discursive violence,
Zimmerman was guilty of an act of aggression against Trayvon Martin, even before the trigger was
pulled. Before his physical death, Trayvon Martin was rendered socially dead
under the weight of Zimmermans racist stereotypes. Zimmermans aggression was
enacted through his gaze, through the act of profiling, through his discourse and through his warped
reconstruction of an innocent black boy that instigates white fear . V. What
does it say about America when to be black is the ontological crime, a crime of
simply being ? Perhaps the religious studies scholar Bill Hart is correct: To be a black man is to
be marked for death. Or as the political philosopher Joy James argues, Blackness as evil [is] destined
there being something wrong with him, is a racist narrative of fear and frenzy.
for eradication. Perhaps this is why when writing about the death of his young black son, the social theorist W.E.B.
Du Bois said, All that day and all that night there sat an awful gladness in my heart nay, blame me not if I see
the world thus darkly through the Veil and my soul whispers ever to me saying, Not dead, not dead, but
escaped; not bond, but free. Trayvon Martin was killed walking while black. As the protector of all things gated,
of all things standing on the precipice of being endangered by black male bodies, Zimmerman created the
conditions upon which he had no grounds to stand on. Indeed, through his racist stereotypes and his pursuit of
created the conditions that belied the applicability of the stand

your ground law and created a situation where Trayvon was killed . This is the
Trayvon, he
narrative that ought to have been told by the attorneys for the family of Trayvon Martin. It is part of the narrative
that Obama brilliantly told, one of black bodies being racially policed and having suffered a unique history of racist
vitriol in this country. Yet it is one that is perhaps too late, one already rendered mute and inconsequential by the
verdict of not guilty.
Thus the Alt Reject the aff as an continued adherence to

revolutionary suicide.
Revolutionary suicide is an idealism to reject the abuse that
black flesh is subjected to. It is standing up for the
downtrodden, it is freedom to decide what happens to the
black community It is an outcry for the relief of police brutality.
Newton73
(Newton, Huey P., Huey was the founder of the Black Panther party in the late 60s
early 70s. Revolutionary Suicide. Revised/Expanded ed. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1973. Print. Pg. 116)
This is the program we wrote down: OCTOBER 1966 BLACK PANTHER PARTY PLATFORM AND PROGRAM WHAT WE
What the alternative looks like Presented as the Manifesto

We want freedom. We want power to determine the
destiny of our Black Community. We believe that Black people will not be free until we are able to
WANT WHAT WE BELIEVEam on paperto the Black Panthers. 1.
determine our destiny. 2. We want full employment for our people. We believe that the federal government is
responsible and obligated to give every man employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the white
the means of production should be

taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the
people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and
give a high standard of living. 3. We want an end to the robbery by the capitalist of
our Black community. We believe that this racist government has robbed us and now we are demanding
American businessmen will not give full employment, then
the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules were promised 100 years ago as
restitution for slave labor and mass murder of Black people. We will accept the payment in currency which will be
distributed to our many communities. The Germans are now aiding the Jews in Israel for the genocide of the Jewish
people. The Germans murdered six million Jews. The American racist has taken part in the slaughter of over fifty
million Black people; therefore, we feel that this is a modest demand that we make. 4. We want decent housing, fit
for shelter of human beings. We believe that if the white landlords will not give decent housing to our Black
community, then the housing and the land should be made into cooperatives so that our community, with
education for our

people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We
want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the presentday society. We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of self. If a man
does not have knowledge of himself and his position in society and the
world, then he has little chance to relate to anything else. 6. We want all Black men
government aid, can build and make decent housing for its people. 5. We want
to be exempt from military service. We believe that Black people should not be forced to fight in the military service
to defend a racist government that does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world
who, like Black people, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. We will protect ourselves
from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, by whatever means necessary. 7. We want
an immediate end to POLICE BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black people . We

believe we can end police brutality in our Black community by organizing
Black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our Black
community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black people
should arm themselves for self-defense. 8. We want freedom for all Black men held in federal,
state, county and city prisons and jails. We believe that all Black people should be released from the many jails and
prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial. 9. We want all Black people when brought to trial
to be tried in court by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black communities, as defined by the
Constitution of the United States. We believe that the courts should follow the United States Constitution so that
Black people will receive fair trials. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives a man a right to be
tried by his peer group. A peer is a person from a similar economic, social, religious, geographical, environmental,
historical, and racial background. To do this the court will be forced to select a jury from the Black community from
which the Black defendant came. We have been and are being tried by all-white juries that have no understanding
of the average reasoning man of the Black community. 10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing,
justice, and peace. And as our major political objective, a United Nations-supervised plebiscite to be held
throughout the Black colony in which only Black colonial subjects will be allowed to participate, for the purpose of
in the course of human

events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of
determining the will of Black people as to their national destiny. When,
the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and natures God entitle them, a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain un alienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That,
to
secure these rights, government s are instituted among men, deriving

their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any
form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on
such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils
when a
long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security .
are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But,
With the program on paper, we set up the structure of our organization.
To do anything while the black flesh is still fungible is to take

part in an unethical world. Solving the antagonism of the antiblack flesh is a 1st priority issue when attempting to create
good scholarship.
Wilderson10
(Frank. B. Wilderson, Red White and black, 2010. Pg. 67-68 Frank B. Wilderson is a
tenured professor at the University of California Irvine. He has attended the
University of Colombia where he got a degree in psychology.)
Ontological incapacity, I have inferred and here state forthright, is the
constituent element of ethics. Put another way, one cannot embody capacity
and be, simultaneously, ethical. Where there are Slaves it is unethical to be
free. The Settler/Masters capacity, I have argued, is a function of
exploitation and alienation; and the Slaves incapacity is elaborated by
accumulation and fungibility. But the Savage is positioned, structurally,
by subjective capacity and Red, White, & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S.
Antagonisms 68 objective incapacity, by sovereignty and genocide, respectively. It
is the Indians liminal status in political economy, the manner in which
her/his positionality shuttles between the incapacity of a genocided object
and the capacity of a sovereign subject, coupled with the fact that
Redness does not overdetermine the thanatology (Judy 89, 94) of
libidinal economythis liminal capacity within political economy and
complete freedom from incapacity within libidinal economywhich raises
serious doubts about the status of Savage ethicality vis--vis the
triangulated structure (Red, White, and Black) of antagonisms. Clearly, the
coherence of Whiteness as a structural position in modernity depends on
the capacity to be free from genocide, not, perhaps, as an historical
experience, but at least as a positioning modality.
Arab States of the Persian Gulf

The AFF is a continuation of United States imperialism. The
Affs reduction in military presence is just a part of the larger
grand strategy to make the system of American domination
and policing continue.
Dueck15
(Colin Dueck, Dr. Colin Dueck is a Senior Fellow of the FPRI and an associate
professor in the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George
Mason, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=190230)
Over the past decade or more, leading academic foreign policy realists have argued for US
strategic retrenchment. Retrenchment is a strategy designed to reduce a country's
international and military costs and commitments. [1] This can be done by cutting defense
spending, withdrawing from certain alliance obligations, scaling back on deployments
abroad, or reducing international expenditures. Retrenchment does not necessarily involve the
avoidance of all strategic commitments. But the desired direction with retrenchment is one of
lowered cost and reduced commitment. One especially stark version of strategic retrenchment, championed by
political scientists such as John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Robert Pape, and Christopher Layne, is the concept of
strategy of offshore balancing

would still try to ensure that no one major power dominates Europe,
Northeast Asia, or the Persian Gulf. But it would make others assume the main burden, and rely
on local powers to balance one another, while stationing US military forces over the
horizon, either offshore or within the United States. An offshore balancing strategy would embrace sharp
offshore balancing. [2] According to its leading advocates, a
reductions in the size of the US Army and Marines, avoid counterinsurgency operations altogether, and abstain from
international projects involving the military occupation or governance of developing countries. For the most part, it
American forces would come onshore only if local powers

proved unable to maintain regional balance of powers on their own. With the
threat checked, US troops would then exit and go back over the horizon.
would avoid foreign wars.
According to Mearsheimer, offshore balancing would allow the United States to disband existing alliance
commitments in Europe and East Asia, and cut defense spending to about 2 percent of America's Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). The scaled-back US military presence overseas would further undercut support for anti-American
terrorism, and reduce the need for other powers to develop their own weapons of mass destruction. At least,
these are some of the benefits claimed for offshore balancing by its
proponents. [3] Retrenchment Tested The Obama years provide an interesting test case for the consequences
of an incremental and partial strategic retrenchment. To be sure, American grand strategy under Obama has
multiple aspects, and sometimes contains assertive elements. After all, this is the president who hunted down
Osama Bin Laden, announced a US pivot to Asia, and escalated the use of unmanned drone strikes against Al
Qaeda and its affiliates. Nor has Obama adopted anything like a pure strategy of offshore balancing. Advocates of
offshore balancing would have neither surged into Afghanistan in 2009-2010, nor toppled Qaddafi, nor maintained
in the end so much of the George W. Bush institutional legacy in counter-terrorism. The United States today still
Still, a modest
form of strategic retrenchment has been a major component and
aspiration of American grand strategy under Obama, even in cases where
the US asserts itself rhetorically or temporarily, and on this the President
has repeatedly made his priorities very clear. The move toward retrenchment in recent
operates a worldwide alliance system far beyond what offshore balancers would want.
years is visible for example in patterns of US military spending, force posture, and security strategy. The Budget
Control Act of 2011 in particular, together with subsequent sequestration, resulted in roughly $1 trillion in defense
cuts over a ten-year period currently underway. This was on top of previous cuts from Obama's first two years under
then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The cuts showed up in reduced numbers of weapons, personnel, soldiers,
Marines, ships and aircraft since 2010. In real terms, defense spending has gone down significantly as a proportion
of the US federal budget since that year, while domestic spending has gone up. [4] This shift away from defense is
also true in relation to national economic activity. In 2010, defense spending constituted almost 5 percent of GDP.
By the time Obama leaves office, that number is projected to be roughly 3 percent. So there has been a striking
decline in the proportion of national effort devoted to military affairs, just as intended and called for by the
President. In terms of explicit security strategy, the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance helped clarify key
assumptions of retrenchment, abandoning the pretense that the United States be able to fight two major regional
de-emphasized heavy-footed
counterinsurgency or ground campaigns, stating that the US armed forces
would "no longer be sized to conduct large-scale prolonged stability
operations." The call instead was for "innovative, low-cost and smallfootprint" approaches. [5] One leading scholarly advocate of offshore balancing, Christopher Layne of
contingencies simultaneously. That document
the George H.W. Bush School at Texas A&M, rightly noted that the 2012 Strategic Guidance represented a
2015 National Security Strategy does not reverse the

calls for
"strategic patience" in its continuation. [7]
significant move in an offshore direction. [6] The
President's demonstrated preference for a retrenched approach, but instead claims it is working, and

Sexton06


the



Blackfoxx 13

not so simple and why its not as important or devastating as we make it out to be, but they only
why its

THAT IS WHAT
people need to realize that they are so heavily invested in antiblack racism, in order to truly really see the lengths that they are going .
groups. I think
This
Basically you

Yancy13
Excellence in Scholarship, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/walkingwhile-black-in-the-white-gaze/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0#more-148458)
Im still





and men, was under surveillance (etymologically, to keep watch). Little did he know that
As
violence occurred upon the confrontation between

have argued that the site of


Trayvon, he

Newton73

to the Black Panthers. 1. We want freedom. We want power to determine the
WANT WHAT WE BELIEVEam on paper-

education for our



to
when a

good scholarship.
Wilderson10
Northeast Asia
Somalia.
Smith12
(Ashley smith, Smith is a long time contributor to many suberversive sources. Smith



use American air

Sexton06


the


Blackfoxx13
not so simple and why its not as important or devastating as we make it out to be, but they only
why its

THAT IS WHAT
groups. I think
people need to realize that they are so heavily invested in anti-
black racism, in order to truly really see the lengths that they are going .
This
Basically you

Yancy13
Excellence in Scholarship, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/walkingwhile-black-in-the-white-gaze/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0#more-148458)
Im still





was under surveillance (etymologically, to keep watch). Little did he know that
and men,
As
have argued that the site of violence occurred upon the confrontation between


Trayvon, he

Newton73


education for our



to
when a

good scholarship.
Wilderson10

Framework
The ROB: The Role of the Ballot should be to determine
who best interrupts and rejects the racist power structure
Counter- Interpretation: The affirmative must justify their
ontology before they get to weigh the aff.
Standards:
Ground The affirmative team must defend the entirety of
the 1AC, not just select parts. Its a question of the plan
action as well as the advantages and
epistemology/ontology that justifies it. Negative ground
is only to prove that the affirmative is not desirable.
Reps the AFF has the burden of proof to justify the
representations that they put fourth Must be able to test
the assumptions of the 1AC they have structural adv.
No impact to your framework argument this is a
predictable literature base situated around the question
of society which is better education than plan-focus
education because the concepts of concept and
interactions that undergird the rest of the debates.
They say the focus on the macro matters - but the detached
stance of the policy maker in debate divorces us from true
advocacy and is one of the most debilitating failures of
contemporary education. Such as stance is linked to normative
practices used to produce and maintain multiple networks of
oppression.
Reid-Brinkley, 2008
(Shanara,"THE HARSH REALITIES OF ACTING BLACK: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE
AND STYLE," pg. 118-120)
the stance of the policymaker in debate comes with a

sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture. In other words, its
participants are able to engage in debates where they are able to distance
themselves from the events that are the subjects of debates . Debaters can
throw around terms like torture, terrorism, genocide and nuclear war
without blinking. Debate simulations can only serve to distance the debaters
from real world participation in the political contexts they debate about . As
William Shanahan remarks: the topic established a relationship through
interpellation that inhered irrespective of what the particular political affinities of the debaters were. The
relationship was both political and ethical, and needed to be debated as
such. When we blithely call for United States Federal Government
policymaking, we are not immune to the colonialist legacy that establishes
our place on this continent. We cannot wish away the horrific atrocities
perpetrated everyday in our name simply by refusing to acknowledge
these implications (emphasis in original). The objective stance of the policymaker is
an impersonal or imperialist persona. The policymaker relies upon acceptable
forms of evidence, engaging in logical discussion, producing rational
thoughts. As Shanahan, and the Louisville debaters note, such a stance is integrally linked
to the normative, historical and contemporary practices of power that
produce and maintain varying networks of oppression. In other words, the
discursive practices of policy-oriented debate are developed within,
through and from systems of power and privilege. Thus, these practices
are critically implicated in the maintenance of hegemony. So, rather than seeing
Mitchell observes that
themselves as government or state actors, Jones and Green choose to perform themselves in debate, violating the
more objective stance of the policymaker and require their opponents to do the same. Jones and Green argue
that debaters should ground their agency in what they are able to do as individuals. Note the following statement
from Green in the 2NC against Emorys Allen and Greenstein (ranked in the sweet sixteen): And then, another
main difference is that our advocacy is grounded in our agency as individuals. Their agency is grounded in what the
US federal government, what the state should do.117 Citing Mitchell, Green argues further: We talk about, dead
prez, talks about how the system aint gone change, unless we make it change. Were talkin about what we as
individuals should do. Thats why Gordon Mitchell talked about how when we lose our argumentative agency.
When we give our agency to someone else, we begin speaking of what the
United States Federal Government should do, rather than what we do, that
cause us to be spectators. Its one of the most debilitating failures of
contemporary education. As part of their commitment to the development of agency, each of the
Louisville debaters engages in recognition of their privilege, in an attempt to make their social locations visible and
relevant to their rhetorical stance.
Links
Policy
Top-Shelf
Africa
Somalia.
Smith12
(Ashley smith, Smith is a long time contributor to many suberversive sources. Smith



use American air
Generic
The AFF is a continuation of United States imperialism. The

Affs reduction in military presence is just a part of the Larger
grand strategy to make the system of American domination
and policing continue.
Dueck15
(Colin Dueck, Dr. Colin Dueck is a Senior Fellow of the FPRI and an associate
professor in the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George
Mason, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=190230)
Over the past decade or more, leading academic foreign policy realists have argued for US
strategic retrenchment. Retrenchment is a strategy designed to reduce a country's
international and military costs and commitments. [1] This can be done by cutting defense
spending, withdrawing from certain alliance obligations, scaling back on deployments
abroad, or reducing international expenditures. Retrenchment does not necessarily involve the
avoidance of all strategic commitments. But the desired direction with retrenchment is one of
lowered cost and reduced commitment. One especially stark version of strategic retrenchment, championed by
political scientists such as John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Robert Pape, and Christopher Layne, is the concept of
strategy of offshore balancing

would still try to ensure that no one major power dominates Europe,
Northeast Asia, or the Persian Gulf. But it would make others assume the main burden, and rely
on local powers to balance one another, while stationing US military forces over the
horizon, either offshore or within the United States. An offshore balancing strategy would embrace sharp
offshore balancing. [2] According to its leading advocates, a
reductions in the size of the US Army and Marines, avoid counterinsurgency operations altogether, and abstain from
international projects involving the military occupation or governance of developing countries. For the most part, it
American forces would come onshore only if local powers

proved unable to maintain regional balance of powers on their own. With the
threat checked, US troops would then exit and go back over the horizon.
would avoid foreign wars.
According to Mearsheimer, offshore balancing would allow the United States to disband existing alliance
commitments in Europe and East Asia, and cut defense spending to about 2 percent of America's Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). The scaled-back US military presence overseas would further undercut support for anti-American
terrorism, and reduce the need for other powers to develop their own weapons of mass destruction. At least,
these are some of the benefits claimed for offshore balancing by its
proponents. [3] Retrenchment Tested The Obama years provide an interesting test case for the consequences
of an incremental and partial strategic retrenchment. To be sure, American grand strategy under Obama has
multiple aspects, and sometimes contains assertive elements. After all, this is the president who hunted down
Osama Bin Laden, announced a US pivot to Asia, and escalated the use of unmanned drone strikes against Al
Qaeda and its affiliates. Nor has Obama adopted anything like a pure strategy of offshore balancing. Advocates of
offshore balancing would have neither surged into Afghanistan in 2009-2010, nor toppled Qaddafi, nor maintained
in the end so much of the George W. Bush institutional legacy in counter-terrorism. The United States today still
Still, a modest
form of strategic retrenchment has been a major component and
aspiration of American grand strategy under Obama, even in cases where
the US asserts itself rhetorically or temporarily, and on this the President
has repeatedly made his priorities very clear. The move toward retrenchment in recent
operates a worldwide alliance system far beyond what offshore balancers would want.
years is visible for example in patterns of US military spending, force posture, and security strategy. The Budget
Control Act of 2011 in particular, together with subsequent sequestration, resulted in roughly $1 trillion in defense
cuts over a ten-year period currently underway. This was on top of previous cuts from Obama's first two years under
then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The cuts showed up in reduced numbers of weapons, personnel, soldiers,
Marines, ships and aircraft since 2010. In real terms, defense spending has gone down significantly as a proportion
of the US federal budget since that year, while domestic spending has gone up. [4] This shift away from defense is
also true in relation to national economic activity. In 2010, defense spending constituted almost 5 percent of GDP.
By the time Obama leaves office, that number is projected to be roughly 3 percent. So there has been a striking
decline in the proportion of national effort devoted to military affairs, just as intended and called for by the
President. In terms of explicit security strategy, the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance helped clarify key
assumptions of retrenchment, abandoning the pretense that the United States be able to fight two major regional
de-emphasized heavy-footed
counterinsurgency or ground campaigns, stating that the US armed forces
contingencies simultaneously. That document
would "no longer be sized to conduct large-scale prolonged stability

operations." The call instead was for "innovative, low-cost and smallfootprint" approaches. [5] One leading scholarly advocate of offshore balancing, Christopher Layne of
the George H.W. Bush School at Texas A&M, rightly noted that the 2012 Strategic Guidance represented a
2015 National Security Strategy does not reverse the

calls for
"strategic patience" in its continuation. [7]
significant move in an offshore direction. [6] The
President's demonstrated preference for a retrenched approach, but instead claims it is working, and
Analogy
Moments of analogy between black flesh and others only
obscure the violence felt by those trapped in objecthood. The
violence suffered by blackened populations is contingent but
the violence that is felt by truly black people is one that
cannot be so easily dealt with.
Sexton10
(Jared Sexton, is a professor at Cal Irvine . People of Color-blindness, Notes on the
afterlife of slavery, pg. 43-44)
In this light, we might augment the post-9/11 critique of the racial state regarding
the Bush administrations initiation of the ongoing war on terror, the
passage of the PATRIOT Acts, the formation of the Department of
Homeland Security, the anti-terrorist roundups of 2001, the torture of
enemy combatants at U.S. military prisons, and so on.58 This redacted
commentary might productively shift the prevailing conceptualization of
American empire and especially the use of imprisonment and police
profiling as tropes of the racialized political oppression it engenders, both
nationally and internationally. We are in a position now to see how the
deployment of this rhetorical device (for example, Flying While Brown is like
Driving While Black; the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride builds on the
history of the noble US civil rights movement; the prisoner abuse at Abu
Ghraib is reminiscent of the lynching of blacks)59 is made possible by a
misrecognition of the lived experience of the black. This point is developed
by Wilderson with reference to the distinction between political conflict
Social Text Published by Duke University Press 4 4 Sexton Notes on the Afterlife of
Slavery (involving a demand that can be satisfied by the end of exploitation or the
restoration of sovereignty) and political antagonism (involving a demand that
cannot be satisfied through a transfer of ownership or organization of land
and labor) or, in related fashion, between contingent forms of suffering (state
violence incurred by breaching the modality of hegemony) and structural forms
of suffering (state violence experienced as gratuitous, a direct relation of force).60
The former designation in each case encompasses a wide range of
exploitation and exclusion, including colonization, occupation, and even
extermination, while the latter indicates the singularity of racial slavery and
its afterlife, the lasting paradox of a sentient and sapient being sealed
into crushing objecthood.61
Civil Society/State
Seemingly inclusive political movements recreate fungibility.
They give the allusion that freedom for the black is the end
sought when truly the masters interests are what is in mind.
Black flesh has always been the face of popular revolutions. It
is by defining itself as something similar to but not the same
as the black that movements like the affirmative have gained
traction for their movement. This type of use of the black
recreates a state of politics where the black is fungible.
Wilderson10
(Frank. B. Wilderson, Red White and black, 2010. Pg. 30 Frank B. Wilderson is a
Eltis suggests that there was indeed massive debate which ultimately led
to Britain taking the lead in the abolition of slavery, but he reminds us that that debate
did not have its roots in the late Middle Ages, the post-Columbian period of the 1500s or the Virginia Colony period
he asserts, an outgrowth of the mid- to late18th century emancipatory thrust

intra-Human disputes such as the French and American Revolutions that swept through Europe.
But Eltis does not take his analysis further than this. Therefore, it is important that we not be
swayed by his optimism about the Enlightenment and its subsequent
abolitionist discourses. It is highly conceivable that the discourse that elaborates the justification
for freeing the slave is not the product of the Human being having
suddenly and miraculously recognized the slave. Rather, as Saidiya Hartman argues,
emancipatory discourses present themselves to us as further evidence of
the Slaves fungibility: [T]he figurative capacities of blackness enable white
flights of fancy while increasing the likelihood of the captives
disappearance (Scenes22). First, the questions of Humanism were elaborated in contradistinction to
the human void, to the African-qua-chattel (the 1200s to the end of the 17th century). Then, as the presence
of Black chattel in the midst of exploited and un-exploited Humans (workers
and bosses, respectively) became a fact of the world, exploited Humans (in the throes
of class conflict with un-exploited Humans) seized the image of the slave
as an enabling vehicle that Red, White, & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms 31
animated the evolving discourses of their emancipation, just as un-exploited
Humans had seized the flesh of the Slave to increase their profits. Without this
of the 1600s. It was,
gratuitous violence, a violence that marks everyone experientially until the late Middle Ages when it starts to mark
the so-called great emancipatory discourses of modernity

marxism, feminism, postcolonialism, sexual liberation, and the ecology
movementpolitical discourses predicated on grammars of suffering and
whose constituent elements are exploitation and alienation, might not
have developed.xi Chattel slavery did not simply reterritorialize the ontology of the African. It also
created the Human out of culturally disparate entities from Europe to the East.
the Black ontologically,
Extinction Rhetoric
Their emphasis on spectacles of violence the examples here
are__________________ is a strategic ploy of false threat
construction to conceal and not reveal everyday forms of
violence causing a failure to effectively challenge structural
violence and white supremacy
Martinot & Sexton 2003
[Steve & Jared, Steve is a lecturer at San Francisco State University in the Center for
Interdisciplinary Programs Jared is Associate Professor African American Studies
School of Humanities Associate Professor, Film & Media Studies School of
Humanities at UC Irvine Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, Comparative Ethnic
Studies, The Avant-Garde of White Supremacy, Social Identities, Volume 9, Number
2, 2003 p.171-172]
Most theories of white supremacy seek to plumb the depths of its excessiveness, beyond the
ordinary; they miss the fact that racism is a mundane affair. The fundamental excess of the
paradigm of policing which infuses this culture is wholly banal. Those
theories overlook that fact in favor of extant extravagance, spectacle, or
the deep psychology of rogue elements and become complicit in perpetuating
white supremacy. The reality is an invidious ethos of excess that, instead,
constitutes the surface of everything in this society. For some time now, the intellectual quest for racisms
supposedly hidden meaning has afforded a refuge from confrontations with this banality, even its possible
acknowledgement. The most egregious aspect of this banality is our tacit acquiescence to the rules of race and
power, to the legitimacy white supremacy says it has, regardless of their total violation of reason and
Our "tacit acquiescence" is the real silent source of white

supremacist tenacity and power. As William C. Harris, II wrote in the aftermath of Tyisha Millers
comprehensibility.
murder by the police: It is heartbreaking to be an American citizen and have to say this, but I do have to say this.
We have almost, and I stress almost, become accustomed to police shooting innocent, unarmed, young, black
males. That in itself is bad enough, and one was at one time inclined to think it couldn't get any worse, but it gets
worse. Now we have police killing our young black females. It can't get any worse than that. Harris is right; yet he
also sells himself out because he acquiesces in the process of decrying acquiescence. He does not draw the line
between respect for persons and impunity. He continues: "Even if she grabbed a gun, was it necessary to shoot at
her twenty-seven times? I know its less than 41, but that's still too many times to shoot at a sleeping female
It is
the job of the spectacular (and sensational reports about the subtle) to draw attention
away from the banality of police murder as standard operating procedure. Spectacle is a
form of camouflage. It does not conceal anything; it simply renders it unrecognizable. One
black, brown, yellow or white" (emphasis added). Why isnt one bullet too many times to shoot anybody?
looks at it and does not see it. It appears in disguise. Harris, for example, looks at acquiescence and cannot see it.
Camouflage is a relationship between the one dissimulating their appearance and the one who is fooled, who looks
and cannot see. Like racialization as a system of meanings assigned to the body, police spectacle is itself the form
of appearance of this banality. Their endless assault reflects the idea that race is a social envelope, a system of
social categorization dropped over the heads of people like clothes. Police impunity serves to distinguish between
the racial uniform itself and the elsewhere that mandates it. They constitute the distinction between those whose
human being is put permanently in question and those for whom it goes without saying. Police spectacle is not the
effect of the racial uniform; rather, it is the police uniform that is producing re-racialization. Nothing better
exemplifies this distinction than the structure of derogatory language. Derogatory terms do not mean; they assault.
not discursive signs or linguistic

statements but modes of aggression. They express a structure of power
and domination, a hierarchy that contextualizes them and gives them their
force. As gestures of assault they reflect their users status as a member of
the dominant group. The derogatory term does more than speak; it silences. That
Their intention is not to communicate but to harm. Thus they are
ability to silence derives from the fact that, in turning its hegemonic position to account, it turns the racialized other
into a language for whiteness itself. Those situated lower on the hierarchy have no viable means of defending
themselves. This, in effect, renders the derogation unanswerable in its own terms. The derogatory term
obtrudes
with a small daily violence whose form is gratuitous, without motivation in the
situation in which it is used, and whose content is to render that situation dominated by white supremacy. If it sits
at the heart of the language of racism it is because it is banal and everyday even while symbolizing racisms utmost
violence, the verbal form of its genocidal trajectory. Those who use derogatory terms repeatedly are putting
themselves in a continual state of aggression; turning their objective complicity with a structured relation of white
supremacist dominance into an active investment or affirmation. Such modes of assault demonstrate a specific
obsession with those denigrated that characterizes the socius of white supremacy, its demands for allegiance, its
conditions of membership, its residence in viciousness. Because it is gratuitous and unanswerable, the derogatory
term grants itself impunity, reiterates of the excess at the core of each racist event without calling its ethics into
question. The prevalence of derogatory terms in US conversation goes unnoticed, seen simply on the margin of
common sense, as opposed to an index of white supremacy. It is a small matter, when set against such things as,
derogation
comes in many different formsas stories, aphorisms, discourses, legal statutes, political
practices, etc. The repetition of derogation becomes the performance of white supremacist identity, over and
for instance, the legal codes of Jim Crow or the governments assassination of Fred Hampton. Yet
over again. The derogatory term occupies the very center of the structure of white supremacy. The gratuitousness
stops and starts selfreferentially, at whim. To theorize some political, economic, or

psychological necessity for its repetition, its unending return to violence ,
of its repetition bestows upon white supremacy an inherent discontinuity. It
its need to kill is to lose a grasp on that gratuitousness by thinking its performance is representable. And therein it
white supremacy is already (and only) excessive, its acts of repetition are
dissolve its excessiveness into invisibility as
simply daily occurrence. We can, for example, name the fact of Albert Woodfoxs nearly 30-year
hides. If the hegemony of
its access to unrepresentability; they
solitary confinement in Angola Prison, but it exceeds the capacity of representation. (The ideological and cultural
structure that conceives of and enables doing that to a person in the first place is inarticulable.) The inner dynamic
of our attempts to understand its supposedly underlying meaning or purpose masks its ethic of impunity from us.
White supremacy is nothing more than what we perceive of it; there is nothing beyond it to give it legitimacy,
nothing beneath it nor outside of it to give it justification. The structure of its banality is the surface on which it
operates. Whatever mythic content it pretends to claim is a priori empty. Its secret is that it has no depth. There is
no dark corner that, once brought to the light of reason, will unravel its system. In each instance of repetition, "what
is repeated is the emptiness of repetition," an articulation that "does not speak and yet has always been said"
its truth lies in the rituals that sustain its circuitous

contentless logic; it is, in fact, nothing but its very practices.
(Foucault 54). In other words,
Imperialism
Promotion of American Imperialism promotes anti-black terror.
The exploitation of the negro is a necessary condition for US
imperialism. US Imperialism is built upon terrorizing blacks
and extracting maximum profits from maximum pain.
Saba No Date [1963]
(Paul Saba, Saba has gotten a bachelors degree from Arizona state University, and a
Masters degree from Michigan University Ann Harbor. The following is an excerpt
from the Marxist-Leninist Quarterly, Vol. I, No. 2,
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/periodicals/mlq-us/one-2-1.htm)
Racism and the economic superexploitation of the Negro people made
possible by racism are pillars vital to the support of U.S. capitalism; their destruction would constitute a blow of
incalculable force against the economic and political viability of U.S. capitalism and therefore against
the structure of world imperialism. The tremendous accumulation of profits that has made
pos-the emergence of the U.S. bourgeoisie as the strongest and most dangerous in the world has
been drained out of the working people at home and abroad, but especially out of the Negroes,
who have been repaid with poverty, slums, ghettoes, segregation, humiliation and
terror for their systematic labor, first as slaves and then as wage-slaves. Today, more than ever, U.S.
imperialism depends on the extraction of maximum profits from Negro
workers and on the enforced unemployment of some two million Negroes. On the one hand, racism and its
effects, direct and indirect, make it possible to pay Negro workers wages below those paid to white workers. On the
other hand, the practice of firing Negroes before whites serves the double purpose of reinforcing racist tendencies
among some sections of the white workers by creating the illusion that they have a stake in racism and
simultaneously of depressing the wage level of all workers. Those Negroes who are employed generally are forced
into the lowest wage categories. The difference in income between white and Negro males is more than $2,000 per
year. If Negroes simply had to be paid the same wage as whites, billions would be lost to U.S. capitalism; billions
more would be lost if it were no longer possible to exclude Negroes from their rightful share of educational, housing
and health facilities. The enormous profits gained from racism are essential to the preservation of the Cold War
economy, especially under conditions of intensifying competition within the capitalist bloc. Rather than do business
with the socialist countries and extend generous credits to the underdeveloped countries, the imperialists prefer to
protect their markets and guarantee the political conditions making possible the exploitation of labor. The burden of
the resultant low growth rate and economic stagnation is placed on the shoulders of the working class; low wage
Racism makes the

task of maintaining low wage levels and a pool of unemployed immeasurably easier than it
otherwise would be.
levels and high levels of unemployment are the most direct forms the burden takes.
capitalists
Imperialism is inherently anti-black. Notions of imperialism

function to continue to subjugate black bodies and legitimize
their oppression in the face off the white overclass.
Brown 11
(Zak Brown is the editor and administrator of Anti-imperalism.com. Antiimperalism.com is one of the foremost sites regarding American imperialism and
the impact it has on oppressed people.http://anti-imperialism.com/2013/10/11/onthe-world-black-revolution/)
The work has largely been dismissed by the Marxist-Leninist community for a number of reasons. Notably, it
challenges the traditional understanding of the class struggle presented by Marxism-
Leninism. However, I feel that the World Black Revolution offers a very critical insight into the relationship between
race and class something J. Sakai has termed an electrically charged. It is for this reason I have decided to
from
Ahmads analysis. Obviously his analysis approaches the threshold of revisionism especially when he
rejects the notion of proletarian internationalism. Therefore my thoughts should not be
highlight key ideas and analysis put forth in this pamphlet because there is definitely something to take
considered an endorsement of this form of Black Internationalism as Ahmad terms it; rather, my thoughts reflect a
desire to extend the understanding and theory of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to properly address the qualitative
changes in imperialist-capitalism and the powerful relationship between race and class. First, let us examine the
primary thesis of the World Black Revolution from which all of Ahmads theory grows. He begins by affirming the
the principal contradiction in the world, between imperialism and the

oppressed peoples. He identifies US Imperialism as the leader in this White
Alliance of oppressor nations. So far, nothing in his analysis has really deviated from the
international line of most MLM organizations. It is understood by many contemporary Communist organizations
(including parties) that imperialism (usually the US at the front) and the oppressed peoples of the world form the
principal contradiction in our world. However, Ahmad does not stop here. He goes on to analyze what he calls the
primary
and secondary manifestations of this principal contradiction.

The primary manifestation is what he calls caste struggle, the racial struggle
between the non-white oppressed nations and the white oppressor
nations. The secondary manifestation is the class struggle, the more orthodox struggle between the Black
Underclass (the global proletariat, peasantry, and national bourgeoisie of oppressed nations) and the White
Overclass (the European-American bourgeoisie, labor aristocracy, and presumably large portions of the white
Ahmad argues that

because the caste system is used to maintain the class system the caste
struggle assumes the primary manifestation of the principal contradiction
and thus where we should devote our struggle to.
working class). So here we see an interesting duality of the principal contradiction.
Policy Creation
Policy is the violent destruction of the planning that is needed
to liberate the black community. Policy works to fix and make
known the secrets of everything thus robbing black liberation
of the possibility of planning and its necessary fugitvity.
Moten and Harney 13
(Fred Moten's field is black studies, where he works at the intersection of

performance, poetry and critical theory. He is author of Arkansas (Pressed Wafer
Press, 2000), Poems (with Jim Behrle) (Pressed Wafer Press, 2002), In the Break: The
Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition (University of Minnesota Press, 2003), I ran
from it but was still in it. (Cusp Books, 2007), Hughsons Tavern (Leon Works, 2008)
and B Jenkins (Duke University Press, 2010). Education PhD,University of California,
Berkeley,1994 A.B.,Harvard University,1985. Stefano Harney (born 1962) is
Professor of Strategic Management Education, Singapore Management University
and co-founder of the School for Study, an ensemble teaching project. He employs
autonomist and postcolonial theory in looking into issues associated with race,
work, and social organization. Recent books include The Ends of Management (coauthored with Tim Edkins) (2013) and The Undercommons: fugitive planning and
black study (co-authored with Fred Moten) (2013). Stefano lives and works in
Singapore. Harney, Stefano, and Fred Moten. The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning
& Black Study. 2013. Print. Pg.77-81)
Policy is the form that opportunism takes in this environment, as the
embrace of the radically extra-economic, political character of command
today. It is a demonstration of the will to contingency, the willingness to be made contingent and to make
contingent all around you. It is a demonstration designed to separate you from others , in
the interest of a universality reduced to private property that is not yours,
that is the fiction of your own advantage. Opportunism sees no other way, has no
alternative, but separates itself by its own vision, its ability to see the future of its own survival in this turmoil
The ones
who survive the brutality of mere survival are said by policy to lack vision,
to be stuck in an essentialist way of life, and, in the most extreme cases,
to be without interests, on the one hand, and incapable of disinterestedness, on the other. Every
utterance of policy, no matter its intent or content, is first and foremost a
demonstration of ones ability to be close to the top in the hierarchy of the
post-fordist economy. As an operation from above designed to break up the means
of social reproduction and make them directly productive for capital, policy
against those who cannot imagine surviving in this turmoil (even if they must do so all the time).
must first deal with the fact that the multitude is already productive for itself. This productive imagination is its
genius, its impossible, and nevertheless material, collective head. And this is a problem because plans are afoot,
black operations are in effect, and in the undercommons all the organizing is done. The multitude uses every quiet
moment, every sundown, every moment of militant preservation, to plan together, to launch, to compose (in) its
surreal time. It is difficult for policy to deny these plans directly, to ignore these operations, to pre- tend that those
who stay in motion need to stop and get a vision, to contend that base communities for escape need to believe in
escape. And if this is difficult for policy then so too is the next and crucial step, instilling the value of radical
contingency, instructing participation in change from above. Of course, some plans can be dismissed by policy
plans hatched darker than blue, on the criminal side, out of love. But most will instead require another approach to
policy attempt to break this means, this

militant preservation, all this planning? After the diagnosis that something is deeply
wrong with the planners comes the prescription: help and correction. Policy will help. Policy will
help with the plan and, even more, policy will correct the planners. Policy will discover what is not
command. PlaNNiNG aNd POliCy 77 So how does
Policy is
correction, forcing itself with mechanical violence upon the incorrect, the uncorrected,
the ones who do not know to seek their own correction. Policy distinguishes itself from
planning by distinguishing those who dwell in policy and fix things from
those who dwell in planning and must be fixed. This is the first rule of policy. It
fixes others. In an extension of Michel Foucaults work we might say of this first rule that its accompanying
yet theorized, what is not yet fully contingent, and most importantly what is not yet legible.
concern is with good government, with how to fix others in a position of equilibrium, even if today this requires
constant recalibration. But the objects of this constant adjustment provoke this attention because they just dont
want to govern, let alone be governed, at all. To break these means of planning, and so to determine them in
wants to
smash all forms of militant preservation, to break the movement of social rest
recombined and privatized ways, is the necessary goal and instrumentality of policy as command. It
in which the next plan always remains potential with a dream of settled potency. This is now what change means,
what policy is for, as it invades the social reproductive realm where, as Leopaldina Fortunati noted three decades
ago, the struggle rages. And because such policy emerges materially from post-fordist opportunism, policy must
optimally allow for each policy deputy to take advantage of his opportunity and fix others as others, as those who
have not just made an error in planning (or indeed an error by planning) but who are themselves in error. And from
the perspective of policy, of this post-fordist opportunism, there is indeed something wrong with those who plan
together. They are out of joint instead of constantly positing their position in contingency, they seek solidity in a
mobile place from which to plan, some hold in which to imagine, some love on which to count. Again, this is not just
a political problem from the point of view of policy, but an ontological one. Brush- ing the ground beneath their feet,
finding anti- and ante-contingent 78 The Undercommons flight in putting their feet on the ground, differences
escape into their own outer depths signaling the problematic essentialism of those who think and act like they are
something in particular, although at the same time that something is, from the perspective of policy, whatever
they say it is, which is nothing in particular. To get these planners out of this problem of essentialism, this
choreographic fixity and repose, this security and base and bass-lined curve, they must come to imagine they can
be more, they can do more, they can change, they can be changed. After all, they keep making plans and plans fail
as a matter of policy. Plans must fail because planners must fail. Planners are static, essential, just surviving. They
do not see clearly. They hear things. They lack perspective. They fail to see the complexity. To the deputies,
planners have no vision, no real hope for the future, just a plan here and now, an actually existing
plan. They need hope. They need vision. They need to have their sights lift- ed above the furtive plans and night
They need vision. Because from the perspective of

policy it is too dark in there, in the black heart of the undercommons, to
see. You can hear something, can feel something present at its own making. But the deputies can bring hope, and
launches of their despairing lives.
hope can lift planners and their plans, the means of social reproduction, above ground into the light, out of the
shadows, away from these dark senses. Deputies fix others, not in an imposition upon but in the
imposition of selves, as objects of control and command, whether one is posited as being capable of self- hood or
Whether they lack consciousness or politics, utopianism or common sense, hope has
arrived. Having been brought to light and into their own new vision, planners will become
participants. And participants will be taught to reject essence for
contingency, as if planning and improvisation, flexibil- ity and fixity, and
complexity and simplicity, were opposed within an imposition there is no choice but to
not.
inhabit, as some exilic home where policy sequesters its own imagination, so they can be safe from one another. It
Policy is a mass effort. Intellectuals will write

articles in the newspapers, PlaNNiNG aNd POliCy 79 philosophers will hold conferences on new utopias,
bloggers will debate, and politicians will compromise here, where change
is policys only constant. Participating in change is the second rule of
policy. Governance should not be confused with government or governmentality. Governance is most
is crucial that planners choose to participate.
importantly a new form of expropriation. It is the provocation of a certain kind of display, a display of interests as
disinterestedness, a display of convertibility, a display of legibility. Governance is an instrumentalisation of policy, a
set of protocols of deputation, where one simultaneously auctions and bids on oneself, where the public and the
private submit themselves to post-fordist production. Governance is the harvesting of the means of social reproduction but it appears as the acts of will, and therefore as the death drive, of the harvested. As capital cannot
know directly the affect, thought, sociality, and imagination that make up the undercommon means of social
reproduction, it must instead prospect for these in order to extract and abstract them as labor. That prospecting,
which is the real bio-prospecting, seeks to break an integrity that has been militantly preserved. Governance, the
voluntary but dissociative offering up of interests, willing participation in the general privacy and public privation,
grants capital this knowledge, this wealth-making capacity. Policy emits this offering, violently manifest as a moral
provocation. The ones who would correct and the ones who would be corrected converge around this imperative of
submission that is played out constantly not only in that range of correctional facilities that Foucault analyzed the
prisons, the hospitals, the asylums but also in corporations, universities and NGOs. That convergence is given 80
The Undercommons not only in the structures and affects of endless war but also in the brutal processes and
perpetual processing of peace. Governance, despite its own hopes for a universality of exclusion, is for the
inducted, for those who know how to articulate interests disinterestedly, those who vote and know why they vote
(not because someone is black or female but because he or she is smart), who have opinions and want to be taken
seriously by serious people. In the mean time, policy must still pursue the quotidian sphere of open secret plans.
Policy posits curriculum against study, child development against play,

human capital against work. It posits having a voice against hearing voices, net- worked friending
against contractual friendship. Policy posits the public sphere, or the counter-public sphere, or the black public
sphere, against the illegal occupation of the illegitimately privatized. Policy is not the one against the many, the
cynical against the roman- tic, or the pragmatic against the principled. It is simply baseless vision, woven into
settlers fabric. It is against all conservation, all rest, all gathering, cooking, drinking and smoking if they lead to
Policys vision is to break it up then fix it, move it along by fixing

it, manufacture ambition and give it to your children. Policys hope is that
there will be more policy, more participation, more change. But there is
also a danger in all this participation, a danger of crisis.
marron- age.
Reformism
They AFF perpetuates a world of black subjugation. The
political and academic discourses of individual problems,
obscure and legitimize the structural antagonism of antiblackness.
Wilderson10
(Frank. B. Wilderson, Red White and black, 2010. Frank B. Wilderson is a tenured
professor at the University of California Irvine. He has attended the University of
Colombia where he got a degree in psychology.pg. 13)
The distance between the protester and the police has narrowed
considerably. The effect of this upon the academy is that intellectual
protocols tend to privilege two of the three domains of subjectivity, namely
preconscious interests (as evidenced in the work of social science around
political unity, social attitudes, civic participation, and diversity,)
and unconscious identification (as evidenced in the humanities postmodern
regimes of diversity, hybridity, and relative [rather than master]
narratives). Since the 1980s, intellectual protocols aligned with structural
positionality (except in the work of die-hard Marxists) have been kicked to the
curb. That is to say, it is hardly fashionable anymore to think the vagaries of power
through the generic positions within a structure of power relations such as
man/woman, worker/boss. Instead, the academys ensembles of questions are
fixated on specific and unique experience of the myriad identities that
make up those structural positions. This would fine if the work led us back
to a critique of the paradigm; but most of it does not. Again, the upshot of
this is that the intellectual protocols now in Red, White, & Black: Cinema and
the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms 13 play, and the composite effect of cinematic
and political discourse since the 1980s, tend to hide rather than make explicit
the grammar of suffering which underwrites the US and its foundational
antagonisms. This state of affairs exacerbatesor, more precisely, mystifies
and veilsthe ontological death of the Slave and the Savage because (as
in the 1950s) cinematic, political, and intellectual discourse of the current
milieu resists being sanctioned and authorized by the irreconcilable
demands of Indigenism and Blacknessacademic enquiry is thus no more
effective in pursuing a revolutionary critique than the legislative antics of
the loyal opposition. This is how Left-leaning scholars help civil society
recuperate and maintain stability. But this stability is a state of emergency for
Indians and Blacks.
K-AFFS
Feminism
Feminism works to continue the destruction of black feminity.
The topics and the places of emphasis for feminism can only
exist in their constant negation to black feminity.
Wilderson10
(Frank. B. Wilderson, Red White and black, 2010. Frank B. Wilderson is a tenured
professor at the University of California Irvine. He has attended the University of
Colombia where he got a degree in psychology. pages 179-180.)
I want to re-locate the destruction of her womb spatially at the symbolic
plentitude of the White womans womb, and locate it temporally at White
femininitys moment of possibility. This rich semantic field of White female sexuality
which spreads its tendrils through the conceits of civil society depends, even for
its discontents, on a Red, White, & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms 180 repetition of
the always already mutilation and destruction of Black female sexuality.
For White women to embrace patriarchy as its celebrated dupe or to rail against it,
for them to celebrate the confinement of domesticity or agitate for access to the workplace, for them to
acquiesce to Church doctrines of sexuality or proclaim our bodies, ourselves --for all such
conflicts to have coherence, find semiotic correspondence, cash in on symbolic value, and cultivate a
semantic field, there must occur, in the first instance of ontological time, the reification and
destruction of Safiya Bukhari-Alstons womb. White thought, even at its most radical
outposts, is not possible without the unmooring of Black femininit y. And this
accumulated and destroyed sexuality (to recall the 1914 dissertation of H.M. Henry) is every White persons
business to patrol, a patrol accomplished not only through the spectacular violence of a prison hospital, but also
the selection of topics, the

distribution of concerns, emphasis, the bounding of debate within
acceptable limits, and the propensity for the affective intensity of no more than
everyday life liian affective intensity that may be saddened by the spectacle of
ghetto life in its own back yard, yet finds no joy at the thought of four
dead cops. Everyday life, which is the backdrop, the hum, the private and quotidian of civil
society, can only have coherence by way of the imaginative labor which
genocided and banished the object it constructed as Savage to the
through White struggles over ethical dilemmas in civil society:
reservations of White ethics and by way of a simultaneous imaginative labor that keeps the gratuity of Black genital
accumulation and destruction from occurring between White legs.
Foucalt/Governmentality
Govern mentality is reproduced by the political critiques of the
state. Articulating that we have to watch ourselves is exactly
what the government wants so that it can watch you watch
yourself. This form of politics obscures the way that the
government will continue to abuse those black bodies that can
never be tasked with watching themselves.
Moten and Harney13
(Fred Moten's field is black studies, where he works at the intersection of

performance, poetry and critical theory. He is author of Arkansas (Pressed Wafer
Press, 2000), Poems (with Jim Behrle) (Pressed Wafer Press, 2002), In the Break: The
Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition (University of Minnesota Press, 2003), I ran
from it but was still in it. (Cusp Books, 2007), Hughsons Tavern (Leon Works, 2008)
and B Jenkins (Duke University Press, 2010). Education PhD,University of California,
Berkeley,1994 A.B.,Harvard University,1985. Stefano Harney (born 1962) is
Professor of Strategic Management Education, Singapore Management University
and co-founder of the School for Study, an ensemble teaching project. He employs
autonomist and postcolonial theory in looking into issues associated with race,
work, and social organization. Recent books include The Ends of Management (coauthored with Tim Edkins) (2013) and The Undercommons: fugitive planning and
black study (co-authored with Fred Moten) (2013). Stefano lives and works in
Singapore. Harney, Stefano, and Fred Moten. The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning
& Black Study. 2013. Print. Pg.52-56)
governance is not about government, and Foucault might
have got it right. But how could he know if he could not find the priority of
what he knew in North Africa? Governance is the wit of the colonial official,
the CIA woman, the NGO man. Will we be in on the joke now that we all
know governmentality so well? We can all read it like a book. Nothing goes
on behind the backs of the new cynicism (except we need to remind Paolo
Virno of what always went on beyond cynicism, what was always without
home and shelter, was always outnumbered and outgunned). Will we be in on the joke of
religion, of white trash, or the joke of development, of Marxism? When Gayatri Spivak refuses
Nikolas Rose had it wrong,
to laugh, she is told she wants to deny the workers their cappuccini. She holds out for reduction against the insider
trading of domination, she holds out for a reduction against the coercion that exploits what it cannot reduce to an
the invitations arrive through the

smirk of governmentality by all, or on the severe and serious brow of
democratisation. Critique and policy. No wonder Rose thought governance was about
invitation to governance. 53BlaCkNESS aNd GOvErNaNCE Still
government. Worse still some say that governance is merely a management neologism, a piece of old-fashioned
ideology. Others think governance is simply a retreat to liberalism from the market fundamentalism of
neoliberalism. But we want to reduce it up to a kind of state-thought, a form of thought which
for Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari supported the rendering and hording of social wealth. A thought that thinks
away the private before the public and the private, but not exactly before, rather a step ahead. State-thought says
they
burnt down their own neighbourhood. Not theirs, before theirs. But
then nobody writes about the state any more, because governance is too
clever for that, governance invites us to laugh at the state, to look back at
it, its political immaturity in the face of governmentality by all, its
dangerous behaviour, its laziness, its blackness. Which means really the
exhaustion of blackness thought by the state and the new way to steal
from the stolen, who refuse to give up the secret of thieving with their
theft, the secret of their thieving of their theft. In the newest language of
the social sciences we might say that governance is generated by a refusal
among biopolitical populations. Or perhaps by the self-activity of immaterial labor. But maybe we
would like to say it is provoked by the communicability of unmanageable
racial and sexual difference, insisting on a now unfathomable debt of
wealth. 12. Governance is a strategy for the privatization of social reproductive labor, a strategy provoked by
this communicability, infected by it, hosting and hostile. As Toni Negri says the new face of productive labor
(intellectual, relational, linguistic, and affective, rather than physical, individual, muscular, instrumental) does not
understate but accentuates the corporality and materiality of labor. But accumulating collective cognitive and
affective labor from these highly communicable 54 The Undercommons differences is not the same as accumulating
biopolitical bodies that labor. Differences here matter not for order, but order matters for differences. The order that
collects differences, the order that collects what Marx called labor still objectifying itself, is the order of governance.
governance collects like a drill boring for samples. Governance is a

form of prospecting for this immaterial labor. Immaterial labor is opaque
to state-thought until it becomes labor-power, exchangeable potentiality.
Immaterial labor could easily be mistaken for life, which is why the
biopolitical must take a new form. A form that provokes life to give up this
new potential. Corporate social responsibility is sincere. The invitation to
governmentality is made by way of transfer of responsibility, and immaterial labor
13. But
is distinguished from the vitality of life, from its vessel, by the taking up of responsibility, and life is now
distinguished by its overt irresponsibility. Since neither the state nor capital know where to find immaterial labor or
this
drilling is not really for labor-power. It is for politics, or rather as Tiziana Terranova
how to distinguish it from life, governance is a kind of exploratory drilling with a responsibility bit. But
suggests, it is for soft control, the cultivation of politics below the political. The slogan of governance might be not
where there is gas, there is oil, but where
there is politics there is labor, a kind of

labor that might be provoked, in the words of critique, or grown, in the words of
policy, into labor-power. But this labor as subjectivity is not politics to itself. It must be politicised if it is to yield up
its labor-power, or rather we might say, politics is the refining process for immaterial labor. Politicisation is the work
of state-thought, the work today, of capital. This is the interest it bears. And interests are its lifeblood, its labor. 14.
Governance operates through the apparent auto-generation of these

interests. Unlike previous regimes of sovereignty, there is no
predetermined interest (no nation, no constitution, no language) 55BlaCkNESS aNd GOvErNaNCE to
be realized collectively. Rather interests are solicited, offered up, and
accumulated. But this is a moment so close to life, to vitality, to the body, so close to no
interests, that the imposition of self-management becomes imperative . That
imposition is governance. 15. Governance then becomes the management of selfmanagement. The generation of interests appears as wealth, plentitude, potential. It hides the waste of the
raw immaterial and its reproduction in the flurry of its conferences, consultations, and outreach. Indeed within the
firm, self-management is distinguished from obedience by the generation of new interests in quality, design,
discipline, and communication. But with the implosion of the time and space in the firm, with the dispersion and
virtualisation of productivity, governance arrives to manage self-management, not from above, but from below.
What comes up then may not be value from below as Toni Negri calls it, but politics from below, such that we have
to be wary of the grassroots and suspicious of the community. When what emerges from below is interests, when
value from below becomes politics from below, self-management has been realized, and governance has done its
work. 16. The Soviets used to say that the United States had free speech but no one could hear you over the noise
of the machines. Today no one can hear you over the noise of talk. Maurizio Lazzarato says immaterial labor is
loquacious and industrial labor was mute. Governance populations are gregarious. Gregariousness is the exchange
form of immaterial labor-power, a labor-power summoned by interests from a communicability without interest, a
viral communicability, a beat. The compulsion to tell us how you feel is the compulsion of labor, not citizenship,
exploitation not domination, and it is whiteness. Whiteness is why Lazzarato does not hear industrial labor.
Whiteness is nothing but a relationship to blackness as we have tried to describe 56 The Undercommons it here, but
in particular a relationship to blackness in its relationship to capital, which is to say the movement from muteness
to dumb insolence which may be by way of bringing the noise. But the noise of talk, white noise, the informationrich environment of the gregarious, comes from subjectivities formed of objectified labor. These are the
subjectivities of interests, subjectivities of labor-power whose potentialities are already bounded by how they will be
spent, and mute to their blackness. This is the real muteness of industrial labor. And it is the real gregariousness of
Governance is the extension of whiteness

on a global scale.
immaterial labor.
The subjugation of the black female not the notion of biopolitics is what shapes the relation of the world. Focusing on
the notion of bio-politics both obscures and participates in the
system of abuse against blacks. It participates in the system
by giving a paradigmatic analysis that elides the condition of
those that have been raced and subjugated not legally nor
normatively but ontologically.
Sexton10
(Jared Sexton, is a professor at Cal Irvine . People of Color-blindness, Notes on the
afterlife of slavery, pg. 32-33)
What is this fiction? It is not only the presumed identity between the human
(zoe ) and the citizen (bios)the conceptual fissure that makes possible the
modern production of bare lifeand that between nativity and nationalitythe
conceptual distinction that makes possible the reciprocal naturalization of
propagation and property in the name of race. It is also the conflation of
the ruler (or ruling class) with sovereignty itself, the tautological claim that
the law (logos) is ontologically prior to the establishment of its
jurisdictional field, a space defined by relations of purely formal
obedience. The state of exception would seem to betray the mystical foundation of
authority because the sovereign power operates in suspension of positive law,
enforcing the law paradoxically insofar as it is inapplicable at the time and place of
its enforcement. However, the dynamic stability of that foundationthe space of
obedienceis demonstrated by the terrible fact that the state of exception has
been materialized repeatedly within a whole array of political formations across the
preceding century and in the particular form of the camp. With the birth of the
camp, the exception becomes the rule, consolidating a field of obedience
in extremisin place of rule by law, a paradigm of governance by the
administration of the absence of order.5 However, if for Agamben the camp is
the new biopolitical nomos of the planet, its novelty does not escape a certain
conceptual belatedness with respect to those repressed topographies of cruelty
that Achille Mbembe has identified in the formulation of necropolitics.6 On my
reading, the formulation of necropolitics is enabled by attending to the political and
economic conditions of the African diaspora in the historic instanceboth
acknowledging the form and function of racial slavery for any historical account of
the rise of modern terror and addressing the ways that the political economy of
statehood [particularly in Africa] has dramatically changed over the last quarter of
the twentieth century in connection with the wars of the globalization era.7
Necropolitics is important for the historicist project of provincializing
Agambens paradigmatic analysis, especially as it articulates the logic of
race as something far more global than a conflict internal to Europe (or even
Eurasia). Indeed, Mbembe initially describes racial slavery in the Atlantic world as
one of the first instances of biopolitical experimentation and goes on to discuss it,
following the work of Saidiya Hartman, as an exemplary manifestation of the state
of exception in the very structure of the plantation system and its aftermath.8
Mbembe abandons too quickly this meditation on the peculiar institution in pursuit
of the proper focus of his theoretical project: the formation of colonial sovereignty.
In the process, he loses track of the fact, set forth in the opening pages of
Hartmans study, that the crucial aspects of the peculiar terror formation
that Mbembe attributes to the emergence of Social Text Published by Duke
University Press ocial Text 103 Summer 2010 3 3 colonial rule are already
institutionalized, perhaps more fundamentally, in and as the political-juridical
structure of slavery.9 More specifically, it is the legal and political status of
the captive female that is paradigmatic for the (re)production of
enslavement, in which the normativity of sexual violence [i.e., the virtual
absence of prohibitions or limitations in the determination of socially tolerable and
necessary violence] establishes an inextricable link between racial formation
and sexual subjection.10 This is why for Hartman resistance is figured
through the black females sexual self-defense, as exemplified by the 1855
circuit court case State of Missouri v. Celia, a Slave, in which the
defendant was sentenced to death by hanging on the charge of murder for
responding with deadly force to the sexual assault and attempted rape by
a white male slaveholder
Militarization
Militarization Is a reproduction of violence onto the black. The
moment of militarization finds coherence in the authority that
is based up on the subjugation of blackness. It is this
centralization of authority that recreates a structure where the
blacks are created as static malicious enemies thus
legitimizing their slaughter.
Fanon08
(Frantz Fanon, Frantz Omar Fanon was a Martinique-born Afro-Caribbean
psychiatrist, philosopher, revolutionary, and writer whose works are influential in
the fields of post-colonial studies, critical theory, and Marxism. Black Skins White
mask, 2008 reprint)
Here, however, the evidence is going to be particularly complicated. In Europe the family represents in effect a
There are close connections between

the structure of the family and the structure of the nation. Militarization
and the centralization of authority in a country automatically entail a
resurgence of the authority of the father. In Europe and in every country characterized as
civilized or civilizing, the family is a miniature of the nation. As the child emerges from the
certain fashion in which the world presents itself to the child.
shadow of his parents, he finds himself once more among the same laws, the same principles, the same values. A
normal child that has grown up in a normal family will be a normal man.2 There is no disproportion between the life
of the family and the life of the nation. Conversely, when one examines a closed societythat is, a society that has
been protected from the fl ood of civilizationone encounters the same structures as those just described. Father
Trilles Lme du Pygme dAfrique, for instance, convinces us of that; although with every word one is aware of the
need to Christianize the savage Negro soul, the books description of the whole culturethe conditions of worship,
the persistence of rites, the survival of mythshas nothing of the artificial impression given by La philosophie
the characteristics of the family are projected onto the

social environment. It is true that the children of pickpockets or burglars, accustomed to a certain system
bantoue. In both cases
of clan law, would be surprised to fi nd that the rest of the world behaved differently, but a new kind of training
except in instances of perversion or arrested development (Heuyer)3should be able to direct them into a
moralization, a socialization of outlook. It is apparent in all such cases that the sickness lies in the family
For the individual the authority of the state is a reproduction of

the authority of the family by which he was shaped in his childhood.
environment.
Ultimately the individual assimilates all the authorities that he meets to the authority of the parents: He perceives
behavior toward authority is

something, learned. And it is learned in the heart of a family that can be described, from the
the present in terms of the past. Like all other human conduct,
psychological point of view, by the form of organization peculiar to itthat is, by the way in which its authority is
distributed and exercised.4 Butand this is a most important pointwe observe the opposite in the man of color.
normal Negro child, having grown up within a normal family, will become abnormal on the
slightest contact with the white world. This statement may not be immediately
understandable. Therefore let us proceed by going backward. Paying tribute to Dr. Breuer, Freud wrote: In almost
every case, we could see that the symptoms were, so to speak, like residues of emotional experiences, to which for
this reason we later gave the name of psychic traumas. Their individual characters were linked to the traumatic
scenes that had provoked them. According to the classic terminology, the symptoms were determined by scenes
of which they were the mnemic residues, and it was no longer necessary to regard them as arbitrary and enigmatic
effects of the neurosis. In contrast, however, to what was expected, it was not always a single event that was the
cause of the symptom; most often, on the contrary, it arose out of multiple traumas, frequently analogous and
repeated. As a result, it became necessary to reproduce chronologically this whole series of pathogenic memories,
but in reverse order: the latest at the beginning and the earliest at the end; it was impossible to make ones way
back to the fi rst trauma, which is often the most forceful, if one skipped any of its successors. It could not be stated
more positively; every neurosis has its origins in specifi c Erlebnisse. Later Freud added: This trauma, it is true, has
been quite expelled from the consciousness and the memory of the patient and as a result he has apparently been
saved from a great mass of suffering, but the repressed desire continues to exist in the unconscious; it is on watch
constantly for an opportunity to make itself known and it soon comes back into consciousness, but in a disguise that
makes it impossible to recognize; in other words, the repressed thought is replaced in consciousness by another
that acts as its surrogate, its Ersatz, and that soon surrounds itself with all those feelings of morbidity that had been
supposedly averted by the repression. These Erlebnisse are repressed in the unconscious. What do we see in the
case of the black man? Unless we make use of that frightening postulatewhich so destroys our balance offered
by Jung, the collective unconscious, we can understand absolutely nothing.
A drama is enacted every
day in colonized countries. How is one to explain, for example, that a Negro who has passed his
baccalaureate and has gone to the Sorbonne to study to become a teacher of philosophy is already on guard before
any confl ictual elements have coalesced round him? Ren Mnil accounted for this reaction in Hegelian terms. In
his view it was the
consequence of the replacement of the repressed [African]

spirit in the consciousness of the slave by an authority symbol
representing the Master, a symbol implanted in the subsoil of the
collective group and charged with maintaining order in it as a garrison
controls a conquered city.52
Alt
Revolutionary suicide
1nc
Newton73


education for our



to

when a
2nc Alt- Black women

The view of Black women in the status qou is violent.
Historically when their have been movements that build the
black community like the alternative it has been able to
change this perception and create a more positive perception
of black women.
Goibbe and Carter99
(Vednita Carter, Executive Director of Breaking Free, and Evelina, Executive
Director of the Commercial Sexual Exploitation Resource Institute, Winter 1999,
Prostitution and Pornography: Philosophical Debate about the Sex Industry Duet:
Prostitution, Racism and Feminist Discourse,.20-21)
One must understand the past before one can understand the present . It
is often very painful for African-Americans to look back in history . Most
portrayals of Black women, in visual images or writing, have been negative. Black women
have been depicted in ways that one would think could only be fictional or in some horror story. ln truth, many
of these portrayals are our reality. We have seen the Black mammy, always caring for white
folks' children, even to the point of suckling milk from her breasts so she does not have enough milk for her own
We have seen her as a slave, valued only for her "breeding capacity,"
and we have seen her children taken from her.5 Pornography portrays her as a wild animal
that is always ready for any kind of sex, at any time, at any place, with anybody.6 Today sex-oriented
businesses are typically zoned in Black neighborhoods. Poor, Black
communities have become de facto combat zones where street
prostitution is highly visible and readily available.7 The implicit message
to white men is that it is all right to solicit Black women and girls for sex,
that we are all prostitutes.8 On almost any night, you can see them slowly cruising our
child.4
neighborhoods, rolling down their windows, calling out to women and girls. The message to Black women is equally
clear: this is how it is, this is who we are, this is what we're for. With all the negative images and labels ascribed to
Black women, it is no surprise that many of us remain confused about who we really are and who we want to be.
Around the late 1950s Hid 19605
our image was beginning to change. When our

country was immersed in the civil rights movement-African- Americans banded together. ' We had very powerful
leaders, many of whom were subsequently killed." For a moment in history, however, " Black
Power" was
our rallying cry a-nd "Black is Beautiful" was how we identified ourselves. "
It is what we believed about who we were 'aid what we were capable of. When the civil rights
movement waned, the identity we were beginning to create for ourselves
vanished with it. Once again we became caught up in white society's denigrated image of who we are.'3
Our ancestors did not feel this lack of self-worth. Before the invasion of Africa by the white man, Africans were a
dignified people. Family was the basic unit of the nation. ' 4 The only way African people could survive was if the
African family survived. They had but one view of women-they
Perm
Perm Must READ

The permutation functions as a form of white violence. The
permutation assumes similarity between objects and subjects.
This assumption only legitimizes the abuse of blacks by
erasing the historical relations of blackness.
Hartman and Wilderson03
(Saidiya Hartman, Saidiya Hartman is a professor at Columbia University

specializing in African American literature and history. She grew up in Brooklyn and
received her B.A. from Wesleyan University and Ph.D. from Yale University, Frank B.
Wilderson III, Frank B. Wilderson is a tenured professor at the University of California
Berkeley. He has attended the University of Colombia where he got a degree in
psychology. The position of Unthought interview Pg. 189-190)
F.W. - You've just thrown something into crisis, which is very much on the table
today: the notion of allies. What you've said (and I'm so happy that someone has
come along to say it!) is that the ally is not a stable category. There's a
structural prohibition (rather than merely a willful refusal) against whites
being the allies of blacks, due to this - to borrow from Fanon's The Wretched of
the Earth again - "species" division between what it means to be a subject
and what it means to be an object: a structural antagonism. But everything
in the academy on race works off of the question, "How do we help white
allies?" Black academics assume that there is enough of a structural
commonality between the black and the white (working class) position their mantra being: "We are both exploited subjects" - for one to embark
upon a political pedagogy that will somehow help whites become aware of
this "commonality." White writers posit the presence of something they call
"white skin privilege," and the possibility of "giving that up," as their
gesture of being in solidarity with blacks. But what both gestures disavow
is that subjects just can't make common cause with objects. They can only
become objects, say in the case of John Brown or Marilyn Buck, or further
instantiate their subjectivity through modalities of violence (lynching and
the prison industrial complex), or through modalities of empathy. In other
words, the essential essence of the white/black relation is that of the
master/slave - regardless of its historical or geographic specificity. And
masters and slaves. even todav. are never allies
Perm Coalitions
The coalition is parasitic on those bodies marked by anti
blackness. This parasitism takes the energy away from the
black body and diverts it back to the hands of the oppressive
system of anti blackness.
Wilderson14
( Frank B. Wilderson III, Frank B. Wilderson is a tenured professor at the University of

California Irvine . He has attended the University of Colombia where he got a degree
in psychology. This is a transciption of an radio interview with Frank B. Wilderson, III
taped in October of 2014, in the midst of the ongoing anti-police struggles taking
place in Ferguson, MO. Wilderson is in conversation with IMIXWHATILIKE hosts Jared
Ball, Todd Steven Burroughs and Dr. Hate. An audio recording of the interview can
be found under the title Irreconcilable Anti-Blackness and Police Violence on the
shows website:
http://imixwhatilike.org/2014/10/01/frankwildersonandantiblackness-2/ Transcription
and zine layout by Ill Will Editions, November 2014. Minor edits have been made for
length and readability. The following is from pgs.20)
I had a moment like this myself. You know, you look to go join up with the
ISO [International Socialist Organization] or some other white radical group, or
rainbow group, and you start to feel it happening. So many people have had
this experience of organizing with white radicals. But here you add Arabs
and Palestinians, and here youre going to (appropriately) send shivers up
some spines. And I fully agree with what youre saying, but can you help me
respond to folks who wont right away? FW: One of the things that theyre gonna
say to you even if its not in these words, it remains the framework through
which they try to discipline Black people, e.g. Sartre said it to the Negritude
movement and to Fanon is: you know, this whole thing about Blackness, is
really narrow, and its not allowing you to see the bigger picture. And so we
begin to feel bad, because we dont want to be narrow or people who
dont see the bigger picture. Thats what politics and struggle is all about, i.e.
developing a theory of struggle that can be generalized. Now, it takes some
work, and the work at an intellectual level is hard, but its probably more difficult to
deal with it at an emotional level, one of the things I would say to respond to this
person is: how is the paradigm of colonialism, or the paradigm of Marxism
more essential than the paradigm of anti-Blackness and social death? This
is very difficult for American activists, because American activists dont read, they
just go out and say, do we break Starbucks windows, or do we not break Starbucks
windows?, thats the extent and level of their intellectual politics. So, here Im
shifting the weight from me to the other person, to actually explain to me their
theoretical apparatus. Not just explain to me what this action in this moment is
going to do. And normally, when it comes down to it, you find that their
theoretical apparatus works along about four different vectors. One would
be the post-colonial vector: my theoretical apparatus is that colonization has done
x, y and z; or 20 else, capitalism at the site of the wage relation exploits everyone
universally; or, ecologically, we will have no world if x, y or z happens; or, we are
all suffering under patriarchy. But then if you ask them, how did Black people
become part of the We?, a breakdown occurs here, since the structure of
their desire is formulated on a conception of community that is a priori
anti-Black. So that theyre not actually thinking in terms of the ways in which we
suffer. And in fact, their political projects will liberate one terrain, and
intensify our suffering more by being parasitic on our inability to speak
and on the Black energy that we lend to their questions and which crowd
out an analysis.
Perm Uses the Law

The Law is a death sentence for blacks. The spectacular uses
of the law serve to reinforce the paradigm of policing that
functions to murder black bodies. It does not matter if the law
is used as making or taking a law, as long as the authority of
the law exists Death with will be impact for blacks.
Tibbs and Woods08
(Tryon P. Woods is a professor at Sonoma State University Donald F. Tibbs is a
professor at Drexel Earle Mack School of Law October 1, 2008 Seattle Journal for
Social Injustice, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2008 The Jena Six and Black Punishment: Law and Raw
Life in the Domain of Nonexistence)
Reviewing the history of the black experience before the law clearly
demonstrates that the Jena Six case is anything but unprecedented. U.S.
history features a consistent storyline regarding blacks and the law , largely
undeviated fromone which historian Mary Frances Berry referred to as black resistance [to]
white law.41 Berry reminds us that [w]hether its policy was action or
inaction, the national government has used the Constitution in such a way
as to make law the instrument for maintaining a racist status quo.42 The Jena
Six case joins this long history of constitutional spectacles moments where the law is revealed
not as the protector of minority rights, as liberal historiographers and
philosophers would have us believe43as a manifestation of civil societys
commitment to not only maintain white dominance in economic, political,
social, and military matters, but to effectuate blackness as the most trodupon station in society. While the popular conception of Jena is one of racist
excessof racism corrupting the otherwise fair process of justiceto
conceptualize it as such obscures the mundane reality of black
punishment. In other words, recounting the history of crimes against constitutionality, as numerous race
scholars and historians such as Berry and Derrick Bell have already done, produces the necessary conditions for
arguing the banality of the Jena Six case.44 But it cannot provide the sufficient grounds for gaining traction on what
white supremacy means to the U.S. legal regime. Whenever one attempts to speak about the rules of race and
power, one is forced back into a discussion of spectacular eventshigh-profile legal battles such as the Jena Six, for
The problem is that the spectacular actually camouflages the

routine, the normal operation of the law against blacks in all its everyday terror and contempt, its misbehavior
and broken ethicality. In other words, what is at issue is not that Jena has become a high-profile historical
event, but rather that the kind of legal and social punishment of blacks that took place in Jena typifies the
everyday practice of criminal law and its endorsement by white civil
society throughout the nation. When it comes to everyday life, the secret
of the law, hidden in plain sight, is that there is no recourse to the
disruption of black life by the mundane violence of living in a white
supremacist society. The annals of contemporary legalized violence against black bodies are indeed
instance.45
spectacular, and the readily available examples merely hint at the terror defining black existence before the law:
from the police beatings of Rodney King or Oletha Waugh,46 the torture of Abner Louima,47 the killing of Amadou
Diallo,48 the violent deaths of Malice Green49 and Johnny Gammage,50 to the recent shooting of Sean Bell on his
From the analytic vantage point of raw life, the racial violence
of legal doctrine is also alive and well. The volatility of numerous Reconstruction era cases,
briefly mentioned earlier, entangles with contemporary cases such as Wilson v. State52 and Lewis v. Casey.53 The
numerous black men exonerated by DNA evidence and freed from prison
through the Innocence Project, the prosecutors and District Attorneys who
wedding day.51
steadfastly maintain these mens guilt despite the irrefutable scientific

evidence, and the numerous anonymous men and women condemned prior
to the recent era of technological advances in forensic criminologythese
are the signs of raw life in the domain of nonexistence. 54 To focus on any
one of these spectacles is to deploy, and thereby reaffirm, the logic of the
law itself. Documenting the laws excesses, in an attempt to explain the paradigm of white supremacist
violence, merely renders it nonparadigmatic, and reduces it to the fraudulent ethics on which the law bases its
What makes the spectacle spectacular is precisely that the

essential logic of the law remains unshaken. Such discrete examples
cannot represent the spectrum in which this paradigm manifests today
what might be called the paradigm of policing55from the explicit
violence of police homicides to the more subtle violence of the Jena Six
case and the faceless millions held captive by the prison industrial
complex. This violence against the black body is structural and
foundational to U.S. societynot contingent or excessive and it is this
banal but essential quality to racism that the spectacular examples render
unrecognizable.
ongoing hegemony.
A2
All you talk about is black people

The invocation of black hierarchical positioning recreates white
supremacy.
Sexton08
(Sexton, Jared, Amalgamation Schemes Antiblackness and the Critique of
Multiracacialism, Minneapolis: U of Minnesota. 2008. Jared Sexton is a professor at
Cal Irvine. Pg. 107 )
Stephens is suggesting that in questioning the motive force and political trajectory of multiracialism,
blacks now enforce the same One Drop rule that whites once adhered toa hundred
years agobut have since collectively abandoned. That is, we are witnessing the emergence of a new system of
oppression, the construction of the racial out of the denial of the interracial, not in addition to white supremacy
but in place of it.How-
ever, the telling insistence that this regime change

represents a significant irony undermines Stephenss entire diagnosis .
For what lends this new dispensation its irony is the fact that the agents of the current
denial of the interracial, Afro-Americans, were previously the targets
of ante- bellum antimiscegenation. That is, Stephens here implies that antimiscegenation is
a historic component of white supremacy and antiblackness, not an autonomous repression of mixture that blacks
If blacks were now to take up the

position occupied by whites a century ago, they would have had to
invert the social order completely, reversing the terms of its unequal
power relations.
and whites might commonly endorse on equal footing.
Race not Key

The system has never been colorblind, and their assertion that
we can be a color blind society only serves to further deny the
black rights and protection.
Hartman97
(Hartman, Saidiya V.. Scenes of subjection: terror, slavery, and self-making in
nineteenth-century America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Print. Pg.186187)
Apparent in the taxonomies of race that round their way into the law of
freedom were the contradictions that shaped the emergent vision of black
equality. As it turned out, the equal protection of the law, albeit intended to
correct the violation of black liberty enacted in the Black codes, social
customs, and other forms of practice, did not consider these classificatory
schemasin particular the legal classifications of white, negro, mestizo, and person of colora violation of
liberty or equality. Certainly this legislative production of blackness was essential to the
repressive and regulatory measures of the state, yet it was not found to be a violation of
fundamental civil rights. Nonetheless, these taxonomies were instrumental in effecting
new forms of servitude. Let me state clearly that this is not an argument on behalf of color blindness.
The reckless innocence or naivet of color-blind position cannot redress
the injuries of race by wishing race away in the desire for an imagined
neutrality. Moreover, the invidious effects of racism also operate in raceneutral guises, which we see in the successful implementation of
repressive laws that disproportionately imprisoned, sentenced, and fined
the freed and the mushroomed into the convict-lease system . Furthermore, the
color-blind position naturalized race by assuming its anteriority to
discourse. In light of this, the aim of this examination is to consider both the states production and regulation
of racial subjects and the conflation of equality and amalgamation that thwarted guarantees of equality of rights
and protection.
Razantamont
Yes, we are angry and eternally hopeful for the future. The
only place for blacks to inhabit is a place where we are this
way. To say that this means all of our struggles are
meaningless is an embodiment of white distancing. It only
serves as a way to get away with racist theorization because
we are the Angry black professor
Yancy12

Excellence in Scholarship Yancy, George. Look, a White!: Philosophical Essays on
Whiteness. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2012. Web pg. 153-154)
my anger functioned as the fulcrum around which the
professors entire narrative of my talk revolved. He could see only my
anger. In seeing only my anger, he not only failed to hear me but
also, in the process, managed to shore up his whiteness. In other words, I see
an angry black professor! can be theorized as an instance of distancing
whiteness from examination and critique, of safeguarding whiteness. Hence,
I see an angry black professor! can be described as the deployment
(whether consciously or unconsciously) of a white distancing strategy to
avoid being positioned as racist or implicated in systemic oppression .2
My sense is that
During the talk, part of my objective, as on many other occasions when the theme has to do with racism and racial
embodiment, was to put white ness on display, to mark it, to counter-gaze from the perspective of critical black
male subjectivity. Marking whiteness in the presence of whites can be a profoundly disquieting experience for them,
especially when the agent doing the marking is a person of colorin this case, a black male. As raced and
engendered, I am a black male professor, and yet I am also the hypersexual beast, the raper of white women,
the shadow lurking in the dark. The context can become downright volatile. I see an angry black professor!
functioned to erase my critical subjectivity. I felt the shock and sting of gross
misrecognition. I became the quintessential angry black man, a powerful
racist trope that signified that I was out of control and possibly in need of
discipline. Perhaps for this professor and for other whites too timid to voice their views, I was the epitome of
the raging black male on the precipice of violence, the academic Willie Horton. Toward the end of my talk, another
He said,
and one could sense the irritation in his voice, You leave us with no
hope. In fact, he inferred from this that I must be angry because I did not talk about ways to deal effectively
with white racism, ways of overcoming it. The faulty inference aside, I responded, Why do you
want hope? My objective here is not to bring white people hope, to make
them walk away feeling good about themselves. He reiterated, Then you must be
angry! Hope has always played an essential existential role in the lives of
black people living in white America. Black people have long rebelled
against the absurdity of white racism through a blues sensibility that
continues to emphasize the power of transcendence through hope. Thus, it was
not that I was unfamiliar or unconcerned with the power of hope, that incredible capacity to look
absurdity in the face and yet affirm life. Rather, I was curi ous about the function of this older
white male professor, this time an older gentleman, felt that I had failed members of the audience.
professors desire that I should have left my audience with hope. Indeed, for me, I see an angry black professor!
and You
leave us with no hope functioned as two sites of white

obfuscation. In the former case, as already argued, I was reduced to the mythical
angry black male, a one-dimensional caricature, rendering all that I had to
say about whiteness and white racism of little or no value. The latter case
functioned to elide the gravitas of the immediacy of black pain and
suffering and the viru lent ways in which white racism continues to
function with such frequency in our contemporary moment . In my analysis, both
men failed to tarry with the reality of racism and the profound ways in which people of color must endure it.
AFF Answers
A2 Ontology first
Their essential claims of political ontology failsdivorces
politics from the political and necessitates the impossibility of
any navigation of politicsthe AFFs combination of both
solves
Oksala 10-Senior Research Fellow in Philosophy @ University of Helsinki Finland [Johanna, Foucaults
Politicization of Ontology, Continental Philosophy Review, 43:445-466, 10/8/2010, DKP]
I begin by making two claims about political ontology that at the outset seem to contradict each other. First, I argue for the importance of ontological
inquiry in political philosophy. Many prominent thinkers agree that current political events indicate that we urgently need new ways of thinking about
politics, but they sometimes argue for the strict separation of the political and the ontological. Simon Critchley, for example, argues in his seminal book
Infinitely Demanding (2007) that if we are doing politics we should not pin our hopes on any ontology, because politics is a disruption of the ontological
domain and separate categories are required for its analysis and practice.1 My claim is that, on the contrary, for the theoretical rethinking of politics to
amount to an effective response to practical political problems it cannot avoid ontological investigation. Politics cannot shun ontology because ultimately
My second aim is to argue against any essential definition of

the political that attempts to defend its autonomy and specificity vis-a`vis other social domains. The importance of ontological inquiry in political philosophy is
often established through an emphasis on the distinction between politics
and the political: Political science deals with the empirical field of
politics, whereas political philosophy is not about the facts of politics, it is about the nature
of the political.2 Chantal Mouffe, for example, explicates the distinction by borrowing the vocabulary of Heidegger: Politics refers to
the two cannot be separated.
the ontic level and deals with the manifold practices of conventional politics, while the political has to do with the ontological level and concerns the very
way in which society is instituted. Mouffe argues that it is the lack of understanding of the political in its ontological dimension that lies at the heart of our
efforts to
define what constitutes the political in its ontological dimension have
repeatedly run into difficulties. Whether we think of Carl Schmitts definition of the political as always referring to the
friend/enemy distinction, or of Hannah Arendts contested distinction between the social and the political, the problem with
defining the political as a distinct and autonomous ontological domain is
that it places certain questions, issues and experiences outside of
politics.4 To put the problem in more provocative terms, purely ontological investigation turns out
to be a political act itself, establishing the boundaries of the realm of
proper politics. In emphasising the importance of ontological inquiry in political
philosophy I am thus not advocating inquiry into the fixed essence of politics. Neither am
current incapacity to think politically.3 While the distinction between politics and the political has become commonplace,
I advocating any form of regional ontology, inquiry into the region of reality understood as political. Such an inquiry would be not only politically but also
theoretically problematic. Distinguishing some realm of reality as political, and then attempting to clarify the ontology pertaining to it, would imply that a
What
I am advocating is an ontological inquiry into the way in which reality is
instituted that reveals this institution as a political process. My claim is that political
philosophy does not need ontology in order to define and circumscribe a distinct region of reality as the political domain. There is a more
fundamental need to understand how all ontologyour understanding of realityis
achieved in social practices and networks of power rather than being
simply given. This ontological inquiry inadvertently results in an implicit understanding of the political. It is not a distict domain of social
reality, but its precondition: It concerns the contestation and struggle over the institution and disclosure of reality. Hence, what I mean by
political ontology is a politicized conception of reality. My aim is to
problematise the relationship between ontology and politics by putting
forward such a conception with the help of Michel Foucaults critical
project. I argue that Foucaults famous slogan power is everywhere means no more and no less than that the extension of the political cannot be
securely limited. His thought amounts to an effort to politicize regions of reality
that have been depoliticized, and this is his most important contribution to philosophy as well as to politics. I argue that
Foucaults thought accomplishes the politicization of ontology with two key theoretical moves. The first is the contestation and
provocation of all given and necessary ontological foundations. Foucault
affirms the ontological view that there is a discontinuity between reality
prior ontological distinction between what belongs to the political domain and what does not has already been made and is securely in place.
and all ontological schemas that order it, and a subsequent indeterminacy of reason in establishing ultimate
truths or foundations. After this initial step whereby ontology is denaturalizedmade arbitrary or at least historically contingent the way is
open for explanations that treat the alternative and competing ontological
frameworks as resulting from historical, linguistic and social practices of
power. The second key move is thus the exposure of power relations and their
constitutive role in our conception of reality. The important philosophical
idea behind Foucaults hybrid notion of power/knowledge is that social
practices always incorporate power relations, which become constitutive of forms of the subject as well as
domains and objects of knowledge. They are not subjects and objects existing in the world as pre-given constants, but are rather constituted through
practices of power. This is a radical, ontological claim about the nature of reality: Reality as we know it is the result of social practices always incorporating
The effect is the profound

exposure and a critical rethinking of ontological commitments and
background beliefs concerning social reality.
power relations, but also of concrete struggles over truth and objectivity in social space.
Alt creates passivity

Turn Passivity Their Understanding of blackness as absolute
dereliction is only made possible by White ideological
hegemony the fantasy of the socially dead slave is the
foundation of colonialism
Walker 12 Tracey, Masters in Psychosocial Studies at Birkbeck University, The
Future of Slavery: From Cultural Trauma to Ethical Remembrance, Graduate Journal
of Social Science July 2012, Vol. 9, Issue 2
To argue that there is more to the popular conception of slaves as victims who experienced social death within the abusive regime of transatlantic
slavery is not to say that these subjectivities did not exist. When considering the institution of slavery we can quite confidently rely on the
assumption that it did indeed destroy the self-hood and the lives of millions of Africans. Scholar Vincent Brown (2009) however, has criticised
Orlando Pattersons (1982) seminal book Slavery and Social Death for positioning the slave as a subject without agency and maintains that
those who managed to dislocate from the nightmare of plantation life were not in fact
the living dead, but the mothers of gasping new societies (Brown 2009, 1241). The Jamaican
Maroons were one such disparate group of Africans who managed to band together and flee the Jamaican
plantations in order to create a new mode of living under their own rule . These runaways were in
fact ferocious fighters and master strategists, building towns and military bases which enabled them to fight and successfully win the war against
the story of the Windward Jamaican Maroons

disrupts the phallocentricism inherent within the story of the slave hero by the very
revelation that their leader, Queen Nanny was a woman (Gotlieb 2000). As a leader, she was often
ignored by early white historians who dismissed her as an old hagg or obeah woman
(possessor of evil magic powers) (Gotlieb 2000, xvi). Yet, despite these negative descriptors, Nanny presents an interesting
image of an African woman in the time of slavery who cultivated an exceptional army
and used psychological as well as military force against the English despite not owning sophisticated
the British army after 200 years of battle (Gotlieb 2000,16). In addition,
weapons (Gotlieb 2000). As an oral tale, her story speaks to post-slavery generations through its representation of a figure whose gender defying
acts challenged the patriarchal fantasies of the Eurocentric imaginary and as such the study of her experiences might change the lives of people
). The label of social death is

rejected here on the grounds that it is a narrative which is positioned from the vantage
point of a European hegemonic ideology. Against the social symbolic and its gaze, black slaves were
indeed regarded as non-humans eir lives were stunted, diminished and deemed less valuable
in comparison to the Europeans. However, Fanons (1967) assertion that not only must the black man be black; he must be
black in relation to the white man (Fanon 1967, 110) helps us to understand that this classification can only have
meaning relative to the symbolic which represents the alive- ness of whiteness against
the backdrop of the dead black slave (Dyer 1997). Butler (2005) makes it clear that the death one suffers
relative to the social symbolic is imbued with the fantasy that having constructed the
Other and interpellated her into life, one now holds the sovereignty of determining the
subjects right to live or die: this death, if it is a death, is only the death of a certain kind
of subject, one that was never possible to begin with, the death of the fantasy of
impossible mastery, and so a loss of what one never had, in other words it is a
necessary grief (Butler 2005, 65). The point to make here is that although the concept of social death has
proved useful for theorists to describe the metaphysical experience of those who live
antagonistically in relation to the social symbolic, it is nevertheless a colonial narrative
within which the slaves are confined to a one dimensional story of
terror. In keeping with Gilroys (1993b) argument that the memory of slavery must be constructed from the slaves point of view, we
might instead concentrate, not on the way in which the slaves are figured within the
European social imaginary, but on how they negotiated their own ideas about self and
identity. We might therefore find some value in studying a group like the Maroons who
not only managed to create an autonomous world outside of the hegemonic discourse
which negated them, but also, due to their unique circumstances, were forced to create
new modes of communication which would include a myriad of African cultures , languages and
creeds (Gottlieb 2000). This creative and resistive energy of slave subjectivity MARKEDDDDDD not only
disrupts the colonial paradigm of socially dead slaves, but also implies the ethical
living under paternalistic, racist, classist and gender based oppression (Gotlieb 2000, 84
tropes of creation, renewal and mutual recognition.
In contrast, the passive slave proved to feature heavily in the

2007 bicentenary commemorations causing journalist Toyin Agbetu to interrupt the official speeches and exclaim that it had turned into a discourse
excluded8 . Youngs argument that one of the

damaging side effects of the focus on white peoples role in abolition is that Africans are
represented as being passive in the face of oppression, appears to echo the behaviour
in the UK today given that a recent research poll reveals that the black vote turnout is significantly lower than for the white majority
electorate and that forty percent of second generation immigrants believe that voting doesnt matter.9 Yet, Gilroy (1993a) argues that this
political passivity may not simply be a self fulfilling prophecy, but might allude to the
lived contradiction of being black and English which affects ones confidence about
whether opinions will be validated in a society that, at its core, still holds on to the
fantasy of European superiority (Gilroy 1993a). Without considering the slaves capacity for survival and their fundamental role
in overthrowing the European regime of slavery, we limit the usevalue of the memory and risk becoming
overly attached to singular slave subjectivities seeped in death and passivity. The Maroons story
of freedom engineered mostly by whites with stories of black agency
however, enables slave consciousness to rise above the mire of slaverys abject victims and establishes an ethical relation with our ancestors who
lived and survived in the time of slavery.
Law Good
Even if the state is evil we should still try to use the law
against itself
Robert Williams 68
[March 1968, Robert F. Williams was a civil rights leader and author, best known for
serving as president of the Monroe, North Carolina chapter of the NAACP in the
1950s and early 1960s. Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton cited Williamss
Negroes with Guns as a major inspiration. Reaction Without Positive Change, The
Crusader, Volume 9, Number 4,
http://freedomarchives.org/Documents/Finder/DOC513_scans/Robert_F_Williams/513
.RobertFWilliams.Crusader.March.1968.pdf]
racist America's bigoted court system is the
cardinal scourge of the powerless Black and white masses. The constitutional myth
about "trial by one's peers" is a cardinal sacrilege against the sacredness of truth. When a Black man is a
defendant in Americanism's dock of Anglo-Saxon law he is pretty much in
Next to naked violence and unmitigated terror,
the same position as an humble lamb on an altar of sacrifice. White

America's savage culture erects a pious facade of devotion to the rule of
law
rather than of man
and hypocritically attempts to project the ritualistic
victimization of the Black man to some remote and spiritual realm of

divinity above and beyond the tawdry arena of satanic man. To proclaim Anglo-Saxon
jurisprudence to be a rule of law; and to allow its application to be left to the whim of insensate brigands is tantamount to casting
pearls before swine.
The kangaroo court system in racist America is the most
archaic of reactionary institutionalized injustice.
Some phases of society modernizes and
advances. Certain aspects of culture are in a constant state of transition, but to and behold Anglo-Saxon law doggedly clings to a
Magna Charta steeped in the traditions of a Middle Ages mentality. Why does this so-called rule of law so readily invoke the heritage
of ancient vanity in justifying modern injustice predicated on feudalistic logic and morality? Why is it so inclined to look backwards
instead of forward? Why is it a quilted patchwork of sham reform rather than a bold new uniformed structure created out of
an instrument of social reaction in

the employ of reactionaries hell-bent on preserving an ante-bellum and
vulturous power structure frenetically trying to maintain its encircled and
battered position. Tyrants do not change of themselves. The pressure of the people
stimulated by the enlightenment derived from their social being is the
driving wheel that propels the vehicle of change. The Black and the powerless, who
face the wrath of so-called Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, must come to realize the futility of leaving
their fate to the rule of law as implemented by puppet judges who pander to the
sociology's up-to-date discoveries and premises? It is because it is
savage emotions of a cold blooded aristocracy. The true power of the state derives from the people. The weakness of the people in a
confrontation with state tyranny evolves from the apathy, confusion, demoralization, disunity and ignorance of their own power.
All over degenerate and fascist America today the most complimentary
citizens of a civilized society are being railroaded to prison, are being
removed from a decadent and sheepish society that is in dire need of
highly moral and resistant fiber. These courageous and upright citizens
constitute the last thin line between regression and progression . They are
the sparse in numbers but firm pillars that so precariously prevent the
society from plunging into the tragic and chaotic depth of despotic
fascism. America's jails are teaming with principled Black Nationalists,
freedom fighters, war resisters, peace advocates, resisters of false arrest,
those forced into crime as a means of survival, the penniless and

powerless guilty of minor infractions, but unable to pay the court's tribute
money and the state's bribery. America's racist courts have assumed the despotic posture of institutionalized
lynch mobs enjoying the sanctimonious solicitude of the state's ritualistic buffoonery. This inhumane and
oppressive situation can only be rectified by an aroused, united and
determined citizenry . The power of the enraged masses must be arrayed
against this Anglo=Saxon kangarooism. We must strive to create more
favorable legal conditions to disrupt the orderly and uninhibited process
of perennial racist kangaroo justice. A life-and-death struggle must be
waged to break this antiquated first line of the reactionary power
structure's defense of its fast eroding position. Science changes, medicine changes, education changes, customs
change, styles change but the archaic courts still arrogantly pride themselves on the
fact that they are the true and noble hermits from the dark ages . In our
life-and-death struggle, we must convert everything possible into a
weapon of defense and survival . We must not be narrowminded and
sectarian in our scope.
When possible
we must use the ballot , we must use the
school, the church, the arts and even the evil legal system that we know
to be stacked against us. We must fight in the assemblies, we must fight in the streets. We must make war on
all fronts. We must use the word as well as the bullet. We must not only master
the techniques of our enemy, but we must surpass him in a technique that
will serve our cause of liberation rather than his cause of slavery. A
liberation struggle cannot afford to hamper its possibilities of success by
straddling itself with narrow limitations, by limiting itself to only one
method of struggle . While the gun is essential and basic, it must be
supplemented by actions, sometimes less dramatic, less decisive .
A-B not ontological

Anti-blackness is not an ontological antagonism---conflict is
inevitable in politics, but does not have to be demarcated
around whiteness and blackness---the alts ontological fatalism
recreates colonial violence
Peter Hudson 13, Political Studies Department, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg , South Africa, has been on the editorial board of the Africa Perspective:
The South African Journal of Sociology and Theoria: A Journal of Political and Social Theory and
Transformation, and is a member of the Johannesburg Workshop in Theory and Criticism, The state and
the colonial unconscious, Social Dynamics: A journal of African studies, 2013
There always has to exist an outside, which is also inside, to

the extent it is designated as the impossibility from which the possibility of the
existence of the subject derives its rule (Badiou 2009, 220). But although the excluded place
which isnt excluded insofar as it is necessary for the very possibility of inclusion
and identity may be universal (may be considered ontological), its content (what fills it) as well as
the mode of this filling and its reproduction are contingent. In other words, the meaning of the
signifier ofexclusion is not determined once and for all: the place of the place
of exclusion, of death is itself over-determined, i.e. the very framework
for deciding the other and the same,exclusion and inclusion, is nowhere
Thus the self-same/other distinction is necessary for the possibility of identity itself.
engraved in ontological stone but is political and

never terminally settled. Put differently, the curvature of intersubjective space (Critchley 2007, 61) and
thus,the specific modes of the othering of otherness are nowhere decided in advance (as a
certain ontological fatalism might have it) (see Wilderson 2008). The social
does not have to be divided into white and black , and the meaning of
these signifiers is never necessary because they are signifiers. To be sure, colonialism
institutes an ontological division, in that whites exist in a way barred to blacks who are
not. But this ontological relation is really on the side of the ontic that is, of all contingently
constructed identities, rather than the ontology of the social which refers to
the ultimate unfixity, the indeterminacy or lack of the social. In this sense, then, the white man doesnt exist, the
black man doesnt exist (Fanon 1968, 165); and neither does the colonial symbolic itself, including its most intimate structuring relations division is constitutive
of the social, not the colonial division. Whiteness may well be very deeply
sediment in modernity itself, but respect for the ontological difference (see Heidegger 1962, 26; Watts 2011, 279) shows up its ontological status as ontic. It
may be so deeply sedimented that it becomes difficult even to identify the very
possibility of the separation of whiteness from the very possibility of order, but from this it does
not follow that the void of black being functions as the ultimate
substance, the transcendental signified on which all possible forms of
sociality are said to rest . What gets lost here, then, is the specificity of colonialism, of its
constitutive axis, its ontological differential. A crucial feature of the colonial symbolic is that the real is not screened off by the imaginary in the way it is
under capitalism. At the place of the colonised, the symbolic and the imaginary give way because non-
identity (the real of the social) is immediately inscribed in the lived experience (vcu) of the
colonised subject. The colonised is traversing the fantasy (Zizek 2006a, 4060) all the time; the void of the verb to be is the very content of his interpellation. The
colonised is, in other words, the subject of anxiety for whom the symbolic and the imaginary
never work, who is left stranded by his very interpellation.4 Fixed into non-fixity, he is eternally suspended
between element and moment5 he is where the colonial symbolic falters in the
production of meaning and is thus the point of entry of the real into the texture itself
of colonialism. Be this as it may, whiteness and blackness are (sustained by) determinate
and contingent practices of signification; the structuring relation of colonialism thus
itself comprises a knot of significations which, no matter how tight, can always be
undone. Anti-colonial i.e., anti-white modes of struggle are not (just) psychic 6 but involve the
reactivation (or de-sedimentation)7 of colonial objectivity itself. No matter how sedimented (or global),
colonial objectivity is not ontologically immune to antagonism. Differentiality, as Zizek insists (see Zizek 2012, chapter 11, 771 n48), immanently entails antagonism in that differentiality both
makes possible the existence of any identity whatsoever and at the same time because it is the presence of one object in another undermines any identity ever being (fully) itself. Each element
in a differential relation is the condition of possibility and the condition of impossibility of each other. It is this dimension of antagonism that the Master Signifier covers over transforming its
symbolisation produces an ineradicable

excess over itself, something it cant totalise or make sense of, where its production of meaning falters. This
is its internal limit point, its real:9 an errant object that has no place of its own, isnt recognised in the
categories of the system but is produced by it its part of no part or object small
a.10 Correlative to this object a is the subject stricto sensu i.e., as the empty subject of the signifier without an identity that pins it down.11 That is the subject
of antagonism in confrontation with the real of the social, as distinct from subject
position based on a determinate identity.
outside (Other) into an element of itself, reducing it to a condition of its possibility.8 All
We challenge US military complicity with racism

US military presence in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf is
complicit with anti-Persian racism
Zafar 10 human resources professional in Toronto, Canada
who is an avid observer on international affairs
Saad, Toronto Foreign Policy Examiner, July 9,
http://www.medeshivalley.com/2010/07/uae-calls-for-attack-on-iran.html
There have been reports that Saudi King Abdullah has given Israel
permission to use Saudi airspace for an attack on Iran. According to a
French journalist, King Abdullah also told the French Defense
Minister that there are two states in the Middle East that do not
have the right to exist: Israel and Iran. Saudi Arabia fervently denied
these reports when they were made public.
But Ambassador al-Otaibas remarks appear to reflect the view of
many Arab governments in the region. Analysts say that there are a
number of reasons why Arabs hold such views; the first being
religious bigotry. Iran is a majority Shia country, and many Arabs
hold Shias in contempt. The second reason is the anti-Persian
racism that is pervasive in many Arab societies.
The third reason is the fear of foreign domination. Some find it
strange that Arabs find it more or less acceptable for a Jewish state
to have a nuclear arsenal but the very notion of a Persian Shia
nation even having a nuclear program makes the Arabs quiver in
fear. Also, the Arabs tremble at the thought of being dominated by
Persian Shias, but the Arabs feel little or no shame being
dominated by Caucasian Americans (or even an African American).
Ambassador al-Otaiba seems to believe that the United States will
come to the UAEs rescue if Iran decides to retaliate in response a
US attack (supported by the UAE). But given the fact that Americas
military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan are weighing down so heavily
on the US military (not to mention the US economy), it is unlikely that the US
will have the capacity to guarantee the security of the Emirates.
Black Liberation demands that the US get out of Africa and

Asia
Shakur 88 African-American activist and member of the former
Black Panther Party and Black Liberation Army
Assata, as quoted by Carlos Martinez in Assata: An Autobiography Review and

Quotes. http://www.invent-the-future.org/2014/09/assata-autobiography-reviewquotes/, September 5, 2014
Some of the laws of revolution are so simple they seem impossible. People
think that in order for something to work, it has to be complicated, but a lot
of times the opposite is true. We usually reach success by putting the simple
truths that we know into practice. The basis of any struggle is people coming
together to fight against a common enemy One of the most important
things the Party did was to make it really clear who the enemy was: not the
white people, but the capitalistic, imperialistic oppressors. They took the
Black liberation struggle out of a national context and put it in an
international context. The Party supported revolutionary struggles
and governments all over the world and insisted the u.s. get out of
Africa, out of Asia, out of Latin America, and out of the ghetto too.

Fellows - Anti-Blackness K

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fellows - Anti-Blackness K

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1ncs

Greater Horn of Africa

Africa, for example, through AFRICOM. Contrary to liberal self-delusion, Obama

Washington is simply recalibrating its military hardware, personnel, and deployment

administration wants to avoid extended

The squabbling over things like removal of troops is but a

the institution of transatlantic racial

rendering of the black as the object of dispossession

par excellence-object of accumulation, prototypical commodity, captive flesh- structures indelibly

those not marked by the material and symbolic stigma

Imperialism is a reproduction of anti-black racism. Imperialism

anti-black racism, particularly reasons

to understand systems of power, we look at

<INSERT ADVANTAGE LINK HERE>

Whiteness perpetuates a system of abuse of the black. The

Obama also talked about how black men

violence that blacks often face

In the first American Edition of

The white gaze is also hegemonic, historically

Trayvon Martin, like so many black boys

The history of white

created the conditions that belied the applicability of the stand

Thus the Alt Reject the aff as an continued adherence to

What the alternative looks like Presented as the Manifesto

the means of production should be

education for our

an immediate end to POLICE BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black people . We

in the course of human

secure these rights, government s are instituted among men, deriving

With the program on paper, we set up the structure of our organization.

To do anything while the black flesh is still fungible is to take

Arab States of the Persian Gulf

strategy of offshore balancing

American forces would come onshore only if local powers

2015 National Security Strategy does not reverse the

The squabbling over things like removal of troops is but a

the institution of transatlantic racial

rendering of the black as the object of dispossession

par excellence-object of accumulation, prototypical commodity, captive flesh- structures indelibly

historical proliferation of modem conceptions of sovereignty that now dominate

those not marked by the material and symbolic stigma

Imperialism is a reproduction of anti-black racism. Imperialism

anti-black racism, particularly reasons

to understand systems of power, we look at

<INSERT ADVANTAGE LINK HERE>

Obama also talked about how black men

violence that blacks often face

In the first American Edition of

The white gaze is also hegemonic, historically

Trayvon Martin, like so many black boys

violence occurred upon the confrontation between

The history of white

created the conditions that belied the applicability of the stand

Thus the Alt Reject the aff as an continued adherence to

What the alternative looks like Presented as the Manifesto

the means of production should be

education for our

an immediate end to POLICE BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black people . We

in the course of human

To do anything while the black flesh is still fungible is to take

Africa, for example, through AFRICOM. Contrary to liberal self-delusion, Obama

Washington is simply recalibrating its military hardware, personnel, and deployment

administration wants to avoid extended