Plan text: the USFG should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance of Native American reservations

Contention 1 is Native water

Scenario 1 is Dams

Dams have been constructed on Native reserves without consenthttp://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/406

In 1946 the Army Corps of Engineers began construction on the Fort Randall Dam in South Dakota. The dam flooded 22,091 acres of Yankton Sioux land and dislocated 136 families. The reservoir also covered Fort Thompson, the largest community on the Crow Creek Reservation. As a result, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Offices were moved to Pierre, South Dakota and the

Indian Health Service facilities were moved to Chamberlain, South Dakota. By placing these two services – BIA and HIS – in two different communities it became more difficult and less convenient for the Indians needing these services. The Army Corps of Engineers, ignoring the Yankton Treaty of 1858, tribal sovereignty, and Indian law, simply condemned the Indian land

that it needed. The amount offered to Indian land owners was often significantly less than the amount offered to non-Indian land owners. The Army Corps of Engineers also entered the

Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota to begin construction of the Garrison Dam. The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Reservation — Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara — had not been informed of the project. The dam would flood every acre of productive land on the Fort

Berthold reservation. When the tribes informed the Department of Interior that the homes and lands of 349 families with 1,544 people were to be flooded, the BIA simply told them to

start looking for new homes . While the Army Corps of Engineers altered the project’s specifications without Congressional authorization to protect the non-Indian town of Williston, they did nothing to protect the Indian communities . The Fort Berthold tribes protested to Congress and managed to stop the funding for the project until a settlement was reached.

Surveillance critical to function of the damT.E. Martin and M.P. Davies AGRA Earth & Environmental Limited, Burnaby, BC (Page 1) http://www.damsafety.org/resources/?p=362e7deb-1d29-4659-ace7-1f6b28eea34d

Monitoring dam performance is a critical element in producing and maintaining a safe dam. Monitoring programs typically consist of; surveillance or visual observation; instrumentation; data collection; data evaluation, presentation and management; and decisions/response based on results. Surveillance and Monitoring programs on dams provide information for evaluating the dam’s performance with respect to design intent and expected behavior, monitoring for changes that could affect the safe performance of the dam, to assist in investigations and evaluations of abnormal or degrading dam performance and determining if maintenance or remedial action is necessary.

Dams kill off salmonhttp://environment.about.com/od/biodiversityconservation/a/dams_salmon.htmBefore white settlement in the Pacific Northwest (pre-1850), each year some 10 million Pacific salmon a so-called “silver tide”—swam up the Columbia and Snake Rivers to spawn at the streams and tributaries of their births. Native Americans feasted and derived much of their cultural awareness from the presence and cycles of these fish. Over fishing and pollution as well as the crossbreeding of native fish with weaker hatchery-born fish have since taken their toll on wild salmon populations, but most analysts point to the construction of eight large hydropower dams throughout the Columbia/Snake system during the middle of the 20th century as the key factor. According to noted Pacific Northwest naturalist and writer William Dietrich, 106 salmon stocks have gone extinct from Northern California to the Canadian border since the dams were built. According to Save Our Wild Salmon , a coalition of environmental groups and commercial and sport fishing associations, dams alone are responsible for the loss of 92 percent of salmon headed out to sea and of up to 25 percent on their way back upstream. “ Fish are gone entirely from almost 40 percent of their historic rivers, ” says Dietrich, who adds that most of the remaining fish are at risk, too, qualifying for full protection under the Endangered Species Act. Quite simply, the fish just cannot swim past thedams. The idea of removing dams to restore salmon runs is not new. Environmentalists rejoiced in 1999 when Maine removed the 162-year-old Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River to allow passage for decimated stocks of Atlantic salmon. That dam was an obvious choice for removal, as it provided only 1/10th of one percent of Maine’s power needs, yet strained and drained 20 percent of the state’s watershed lands. In all, more than 145 dams have been removed across the U.S. since the Edwards Dam came down in 1999.

Salmon are viewed as a Eucharist by Native peoples; destruction of salmon undermines cultural uniqueness of the species and harms Native cultureMare Cromwell 3/1/15 is a nature mystic and the (multi) award-winning author of "The Great Mother Bible" (Wake Up to the Sacred: Salmon-Eucharist of the NW Tribes)In Frederick (Maryland) last night, I went to see a set of Best of Films – from the American Conservation Film Festival with a friend. Within the first film, DamNation, there was significant attention on the plight of the salmon with all the dams that block their capacity to swim upstream to spawn . It is a tragic story and the good news is that many spent dams are coming down – the focus of the film. What struck me in the film were

two things. One was that to the native peoples on the Columbia River (probably all Native people’s there who depended on Salmon so much), the salmon were their ‘ eucharist ‘. That is how sacred the fish were to them-the most sacred embodiment of the Divine. Imagine blocking people from entering their church to receive the Holy Eucharist. That is essentially what the creation of those dams did to the Indigenous peoples there.

Dams have created breeding ground for plagues that harm Native populationshttp://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/none/hidden-costs-hydroelectric-damsHydroelectric dams can have a great impact on the health of a region's residents . Severe health problems often result from the filling of the reservoir that holds the water for powering the project's electric generators. Put simply, large dams create vast pools of

standing water that serve as the perfect breeding ground for disease-carrying insects . In the past, creation of dams has promoted the spread of malaria, hepatitis, schistosomiasis and river blindness. Despite the fact that adverse health consequences can now be accurately predicted given the particular region and climate, the construction of dams continues . As one health expert noted: Economic growth through the dissemination of production benefits should promote good health rather than create illness, which is frequently the case today. Sufficient evidence has now accumulated to show that the ecological consequences of dam development, including the increase of parasitic and infectious diseases, are predictable. Ample documentation is available on the impact of hydroelectric dams on the health of indigenous populations. The most carefully documented study concerns the pestilence that ravaged Egypt in the wake of the completion of the Aswan High Dam. Dr. Robert J. Goodland, an ecologist for the World Bank, estimated that before the reservoir serving the dam

was flooded, 5 percent of children in the dam area had been infected with schistosomiasis (an incurable disease transmitted by snails that inhabit stagnant water). Today, 90 percent of the children are infected. Other significant health problems have been associated with the Tembling Dam in Malaysia, the Kariba Dam in Zambia and Zimbabwe and the Volta project in Ghana.

Surveillance is also used in order to control dissent and infiltrate movements that challenge the status quo both through secret surveillance as well as overt surveillance used to intimidate and disincentivize changeBoykoff in 7 <Jules. “Surveillance, Spatial Compression, and Scale: The FBI and Martin Luther King Jr” Antipode. Pgs 729-753. http://julesboykoff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Boykoff-Antipode-article-1.pdf>Surveillance is frequently carried out covertly, without the target’s knowledge, but it may also be manifested overtly , in ostentatious fashion, in order to let dissidents know they are being monitored . Glick (1989:53) calls this latter type “conspicuous surveillance”, and argues that the objective is “not to collect information

(which is done surreptitiously), but to harass and intimidate”, thereby “scaring off potential activists and

driving away those who [have] already become involved” . A common mode of ostentatious surveillance includes FBI or

police interviews of dissidents. During these interviews, investigators can, either furtively or unequivocally, let dissidents know that their actions have been or are being tracked by state authorities. In a document entitled “New Left Notes—Philadelphia”, filed on 16 September 1970, an FBI agent described the merits of carrying out intensive interviews with dissidents and their “hangers-on”. The agent declared that the investigative interviews not only “enhance the paranoia endemic in these circles” but also “further serve to get the point across there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox” (document reprinted in Cowan, Egleson and Hentoff 1974:138–141).2 Intelligence gathering is another important aspect of surveillance. This intelligence can later be used to harass, intimidate, prosecute, and rally institutional support against dissident

citizens. Indeed, it may be the most common activity of control agents. Donner (1980) asserts that intelligence, as gathered through surveillance, is used to address a central contradiction in the US political system: the challenge of protecting the political freedoms inherent to liberal democracy while at the same time maintaining the status quo . This status-quo enforcing mode of dissent suppression can take the form of electronic surveillance,3 wiretapping, mail

opening, file storage, and “black bag jobs”. 4 Surveillance can also be facilitated by informants who infiltrate dissident groups and movements .5 Regardless of the form surveillance comes in, it has the effect of compressing space, both corporeal and tactical. Surveillance compresses the physical space in which dissident citizens can comfortably operate, which, in turn, constricts dissidents’ tactical repertoires. Such spatial compression emerges from the strong relationship that surveillance has with the social mechanism of intimidation, as embedded within

the process of social-movement demobilization. Spatial compression hinders dissident citizens from reorganizing spatial scales, which is “an integral part of social strategies to combat and defend control over limited resources and/or a struggle for empowerment” (Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003:913). In this paper, the struggle over the

production of scale will be explored through the FBI’s surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr during a sociospatial conjuncture spanning 1957 through 1968.

Moreover, the history of the Native body is not simply one of passive domination –resistance is and always has been integral to the survival of the Native. No fight for self determination is complete without itLamphere 5 [Peter, "A Native War of Independence", International Socialist Review Issue 39, January–February 2005]//SC

The War of 1812 was not just a border skirmish between the new American republic and the British Empire. It was a revolt of the Native peoples of the frontier for independence and in defense of their homelands . Five out of the seven major land battles were fought primarily against Native forces, and perhaps its most important result was the defeat of the dream of an independent Native state in the Northwest.37 Tecumseh fought on the side of the

British as a temporary ally, and they proved to be unreliable ones in the end. The significance of Tecumseh’s efforts are well summarized by Anthony Hall: Tecumseh , no less than Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, was faced with the need to instill a sense of shared purpose and identity among an array of diverse peoples facing a common oppressor . Tecumseh could see that the United States was essentially grooming a caste of Indian collaborators to give the appearance

of legitimacy to a system of land transfer.… For Tecumseh, the only way to break this disastrous cycle was for Indian peoples to stand together …and to demand that their shared territories be treated as the inviolate realm of a sovereign Aboriginal dominion.38 Tecumseh’s defeat and death meant the end of the any hope for the Shawnee, who were eventually driven across the Mississippi to eastern Kansas, although some descendants of Tecumseh even went

as far as Mexico to avoid settlement. But this was by no means the end of Native American resistance. There were countless other struggles of different nations–Osceola and the Seminoles in Florida; the plains war of Sioux resistance under Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull; the flight of the Nez Perces ; the Apache wars of Cochise and Geronimo against the white settlers, and countless others –but they were by and large

separate struggles, not united confederacies. Tecumseh’s dream of unifying Native nations would rise again later in the century with the great Ghost Dance movement of 1890—91, a religious revivalist movement

reminiscent of the earlier ones under Delaware and Tenskwatawa–a fainter, more despairing echo, though, of it’s predecessors. It was cut short by the murder of Sitting Bull and the massacre of Big Foot and his followers at Wounded Knee in December 1890. A century later, the American Indian Movement united radicals of many tribes to fight back against the alienation and oppression of reservation life, as well as the unemployment and degradation of urban life, leading to occupations of land and armed confrontations with the authorities. The conditions that gave rise to those struggles remain. More than one-quarter of Native American families live below the poverty level, and the Census Bureau reports unemployment on reservations ranging from 14 to 44 percent, with the Bureau of Indian Affairs reporting unemployment rates as high as 70 percent for some reservations.39 The new Indian struggles of

the1960s and 1970s rose and fell in tandem with other struggles–against the war in Vietnam, for Black liberation, and so on. They will rise again and find new allies in battles to come, because today the fight for Native self-determination , against poverty, and so on, cannot be separated from other struggles if it is to have a chance of success. That’s why Tecumseh’s example of resistance–in particular the idea that we should not let oppressors use divide

and rule tactics to separate us–should continue to inspire us today. Tecumseh’s rebellion is a powerful argument for all of us to defend the right of Indian nations to their own lands and cultural practices. His vehement opposition to giving up any Native rights should be a beacon to us all when self-determination is threatened anywhere.

When faced with a society at war with their very existence, the only question is how Natives should respond; tear down their oppressors or stay in the shadows of the toxic concrete damsChurchill 98 (Ward, Struggle for Land, Pg. 40-41, Vance)In 1793, Thomas Jefferson , author of the American Declaration of Independence and a leading official of the newly founded

republic, summed up his own country's position by observing that "the Indians [have] full, undivided and independent sovereignty as long as they choose to keep it, and . . . this might be forever."22 Henry Knox , the first US. Secretary of War, echoed this understanding by reflecting that indigenous peoples " ought to be considered as foreign nations, not as the subjects of any particular State."23 And again, in 1 83 2 , John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the U S. Supreme Court, reflected on how the " Indian nations have always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural

rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil since time immemorial."24 Among other things. such acknowledgments mean that the laws by which indigenous nations governed themselves and/ or regulated their relationships to

others-"aboriginal law," as it is often called-was and is possessed of a jurisdictional standing equivalent to that of the nation-states of Europe (or anywhere else).25 This is to say that, within their respective domains, the legal system of each

native people carried preeminent force, and was binding on all parties, including the citizens of other countries. Whether or not something was "legitimate" was/is entirely contingent upon whether it conformed to the requirements of relevant international and aboriginal law, not the domestic statutory codes of one or another interloping state.26

Perhaps above all, indigenous nations, no less than any others, have always held the inherent right to be free of coerced alterations in these circumstances .27 For any country to set out to unilaterally impose its own internal system of legality upon another is to adopt a course of action which is not just utterly presumptuous but invalid under international custom and convention (and, undoubtedly, under the laws of the

country intended for statutory subordination) .28 To do so by resort to armed force , a pattern which is

especially prominent in the history of US/Indian relations, is to enter into the realm of "waging

aggressive war," probably the most substantial crime delineated by international law . 29

While given countries may obviously wield the raw power to engage in such conduct-witness the example of nazi Germany-they never

possess a legal right to do so. Thus, whatever benefits or advantages they may obtain through such behavior are

perpetually illegitimate and subject to repeal . Conversely, those nations whose inherent rights

are impaired or denied in such fashion retain an open-ended prerogative-indeed, a legal responsibility -

to recover them by all available means .31 It is, moreover, the obligation of all other nations, and the

citizens of the offending power itself, to assist them in doing so at the earliest possible date .32 Although the matter has been subject to almost continuous obfuscation, usually by offenders, there are no exceptions to this principle within the Laws of Nations . 33

Upon enactment of the plan it’s in the hands of the Natives to take action; the past indicates that penetration of their land is not tolerated and often answered with violent dismantlement; sacred land advocates will tear down these damsGraef ’14 http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-reveals-proof-of-government-and-corporate-surveillance-of-native-americans/194952/It’s an ordinary day at Akwesasne: drones fly high overhead; Border Patrol’s presence is palpable; and cellphones are rarely used because they may be tapped .¶ The village spans the northeastern New York-Canada border, and with listening devices, chemical detectors and X-ray equipment, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection station is among the most sophisticated in the country. As Mohawks travel back and forth through their community, going to work and visiting family on each side of the border, their cars are even weighed.¶ The people here say the government has been spying on the Mohawk Indian reservation for decades. But until recently, these concerns were

mostly just suspicions.¶ WikiLeaks has released documents revealing corporate and government surveillance of the Mohawk people’s relationships with foreign countries, as well as evidence that movements that could block corporate plans for oil and gas were tracked and that Native American communities were monitored for the U.S. Department Homeland Security.¶ The documents — among 5 million of WikiLeaks’ Global Intelligence Files — were released this month. Disclosures include emails from Stratfor, a Texas-based company that provides intelligence for

corporations, such as Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, the Raytheon Company, and U.S. government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Marine Corps and the Defense

Intelligence Agency.¶ An Oct. 20, 2008 email sent by a Stratfor employee to Stratfor’s Analyst List hinted that the Mohawk and Cree tribes may have been responsible for a series of pipeline bombings in Canada that month.¶

“While it’s too early to link these pipeline bombings to the Olympic protests, the attacks certainly have brought to the surface contested issues like oil & gas exploration and indigenous rights. To me, it seems like there is too much in common here – any attention = good attention for protesters and, as long as they can keep a safe distance from the actual bombers, they can benefit from these attacks ,” the email said .¶ Earlier that month, on Oct. 10, a letter to local media in British Columbia warned oil and gas companies to leave. The letter’s use of the term “home lands” threw suspicion on the Mohawk and Cree people, whose territories have been barraged by industrial pollution during the past 50 years. The letter read: “We will no longer negotiate with terrorists which you are as you keep endangering our families with crazy expansion of deadly gas wells in our home lands.”¶ Another Oct. 20 Stratfor analyst email said, “Pipelines carry ing sour gas ( highly toxic/flammable) were bombed twice last week in the same corner of British Columbia. The first attack did no physical

damage to the pipe, while the second one did apparently cause a leak in the line. A letter sent to local media shortly before the first attack (suspected to be sent by those responsible for the two attacks) ordered local oil & gas operations on their ‘home lands’ to stop immediately and indicated that negotiations were not doing enough to stop the health hazards posed by oil & gas extraction.”

Allowing space for this act of anti-Western abrasion is key to maintaining rhetorical sovereignty and prevent the biopolitical from engulfing Native culture

Lyons 0 (Scott Richard, “Rhetorical Sovereignty: What Do American Indians Want from Writing?”, College Composition and Communication, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Feb., 2000), pp. 447-468, Vance) *Counting Coup to Plains Indians means to win honor through battleThat laughter, which is not in Standing Bear's book but remains my guess, my desire, would nonetheless be short-lived, as is known by

anyone familiar with the boarding school story. As David Wallace Adams tells it in Education for Extinction, this tale

"constitutes yet another deplorable episode in the long and tragic history of Indian-white relations"-

specifically, the development of education designed to promote "the eradication of all traces of tribal identity and culture, replacing them with the commonplace knowledge and values of white civilization" (336,

335). This forced re-placement of one identity for another, a cultural violence enabled in part through acts of physical violence, was in so many ways located at the scene of writing. More horrific than most scenes of writing, however, the boarding school

stands out as the ultimate symbol of white domination, even genocide, through assimilation in the American Indian experience. And although Standing Bear and others would recall multiple forms of Indian resistance, from torching schools

to running away to counting coup on the Western text, the duplicitous inter relationship s between writing , violence, and colonization developed during the nineteenth-century-not only in the boarding schools but at the signings of hundreds of treaties, most of which were dishonored by whites -would set into motion a persistent distrust of the written word in English, one that resonates in homes and schools and courts of law still

today. If our respect for the Word remains resolute, our faith in the written word is compromised at best. What do Indians want from

writing? Certainly something other than the names of white men sewn to our backs. And for its part, resistance to assimilation

through the acts of writing should entail something more than counting coup on the text (or for that matter, torching

the school). I suggest that our highest hopes for literacy at this point rest upon a vision we might name rhetorical sovereignty. Sovereignty, of course, has long been a contested term in Native discourse, and its shifting meanings over time attest to

an ongoing struggle between Americans and the hundreds of Indian nations that occupy this land. Our claims to sovereignty entail much more than arguments for tax-exempt status or the right to build and operate casinos; they are nothing less than our attempt to survive and flourish as a people. Sovereignty is the guiding story in our pursuit of self-

determination, the general strategy by which we aim to best recover our losses from the ravages of colonization: our lands, our languages, our cultures, our self-respect. For indigenous people everywhere, sovereignty is an ideal principle, the beacon by which we seek the paths to agency and power and community renewal. Attacks on sovereignty are attacks on what it enables us to pursue; the pursuit of sovereignty is an attempt to revive not our past, but our

possibilities. Rhetorical sovereignty is the inherent right and ability of peoples to determine

their own communicative needs and desires in this pursuit, to decide for themselves the

goals, modes, styles , and languages of public discourse . Placing the scene of writing squarely back into the

particular contingency of the Indian rhetorical situation, rhetorical sovereignty requires of writing teachers more than a renewed

commitment to listening and learning; it also requires a radical rethinking of how and what we teach as the written word at all levels of schooling , from preschool to graduate curricula and beyond. In what follows, I hope to sketch out some preliminary notes toward the praxis that is rhetorical sovereignty. I begin with a discussion of the concept of sovereignty, followed by a dialogue between the fields of composition and rhetoric and Native American studies, concluding with some very general recommendations for expanding our canons and curricula. My argument is motivated in part by my sense of being haunted by that little

boy's backward glance to those other Indian children: Is it right for me to take a white man's name? Sovereignty is (also) rhetorical Sovereignty, as I generally use and understand the term, denotes the right of a people to conduct its own affairs, in its own place, in its own way. The concept of sovereignty originated in feudal Europe, and as a term it arrived to the

English language by way of France; sovereign signified a ruler accountable to no one save himself or God (Duchacek 47). Early modern European monarchs employed the language of sovereignty to secure their grip on state power in the face of a threatening nobility and papacy. A declaration of one's right to rule, a monarch's claim to sovereignty "stood as a ringing assertion of absolute political authority at home, one that could imply designs on territory abroad" (Fowler and Bunck 5). As modern nations and states underwent their various forms of development, the concept was consistently deployed to address not only domestic authority at home but a state's relative

independence from and among other states; thus, sovereignty came to mean something systemic and relational. A sovereign's power was generally a force understood in relation to other sovereigns in the emerging international scene; hence, "a

sovereign was to respect the sovereignty of its peers" (Fowler and Bunck 6). As political institutions continued to develop under modernity, the meanings of sovereignty changed with them, signifying such matters as the right to make and enforce laws, notions of political legitimacy and international recognition, and national self-determination. While the meanings of sovereignty have shifted and continue to shift over time,

the concept has nonetheless carried with it a sense of locatable and recognizable power. In fact, the location of power has depended upon the crucial act of recognition-and vice versa. From the early moments of first contact on this

continent, the construction of Indian and non-Indian senses of sovereignty was a contested and contradictory process. It was also a rhetorical one. Although there is no possible way to describe its many and complicated logics

in necessary detail here, we can see that for at least two centuries following Columbus, "European states were compelled to recognize and engage Indian nations as political actors in their diplomatic activities" (Berman 128). They did this in

large part through making treaties with Indian nations, a process that created a relationship between groups of an international

rather than internal character":' even in sites of severe colonizing activity (Berman 129). This acknowledged sense of

Indian national sovereignty was so strong among European states that it actually became a means of legitimizing European claims to new world resources; a territorial dispute between the English and the Dutch, say, might be settled by one side producing a treaty with the sovereign nation who actually owned the land (Berman 132). After the American revolution, the United States maintained the practice of treaty-making with Indian nations begun by European powers, and "from the beginning of its political existence, recognized a measure of autonomy in the Indian bands and tribes" (Prucha, Treaties 2). During the years 1778-1868, the U.S. signed and ratified some 367 treaties with Indian nations, all of which presumed a sense of sovereignty on the part of Indian groups. About two-thirds of those treaties were land deals, and as Prucha points out, "cession of Indian lands ... was an indication of Indian sovereignty over those lands, and the recognition by the United States of Indian ownership to the lands remaining strengthened

the concept" (Treaties 4). You can't give up what you don't own, after all; nor can you buy what's already yours. However, the Americans would gradually assume a dominant stance in Indian-white relations, leading to an erosion of Native sovereignty that Prucha credits to over-whelming American military strength, growing Indian economic dependence on white goods, and treaty provisions that left stipulations to be carried out by Congress (Prucha, Treaties 6-7). After the American revolution, it wasn't long before the nation-to-nation stance Indians and their interlocutors had operated from was simultaneously attacked and affirmed in a couple of landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning the Cherokee of Georgia facing removal in the early nineteenth century. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), Chief Justice John Marshall's famous pronouncement of the Cherokees as a "domestic dependent nation" constituted the United States' first major, unilateral reinterpretation of Indian sovereignty, one further tinkered with a year later by the same court in Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In the former opinion, Marshall deemed the Cherokees limited in their claim to sovereignty, seeing them as a nation not-quite-foreign, but suggested nonetheless that the Cherokees still formed "a dis-tinct political society, separated by others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself" (Prucha, Documents 58). This somewhat glaring contradiction was explained in the latter decision, where Marshall opined that "Indian nations had always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil, from time immemorial, with the single exception imposed by irresistible power" (Prucha, Documents 60; emphasis mine). In other words, while

recognizing Indian sovereignty in terms we can fairly describe as eternal and absolute, the Supreme Court's decisions

on the Cherokee cases ultimately caved in to what would become a persistent, uniquely American, and wholly imperialist notion of recognition-from-above. The United States could limit Cherokee sovereignty simply because it could, and it could because it is the United States. American exceptionalism won the day, thanks to its "irresistible power," and while U.S. plenary power wouldn't become fully articulated in a legal sense until United States v. Kagama in

1886, it found its rhetorical groundwork laid solidly in the Chero-kee cases of the 1830s. In a sense, these cases exemplify

what we might call rhetorical imperialism : the ability of dominant powers to assert control of others by setting the terms of debate. These terms are often definitional -that is, they identify the parties discussed by de-scribing them in certain ways . Take, for example, Marshall's rather self-reflective analysis of the

language of sovereignty in his Worcester v. Georgia opinion: ... 'treaty' and' nation' are words of our own language,

selected in our diplomatic and legislative proceedings having each a definite and well-understood meaning. We have applied them to Indians, as we have applied them to the other nations of the earth. They are applied to all in the same sense. (Prucha,

Documents 60) In short, Indians are defined here as fellow nations requiring treaties. Yet in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,

Marshall wrote that "the term foreign nation" wasn't quite applicable to Indian nations, suggesting instead that the Cherokee Nation's "relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian." This was because Indians-"savages" newly arrived on "civilization's" fresh path-were "in a state of pupilage" (Prucha, Documents 59). More than an

agonistic legal contest over sovereign rights, the language of this decision shows Indian people being completely redefined by their interlocutors: a ward or pupil-that is, a child-is quite a different animal than a fellow nation in the community of sovereigns. As the exercise of rhetorical imperialism, Marshall's metaphors effectively paved the way for the United States to assume a position of political paternalism over Indian nations that has thrived up to this very day-chalk one up for the "Great

White Father." The lesson here seems obvious: namely, he who sets the terms sets the limits . And likewise

the rewriting of Indian sovereignty would continue over time. As Prucha points out, the word "tribe" increasingly came to replace" nation" in treaties, substituting one highly ideological European word for another, and with the Abolition of Treaty-Making Act of 1871, a powerful little rider tacked on to an Indian appropriations bill that formally ended the practice of treaty-making," treaties" henceforth came to be called "agreements" by the authoring Americans (Prucha, Treaties4 , 211-13). From "sovereign" to "ward" from "nation" to "tribe” and from "treaty" to "agreement," the erosion of Indian national sovereignty can be credited in part to a

rhetorically imperialist use of writing by white powers, and from that point on, much of the discourse on tribal sovereignty has nit-picked , albeit powerfully, around terms and definitions.

Scenario 2 is Native Water Rights

US surveillance is used to control water for the state(CHAPTER 6 - SURVEILLANCE, MONITORING AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT) Lines 1-7 The effectiveness of a water quality control program cannot be judged without information supplied by a comprehensive surveillance and monitoring program . To protect California's water resources, the State Board and the Regional Boards closely monitor water quality throughout the state. Historically , a wide variety of interested state, federal and local agencies have sampled, analyzed, and tracked water quality. Local agencies include county health departments, water districts, and irrigation districts. The State Board and Regional Board monitoring programs evaluate existing information, supplementing it where necessary to meet data needs.

First come first served doctrine of Western water management is happening in status quohttp://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-ownership-and-control-of-waterThe other doctrine, which prevails in most western states, is called the appropriation doctrine . According to it, water rights may be acquired by either riparian or nonriparian landowners on a “first-come, first-served” basis. The first to make “beneficial” use of water acquires the right thereto, and in case of water shortage the rights acquired later in time have to give way first. This is not a system of pro rata distribution but a system of priorities in which prior (in time) water rights are entitled to be fully satisfied before subordinate rights can claim any water at all . These appropriation rights are rights to use certain amounts of water during specific periods of time for certain purposes. The holder of the right cannot ordinarily change the use without losing the right and cannot sell the water to someone else to use for any other purpose at any other place. The continuance of the right is dependent on exercise of it. Failure to use the water for a period of time results in forfeiture of the right.

Indigenous peoples’ water rights are put on the backburner in favor of Westerners; they don’t have equal rights despite government treaties promising equal water opportunitiesLutz ’05 29.4 (Winter 2005) Water Rights and Indigenous Peoples

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/none/indigenous-peoples-and-water-rightsTo begin, it is worth reminding ourselves that water is a basic human right; indeed it is a prerequisite for realizing all other human rights, including the right to life itself. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the body established by the United Nations to authoritatively interpret the meaning of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), has declared that the "human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable physically and affordable water for personal and domestic uses." That right is available to all without discrimination of any kind. Article 1, paragraph 2 of the ICESCR provides that a people may not "be deprived of its means of subsistence." The Committee has declared that this right imposes on States the duty to ensure "that there is adequate access to water for subsistence farming and for securing the livelihoods of indigenous peoples." The Committee further has declared that "water should be treated as a social and cultural good, and not primarily as an economic good. The manner of the realization of the right to water must also be sustainable, ensuring that the right can be realized for present and future generations." In addition, the Committee calls upon States to give special attention to individuals and groups who have traditionally faced difficulty in exercising their right to water. In particular, States should ensure that: Indigenous peoples' access to water resources on their ancestral lands is protected from encroachment and unlawful pollution. States should provide resources for indigenous peoples to design, deliver, and control their access to water. The burden falls on States to ensure that the right to water is respected. Not only must States refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of the right to water, they also must prevent third parties, such as large agricultural or corporate interests, from doing so.

Violation of treaty agreements destroys human rights and engulfs policy in perpetual militarism Churchill ’02 professor of ethnic studies @ University of Colorado, Boulder [Ward Churchill, “The Struggle for the Land”. South End Press, 2002. pgs 2-3]

The second important aspect of the map is the legal basis for protecting the environment and the inhabitants it points up. The native struggle in North America today can only be properly understood as a pursuit of the recovery of land rights which are guaranteed through treaties. What Indians ask- what we really expect- from those who claim to be our friends and allies is respect and support for these treaties rights.What does this mean? Well, it starts with advocating the Indians regain use of and jurisdiction over what the treaties define as being our lands. It means direct

support to Indian efforts to recover these lands, but not governmental attempts to “compensate” us with money for lands we never agreed to sell. This, in turn, means that those indigenous governments which traditionally help regulatory and enforcement power within Indian Country-not the “more modern” and otherwise non-traditional “tribal councils” imposed upon Indians by the federal government under the

Indian Reorganization Act of 1932- should have the right to resume their activities now. By extension, this would that much land which is currently taxed, regulated, strip mined, militarized, drowned by hydroelectrical generation or over irrigation, and nuked by the U.S. and Canadian governments would no longer be under their control or jurisdiction any longer. Surely, this is prospect which all progressive and socially conscious people can embrace. What is perhaps most important about Indian treaty rights is the power of the documents to clarify matters which would otherwise be consigned by nation state

apologists to the realm of “opinion” and “interpretation.” The treaties lay things out clearly, and they are instruments of international law. In this sense, the violation of the treaty rights of many given people represents a plain transgression against the rights of all people, everywhere. This can be a potent weapon in the organization of struggles for justice and sanity in every corner of the globe. And it should be appreciated as such by those who champion causes ranging from protection of the environmental to universal human rights. Native North America is struggling to break free of the colonialist, militarist nation-state domination in which it is now engulfed. It is fighting to “secede” from the U.S and Canada. But, because of the broader implications of this, we refer to the results we seek not as “secession,” but as “success.” This is true, not just for Indians, but for all living things and the earth itself. Won’t you help us succeed into a full-scale emergence of our Natural World?

This militarism results in serial policy failure abroad and perpetuates permanent imperial warStreet 4 [Paul, writes on imperialism, racism, and thought control for ZNet, “Those Who Deny the Crimes of the Past,” 11 March 2004, http://www.zcommunications.org/those-who-deny-the-crimes-of-the-past-by-paul-street] // myostIt is especially important to appreciate the significance of the vicious, often explicitly genocidal "homeland"

assaults on native-Americans, which set foundational racist and national-narcissist patterns for subsequent U.S. global butchery, disproportionately directed at non-European people of color . The deletion of the real story of the so-called "battle of Washita" from the official Seventh Cavalry history given to the perpetrators of the No Gun Ri massacre is revealing. Denial about Washita and Sand Creek (and so on) encouraged US savagery at Wounded Knee , the denial of which encouraged US savagery in the Philippines , the denial of which encouraged US savagery in Korea , the denial of which encouraged US savagery in Vietnam , the denial of which (and all before) has recently encouraged US savagery in Afghanistan and Iraq . It's a vicious circle of recurrent violence, well known to mental health practitioners who deal with countless victims of domestic violence living in the dark shadows of the imperial homeland's crippling, stunted, and indeed itself occupied social and political order. Power-mad US forces deploying the latest genocidal war tools, some suggestively named after native tribes that white North American "pioneers" tried to wipe off the face of the earth (ie, "Apache," "Blackhawk," and "Comanche" helicopters) are walking in bloody footsteps that trace back across centuries , oceans, forests and plains to the leveled villages, shattered corpses, and stolen resources of those who Roosevelt acknowledged as America's "original inhabitants." Racist imperial carnage and its denial, like charity, begin at home. Those who deny the crimes of the past are likely to repeat their offenses in the future as long as they retain the means and motive to do so . It is folly, however, for any nation to think that it can stand above the judgments of history, uniquely free of terrible consequences for what Ward Churchill calls "imperial arrogance and criminality." Every new U.S. murder of innocents abroad breeds untold numbers of anti-imperial resistance fighters, ready to die and eager to use the latest available technologies and techniques to kill

representatives - even just ordinary citizens - of what they see as an American Predator state. This along with much else will help precipitate an inevitable return of US power to the grounds of earth and history. As it accelerates, the U.S. will face a fateful choice, full of potentially grave or liberating consequences for the fate of humanity and the earth. It will accept its fall with relief and gratitude , asking for forgiveness, and making true reparation at home and abroad, consistent with an honest appraisal of what Churchill, himself of native-American (Keetoowah Cherokee) ancestry, calls "the realities of [its] national history and the responsibilities that history has bequeathed": goodbye American Exceptionalism and Woodrow Wilson's guns. Or Americans and the world will face the likely alternative of permanent imperial war and the construction of an ever-more imposing U.S. fortress state, perpetuated by Orwellian denial and savage

intentional historical ignorance. This savage barbarism of dialectically inseparable empire and inequality will be defended in the last wagon-train instance by missiles and bombs loaded with radioactive materials wrenched from lands once freely roamed by an immeasurably more civilized people than those who came to destroy.

Demanding that the government comply within itself has proven key to indigenous water rightsLutz ’05 29.4 (Winter 2005) Water Rights and Indigenous Peoples

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/none/indigenous-peoples-and-water-rightsThis issue contains far more than a litany of horrors about violations of indigenous peoples' right to water. It also describes an array of successful tactics that indigenous peoples have innovated to meet their immediate water needs as well as those of future generations. In India, for example, indigenous women in the frequently drought ridden, and extremely poor, Nuapada region mobilized to press the government to ensure safe and adequate water delivery to their local villages . In the Philippines, the Kankanaey people of the western Mountain Province have adapted a traditional water sharing ritual to equitably distribute scarce water for irrigation agriculture. In the U nited S tates, from educating the public by publishing articles in this magazine to going to court, indigenous peoples are demonstrating that peaceful, empowering educational and political activities can lead to positive, rights- protecting results . No doubt the World Water Forum will reveal many other strategies for sustainable water use and protection that can safeguard the right to water of indigenous peoples —and all people—for generations to come. Cultural Survival looks forward to the learning that will come from that meeting, and to contributing to the worldwide effort to ensure that those findings reach indigenous peoples and States everywhere.

Contention 2 is Native racism

The United States has installed surveillance towers on Native American reservations despite taking back native land and violating treatiesSowoli ’15 International Middle East Media Center http://www.imemc.org/article/71335The US had chosen an Israeli company called Elbit Systems Ltd. (an Israel international defense electronics company engaged in a wide range of programs) to build a surveillance system on whole borders of Arizona and Mexico. This system is called Integrated Fitting Towers (IFT), and comprises the building of surveillance towers for snipers, with cameras and radars, to detect the movement of native American crossing. The contract is between Elbit and the US Homeland Security, and will cost about 145 million to be implemented over 8 years.The project however will violate the US treaty, since the land grab will take land from native tribe Tohono O Odham, a Native American Nation . Also, the tribe has been complaining that American and Israeli surveillance cameras on the construction site are directed on reservation and not on the construction site, which violates their privacy and gives them a feeling that they are being spied on.Building walls and electric fences and Security Towers is no doubt Israel specialization for a simple reason: that Israel lives on usurped land-like the Americans- for this reason- they feel insecure and threatened because they fear that what they inflicted on others will get to them. Every policy the Palestinians are now enduring was practiced on the Native Americans, only the Palestinians understand the suffering of the Native Americans. American borders were designed by Europeans, forced upon native American as part of their sociology, economics strategy against the native American. We have formed Native American and Middle East Political action Committee and have filed complaint at UN against Israel. In their defense, an organization called Native American and Middle East Political Action Committee has filed complaint at UN against Israel, Elbit and American for intruding on Native American land . It also intends to file lawsuit for raising surveillance towers and violating privacy rights.

This surveillance is used to internalize and anticipate indigenous culture leaving them open to extermination and violenceGraef ‘14 http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-reveals-proof-of-government-and-corporate-surveillance-of-native-americans/194952/There are some militant Indians in Canada across the provinces. Could be good to add that in — the Oka in Quebec (had to send in the army to deal with them), some band around Ipperwash, Ontario (sent in an OPP Swat team to deal with them), another band in Manitoba that once in a while blockading the Trans Canada Highway (I think regular RCMP dealt with them), and now the Cree in BC.¶ Haven’t seen them come into the cities or built-up areas to target folks like oil execs, but barricading themselves or taking over rural sites is more common (though doesn’t occur frequently).¶ The Oka incident mentioned in the email was a violent conflict between First Nations and the Canadian government that began on July 11,1990 and ended Sept. 26, 1990. Marcel Lemay, a corporal with Quebec’s provincial police force, died from a shotgun wound that struck his left side, which his bulletproof vest didn’t cover.¶ Commonly known as the Oka Crisis, the incident began after the Mohawk of the Kanesatake reserve filed a land claim for a nearby traditional burial ground. This claim was rejected in 1986, and even 20 years after the Oka

Crisis, the land was part of a dispute between Mohawks, the government and developers. In 1989, Jean Ouellette — then-mayor of the town of Oka, located west of Montréal — announced that the land would be cleared to expand a private, members-only golf course and make way for 60 luxury condominiums. No environmental or historic preservation review was carried out.

Members of the Mohawk community blocked access to the land with a barricade, which started with about a dozen people and eventually numbered into the hundreds.

“These people have seen their lands disappear without having been consulted or compensated and that, in my opinion, is unfair and unjust, especially over a golf course,” John Ciaccia, Quebec’s then-Minister of Native Affairs, wrote in response to the mayor’s demand that the protesters be removed.

In the months prior to the incident, Ciaccia had pushed for Ottawa to approve an agreement that would allow the Canadian federal government to acquire the territory in dispute and give it to the Kanesatake Mohawk.

Mayor Ouellette called in Quebec’s provincial police force in response to the barricade. The Mohawk, in turn, followed their Constitution of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the women — considered the caretakers of the land and progenitors of the nation — told the protestors that no weapons should be used — unless police fired on them and they fired back in defense.

The police mobilized and tossed tear gas canisters and flash bang grenades at the protesters . The Kanesatake Mohawk were soon joined at the barricade by First Nations peoples from across Canada and Native Americans from the United States. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were eventually brought in and 2,500 Canadian armed troops were placed on standby. Reconnaissance aircraft circled above, and 800 members of the Royal 22 took over for the police. After 78 days, the protestors surrendered to the army.

“Could we see them targeting oil execs in Canada?” Stratfor’s Fred Burton wrote in an Oct. 20, 2008 email.

This supports the ongoing genocide against Natives Toensing ’13 http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/23/10-scariest-nsa-secrets-exposed-snowden-why-natives-need-know-151017The scariest revelation to come out of whistleblower Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency leaks is that everything you’ve ever known or suspected about government spying, including the use of sinister-sounding code-names, is true -- and then some.¶ In early June, The Guardian began publishing articles by journalist Glenn Greenwald about the United States government’s top-secret spying on US citizens through their phones and internet use. News of the mass surveillance programs set off an ongoing international storm of controversy over security and the ethics around the idea of the federal government acting like the government in George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel1984,where “Big Brother is watching you.”¶ Greenwald soon disclosed that it was Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old American computer specialist and former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, who had downloaded a trove of top secret documents from NSA systems concerning several top-secret US and British government surveillance programs. The disclosure of Snowden’s identity was made at his request. "I have no intention of hiding who I ambecause I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.¶ Snowden had fled the U.S. in anticipation of Greenwald’s story breaking. In early July, Indian Country Today Media Network’s Washington bureau chief Washington bureau chief Rob Capriccioso speculated about whether Snowden could find asylum with an American Indian tribe. The answer was no, because the U.S. government would almost definitely barge onto the “sovereign” Indian land to grab Snowden and lock him up -- federal prosecutors had charged Snowden with espionage in June. Snowden has since found asylum in Russia, which refused to extradite him, straining the relationship between the two countries.

But the issue of mass surveillance raises questions about the impact of government spying on Indians . While the totalitarian vision of Big Brother spying on our conversations and emails and stalking us through cyberspace is scary for everyone, are American Indians more vulnerable to being swept up in the frenzy of the hunt for terrorists? The government says the massive, indiscriminate sweeps of citizens’ phone calls, emails and other information are to help stop terrorist attacks before they happen, but consider

how easily it linked Indians and terrorists recently. In 2011, the Obama administration casually used Geronimo , one of the most revered figures in American Indian history ,as the codename for Osama bin Laden and the operation to assassinate him. That same year, government prosecutors compared the Seminoles to terrorists and cited Andrew Jackson’s genocidal wars against the Florida Indians as a precedent for the prosecution of Al Qaeda suspects . During the 2012 presidential campaign, presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich also conjured up Jackson as a model for the way the U.S. should approach its “enemies” today . “Kill them!” he said. Is there reason to fear that the government would use information it seizes from phone calls and the Internet to launch “counter-terrorist” actions against sacred land advocates or indigenous activists involved in the struggle for land rights or protesting against devastating proposals like

the controversial Keystone XL pipeline or other extraction projects? According to Revenue Watch, American Indian lands include an estimated 30 percent of the nation’s coal reserves west of the Mississippi, as much as 50 percent of potential uranium reserves, and up to 20 percent of known natural gas and oil reserves. The lands also may contain rare earth minerals, increasingly sought after by powerful multinational corporations for use in manufacturing – especially the manufacturing of the electronic devices the government sweeps with its state-of-the-art mass surveillance tools.

Assault on natives perpetuates racial and imperial warStreet 4 [Paul, writes on imperialism, racism, and thought control for ZNet, “Those Who Deny the Crimes of the Past,” 11 March 2004, http://www.zcommunications.org/those-who-deny-the-crimes-of-the-past-by-paul-street] // myostIt is especially important to appreciate the significance of the vicious, often explicitly genocidal "homeland"

assaults on native-Americans, which set foundational racist and national-narcissist patterns for subsequent U.S. global butchery, disproportionately directed at non-European people of color . The deletion of the real story of the so-called "battle of Washita" from the official Seventh Cavalry history given to the perpetrators of the No Gun Ri massacre is revealing. Denial about Washita and Sand Creek (and so on) encouraged US savagery at Wounded Knee , the denial of which encouraged US savagery in the Philippines , the denial of which encouraged US savagery in Korea , the denial of which encouraged US savagery in Vietnam , the denial of which (and all before) has recently encouraged US savagery in Afghanistan and Iraq . It's a vicious circle of recurrent violence, well known to mental health practitioners who deal with countless victims of domestic violence living in the dark shadows of the imperial homeland's crippling, stunted, and indeed itself occupied social and political order. Power-mad US forces deploying the latest genocidal war tools, some suggestively named after native tribes that white North American "pioneers" tried to wipe off the face of the earth (ie, "Apache," "Blackhawk," and "Comanche" helicopters) are walking in bloody footsteps that trace back across centuries , oceans, forests and plains to the leveled villages, shattered corpses, and stolen resources of those who Roosevelt acknowledged as America's "original inhabitants." Racist imperial carnage and its denial, like charity, begin at home. Those who deny the crimes of the past are likely to repeat their offenses in the future as long as they retain the means and motive to do so . It is folly, however, for any nation to think that it can stand above the judgments of history, uniquely free of terrible consequences for what Ward Churchill calls "imperial arrogance and criminality." Every new U.S. murder of innocents abroad breeds untold numbers of anti-imperial resistance fighters, ready to die and eager to use the latest available technologies and techniques to kill representatives - even just ordinary citizens - of what they see as an American Predator state. This along with much else will help precipitate an inevitable return of US power to the grounds of earth and history. As it accelerates, the U.S. will face a fateful choice, full of potentially grave or liberating consequences for the fate of humanity and the earth. It will accept its fall with relief and gratitude , asking for forgiveness, and making true reparation at home and abroad, consistent with an honest appraisal of what Churchill, himself of native-American (Keetoowah Cherokee) ancestry, calls "the realities of [its] national history and the responsibilities that history has bequeathed": goodbye American Exceptionalism and Woodrow Wilson's guns. Or Americans and the world will face the likely alternative of permanent imperial war and the construction of an ever-more imposing U.S. fortress state, perpetuated by Orwellian denial and savage

intentional historical ignorance. This savage barbarism of dialectically inseparable empire and inequality will be defended in the last wagon-train instance by missiles and bombs loaded with radioactive materials

wrenched from lands once freely roamed by an immeasurably more civilized people than those who came to destroy.

Domestic surveillance is inherently racist and colonialist; only curtailing can solveKundnani, no date Beginning in June 2013, a series of news articles based on whistle-blower Edward Snowden’s collection of documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) took the world by storm. Over the course of a year, the Snowden...National security surveillance is as old as the bourgeois nation state, which from its very inception sets out to define “the people” associated with a particular territory, and by extension the “non-peoples,” i.e., populations to be excluded from that territory and seen as threats to the nation. Race, in modern times, becomes the main way that such threats—both internal and external—are mediated; modern mechanisms of racial oppression and the modern state are born together. This is particularly true of settler- colonial projects, such as the U nited S tates, in which the goal was to territorially dispossess Indigenous nations and pacify the resistance that inevitably sprang up . In this section, we describe how the drive for territorial expansion and the formation of the early American state depended on an effective ideological erasure of those who peopled the land. Elaborate racial profiles, based on empirical “observation”—the precursor to more sophisticated surveillance mechanisms—were thus devised to justify the dispossession of native peoples and the obliteration of those who resisted. The idea of the American nation as the land of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants enabled and justified the colonial-settler mission. 5 Thus, when the US state was formed after the Revolutionary War, white supremacy was codified in the Constitution; the logical outcome of earlier settler-colonial systems of racial discrimination against African slaves and Indigenous populations.6 But the leaders of the newly formed state were not satisfied with the thirteen original colonies and set their sights on further expansion. In 1811, John Quincy Adams gave expression to this goal in the following way: “The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs.”7 This doctrine, which would later come to be known as “manifest destiny” animated the project of establishing the American nation across the continent. European settlers were the “chosen people” who would bring development through scientific knowledge, including state-organized ethnographic knowledge of the very people they were colonizing. 8 John Comaroff’s description of this process in southern Africa serves equally to summarize the colonial states of North America: “The ‘discovery’ of dark, unknown lands, which were conceptually emptied of their peoples and cultures so that their ‘wilderness’ might be brought properly to order—i.e., fixed and named and mapped—by an officializing white gaze.”9 Through, for example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the United States sought to develop methods of identification, categorization, and enumeration that made the Indigenous population “visible” to the surveillance gaze as racial “others.” Surveillance that defined and demarcated according to officially constructed racial typologies enabled the colonial state to sort “tribes” according to whether they accepted the priorities of the settler-colonial mission

(the “good” Indians) or resisted it (the “bad” Indians).10 In turn, an idea of the US nation itself was produced as a homeland of white, propertied men to be secured against racial others. No wonder, then, that the founding texts of the modern state invoke the Indigenous populations of America as bearers of the “state of nature,” to which the modern state is counterposed—witness Hobbes’s references to the “the Savage people of America.”11

The earliest process of gathering systematic knowledge about the “other” by colonizers often began with trade and religious missionary work. In the early seventeenth century, trade in furs with the Native population of Quebec was accompanied by the missionary project. Jesuit Paul Le Jeune worked extensively with the Montagnais-Naskapi and maintained a detailed record of the people he hoped to convert and “civilize.”12 By studying and documenting where and how the “savages” lived, the nature of their relationships, their child-rearing habits, and the like, Le Juene derived a four-point program to change the behaviors of the Naskapi in order to bring them into line with French Jesuit morality. In addition to sedentarization, the establishment of chiefly authority, and the training and punishment of children, Le Juene sought to curtail the independence of Naskapi women and to impose a European family structure based on male authority and female subservience.13 The net result of such missionary work was to pave the way for the racial projects of colonization and/or “integration” into a colonial settler nation.By the nineteenth century, such informal techniques of surveillance began to be absorbed into government bureaucracy. In 1824, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun established the Office of Indian Affairs (later “Bureau”), which had as one of its tasks the mapping and counting of Native Americans. The key security question was whether to forcibly displace Native Americans beyond the colonial territory or incorporate them as colonized subjects; the former policy was implemented in 1830 when Congress passed the Indian Removal Act and President Jackson began to drive Indians to the west of the Mississippi River. Systematic surveillance became even more important after 1848, when Indian Affairs responsibility transferred from the Department of War to the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs sought to comprehensively map the Indigenous population as part of a “civilizing” project to change “the savage into a civilized man,” as a congressional committee put it. By the 1870s, Indians were “the quantified objects of governmental intervention”; resistance was subdued as much through “rational” techniques of racialized surveillance and a professional bureaucracy as through war. 14 The assimilation of Indians became a comprehensive policy through the Code of Indian Offenses, which included bans on Indigenous cultural practices that had earlier been catalogued by ethnographic surveillance. Tim Rowse writes thatFor the U.S. government to extinguish Indian sovereignty, it had to be confident in its own. There is no doubting the strength of the sense of “manifest destiny” in the United States during the nineteenth-century, but as the new nation conquered and purchased, and filled the new territories with colonists, it had also to develop its administrative capacity to govern the added territories and peoples. U.S. sovereign power was not just a legal doctrine and a popular conviction; it was an administrative challenge and achievement that included acquiring, by the 1870s, the ability to conceive and measure an object called “the Indian population.”15

The use of surveillance to produce a census of a colonized population was the first step to controlling it. Mahmood Mamdani refers to this as “define and rule,” a process in which, before managing a heterogeneous population, a colonial power must first set about defining it; to do so, the colonial state “wielded the census not only as a way of acknowledging difference but

also as a way of shaping, sometimes even creating, difference.”16 The “ethnic mapping” and “demographics unit” programs practiced by US law enforcement agencies today in the name of counterterrorism are the inheritors of these colonial practices. Both then and now, state agencies’ use of demographic information to identify “concentrations” of ethnically defined populations in order to target surveillance resources and to identify kinship networks can be utilized for the purposes of political policing. Likewise, today’s principles of counterinsurgency warfare—winning hearts and minds by dividing the insurgent from the nonresistant—echo similar techniques applied in the nineteenth century at the settler frontier.

The plan is necessary in order to challenge the dominant narratives used to authorize colonial surveillance practices – it reshapes, reverses, and reframes the status quo Jiwani in 11 <Yasmin. “Pedagogies of Hope: Counter Narratives and Anti-Disciplinary Tactics” 30th August 2011. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 33:333–353>In thinking through tactical interventions contesting and disrupting colonial and hegemonic ways of colonial storytelling, we might conceive of them as forms of ‘‘making do’’ that cluster around particular thematic categories. These include reverse, reversing the gaze so that the ‘‘hidden scripts’’ of the colonized and their ways of seeing the world are brought to the fore thereby throwing into relief the powers of dominance and the experiences of the colonized; re-appropriation, appropriating the

language, forms, and images previously taken by the colonizers and imbuing them with meanings that resonate with the colonized; reframing, taking taken-for-granted meanings or chains of signification and recasting them in ways that testify to the agency and power of the colonized or subjugated; and jamming, making apparent the concealed messages of dominant images and representations and through rupturing the chains of signification creating new meanings or alternative messages. There are a number of interesting visual examples of these tactical interventions that I detail below. However, before turning to these examples, a detour revisiting some key, characteristic features of the dominant colonial and hegemonic narratives that abound in visual media is necessary. Although there are many colonial narratives, for the sake of brevity and as an analytical device I am condensing what seem to be the central features of the ideal-type colonial narrative, particularly in its visual and literary forms. I am collapsing Orientalism (Said 1978) as a specific field of discursive formation within this ideal type, bearing in mind that colonial discursive formations are polyvalent (Lowe 1994). However, there are central unifying elements that cohere the various facets of these discourses (see Said 1985). In his insightful and influential study of colonial literature, Abdul JanMohamed (1985) identifies the key characteristic of colonial discourse as the construction of difference through allegorical extensions. These are fully activated during the hegemonic

phase of colonialism when consent by the governed is essential to continued domination. JanMohamed asserts: The dominant model of power- and interest-relations in all colonial societies is the Manichean opposition between the putative superiority of the European and the supposed inferiority of the native. This axis in turn provides the central feature of the colonialist cognitive framework and colonialist literary representation : the Manichean

allegory, a field of diverse yet interchangeable oppositions between white and black, good and evil, superiority and inferiority, civilization and savagery, intelligence and emotion, rationality and sensuality, self and other, subject and object. The power relations underlying this model set in motion such strong currents that even a writer who is reluctant to acknowledge it

and who may indeed be highly critical of imperialist exploitation is drawn into its vortex. (1985, 63) Such Manichean allegories, it could be argued, in effect constitute a ‘‘grammar of race.’’ This grammar, as Stuart Hall (1990, 14) maintains, is central to colonial discursive formations and structured around the following power coordinates: ‘‘ fixed relations of subordination and domination,’’ with stereotypes ‘‘grouped around the poles of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ natural species ,’’ and the displacement of these stereotypes, imagery, and themes from the ‘‘language of history into the language of Nature’’ (1990, 14). Hence, the effect is an essentialized view of the colonized as inferior and subordinate . If we are to apply a structural metaphor to these insights, it can be argued that the grammar of race constitutes the deep structure, and that the various binaries and allegories are permutations and combinations that emanate at the surface structures of colonial discourses. This is not to suggest that such surface

structures have no impact on the ‘‘deep structure’’ of the ‘‘imperial formations of empire,’’ to use Stoler’s terms (2006), but rather that as deep structure, they absorb change in a way that tends to generate more novel representations that still cohere around the base-images embedded in a grammar of race . The process by which Otherness is commodified for consumption is one example of this cooptation, for here the negative connotations of Otherness are transformed so as to render them more positive and appealing, and thus palatable for consumption. The

visual expressions of this grammar of race are evident in the art, advertising, and literature of the high period of colonialism (Auerbach 2002; McClintock 1995). However, as Stam and Spence (1985, 637) note, ‘‘[s]ince the beginnings of cinema coincided with the height of European imperialism, it is hardly surprising that European cinema portrayed the colonized in an unflattering light.’’ In their groundbreaking analysis of the colonial influence on cinema, Shohat and Stam (1994) provide detailed analytical accounts of early Hollywood representations of the Other, as well as the tropes that have continued on to permeate contemporary visual media such as popular television programs, documentaries, and blockbuster films (see also Boggs and Pollard 2006; Burris 2008; Jiwani 2005, 2010; Nakamura 2009;

Shaheen 2003; Sohn 2008). In addition to the Manichean allegories, other representational strategies or discursive moves deployed in colonial narratives include the erasure of identity, culture, and history; interchangeability, which is linked to erasure, whereby one group of natives is represented to stand in for another and where specificity is eroded ; and homogeneity or monolithic representations, whereby differences within groups are leveled. Particular representations that draw from these discursive strategies include representations of the colonized or subjugated populations as exotic backdrops or ‘‘hordes’’ thus depriving them of singularity, specificity, or individuality; appropriating their stories and histories and recasting them within the framework of the ‘‘white eye’’ (Hall 1990) or the white gaze (a white and dominant point of view), which is naturalized through exnomination (Gabriel 1998); and polarizing these representations so as to conform to the grammar of race where relations of dominance and subordination are fixed and where

differences are essentialized and naturalized, removing them, as Hall points out, from the realm of history and into the domain of nature. As strategies, these discursive formations work to exclude, marginalize, exoticize, and or demonize subjugated peoples. Below I summarize these disciplinary discursive strategies and the range of anti-disciplinary tactical responses they have generated (see Table 2).

Contention 3 is framing

Prefer our model of framing: each soul is on a journey to understand the world and become ripened. To kill of souls without achieving pedagogical wisdom is to damn other worlds with cruel, unripe soulsBatistte ’11 author of Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and VisionAs we move through our inner and outer landscapes, we also move toward a greater understanding of ourselves . The Pueblo elders say that we emerged from a world before this world and that our journey is on a rainbow path on which we continue to walk. It is time to reflect on the meaning of that journey. The way Indigenous people do this is what we call Indigenous education. The Pueblo peoples say that there were three worlds before this one. Each world provided us with an environment in which we could become more human, more “ripened.” In each world, we had a new opportunity to understand what it is to be human and to be fully alive. The Pueblo elders say there was a time when Pueblo people began to congregate in larger and larger groups to create communities. This process began 10,000 to 15,000 years ago as the first groups of Paleo-Indian people congregated in the caves and mesa lands of southern Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. These people evolved primarily as simple hunter-gatherers who lived in extended families and who, through their connection with the land, became ultimately intertwined with the cycles of nature.

You have an ethical responsibility as an educator to use our framing – nuclear war and extinction impacts via of ridiculous internal link scenarios is not probable, but our imperialistic attitude towards natives is a constant question of survival for the culture and people. Our discursive presentation of indigenous narratives offers a counterhegemonic approach to politics; the role of the ballot is whoever best brings the Native struggle to the forefront of this debate. Roberts 10 (Treaty Rights Ignored: Neocolonialism and the Makah Whale Hunt, Author(s): Christina Roberts, Source: The Kenyon Review, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 1 (WINTER 2010), pp. 78-90, Published by: Kenyon College, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40600263 . Accessed: 14/07/2014 21:55 //RJ)

Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest practiced traditions that ¶ have been dramatically affected by aggressive settlement and the commodification of natural resources, and they now must confront ¶ attempts to challenge their traditions and rights through the use of ¶ pervasive neocolonialism . The fact that the Makah Nation is placed in ¶ a position where it has to obtain permission from local, national, and ¶ even international systems to hunt a whale is an indication of the current complexities of maintaining treaty rights and certain

cultural ¶ traditions. The often-extreme responses to the Makah whale hunt ¶ directly threaten the Makah Nation's tribal sovereignty, and their treaty ¶ rights are targeted by blatant neocolonialism and anti-Indigenous ¶ sentiments . ¶ Indigenous communities have beliefs and narratives distinct to ¶ their own histories and traditions, and yet they are still held to the ¶ standards of other nations and individuals. In addition to expertly ¶ navigating the legal system in order to maintain certain cultural beliefs ¶ and traditions,

many Indigenous communities face added pressures ¶ to conform to the ideological structures of

dominant cultures and ¶ succumb to hegemony . In order to continue practicing cultural tradi- ¶ tions that do not resonate with beliefs of dominant cultures, ¶ Indigenous communities are also under pressure to validate their cultures through ongoing Indigenous tribal narratives that demonstrate ¶ the importance of specific traditions and practices . Indigenous tribal ¶ narratives are precious and vital to

a collective understanding of the ¶ world and its history , and these narratives need to be more visible

and available to deflect neocolonialism . While ceremonial knowledge ¶ should be respected , it cannot

be respected by individuals who do not ¶ understand its importance . By either ignoring or being

unaware of ¶ the value of these narratives , individuals perpetuate the colonialist ¶ agendas of the

past and embrace forms of neocolonialism . ¶ Neocolonialist rhetoric will continue to manifest whenever a ¶ majority culture does not approve of Indigenous custom s. Yet, indi- ¶ viduals who reside within the

United States of America must see ¶ themselves as participants in a global world, now more than ever ¶ before. The U.S. and its

citizens have an obligation to the Indigenous ¶ peoples within the United States and its territories

who are still experiencing the effects of colonization . Neocolonialism and the use of ¶ blatant neocolonialist rhetoric further reinforce the wounds of colonization and marginalize Indigenous populations through economic, ¶ legal, cultural, and political oppression. It is time that neocolonialism ¶ is exposed so that Indigenous communities can be freed from colonialism in all of its forms, and Indigenous tribal narratives offer one ¶ possible defense against neocolonialism in all of its forms.