Pirates Affs: Antilab 2k14
A file pillaged and brought to you by:
 Jon Smith
 Eva Shapiro
 Helen Shi
 Zach Babat
 Charlie Steinman
 Nick Pereda
 Faizan Hussein
Notes
There were a few different versions of this file produced in the lab, each of them has their own section,
so there’s a lot of overlap.
DISCLAIMER: You need to UNDERSTAND Deleuze and every piece of evidence in this 1AC before you
read it. If you do not understand Deleuze even at a basic (explain it to your parents) level, DO NOT BY
ANY MEANS EVER RUN THIS ARGUMENT.
Avast Ye, have fun.
--Captain Charlie Steinman, Wilson HS, Washington, DC
*******Deleuze Pirates*******
Brought to you by Captains Charlie Steinman (Wilson HS) and Jon Smith (Reservoir HS)
1AC
"Come, don't be in a fright, but put on your clothes, and I'll let you into a secret. You
must know that I am Captain of this ship now, and this is my cabin, therefore you
must walk out. I am bound to Madagascar, with a design of making my own fortune,
and that of all the brave fellows joined with me...if you have a mind to make one of
us, we will receive you, and if you'll turn sober, and mind your business, perhaps in
time I may make you one of my Lieutenants, if not, here's a boat alongside and you
shall be set ashore." -- Captain Henry “Long Ben” Avery
The resolution takes starting point of traditional cartography that operates under the
assumption of us dividing the ocean up into neat little compartmentalized categories
of ownership and use. The Role of the Ballot is to vote for the team that best presents
a model for exploring the oceans.
Kingsworth and Hine 2009 (Paul Kingsworth add Dougald Hine wrote “The Dark Mountain
Manifesto” and co-founded the Dark Mountain Project. “Uncivilization”)CEFS
*edited for gendered language*
¶ It might perhaps be just as useful
to explain what Uncivilised writing is not. It is not environmental writing, for there is much of that about
already, and most of it fails to jump the barrier which marks the limit of our collective human ego; much of it, indeed, ends up shoring-up that
ego, and helping us to persist in our civilisational delusions. It is not nature writing, for there
is no such thing as nature as
distinct from people, and to suggest otherwise is to perpetuate the attitude which has brought us
here. And it is not political writing, with which the world is already flooded, for politics is a human confection, complicit in ecocide and
decaying from within.¶ Uncivilised writing is more rooted than any of these. Above all, it is determined to
shift our worldview, not to feed into it. It is writing for outsiders. If you want to be loved, it might be best not to get involved, for
the world, at least for a time, will resolutely refuse to listen.¶ A salutary example of this last point can be found in the fate of one of the
twentieth century’s most significant yet most neglected poets. Robinson Jeffers was writing Uncivilised verse seventy years before this
manifesto was thought of, though he did not call it that. In his early poetic career, Jeffers was a star: he appeared on the cover of Time
magazine, read his poems in the US Library of Congress and was respected for the alternative he offered to the Modernist juggernaut. Today his
work is left out of anthologies, his name is barely known and his politics are r regarded with suspicion. Read Jeffers’ later work and you will see
why. His crime was to deliberately puncture humanity’s sense of self-importance. His punishment was to be sent into a lonely literary exile from
which, forty years after his death, he has still not been allowed to return.¶ But Jeffers knew what he was in for. He knew that nobody, in an age
of ‘consumer choice’, wanted to be told by this stone-faced prophet of the California cliffs that ‘it is good for [humanity] … To know that his
needs and nature are no more changed in fact in ten thousand years than the beaks of eagles.’ He knew that no comfortable liberal wanted to
hear his angry warning, issued at the height of the Second World War: ‘Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy / And the dogs that talk
revolution / Drunk with talk, liars and believers … / Long live freedom, and damn the ideologies.’ His vision of a world in which humanity was
doomed to destroy its surroundings and eventually itself (‘I would burn my right hand in a [14] slow fire / To change the future … I should do
foolishly’) was furiously rejected in the rising age of consumer democracy which he also predicted (‘Be happy, adjust your economics to the
new abundance…’)¶ Jeffers, as his poetry developed, developed a philosophy too. He called it ‘inhumanism.’ It was, he wrote:¶ a shifting of
emphasis and significance from [human] to not[hu]man; the rejection of human solipsism and recognition of the transhuman magnificence…This
manner of thought and feeling is neither misanthropic nor pessimist … It offers a reasonable detachment as rule of conduct, instead of love, hate
and envy… it provides magnificence for the religious instinct, and satisfies our need to admire greatness and rejoice in beauty.¶ ¶ The shifting of
emphasis from [hu]man to not[hu]man: this is the aim of Uncivilised writing.
To ‘unhumanise our views a little, and become
confident / As the rock and ocean that we were made from.’ This is not a rejection of our humanity
— it is an affirmation of the wonder of what it means to be truly human. It is to accept the world for what it is and
to make our home here, rather than dreaming of relocating to the stars, or existing in a [human]-forged bubble and pretending to ourselves
that there is nothing outside it to which we have any connection at all.¶ This, then, is the literary challenge of our age. So far, few have taken it
up. The signs of the times flash out in urgent neon, but our literary lions have better things to read. Their art remains stuck in its own civilised
bubble. The idea of civilisation is entangled, right down to its semantic roots, with city-dwelling, and this provokes a thought:
if our
writers seem unable to find new stories which might lead us through the times ahead, is this not a
function of their metropolitan mentality? The big names of contemporary literature are equally at home in the fashionable
quarters of London or New York, and their writing reflects the prejudices of the placeless, transnational elite to which they belong.¶ The
converse also applies.
Those voices which tell other stories tend to be rooted in a sense of place. Think of
John Berger’s novels and essays from the Haute Savoie, or the depths explored by Alan Garner within
a day’s walk of his birthplace in Cheshire. Think of Wendell Berry or WS Merwin, Mary Oliver or Cormac McCarthy. Those
whose writings [15] approach the shores of the Uncivilised are those who know their place, in the
physical sense, and who remain wary of the siren cries of metrovincial fashion and civilised
excitement.¶ If we name particular writers whose work embodies what we are arguing for, the aim is not to place them more prominently
on the existing map of literary reputations. Rather, as Geoff Dyer has said of Berger, to take their work seriously is to redraw
the maps altogether — not only the map of literary reputations, but those by which we navigate all
areas of life.¶ Even here, we go carefully, for cartography itself is not a neutral activity . The drawing of
maps is full of colonial echoes . The civilised eye seeks to view the world from above, as something
we can stand over and survey . The Uncivilised writer knows the world is, rather, something we are
enmeshed in — a patchwork and a framework of places, experiences, sights, smells, sounds. Maps
can lead, but can also mislead. Our maps must be the kind sketched in the dust with a stick, washed
away by the next rain. They can be read only by those who ask to see them, and they cannot be
bought.
This division creates what’s called striated space, a space divided up by things like
borders, territories, EEZ’s, latidude, longitude, etc from a previously undivided or
“smooth” space.
Lysen and Pisters 12 (Flora Lysen, PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, Patricia Pisters,
Film Studies Prof at the University of Amsterdam “Introduction: The Smooth and the Striated” Deleuze
Studies 6.1 2012 http://dare.uva.nl/document/444829)CEFS
A Thousand Plateaus’ ‘1440: The Smooth and the Striated’ introduces¶ smoothness and striation as a
conceptual pair to rethink space as¶ a complex mixture between nomadic forces and sedentary
captures.¶ Among the models Deleuze and Guattari describe for explicating where¶ we encounter smooth and striated spaces, the
maritime model presents¶ the special problem of the sea (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 479). The¶ sea is a smooth
space par excellence: open water always moved by¶ the wind, the sun and the stars, nomadically
traversable by noise,¶ colour and celestial bearings. Increased navigation of the open water¶ resulted
in demands for its striation. Although Deleuze and Guattari¶ note that this took hold progressively, the year 1440, when
Portuguese¶ discoverers introduced the first nautical charts, marked a turning point¶ in the striation
of the sea. Maps with meridians, parallels, longitudes,¶ latitudes and territories gridded the oceans,
making distances calculable¶ and measurable. It meant the beginning of the great explorations –¶ and
of the transatlantic slave trade and the expansion of the European¶ State apparatus. The smooth and
the striated concern the political and¶ politics.¶
While the
smooth and the striated are not of the same nature
and¶ de jure oppositional, Deleuze and Guattari indicate that de facto they¶ only exist in complex mixed forms. Moreover, the
smooth and the¶ striated work in different domains. If the sea is the spatial field par¶ excellence that brings out
smoothness and striation, art is perhaps the¶ domain that can give the most varied and subtle
expression of the¶ complex dynamics between them.¶ The present collection investigates¶ the smooth and the striated in
the broad field of artistic production. It¶ was instigated by the Third International Deleuze Studies Conference ¶ in Amsterdam (2010) that
focused on the connections between art,¶ science and philosophy. Along with conference papers, the role of art¶ was explored through the
work of participating artists and in a curated¶ exhibition, The Smooth and the Striated. This exhibition focused on¶ the constant interplay
between delineating and opening forces in the¶ works of the eight participating contemporary artists. Together, the¶ installations, videos,
drawings and photographs spurred a wealth of¶ new connections and ideas in relation to the concepts of smoothness¶ and striation: the
artworks touched upon the solidification of historical¶ memory and the transformation of ever growing archival material; the¶ striation of
subterranean city space; the politics of vast demographic¶ datasets; the visualisation of scientific patents; and more.1¶ Similar to the exhibited
artists in the context of the Deleuze Studies¶ Conference, the authors in this volume think with art to shed new and¶ interdisciplinary light upon
the concepts of smoothness and striation,¶ and, conversely, upon the way the smooth and the striated can give¶ important insights into artistic
practices. The smooth and the striated¶ directly address processes in (social, political, geographical, biological)¶ life, taken up in philosophy and
art. Most of the contributions in¶ this volume discuss the concepts of the smooth and the striated in¶ relation to specific artworks that, in Claire
Colebrook’s words, ‘are not¶ representations of images of life’, but, if we consider the emergence of¶ the genesis of art and philosophy, can be
understood as ‘something¶ of life’s creative potential’ (Colebrook 2006: 30). Hence, the singular¶ artworks or artistic practices are not to be
taken as illustrations of¶ the concepts but as singular ways of embodying or expressing the¶ various aspects that the smooth and the striated
envision. ‘If we intuit¶ the forces that produce any single work of art or any single concept,¶ then we might begin to approach singularity as
such: the power of¶ making a difference’ (Colebrook 2006: 30). The essays in this special¶ issue contribute to this power of difference in the
complex interweaving¶ between the smooth and the striated in its philosophical and artistic¶ dimensions.
This form of smooth space is a space of affects instead of properties, in which journeys
are spontaneous and chaotic. Instead of pinpointed explorations we encounter
everything we see spontaneously as the nomad.
Deleuze and Guattari 1980 (Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari “A Thousand Plateaus” pp. 478-482)CEFS¶
The Maritime Model. Of
course, there are points, lines, and surfaces in ¶ striated space as well as in smooth
space (there are also volumes, but we will ¶ leave this question aside for the time being). In striated space, lines or trajectories
tend to be subordinated to points: one goes from one point to ¶ another. In the smooth, it is the
opposite: the points are subordinated to the ¶ trajectory. This was already the case among the nomads
for the ¶ clothes-tent-space vector of the outside. The dwelling is subordinated to ¶ the journey; inside
space conforms to outside space: tent, igloo, boat. ¶ There are stops and trajectories in both the
smooth and the striated. But ¶ in smooth space, the stop follows from the trajectory; once again, the ¶
interval takes all, the interval is substance (forming the basis for rhythmic ¶ values).6¶ In smooth space,
the line is therefore a vector, a direction and not a ¶ dimension or metric determination. ¶ It is a space
constructed by local operations involving changes in direction. These changes in direction may be ¶ due to the nature of the journey itself, as
with the nomads of the archipela goes (a case of "directed" smooth space); but it is more likely to be due to ¶ the variability of the goal or point
to be attained, as with the nomads of the ¶ desert who head toward local, temporary vegetation (a "nondirected" ¶ smooth space). Directed or
not, and especially in the latter case, smooth ¶ space is directional rather than dimensional or metric. Smooth
space is ¶ filled by
events or haecceities, far more than by formed and perceived ¶ things. It is a space of affects, more
than one of properties. It is haptic rather ¶ than optical perception. Whereas in the striated forms organize a matter, ¶ in the smooth
materials signal forces and serve as symptoms for them. It is ¶ an intensive rather than extensive space, one of distances, not of measures ¶ and
properties. Intense Spatium instead of Extensio. A
Body without ¶ Organs instead of an organism and organization.
Perception in it is based ¶ on symptoms and evaluations rather than measures and properties. That is ¶
why smooth space is occupied by intensities, wind and noise, forces, and ¶ sonorous and tactile
qualities, as in the desert, steppe, or ice.7¶ The creaking ¶ of ice and the song of the sands . Striated
space, on the contrary, is canopied by the sky as measure and by the measurable visual qualities
deriving from it.¶ This is where the very special problem of the sea enters in. For the sea is a ¶ smooth
space par excellence, and yet was the first to encounter the ¶ demands of increasingly strict striation.
The problem did not arise in proximity to land. On the contrary, the striation of the sea was a result of navigation on the open water. Maritime
space was striated as a function of two ¶ astronomical and geographical gains: bearings, obtained by a set of calculations based on exact
observation of the stars and the sun; and the map, ¶ which intertwines meridians and parallels, longitudes and latitudes, plotting regions known
and unknown onto a grid (like a Mendeleyev table). ¶ Must we accept the Portuguese argument and assign 1440 as the turning ¶ point that
marked the first decisive striation, and set the stage for the great ¶ discoveries? Rather, we will follow Pierre Chaunu when he speaks of an ¶
extended confrontation at sea between the smooth and the striated during ¶ the course of which the striated progressively took hold.8¶ For
before longitude lines had been plotted, a very late development, there existed a complex and
empirical nomadic system of navigation based on the wind and ¶ noise, the colors and sounds of the
seas; then came a directional, ¶ preastronomical or already astronomical, system of navigation
employing ¶ only latitude, in which there was no possibility of "taking one's bearings," ¶ and which had
only portolanos lacking "translatable generalization" ¶ instead of true maps; finally, improvements
upon this primitive astronomical navigation were made under the very special conditions of the
latitudes of the Indian Ocean, then of the elliptical circuits of the Atlantic ¶ (straight and curved
spaces).9¶ It is as if the sea were not only the archetype of all smooth spaces but the first to undergo a gradual striation gridding it ¶ in one
place, then another, on this side and that. The commercial cities participated in this striation, and were often innovators; but only the States ¶
were capable of carrying it to completion, of raising it to the global level of a ¶ "politics of science."10 A dimensionality that subordinated
directionality, ¶ or superimposed itself upon it, became increasingly entrenched.¶ This is undoubtedly why the sea, the archetype of smooth
space, was ¶ also the archetype of all striations of smooth space: the striation of the ¶ desert, the air, the stratosphere (prompting Virilio to
speak of a "vertical ¶ coastline," as a change in direction). It was at sea that smooth space was ¶ first subjugated and a model found for the
laying-out and imposition of ¶ striated space, a model later put to use elsewhere. This does not contradict ¶ Virilio's other hypothesis: in the
aftermath of striation, the
sea reimparts a ¶ kind of smooth space, occupied first by the "fleet in being," then
by the perpetual motion of the strategic submarine, which outflanks all gridding and ¶ invents a
neonomadism in the service of a war machine still more disturbing than the States, which reconstitute
it at the limit of their striations. The ¶ sea, then the air and the stratosphere, become smooth spaces
again, but, in ¶ the strangest of reversals, it is for the purpose of controlling striated space ¶ more
completely.1¶ 1 The smooth always possesses a greater power of ¶ deterritorialization than the
striated. When examining the new professions, or new classes even, how can one fail to mention the
military technicians who stare into screens night and day and live for long stretches in ¶ strategic
submarines (in the future it will be on satellites), and the apocalyptic eyes and ears they have
fashioned for themselves, which can barely ¶ distinguish any more between a natural phenomenon, a
swarm of locusts, ¶ and an "enemy" attack originating at any given point? All of this serves as a ¶ reminder that the
smooth itself can be drawn and occupied by diabolical ¶ powers of organization; value judgments aside, this demonstrates above all ¶ that
there exist two nonsymmetrical movements, one of which striates the ¶ smooth, and one of which reimparts smooth space on the basis of the
striated. (Do not new smooth spaces, or holey spaces, arise as parries even in ¶ relation to the smooth space of a worldwide organization?
Virilio invokes ¶ the beginnings of subterranean habitation in the "mineral layer," which ¶ can take on very diverse values.)¶ Let us return to the
simple opposition between the smooth and the striated since we are not yet at the point where we can consider the dissymmetrical and
concrete mixes. The smooth and the striated are ¶ distinguished first of all by an inverse relation between the point and the ¶ line (in the case
of the striated, the line is between two points, while in the ¶ smooth, the point is between two lines); and second, by the nature of the ¶ line
(smooth-directional, open intervals; dimensional-striated, closed intervals). ¶ Finally, there is a third difference, concerning the surface or ¶
space. In
striated space, one closes off a surface and "allocates" it according ¶ to determinate intervals,
assigned breaks; in the smooth, one "distributes" ¶ oneself in an open space, according to frequencies
and in the course of ¶ one's crossings (logos and nomos).I2 As simple as this opposition is, it is not ¶ easy to place it. We cannot
content ourselves with establishing an immediate opposition between the smooth ground of the nomadic animal raiser ¶ and the striated land
of the sedentary cultivator. It is evident that the peasant, even the sedentary peasant, participates fully in the space of the wind, ¶ the space of
tactile and sonorous qualities. When
the ancient Greeks speak ¶ of the open space of the nomos—
nondelimited, unpartitioned; the ¶ pre-urban countryside; mountainside, plateau, steppe—they
oppose it not ¶ to cultivation, which may actually be part of it, but to the polis, the city, ¶ the town. ¶
When Ibn Khaldun speaks oibadiya, bedouinism, the term ¶ covers cultivators as well as nomadic animal raisers: he contrasts it to ¶ hadara, or
"city life." This clarification is certainly important, but it does ¶ not change much. For¶ from the most ancient of times, from Neolithic and ¶
even Paleolithic times, it is the town that invents agriculture: it is through the ¶ actions of the town that the farmers and their striated space are
superposed ¶ upon the cultivators operating in a still smooth space (the transhumant ¶ cultivator, half-sedentary or already completely
sedentary). So
on this ¶ level we reencounter the simple opposition we began by challenging, ¶ between
farmers and nomads, striated land and smooth ground: but only ¶ after a detour through the town as a
force of striation. Now not only the ¶ sea, desert, steppe, and air are the sites of a contest between the
smooth ¶ and the striated, but the earth itself, depending on whether there is ¶ cultivation in nomosspace or agriculture in city-space. Must we not say ¶ the same of the city itself? In contrast to the sea, the city is
the striated space ¶ par excellence; the sea is a smooth space fundamentally open to striation, ¶ and
the city is the force of striation that reimparts smooth space, puts it ¶ back into operation everywhere,
on earth and in the other elements, outside ¶ but also inside itself. The smooth spaces arising from the city are not
only ¶ those of worldwide organization, but also of a counterattack combining ¶ the smooth and the holey and turning back against the town:
sprawling, ¶ temporary, shifting shantytowns of nomads and cave dwellers, scrap ¶ metal and fabric, patchwork, to which the striations of
money, work, or ¶ housing are no longer even relevant. An explosive misery secreted by the ¶ city, and corresponding to Thorn's mathematical
formula: "retroactive ¶ smoothing."13 Condensed force, the potential for counterattack?¶ In each instance, then, the simple opposition
"smooth-striated" gives ¶ rise to far more difficult complications, alternations, and superpositions. ¶ But these complications basically confirm
the distinction, precisely because they bring dissymmetrical movements into play. For now, it suffices to say that there are two kinds of voyage,
distinguished by the respective role of the point, line, and space. Goethe travel and Kleist travel? ¶ French travel and English (or American)
travel? Tree
travel and rhizome ¶ travel? ¶ But nothing completely coincides, and everything
intermingles, or ¶ crosses over. This is because the differences are not objective: it is possible ¶ to live
striated on the deserts, steppes, or seas; it is possible to live smooth ¶ even in the cities, to be an
urban nomad (for example, a stroll taken by ¶ Henry Miller in Clichy or Brooklyn is a nomadic transit in smooth space; ¶ he makes the city
disgorge a patchwork, differentials of speed, delays and ¶ accelerations, changes in orientation, continuous variations ... The beatniks owe
much to Miller, but they changed direction again, they put the ¶ space outside the cities to new use). Fitzgerald
said it long ago: it is
not a ¶ question of taking off for the South Seas, that is not what determines a voyage. There are not
only strange voyages in the city but voyages in place: we ¶ are not thinking of drug users, whose
experience is too ambiguous, but of ¶ true nomads. We can say of the nomads, following Toynbee's
suggestion: ¶ they do not move. They are nomads by dint of not moving, not migrating, of ¶ holding a
smooth space that they refuse to leave, that they leave only in ¶ order to conquer and die. Voyage in
place: that is the name of all intensities, ¶ even if they also develop in extension. To think is to voyage;
earlier we tried ¶ to establish a theo-noological model of smooth and striated spaces. In ¶ short, what
distinguishes the two kinds of voyages is neither a measurable ¶ quantity of movement, nor something
that would be only in the mind, but ¶ the mode of spatialization, the manner of being in space, of
being for space. ¶ Voyage smoothly or in striation, and think the same way... But there are ¶ always
passages from one to the other, transformations of one within the ¶ other, reversals. In his film, Kings
of the Road, Wenders intersects and ¶ superposes the paths of two characters; one of them takes a
still educational, memorial, cultural, Goethean journey that is thoroughly striated, ¶ whereas the other
has already conquered smooth space, and only experiments, induces amnesia in the German "desert."
But oddly enough, it is the ¶ former who opens space for himself and performs a kind of retroactive ¶
smoothing, whereas striae reform around the latter, closing his space again. ¶ Voyaging smoothly is a
becoming, and a difficult, uncertain becoming at ¶ that. It is not a question of returning to
preastronomical navigation, nor to ¶ the ancient nomads. The confrontation between the smooth and
the striated, the passages, alternations and superpositions, are under way today, ¶ running in the most
varied directions.
The pirates function as the nomads of the sea to disrupt striation on the smoothness
of the sea.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under the Jolly Roger, Reflections on Golden Age Piracy” pp. 2730)CEFS
*edited for gendered language*
2.2. “Smooth” vs. “Striated”: The Question of Space¶ If it is true “that the nomads have no history [but only] a geography,”1¶ then ¶ the
question of space deserves particular attention. In the case of Caribbean ¶ piracy, this specifically means the sea. Its
significance can hardly be overrated. All of Caribbean society has always been intrinsically linked to it:¶ The sea led men
to the West Indies, and away from them. A unique ¶ fact about the Caribbee islands was that all the
inhabitants—Caribs, ¶ Arawaks, white planters, merchants, and servants, and black slaves—¶ had
arrived by sea in very recent times. ¶ To these islands, with their ¶ motley populations, merchants and factors came and went
with some ¶ regularity; they brought craftsmen, servants, and slaves to the West ¶ Indies. Communication from one island to
another by means of small ¶ sloops was both facilitated and obstructed by the incessant trade ¶ winds;
Barbados lay so far eastward of the Leeward Islands that very ¶ little exchange took place. All life, everywhere, depended on wooden ¶ hulls: in
the outward passage they carried food and supplies of all ¶ kinds, and wines from Madeira and the Canaries; on the homeward ¶ voyage they
took back the island staples and a few passengers.2¶
This meant ideal conditions for aspiring pirates: “While petty
thuggery and ¶ brigandage might be easily subdued close to home, these far-flung new trades ¶ routes
offered a tempting outlet for an entirely different breed of marauder, a ¶ mobile and elusive
adventurer who could sail to the far ends of the earth, and ¶ seek his[/her] fortune amid its most
lawless frontiers.”3¶ In general, too, the sea has long been a symbol of freedom, a free space par ¶
excellence. Rüdiger Haude calls it “the unlimited, unpredictable space, the ¶ negation of everything
‘national.’”4¶ Marcus Rediker adds: “‘The vast ocean ¶ cannot be possessed.’ It was a commons, a place to be used by many, including the
sailor who dared to turn pirate.”5¶ This was especially true as long as ¶ those who traveled the seas were dependent on the elements: “The
source of ¶ power that took them from one haven to the next was everywhere and always ¶ available, since it was only the wind.”6¶ In
the
terminology of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, the sea constitutes ¶ a smooth space, “perhaps the
principal among smooth spaces, the hydraulic ¶ model par excellence.”7¶ As they explain: “Smooth space is
a field without ¶ conduits or channels. A field, a heterogeneous smooth space, is wedded to a ¶ very
particular type of multiplicity: non-metric, acentered, rhizomatic multiplicities which occupy space
without ‘counting’ it.”8¶ In simpler words, the ¶ smooth space is a space for creating self-determined,
creative, “free” forms ¶ of life. Here, the nomads reach their full potential as raiders: “With practical ¶
skill a nomad band can strike, steal, and disappear beyond hope of pursuit in ¶ the great waste, fading
away without trace…”¶ The supplement to the open space of the sea were the pirates’ coastal
refuges, the “many small inlets, lagoons and harbours,…solitary islands and ¶ keys.”10 If we stick to
the terminology of Deleuze and Guattari, we might call ¶ this a rhizomatic terrain since a rhizome is
“open and connectable in all of its ¶ dimensions…it always has multiple entryways.”11 All of the
favorite operational areas of the pirates are described accordingly: “the Caribbean islands ¶ provided
innumerable hiding places, secret coves and uncharted islands;”12¶ “the Gulf of Honduras and the
Mosquito Coast [were] dotted with numerous small islands and protecting reefs,…creeks, lagoons
and river-mouths;”13¶
“the American coast from Boston to Charleston, South Carolina, is a network ¶ of river estuaries, bays, inlets,
and islands.”14 These coastal labyrinths provided the pirates’ natural onshore environment. “‘As surely as spiders abound ¶ where there are
nooks and crannies,’ wrote Captain the Hon. Henry Keppel,¶ the great hunter of Oriental pirates in the nineteenth century, ‘so have pirates ¶
sprung up wherever there is a nest of islands offering creeks and shallows, ¶ headlands, rocks and reefs—facilities in short for lurking, for
surprise, for ¶ attack, for escape. ’”15¶ Between
the extremes of the wide open sea and the impenetrable coastal
mazes of reefs, inlets, and river-mouths, the pirates were able to escape the ¶ wrath of the law for
several decades.16 Eventually, however, the smooth ¶ space of the sea—and with it its coastal
boundaries—became “striated,” i.e. ¶ ordered, regulated, and controlled. This contributed
¶
significantly to the end ¶ of golden age piracy: ¶ The sea is…of all smooth spaces, the first one attempts were made ¶ to
striate, to transform into a dependency of the land, with its fixed ¶ routes, constant directions, relative movements, a whole counterhydraulic
of channels and conduits. One of the reasons for the ¶ hegemony of the West was the power…of its State apparatuses ¶ to striate the sea by
combining technologies of the North and the ¶ Mediterranean and by annexing the Atlantic.17¶ The most tangible aspect of this annexation—
or the striating process—¶ was an increased navy presence. The number of permanently employed royal ¶ ships in the Americas rose from two
in the 1670s to twenty-four by 1700,¶ 18 “by
¶ 1723, increased surveillance on the sea routes by the Royal Navy
was severely ¶ limiting [the pirates’] freedom of operations,”19 and by 1724, “the world was ¶
becoming too small for a wanted pirate to be able to find a safe hiding place.”20¶ This coincided with significant
technological innovations. As David F. Marley ¶ explains: “Steam, advanced ballistics, telegraphic communications and other ¶ technological
innovations meant that the advantage swung decisively to the ¶ professional services.”21 Edward Lucie-Smith stresses the first in particular: ¶
“What put an end, in its classic form, to a crime which had existed since history began, was chiefly the coming of steam. Mechanical propulsion,
which ¶ meant that the men who traveled the oceans were no longer at the mercy of ¶ the winds, also removed much of the danger they had
hitherto felt from the ¶ [pirate] who made the wind his ally, and cast himself upon its mercy as the price ¶ of an irregular and ferocious
independence.”22¶ Robert C. Ritchie concludes:¶ Ultimately
the buccaneers’ success in expanding their geographic ¶
range aroused the forces of order and brought the pirates into collision ¶ with the demands of empire.
The struggle that ensued was lopsided: ¶ the resources mobilized by the rising imperial states far
exceeded ¶ those of the pirates. [This ends a time] when the world was younger, ¶ when it was possible
for a group of men to seize a ship and sail to the ¶ end of the world seeking their fortune, while living
in a consensual ¶ society free of the constraints that dominated their lives at home.2
This process of conceptual ordering in the striation of the ocean erects a fascist
bureaucracy in the minds of the community that justifies violence from the
macropolitcal.
Deleuze & Guattari 80 (Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari “A Thousand Plateaus” pp. 214-215)CEFS
It is not sufficient to define bureaucracy by a rigid segmentarity with ¶ compartmentalization of
contiguous offices, an office manager in each ¶ segment, and the corresponding centralization at the
end of the hall or on ¶ top of the tower. For at the same time there is a whole bureaucratic segmentation, a suppleness of and
communication between offices, a bureaucratic ¶ perversion, a permanent inventiveness or creativity practiced even against ¶ administrative
regulations. If Kafka is the greatest theorist of bureaucracy, ¶ it is because he shows how, at a certain level (but which one? it is not ¶
localizable), the barriers between offices cease to be "a definite dividing ¶ line" and are immersed in a molecular medium (milieu) that dissolves
¶ them and simultaneously makes the office manager proliferate into ¶ microfigures impossible to recognize or identify, discernible only when ¶
they are centralizable: another regime, coexistent with the separation and ¶ totalization of the rigid segments.I0
We would even say
that fascism implies ¶ a molecular regime that is distinct both from molar segments and their
centralization. Doubtless, fascism invented the concept of the totalitarian ¶ State, but there is no
reason to define fascism by a concept of its own devising: there are totalitarian States, of the Stalinist
or military dictatorship ¶ type, that are not fascist. The concept of the totalitarian State applies only ¶
at the macropohtical level, to a rigid segmentarity and a particular mode of ¶ totalization and
centralization. But fascism is inseparable from a proliferation of molecular focuses in interaction,
which skip from point to point, ¶ before beginning to resonate together in the National Socialist State.
Rural ¶ fascism and city or neighborhood fascism, youth fascism and war veteran's ¶ fascism, fascism of the Left and fascism of the Right,
fascism of the couple, ¶ family, school, and office: every fascism is defined by a micro-black hole ¶ that stands on its own and communicates
with the others, before resonating in a great, generalized central black hole.1¶ ' There is fascism when a war ¶ machine is installed in each hole,
in every niche.
Even after the National ¶ Socialist State had been established, microfascisms persisted that
gave it ¶ unequaled ability to act upon the "masses." ¶ Daniel Guerin is correct to say ¶ that if Hitler took power,
rather then taking over the German State administration, it was because from the beginning he had at
his disposal ¶ microorganizations giving him "an unequaled, irreplaceable ability to ¶ penetrate every
cell of society," in other words, a molecular and supple ¶ segmentarity, flows capable of suffusing every kind of
cell. Conversely, if ¶ capitalism came to consider the fascist experience as catastrophic, if it preferred to ally itself with Stalinist totalitarianism,
which from its point of ¶ view was much more sensible and manageable, it was because the egmentarity and centralization of the latter was
more classical and less ¶ fluid. What
makes fascism dangerous is its molecular or micropolitical ¶ power, for it is
a mass movement: a cancerous body rather than a totalitarian organism. American film has often
depicted these molecular focal ¶ points; band, gang, sect, family, town, neighborhood, vehicle fascisms
¶ spare no one. Only microfascism provides an answer to the global question: Why does desire desire
its own repression, how can it desire its own ¶ repression? The masses certainly do not passively
submit to power; nor do ¶ they "want" to be repressed, in a kind of masochistic hysteria; nor are they ¶
tricked by an ideological lure. Desire is never separable from complex ¶ assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from
¶ microforma-tions already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions, ¶ expectations, semiotic systems, etc. Desire is never an
undifferentiated ¶ instinctual energy, but itself results from a highly developed, engineered ¶ setup rich
in interactions: a whole supple segmentarity that processes ¶ molecular energies and potentially gives
desire a fascist determination. ¶ Leftist organizations will not be the last to secrete microfascisms . It's
too ¶ easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist ¶ inside you, the fascist you
yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with ¶ molecules both personal and collective.¶
Four errors
concerning this molecular and supple segmentarity are to be ¶ avoided. The first is axiological and consists in believing that a little suppleness is
enough to make things "better."
But microfascisms are what ¶ make fascism so dangerous , and fine segmentations are
as harmful as the ¶ most rigid of segments. The second is psychological, as if the molecular ¶ were in the realm of the imagination and applied
only to the individual and ¶ interindividual. But there is just as much social-Real on one line as on the ¶ other. Third, the two forms are not
simply distinguished by size, as a small ¶ form and a large form; although it is true that the molecular works in detail ¶ and operates in small
groups, this does not mean that it is any less coextensive with the entire social field than molar organization. Finally, the qualitative difference
between the two lines does not preclude their boosting or ¶ cutting into each other; there is always a proportional relation between the ¶ two,
directly or inversely proportional.
Thus we advocate the exploration of the ocean that follows no fixed path, has no goal,
and has no forseeable end. We advocate the zig-zagging exploration of the Earth’s
oceans as nomadic buccaneers and pirates.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under the Jolly Roger, Reflections on Golden Age Piracy” pp. 2426)CEFS
Khazanov concedes, however, that “some scholars have defined nomads as ¶ all those leading a mobile way of life independent of its economic
specificity.”2¶ If we apply this latter definition,
the golden age pirates—a fluctuating community of marauding
bands ranging in number from a few dozen members ¶ to a maximum of about 200 without a secure
home base—would definitely ¶ belong to the wider community of nomads. The clearest expression of
the fact ¶ that the golden age pirates themselves—who “knew themselves to be homeless and cut off
from their countries of origin”3¶ —understood their community to be nomadic was the common
pirate response to enquiries about where ¶ they came from: From the Seas.¶ 4¶ In fact, the early
buccaneers of Hispaniola ¶ already revealed nomadic tendencies. “According to the French missionary ¶ Abbé du Tertre, ‘they were
without any habitation or fixed abode, but rendezvoused where the animals were to be found.’”5¶ How
radically these tendencies expressed themselves during the golden age of piracy is best described ¶ by David Cordingly:¶ Apart from the
obvious desire to avoid North America in winter, and ¶ a sensible use of the trade winds when crossing
the Atlantic, there ¶ was no consistency in the planning and execution of most voyages. ¶ Indeed, there
was very little forward planning by any of the pirate ¶ crews. The democratic nature of the pirate
community meant that a ¶ vote must be taken by the entire crew before the destination of the ¶ next
voyage could be agreed on, and this inevitably led to many decisions being made on the spur of the
moment. A study of the tracks ¶ of the pirate ships shows many zig-zagging all over the place without ¶
apparent reason.6 One aspect of the golden age pirates’ zig-zagging nomadism is the complete ¶ lack
of a productive economy. Pastoralists, for example, develop patterns of ¶ movement that guarantee
grazing opportunities for their herds, while the ¶ pirates’ movements are bound to the availability of
“prey.” In this respect, ¶ the nomadic culture they most closely resemble in terms of economics is ¶
that of hunters and gatherers . Raiding merchant ships—and the occasional ¶ onshore community or
trading post—might be a peculiar way of hunting ¶ and gathering, of course, but a structurally similar
one. Golden age pirates ¶ share with hunters and gatherers a “nomadism required by the foraging ¶ economy.”7¶ The dependency on
prey in the form of European merchant ships reveals ¶ another structural similarity between golden
age pirates and other nomads, ¶ namely their dependency on the outside world. As Khazanov explains: ¶
“Nomads could never exist on their own without the outside world and its ¶ non-nomadic societies, with their different economic systems.
Indeed, a ¶ nomadic society could only function while the outside world not only existed ¶ but also allowed for those reactions from it…which
ensured that the nomads ¶ remained nomads.”8¶ A
historian of the Caribbean realm confirms that this is ¶ true for
the buccaneers as well, who he calls “essentially stateless persons who ¶ lived comfortably by
commerce with the settled communities of European ¶ colonists.”9
Pirates are the nomadic war machine on the ocean that preserves this space as the
space of freedom.
Kuhn 97 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under Death’s Head, Anarchism and Piracy”)CEFS
After the last sections we can say with some confidence that pirate crews were a type of primitive society: no state, no
power, no modern economy. Primitive societies are not backwards or underdeveloped, but are characterized
through a consistently anti statist and anti authoritarian character. Quite apart from any period of
history, they are the societies of “society without the state” (as the title of Pierre Clastres’ brilliant book directly
conveys). We have already seen that statist organization is the only true enemy of the pirate; an enemy
hat is fought with all force and mercilessness. Nowhere else is the thesis of the nomadic machinery of
war, directed against the State by anti-statist societies, as manifest as it is in piracy.¶ Gilles Deleuze and Felix
Guatarri, the first to recognize the nomadic war machine, basically argue as follows: as stateless societies, primitive societies
face permanent threat from State units. The clan is always nomadic in the broadest sense of permanent mobility. Attacks
from without, as well as the molar tendencies that tend to appear from within, subject it constant
danger. Meaning that the nomadic “war machine” acts against the state, including potential states, whose rise needs to be hindered, and to
an even greater extent against existing states, the destruction of which is made into a goal.” The consequence: “ From the State’s
perspective the originality of the warrior, [its] eccentricity necessarily appears to be negative, a
stupidity, deformation, madness, impropriety, usurpation, sin.
Dumezil analyses the three sense of the warrior in
Indo European tradition: [it] is against the King, against the priests, and against the laws issued by the State.Ӧ The
state and its
enemies are at war, unavoidably and in every way. It is thus no cause for wonder when historians
determine that the “golden age” of piracy “thousands and thousands of pirates were waging de facto
war on all the sea routes of the world.” Primitive society could not ever survive if it did not have institutions for dealing with a
state of war. A nomadic war machine is a necessary element of an anti-statist society. “The war machine was a nomadic
invention, for it was the essential element constitutive for smooth space.” Its full force is directed
exclusively against everything rigid, limiting, dividing, ordering, and molar, in short: the State. ¶ Since
this war is waged on all fronts, the highest priority of the nomadic war machine is not war as
slaughter and/or even combat, but the preservation of smooth space as the space of freedom: “just
that is its only and genuinely positive goal.”
“If war necessarily arises from that, then it is because the war machine runs into
states and cities, meaning the forces [of enclosure] arrayed against the positive goal. From that moment the state, the city, and the statist of
city phenomenon become the enemy of the war machine which sets out to destroy them. Here is where the War begins to destroy the forces of
the state, to destroy the statist form.” Nomadic
war machinery functions molecularly, no arrangement, no
uniformity; no command no regulations, no supervision. No rigidity, not of language or of thinking, or
of body or play, or of living and working together. In short: a defense of singularities, events, and
nomadic (as opposed to despotic) unity, without compromises using all available mechanisms. ¶ We
need now only compare this picture of the anti-statist war machine to that we have so far drawn of
the pirates. WE have seen that pirates are aptly described as nomads of the sea; that they are
consistent enemies of the State; that they must attack merchant and war ships because it is a matter
of “You or us! Despotism or freedom!” The entire organization of their common life is oriented to wars preventing power.
They were anti-economists so as to allow no room for class society. If the pirates do not represent a
nomadic war machine, whoever did? Everything fits, for “one might say that every time that someone
defends themselves against the state (by resisting discipline, through revolt, guerrilla war, or
revolution) a war machine is revive; a new nomadic potential arises; and thus the reconstitution of a
smooth space or the life form of the smooth space.”
Melancholy negates the will to act – it makes us tools of the powerful and uses our
fears to exterminate difference. We must focus on the affects of piracy to reject the
salvation morality.
Deleuze and Parnet 87 (Gilles Deleuze, professor of philosophy at the Sorbonne in Paris, France,
Claire Parnet, freelance French Journalist Dialogues II pp.60-62)CEFS
They affect each other in so far as the relationship which constitutes each one forms a degree of power, a capacity to be affected.
Everything is simply an encounter in the- universe, a good or a had encounter. Adam eats the apple, the forbidden fruit. This is a
phenomenon of (he indigestion, intoxication, poisoning type: this rotten apple deconi|M»es Adam's relationship. Adam has a had
Spinoza's question: 'What (an a body do!\ of what affects is it
capable? Affects are becomings: sometimes they weaken us in so far as they diminish our
power to act and decompose our relationships (sadness), sometimes they make us stronger in
so far as they increase our power and make us enter into a more vast or superior individual
(joy). Spinoza never ceases to be amazed by the body. He is not amazed at having a body, but by what the body can do. Bodies
encounter. Whence the force of
arc not defined by their genus or species, by their organs and functions, but by what they can do, by the affects of which they are
capable - in passion as well as in action You have not defined an animal until you have listed its affects. In this sense there is a
A distant successor of
Spinoza would say look at the tick, admire that creature; it is defined by three affects, which
are all it is capable of as a result ol the relationships of which it is composed, nothing but a
tri-pour world! Light affects it and it climbs on to die end of a branch. The smell of a
mammal affect* it and it drops down on toil. The hairs get in its way and it looks for a hairless place in burrow
greater difference between a race horse and a work horse than between a work horse and an ox.
under the skin and drink the warm blood. Wind and deaf, the tick has only three affects in the vast forest, and for the rest of the
time may sleep for years awaiting the encounter What power, nevertheless! finally, one always lies do organ and functions
corresponding to the affects of which you are [? OCR} capable. Let us begin with the simplr animals who only ha\r a few affects,
and who are neither in our world, nor m another, but with an associated world that ihry have learnt how to trim, rut up. sew ^cb
together: the spider and his web. the louse and the scalp, the tick and a small patch of mammal skin: these and not the owl of
Minerva arc the true philosophical brasts.
That which triggers off an affect, that which effectuates a
power to be affected, is called a signal: the web stirs, the scalp creases, a little skin is bared.
Nothing but a few signs like stars in an immense black night. Spider-becoming, flea-been m
mg, tick-becoming, an unknown, resilient, obscure, stubborn life.¶ When Spinoza says ‘The surprising
thing is the body ... we do not yet know what a body is capable of .... he does not want to make the body a
model, and the soul simply dependent on the Body. He has a subtler task. He wants to demolish the pseudo-superiority of the soul
over the body. There is the soul and the body and both express one and the same thing: an attribute of the body is also an expressed
Just as you do not know what a body is capable of, just as there are many
things in the body that you do not know, so there are in the soul many things which go beyond your
consciousness. This is the question: what is a body capable of? what affects are you capable of?
Experiment, but you need a lot of prudence to experiment. We live in a world which is generally
disagreeable, where not only people hut the established powers have a stake in transmitting sad
affects to us. Sadness, sad affects, are all those which reduce our power to act. The established
powers need our sadness to make us slaves. T he tyrant, the priest, the captors of souls need
to persuade us that life is hard and a burden. The powers that be need to repress us no less
than to make us anxious or, as Virilio says , to administer and organize our ultimate little fears . T he long,
universal moan about life: the lack-to-be-which is life ... In vain someone says, ‘Let’s dance ; we are not really
very happy. In vain someone says, What misfortune death is'; for one would need to have
lived to have something to lose. Those who are sick, in soul as in body, will not let go of us,
the vampires, until they have transmitted to us their neurosis and their anxiety, their
beloved castration, the resentment against life, filthy contagion. It is all a matter of blood. It
is not easy to be a free man [person], to flee the plague, organize encounters, increase the
power to act, to be moved by joy, to multiply die affects which express or encompass a
maximum of affirmation. To make the body a power which is not reducible to the organism, to make thought a power
of the soul (for example, speed).
which is not reducible to consciousness. Spinoza's famous first principle (a single substance for all attributes) depends on this
assemblage and not vice versa. There is a Spinoza-assemblage: soul and body, relationships and encounters, power to be affected,
affects which realize this power, sadness and joy which qualify these affects. Here philosophy becomes the art of a functioning, of
an assemblage. Spinoza, the man of encounters and becoming, the philosopher with the tick. Spinoza the imperceptible, always in
the middle, always in flight although he docs not shift much, a flight from the Jewish community, a flight from the Powers, a flight
from the sick and the malignant. He may be ill, he may himself die: he knows that death is neither the goal nor the end, but that, on
What Lawrence says about Whitman's continuous
life is well suited to Spinoza: the Soul and the Body, the soul is neither above nor inside, it
is 'with', it is on the road, exposed to all contacts, encounters, in the company of those who
follow the same way, ‘feel with them, seize the vibration of their soul and their body as they
pass’, the opposite of a morality of salvation, teaching the soul to live its life, not to save it.
the contrary, it is a case of passing his life to someone else.
Top Level
O/V
The nexus question for this debate is who best provides an intellectual model for the
exploration of the Earth’s ocean. We present the pirate as a nomad as a model for
disrupting the striated space that the topic imposes upon the smooth ocean, that’s
Kuhn and D&G. This serves also to disrupt the ordering of the thought process that is
microfascism. The structure of self-transcendent and state-centric debate taught us
that the ocean is something to be divided up, just like every topic lecture by people
like Aaron Hardy tells us about how useless the Abyssal sea is in comparison to the
striated exclusive economic zone. This allows the macropolitical to do violence in the
community through exclusive acts like policy only tournaments and people in the back
of afterlabs deliberately poking holes in critical race theories because they desire their
agency being repressed, that’s Deleuze and Guattari. We reposition our politics of the
ocean with the pirate to focus on a different method of affectionate exploration that
zig-zags across smooth space, withdrawn of melancholy and full of spontaneity so that
the nomadic pirates can disrupt these practices in debate, that’s Kuhn and Deleuze
and Parnet.
Ext. Melancholy
Extend our Deleuze and Parnet evidence. The negative seeks to insert sad affects into
the debate space with their own impacts but the fact of the matter is that just talking
about their impacts only serves to make us sad about them because of the way that
the state and other power structures communicate this way of looking at problems so
that no change actually occurs. Instead of this vampirism we should flee this plague of
misery and use the spontaneous affect of the nomadic pirate to teach our souls to live
instead of saving our souls. This is an a priori question about how we look at provlsms
in this space.
Ext. Microfascism
Just as capitalism striated the smooth ocean the way that this topic has taught us that
the only way to explore the ocean is through striation is part of the way that
institutions like the state and traditional debate order our thought process so that we
think in a certain way so that the only way that we can talk is through line by line, the
only way we can ask questions is through cross-x, and the only way we can advocate
for plans is through a transcendent ideal called government. This internalized
microfascism is just how these systems do violence, through the people because the
people desire repression.
Ext. ROB
Framewerk
Shell (long)
A. Counterinterpretation: We should have a discussion of the topic not a topical
discussion. The resolution cannot be abandoned but should serve as an
invitation to dialogue that can preserve a balance between the “clash of
civilizations” now occurring within debate.
Galloway Asst Prof and Director of Debate @ Samford 2k7
Ryan-former GMU debater; Dinner and Conversation at the Argumentative Table: Reconceptualizing
Debate as an Argumentative Dialogue; CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE; Vol. 28; p. 1-3.
By definition, debate coaches are contentious and the history of modern debate has been marked by
an inter-play of collegiality and competition (Bruschke, 2004, p. 82). However, modern debate has
amped up natural levels of antagonism so that it now exists in a clash between one group that
employs an argumentative style heavily centered on evidence and speed against another that seeks
to criticize the form and style of these debates. Debates between the two factions are frequently
conceived as a clash of civilizations (Solt, 2004, p.44). Rhetoric from both sides often reaches a fever
pitch. Tim O’Donnell of Mary Washington University’s judging philosophy says that, “right
now…there is a war going on…and the very future of policy debate as an educationally and
competitively coherent activity hangs in the balance” (2008). The other side of the coin is equally
forthright. Asha Cerian offered in her judge philosophy “to vote on Ks [kritiks] and alternative forms
of debate. And that’s it” (2007). Similarly, Andy Ellis has posted a series of you-tube videos to edebate calling for a more radical approach. In one video entitled “Unifying the opposition,” Ellis
describes debate as a war and calls for insurgents seeking to overthrow existing debate practices
(Ellis, 2008b). While these views are extreme, long-time observers have noted changes in the tone
and tenor of debate discussions. Jeff Parcher observed that the fragmentation of the 2004 National
Debate Tournament “seemed viscerally different” than previous disputes (2004, p. 89). These
disagreements seem highly personalized and “wrought with frustrations, anxiety, resistance, and
backlash” (Zompetti, 2004, p. 27). One coach noted that the difference between the current era of
factionalization and controversies of the past is that, “no one left counter-warrant debates in tears.”
Much of the controversy involves the resolution itself, and whether teams should have to defend the
resolution, or whether they can mount a broader criticism of the activity (Snider, 2003). Steve
Woods notes that, “Academic debate is now entering a third state, a critical turn in the activity. The
identifying element of this change is that abandonment of the role playing that the construct of fiat
enabled” (Woods, 2003, p. 87). This journal previously (2004) addressed issues regarding the growing
divide in policy debate. However, the role of the debate resolution in the clash of civilizations was
largely ignored. Here, I defend the notion that activist approaches of critical debaters can best
flourish if grounded in topical advocacy defined in terms of the resolution. This approach encourages
the pedagogical benefits of debates about discourse and representations while preserving the
educational advantages of switch-side debate. Debaters’ increased reliance on speech act and
performativity theory in debates generates a need to step back and re-conceptualize the false
dilemma of the “policy only” or “kritik only” perspective. Policy debate’s theoretical foundations
should find root in an overarching theory of debate that incorporates both policy and critical
exchanges. Here, I will seek to conceptualize debate as a dialogue, following the theoretical
foundations of Mikhail Bakhtin (1990) and Star Muir (1993) that connects the benefits of dialogical
modes of argument to competitive debate. Ideally, the resolution should function to negotiate
traditional and activist approaches. Taking the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a
particular set of ideas would preserve the affirmative team’s obligation to uphold the debate
resolution. At the same time, this approach licenses debaters to argue both discursive and
performative advantages. While this view is broader than many policy teams would like, and
certainly more limited than many critical teams would prefer, this approach captures the advantages
of both modes of debate while maintaining the stable axis point of argumentation for a full clash of
ideas around these values. Here, I begin with an introduction to the dialogic model, which I will relate
to the history of switch-side debate and the current controversy. Then, I will defend my conception
of debate as a dialogical exchange. Finally, I will answer potential criticisms to the debate as a
dialogue construct.
Prefer it:
1. Our education is better: first, framework refuses to make specific indicts to the aff,
especially the methodology. Second, they lose education because they don’t bother
learning anything from our aff.
2. Fairness and infinite regression – there are infinite amount of things they could
deem “unacceptable.” Framework is an excuse to skirt arguments that they don’t
want to prep for and gain ballots based solely on manipulating the rules of debate.
This is unfair-- debate is supposed to be a about the content, not about the rules.
3. Our two methods aren’t mutally exclusive. Charlie’s narrative from the top of the
1AC clearly says that sometimes he advocates for USFG action, so at the very least
we’ll win that we only add more forms of education and there’s no educational reason
that we have to advocate for the USFG every round.
4. Our method directly turns their framework. Our Kuhn 97 talks about how as pirates
we operate as the nomadic war maching that exists to combat and defend against the
forces of the state to preserve our autonomy.
5. Overlimiting outweighs their standards – they still get predictable ground –they can
internal link turn striated space, they can say Deleuze bad, they can say pirates bad,
the list goes on.
6. Predictable norms of debate serve to undermine cultural and social education in
return for a “fair contest”. This furthers the striation of the debate space that leads to
endless violence from the macropolitical.
Warner 3 [September 2003, Ede Warner Jr. is a Professor of Communications and debate coach at the
University of Louisiana, "Go Homers, Makeovers or Takeovers? A Privilege Analysis of Debate as a
Gaming Simulation”]
More often than not, talk about privilege in debate is relegated mostly to economic and occasionally
gender- or race-based discussions. Refocused recruiting efforts and accomplishments like Urban
Debate Leagues and Women’s Caucuses at tournaments are addressing more overt concerns in an
effort to create more equal playing fields, yet tremendous inequities remain that require
explanation. Over twenty years of various diversity efforts, especially in CEDA, have failed to
substantially change the racial, gender, social and economic composition of interscholastic policy
debate at its highest levels. The reason is simple: privilege extends much further than just
acknowledging overt and obvious disparities. Privilege creeps into more subtle, covert spaces, like
the essence of why and how people “play the game,” recognizing that the rules and procedures are
created by those carrying that privilege. Snider argues that the greatness of debate as a game is in
his belief that it is short on inflexible rules and long on debatable procedures. However, if procedures
are functionally not debatable and begin to look more like participation requirements than starting
points of discussion, the quality of the game, is “not as successful and well-designed” (Snider, 1987,
p. 123). Privilege envelopes both substantive and stylistic procedures, increasing the likelihood that
supposedly debatable conventions become rigid norms, preventing achievement of a “more
thoughtful” game and creating entrance barriers to successful participation. Here’s how. Snider
(1987) says that evaluation of a “winning” procedural argument occurs through the lenses of
determining which procedures best facilitate achieving the goals of the debate activity. Snider offers
three such goals: 1) education of the participants; 2) discussion of important issues in the resolution;
and 3) creation of a fair contest. He concedes that some may be missing. Of course, interested
participants with lesser privilege might select different goals as more important, such as having a
voice to discuss the topic through the perspective of their social concerns, even if this perspective
doesn’t fit nicely with some of the other goals. More often than not, the creation of a “fair contest”
is given an absolute priority relative to other goals and justifies ignoring attempts to achieve other
game objectives. At least one implicit goal deserves mention: incorporation of the cultural and social
values of the participants. It makes sense that the like-minded values of the largest participating class
will dominant procedural and rule development of a game simulation. Cultural and social values may
appear to have little or no relationship to the first three goals of debate. But in fact, the cultural and
social values will in many ways dictate the meaning of Snider’s goals. What types of education do the
participants’ value? Who decides what the important issues are—the participants? The
communities most directly related to the topic? Do cultural and social values privilege any notions of
“fairness”? Cultural and social background surely impacts each of these areas tremendously. If there
are cultural or social disagreements over what constitutes “education,” what “issues” are important,
or what is “fair,” then privilege plays a much larger role in game development than has been
acknowledged to date.
7. Microfascism Disad: Extend our Deleuze and Guattari evidence. Their attempt to
striate the previously smooth space of this debate round by telling us that we are
restricted from reading types of arguments like the 1AC results in desire desiring its
own repression. It makes us agents of hegemony, which is why this community of so
violent.
8. Melancholy Disad: Extend our Deleuze and Parnet evidence. One of the ways that
microfascism works is that it tells us that we need to be sterile of most affects and
that only way to look at problems is through a sad affect. This affect is transmitted to
us through pessimism and resentment, and it’s the way that their framework has
taught us to advocate.
9. Their representative censorship is wholly intolerant and necessitates globalized
forms of repression. Instead, the way we frame our work through “obscure theories”
are the only practical outlet, it’s a box of tools with which we can question and break
down oppressive structures.
Foucault & Deleuze 72 (Michel, Philosopher at the College de France, Gilles, Philosopher at
Vincennes, “Intellectuals and Power: A conversation between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze”,
March 4, 1972. Posted on libcom.org by Joseph Kay on Sep 6 2006.
https://libcom.org/library/intellectuals-power-a-conversation-between-michel-foucault-and-gillesdeleuze)CEFS
*edited for gendered language*
FOUCAULT: It seems to me that the political involvement of the intellectual was traditionally the product of two different aspects of his activity:
his position as an intellectual in bourgeois society, in the system of capitalist production and within the ideology it produces or imposes (his
exploitation, poverty, rejection, persecution, the accusations of subversive activity, immorality, etc); and his proper discourse to the extent that
it revealed a particular truth, that it disclosed political relationships where they were unsuspected. These two forms of politicisation did not
exclude each other, but, being of a different order, neither did they coincide. Some were classed as "outcasts" and others as "socialists." During
moments of violent reaction on the part of the authorities, these two positions were readily fused: after 1848, after the Commune, after 1940.
The intellectual was rejected and persecuted at the precise moment when the facts became
incontrovertible, when it was forbidden to say that the emperor had no clothes. The intellectual
spoke the truth to those who had yet to see it, in the name of those who were forbidden to speak the
truth: [he/she] was conscience, consciousness, and eloquence. In the most recent upheaval (3) the intellectual
discovered that the masses no longer need him to gain knowledge: they know perfectly well, without illusion; they know far better than he and
they are certainly capable of expressing themselves. But
there exists a system of power which blocks, prohibits, and
invalidates this discourse and this knowledge, a power not only found in the manifest authority of
censorship, but one that profoundly and subtly penetrates an entire societal network. Intellectuals
are themselves agents of this system of power-the idea of their responsibility for "consciousness"
and discourse forms part of the system. The intellectual's role is no longer to place [itself]
"somewhat ahead and to the side" in order to express the stifled truth of the collectivity; rather, it is
to struggle against the forms of power that transform him into its object and instrument in the
sphere of "knowledge," "truth," "consciousness," and "discourse. "(4)¶ In this sense theory does not
express, translate, or serve to apply practice: it is practice . But it is local and regional, as you said, and not totalising.
This is a struggle against power, a struggle aimed at revealing and undermining power where it is
most invisible and insidious. It is not to "awaken consciousness" that we struggle (the masses have been aware for some time that
consciousness is a form of knowledge; and consciousness as the basis of subjectivity is a prerogative of the bourgeoisie), but to sap power, to
take power; it is an activity conducted alongside those who struggle for power, and not their illumination from a safe distance. A "theory " is
the regional system of this struggle.¶ DELEUZE: Precisely.
A theory is exactly like a box of tools . It has nothing to do with the
signifier. It must be useful. It must function. And not for itself. If no one uses it, beginning with the theoretician himself (who then ceases to be
a theoretician), then the theory is worthless or the moment is inappropriate. We don't revise a theory, but construct new ones; we have no
choice but to make others. It is strange that it was Proust, an author thought to be a pure intellectual, who said it so clearly: treat my book as a
pair of glasses directed to the outside; if they don't suit you, find another pair; I leave it to you to find your own instrument, which is necessarily
an investment for combat. A theory does not totalise; it is an instrument for multiplication and it also multiplies itself .
It is in the
nature of power to totalise and it is your position. and one I fully agree with, that theory is by nature
opposed to power . As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a particular point, we realise that it will never possess the slightest practical
importance unless it can erupt in a totally different area. This is why the notion of reform is so stupid and hypocritical.
Either reforms are designed by people who claim to be representative, who make a profession of
speaking for others, and they lead to a division of power, to a distribution of this new power which is
consequently increased by a double repression; or they arise from the complaints and demands of
those concerned. This latter instance is no longer a reform but revolutionary action that questions
(expressing the full force of its partiality) the totality of power and the hierarchy that maintains it. This
is surely evident in prisons: the smallest and most insignificant of the prisoners' demands can puncture Pleven's pseudoreform (5). If the
protests of children were heard in kindergarten, if their questions were attended to, it would be enough to explode the entire educational
system. There
is no denying that our social system is totally without tolerance; this accounts for its
extreme fragility in all its aspects and also its need for a global form of repression. In my opinion, you
were the first-in your books and in the practical sphere-to teach us something absolutely
fundamental: the indignity of speaking for others. Pre ridiculed representation and said it was
finished, but we failed to draw the consequences of this "theoretical" conversion-to appreciate the
theoretical fact that only those directly concerned can speak in a practical way on their own behalf.
Standards
AT Cede the Political
1. The political is already ceded
2. The negative doesn’t access the political either—they are roleplaying fiat, but don’t
actually use the political systems
3. The political in the status quo oppresses us as women, and lots of other people
4. Focusing only on political actions allows us to ignore our own
responsibilities to social movements
Kappeler, 95 (Susanne, professor of humanities and social sciences at Al Akhawayan
University and lecturer at the University of east Anglia, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)
`We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society - which
would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the notion of
`collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and where the conception of universal
responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal.' On the contrary, the object is precisely to analyse the specific and
differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash a war are indeed taken at particular levels of
power by those in a position to make them and to command such collective action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for
their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective `assumption' of responsibility. Yet our habit of focusing
on the stage where the major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight in relation
to our own sphere of competence, our own power and our own responsibility - leading to the
well-known illusion of our apparent `powerlessness’ and its accompanying phenomenon, our so-called
political disillusionment. Single citizens - even more so those of other nations - have come to feel secure in
their obvious non-responsibility for such large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-
Hercegovina or Somalia - since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we are not
responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no
responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgement, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our
own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between
our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own
personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls `organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack
of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually organized separate competences. It also
proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major powermongers: For we
tend to think that we cannot `do' anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation; because we are
not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with
politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of `What would I do if I
were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defence?' Since we seem to
regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political
analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to
peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as `virtually no
possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a
general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like `I want to
stop this war', `I want military intervention', `I want to stop this backlash', or `I want a moral revolution." 'We are this war',
however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our `noncomprehension’: our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring
innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the
advantages these offer. And we `are' the war in our `unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the `fact that you have a
yellow form for refugees and I don't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of
our own and one for the `others'. We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let
we shape `our feelings, our relationships, our values' according to
the structures and the values of war and violence.
them grow inside us, that is, in the way
Decision-Making Skills
1. We access good decision making for social movements outside of this round—this
should be flowed as offense for the aff
2. Specifically, a) we change the decision of the ballot by challenging the tranditional
debate structures and b) we critique that knowledge production that excludes people
from debate and academia.
3. Pirate democracy is the only example that shatters the repressive myth of the social
contract and accesses real decision-making.
Leeson 9 (Peter T. Leeson Duncan Black Professor of Economics and Law at George Mason University
and North American Editor of Public Choice, “The Calculus of Piratical Consent: The Myth of the Myth of
Social Contract” Public Choice Vol. 139, No.3/4 (Jun.2009) pp. 445-47 JSTOR)CEFS
This paper argues that the myth of social contract is a myth. Early 18th-century pirate societies founded
government through written, unanimous social contracts, such as the one re-counted above, which
they created in a state of nature expressly for the purpose of establish-ing political authority. Pirates'
social contracts created a system of constitutional democracy based on the same decision-making
calculus and with the same effects that James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock's (1962) contractarian
theory of government describes in The Calculus of Consent . Pirates' constitutional democracy is the
"holy grail" of social contract theory. It demonstrates that the contractarian basis of constitutional
democracy is more than a mere analytic device or hypothetical explanation of how such a
government could emerge. At least in the case of some pirates, Buchanan and Tullock's social
contract theory describes how constitutional democracy actually did emerge .3 In fact, as I discuss below, in one
very important sense, pirates' social contracts were "more genuine" that those forged in Buchanan and
Tullock's theoretical world. As noted above, a true social contract must be consented to unanimously
by the individuals it gov-erns.
AT Ground
1. You can critique our methodology, it’s not our problem if after an eight minute
speech, you have nothing to disagree with.
2. Along with our method, our impacts and our framing of the political are also neg
ground
3. Education outweighs, it’s the reason why we’re paying cash money to go to debate
camp. If we don’t learn from debate, there’s no reason for us to be here.
AT Limits
1. Limits are destructive, especially in the framework of expression. Our arguments
are based on our social location in debate and the world. By putting “limits” on our
social locations, you effectively remove us from the debate.
2. Innovation is a prerequisite to change – limits on a topic restrict the ability to create
new solutions and theories
Bleiker, professor of International Relations, and Leet, Senior Research Officer with
the Brisbane Institute 6 (Roland, and Martin, “From the Sublime to the Subliminal: Fear, Awe and
Wonder in International Politics” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 34(3), pg. 733)
A subliminal orientation is attentive to what is bubbling along under the surface. It is mindful of how
conscious attempts to understand conceal more than they reveal, and purposeful efforts of progressive
change may engender more violence than they erase. For these reasons, Connolly emphasises that
‘ethical artistry’ has an element of naïveté and innocence. One is not quite sure what one is doing. Such
naïveté need not lead us back to the idealism of the romantic period. ‘One should not be naïve about
naïveté’, Simon Critchley would say.¶ 56¶ Rather, the challenge of change is an experiment. It is not
locked up in a predetermined conception of where one is going. It involves tentatively exploring the
limits of one’s being in the world, to see if different interpretations are possible, how those
interpretations might impact upon the affects below the level of conscious thought, and vice versa. This
approach entails drawing upon multiple levels of thinking and being, searching for changes in
sensibilities that could give more weight to minor feelings or to arguments that were previously
ignored.¶ 57 Wonder needs to be at the heart of such experiments, in contrast to the resentment of an
intellect angry with its own limitations. The ingredient of wonder is necessary to disrupt and suspend
the normal pressures of returning to conscious habit and control. This exploration beyond the
conscious implies the need for an ethos of theorising and acting that is quite different from the mode
directed towards the cognitive justification of ideas and concepts. Stephen White talks about ‘circuits of
reflection, affect and argumentation ’ .¶ 58¶ Ideas and principles provide an orientation to practice, the
implications of that practice feed back into our affective outlook, and processes of argumentation
introduce other ideas and affects. The shift, here, is from the ‘vertical’ search for foundations in
‘skyhooks’ above or ‘foundations’ below, to a ‘horizontal’ movement into the unknown.
3. Limits not key – if we prove impacts and solvency for our aff, that proves that our
advocacy is important, and outweighs the impact to limits.
4. Education is more important, it’s why we are here at debate camp and here as
debaters.
AT Predictability
1. Lack of predictability is inevitable- you’re trying to destroy our agency but
predictability is key to competitive debate
2. They use this as a weapon against new arguments- running this against k affs
destroys the creativity in this round and it justifies always debating the same topicsimagine hearing that damned planes aff again
3. Predictable debate is boring debate, we make it more interesting from round to
round, which means you are learning more, and it better for competitive debate
4. This is a camp round. We disclosed. We’re the antilab, you should have been
expecting this
AT Roleplaying Good / State Good
1. We access all of their portable skills, just because we’re not roleplaying doesn’t
mean we’re not debating.
2. We can roleplay, but we know that what we say when we are roleplaying won’t
happen after we walk out of the round—with our advocacy and using our social
location, we can use what we say in round outside in the rest of our lives
3. State focused debates preclude discussions of individual action – kills effectiveness
and agency and justifies violence
Bleiker, professor of International Relations, 2k (Roland, “Popular Dissent, Human Agency and
Global Politics” pg. 8, Cambridge University Press)
To expand the scope of international theory and to bring transversal struggles into focus is not to declare the state obsolete. States remain
central actors in international politics and they have to be recognised and theorised as such. In fact, my analysis will examine various ways in
which states and the boundaries between them have mediated the formation, functioning and impact of dissent. However, my reading of
There are compelling reasons for such a
strategy, and they go beyond a mere recognition that a state-centric approach to international theory
engenders a form of representation that privileges the authority of the state and thus precludes an
adequate understanding of the radical transformations that are currently unfolding in global life.
dissent and agency makes the state neither its main focus nor its starting point.
Michael Shapiro is among an increasing number of theorists who convincingly portray the state not only as an institution, but also, and
primarily, as a set of 'stories' - of which the state-centric approach to international theory is a perfect example.
It is part of a
legitimisation process that highlights, promotes and naturalises certain political practices and the territorial context within which they
take place. Taken together, these stories provide the state with a sense of identity, coherence and unity. They create boundaries between an
state-stories also exclude, for they seek 'to
repress or delegitimise other stories and the practices of identity and space they reflect.` And it is
these processes of exclusion that impose a certain political order and provide the state with a
legitimate rationale for violent encounters."
inside and an outside, between a people and its others. Shapiro stresses that such
AT Switch-Side Debate
1. The negative doesn’t switch sides. They don’t read our arguments. They probably
don’t even read switch side bad.
2. Switch-side style destroys debate- without conviction behind statements the
purpose for this quest for truth becomes meaningless. The pathos in this round comes
from narratives in the form of aff
Greene and Hicks 5- (Ronald Walter and Darrin, Insert Quals. “Lost convictions”. Cultural Studies.
Volume 19, Issue 1. InformaWorld.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a738568563&fulltext=713240928)
While the opposition to debating both sides probably reaches back to the challenges against the ancient practice of dissoi logoi, we want to
turn our attention to the unique cultural history of debate during the Cold War. In the midst of Joseph McCarthy’s impending censure by the US
Senate, the US Military Academy, the US Naval Academy and, subsequently, all of the teacher colleges in the state of Nebraska refused to
affirm the resolution �/ ‘Resolved: The United States should diplomatically recognize the People’s Republic of China’. Yet, switch-side debating
remained the national standard, and, by the fall of 1955, the military academies and the teacher colleges of Nebraska were debating in favour
of the next resolution. Richard Murphy (1957), however, was not content to let the controversy pass without comment. Murphy launched a
series of criticisms that would sustain the debate about debate for the next ten years. Murphy held that debating
both sides of the
question was unethical because it divorced conviction from advocacy and that it was a dangerous
practice because it threatened the integrity of public debate by divorcing it from a genuine search for
truth. ¶ Murphy’s case against the ethics of debating both sides rested on what he thought to be a simple and irrefutable rhetorical principle:
A public utterance is a public commitment. In Murphy’s opinion, debate was best imagined as a species of
public speaking akin to public advocacy on the affairs of the day. If debate is a form of public speaking, Murphy reasoned,
and a public utterance entails a public commitment, then speakers have an ethical obligation to study the question,
discuss it with others until they know their position, take a stand and then �/ and only then �/ engage
in public advocacy in favour of their viewpoint. Murphy had no doubt that intercollegiate debate was a form of public
advocacy and was, hence, rhetorical, although this point would be severely attacked by proponents of switch-side debating. Modern debating,
Murphy claimed, ‘is geared to the public platform and to rhetorical, rather than dialectical principles’ (p. 7). Intercollegiate debate was
rhetorical, not dialectical, because its propositions were specific and timely rather than speculative and universal. Debaters evidenced their
claims by appeals to authority and opinion rather than formal logic, and debaters appealed to an audience, even if that audience was a single
person sitting in the back of a room at a relatively isolated debate tournament. As such, debate as a species of public argument should be held
We would surely hold in contempt any public actor who spoke with equal force,
and without genuine conviction, for both sides of a public policy question. Why, asked Murphy, would
we exempt students from the same ethical obligation?
to the ethics of the platform.
3. No impact- the potential for all of debate can’t be ruined by just this individual
round- at worst, this argument is not a reason to vote neg
AT Topical Version of the Aff
1. We aren’t going to support the government holding power over us in order to break
free from the government.
2. The most important part of our advocacy is in how it relates to us, our social
location, and how we view debate and the world. Our advocacy doesn’t function in
isolation, it needs to be personal.
Case
Pirates
Escape Colonial Society
Buccaneer piracy served as resistance to and escaped from the confines of society and
resisted Spanish colonialism.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under the Jolly Roger, Reflections on Golden Age Piracy” pp. 1113)CEFS
c. 1600–1635: Dutch privateers cause enormous damage to Spanish commerce in the Caribbean and weaken the Spanish hold over the
area to a degree ¶ that allows the establishment of non-Spanish settlements which, in the words ¶ of one historian, “developed out of the
piracy of the preceding century.”4¶ The ¶ Dutch privateers also make it possible for Dutch traders to take control of ¶ Caribbean commerce for
decades.5¶ During
the same period, men who have been described as “a remarkable ¶ blend of human
flotsam”6¶ as well as “a motley crowd”7¶ begin to form a “male, ¶ maritime and migrant culture”8¶ in
the western parts of Hispaniola (modernday Haiti), leading a “half-savage, independent mode of
life,”9¶ sustained by ¶ hunting wild boars and cattle. The animals are remnants of Spanish settlements
evacuated by the Spanish authorities in 1603 after its inhabitants had ¶ been suspected of trading with
rival European nations.10 This marks the ¶ beginning of the buccaneers, “these strange people,”11 “a
ruffiantly, dare-devil ¶ lot, who feared neither God, man, nor death,”12 “tough frontiersmen living ¶
beyond the law,”13 “outlaw hunters”14 “scarcely less wild than the animals they ¶ hunted,”15 “men
who could never live in the bosom of ordered society, men ¶ who lived for the moment, swaggerers,
lovers of glory, men sometimes cruel, ¶ often generous, but cowards, never.”16¶ The buccaneers are named
after a meat-smoking device apparently called ¶ buccan in the language of the indigenous Caribs. Some conservative historians have drawn a
rather dramatic picture of the buccaneers’ existence:¶ They were savages in dress and habits. No
amount of bathing could ¶
eradicate the stink of guts and grease that clung to them. Their rough ¶ homespun garments were stiff
with the blood of slaughtered animals. ¶ They made their round brimless hats, boots, and belts of untanned ¶ hides, and
smeared their faces with tallow to repel insects. On the ¶ coast they lived in shacks covered with palm leaves and slept in sleeping bags next to
smoking fires to ward off mosquitoes.17 This has led certain authors to the pointed conclusion that “life among the ¶ ‘Brethren of the Coast’
cannot have been pleasant for anyone with a sensitive nose.”18 Others, however, have conceded that “for
many it was a good ¶
life, impossible to duplicate in Europe: enough to eat, independence, freedom ¶ from masters.”19¶ “The
origins of these men we do not know,” writes C.H. Haring,20 but it ¶ has to be assumed that they constituted a blend of
“stragglers from all three ¶ nations”—meaning France, England, and the Netherlands—“stranded, ¶ marooned, or
shipwrecked crewmen; deserters; runaway bond servants and ¶ slaves; adventurers of all sorts.”21
Maybe they indeed included “all such as disliked organised society.”22 “All, whatever they were
originally, seem to have ¶ been hearty, care-free men who preferred a life of semi-savagery to the
tiresome laws and orders of the civilised world.”23 ¶ 1620–1640: Despite fierce Spanish resistance, the English, French,
and ¶ Dutch all establish holds in the Caribbean, particularly on the islands of the ¶ Lesser Antilles. The colonial tables in the Caribbean are
about to turn. As one ¶ historian has noted, “living cheek by jowl with their enemies, they brought ¶ the Spanish crown a century of unrelieved
woe.”24¶ c.
1630–1650: The number of buccaneers on Hispaniola steadily increases ¶ due to displaced
settlers, runaway slaves, and fugitive or dismissed indentured laborers. According to Stephen
Snelders, “the Brethren of the Coast ¶ functioned as a kind of chaotic attractor, serving as a focus for
adventurous, ¶ rebellious, and outlaw elements,”25 while Carl and Roberta Bridenbaugh suggest that
“buccaneering syphoned off the most adventurous, pugnacious, and ¶ greedy of the landless males of
the crowded English islands.”26¶ Worried about the expansion of the multinational buccaneering community in the heart of their
empire , the Spanish conduct ill-conceived attempts ¶ at chasing the buccaneers from the island in the
1630s by killing off the herds ¶ of boars and cattle . The attempt backfires. The buccaneers stay, but
have to ¶ turn to new means of livelihood. One is sea robbery. By the 1630s, buccaneer ¶ gangs in
dugout canoes or flyboats embark on nightly attacks against Spanish ¶ galleons. By the 1650s, the
term buccaneer “was exclusively used to refer to ¶ maritime raiders.” ¶ During the same time, the
island of Tortuga (across a small strait off ¶ Hispaniola’s northwestern tip) turns into a buccaneer
center and remains ¶ highly contested for decades. With the well-protected island as a safe haven, the
buccaneers slowly develop into a community that will have “a tremendous impact on the life of the
West Indies”28 and prove much more disastrous ¶ to the Spanish than the presence of some “savage
hunters” in the remote areas ¶ of Hispaniola could have ever been
Egalitarian Nomadism
Pirates were also as egalitarian as nomads and had similar quality of life.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under the Jolly Roger, Reflections on Golden Age Piracy” pp. 2627)CEFS
¶ The structural similarities between golden age pirates and other nomadic ¶ societies are not only restricted
to economic matters, however. They are also ¶ reflected in the socio-political realm. As Marcus Rediker points
out, “egalitarian forms of social organization and social relations have been commonplace among
history’s nomadic peoples.”10¶ Particularly interesting parallels can be drawn to nomads who inhabit
the ¶ same natural environment as the golden age pirates, namely the sea, or, more ¶ specifically, “an
extensive and diversified world of islands.”11 The so-called sea ¶ nomads of Southeast Asia are even
known to occasionally employ sea robbery as a means of income. As David E. Sopher explains in his study The Sea ¶
Nomads:¶ Three conditions appear to govern the incidence of piracy: first, the ¶ existence of productive,
but defenceless coast communities or the ¶ existence of regular sea trade along regular routes; second,
a fluid, if ¶ not quite nomadic, way of life, in which tribal warfare, feuds and raiding are accepted
institutions—a way of life which would foster piracy; ¶ third, superior striking power and speed on the
part of the piratical “Enemy of His Own Civilization” 27¶ force together with a degree of invulnerability
and immunity in its ¶ own home.12¶ If by “in its own home” we understand retreats like Hispaniola or
Tortuga, ¶ or temporary shelters and safe havens, this description applies practically ¶ word for word to
the Caribbean buccaneers and pirates.¶ It is not surprising that the myth of the nomad (a myth that “may be even ¶ older than
the myth of the ‘noble savage’”13) echoes the myth of the pirate in a ¶ striking fashion. As A.M. Khazanov writes:¶ A stereotyped view
of nomads has arisen in which their real or ¶ imaginary freedom and political independence almost
occupy pride ¶ of place. Moreover, despite its poverty and other drawbacks, nomadic ¶ life is thought by nomads
themselves and by many onlookers to have ¶ one important advantage, which was defined by A.C. Pigou at the ¶
beginning of the century as ‘quality of life.’14
Pirate Identity
Pirates functioned as a transnational movement resisting the power of the state,
embracing death and chaos in their unique identity, even raiding slaving ports.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under the Jolly Roger, Reflections on Golden Age Piracy” pp. 1316)CEFS
c. 1690–1700: As the buccaneers disappear, the “pirates proper” arise. ¶ Many former buccaneers have
little interest in a settled existence and intend ¶ to further secure their economic survival by raiding.
Since official licenses are ¶ increasingly harder to come by, they turn to illegal raids—often on all ships, ¶ regardless
which flags they fly. Stephen Snelders describes the transition thus: ¶ “In the struggle for dominance in the seventeenth century, the
Brotherhood ¶ had played its role in the grey border zone between sanctioned privateering ¶ and
outright piracy. In the golden age its successors were relegated to a black ¶ zone, outlawed by all
nations.”36¶ In the mid-1690s, the successful pirate voyages into the Indian Ocean by ¶ Henry Every and Thomas Tew, both of whom get
away rich and unharmed ¶ (at least initially—Tew dies during his second voyage), help provide “a new ¶ role-model for the whole fraternity of
seagoing mercenaries”37 and incite a ¶ pirate boom in those longitudes that also prompts the famed pirate settlements in Madagascar. They
also give birth to a distinct, “transnational,” ¶ pirate culture. As a result, “soon after the return of
peace in 1697, there was¶ an explosion of piracy on a scale never seen before.”38¶ In 1700, after an
English navy vessel gives chase to a ship under the command of Captain Emanuel Wynn, there are first
reports of pirates flying the ¶ Jolly Roger—the infamous black flag adorned by allegories of death (skull ¶
and crossbones, hour glasses, bleeding hearts, etc .). It soon comes to signify ¶ an affirmative pirate identity,
indicating that “unlike the generations of pirates ¶ before them, who called themselves privateers—in
truth, anything but pirate ¶ for fear of the death penalty that soon came with the name—the
freebooters ¶ of the early eighteenth century said yes, we are criminals, we are pirates, we ¶ are that
name.”39¶ Accordingly, a war against the pirates is waged by the authorities: “The ¶ problem was tackled in a number of
ways: by the introduction of legislation; ¶ by issuing pardons to pirates in the hope that they would
abandon their lives ¶ of crime; by stepping up naval patrols in the worst affected areas; by promising
rewards for the capture of pirates; and by the trial and execution of captured pirates.”40 The most significant
legal innovation is the 1700 Act for the ¶ More Effectual Suppression of Piracy, making it possible for a seven-person ¶ court of officials or naval
officers to try pirates wherever such a court is able to ¶ assemble, thus making transfers back to England unnecessary. ¶ 1701–1713: The War of
the Spanish Succession brings a relief from unlicensed piracy as it produces a new need for privateers. With the big buccaneer ¶ communities
dissolved, many pirates return to raiding under national flags. ¶ As Peter Earle puts it: “The pirates became patriots again.”41¶ 1713–1722:
With the end of the war [of Spanish Succession], piracy reemerges. Hundreds of demobilized soldiers fill the
pirates’ ranks. While the navy enlisted more than ¶ 53,000 men in 1703, the number dwindles to 13,430 in 1715.¶ 42 A year later, ¶
Caribbean piracy reaches previously unknown heights with New Providence, ¶ Bahamas, as its headquarters. The island loses its prominent role
in 1718, ¶ however, with the arrival of British governor Woodes Rogers. The arrival of ¶ Rogers—himself a former privateer—is part of a British
government design ¶ to curb piracy. The plan also includes the offer of a pardon and the dispatching of three warships—something to
“demonstrate to a wise pirate that the ¶ days of their ‘very pleasant’ way of life were numbered.”43¶ While some
of the New
Providence pirates accept the pardon and help ¶ Rogers turn New Providence into a stable, “lawful” colony, others debark, ¶
vowing not to bow to any government authority and wagingwar on the whole¶ world instead. ¶
“ From
this point onwards the only pirates were those who ¶ explicitly rejected the state and its laws
and declared themselves in open war ¶ against it ,”44 as the anonymous authors of “Pirate Utopias,” an article in the ¶
British anarchist journal Do or Die put it. Paul Galvin describes the situation ¶ with the following words:¶ True outlaws working the
fringe of a closing maritime frontier, these ¶ pirates owed allegiance to none but themselves and
preyed upon the ¶ shipping of any nation, whether Spanish, English, French or Dutch. ¶ Consequently,
unlike their buccaneer forebears, they enjoyed no ¶ cloak of legitimacy from any government (though
many a colonial ¶ governor colluded in trafficking their spoils) and were therefore ¶ doomed to swift
eradication.45¶ Once more, the pirates venture into the Indian Ocean, now also raiding along the
west coast of Africa, where many new slaving posts have been ¶ established. The route between the
Caribbean and the Indian Ocean via ¶ West Africa and Madagascar soon becomes known as the Pirate
Round. This ¶ marks the strongest period of golden age piracy, “a decade or so of maritime ¶
hoodlumism set loose under the japing countenance of the Jolly Roger.”46 It ¶ is the time of the best
known pirate captains, Blackbeard, John “Calico Jack” ¶ Rackam, and Bartholomew Roberts, and of
popular figures like Anne Bonny ¶ and Mary Read.
AT Pirates Meaningless
Kuhn attempts with his book to make theory meaningful to disrupt meaningless
academic dialogue
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck “Interview with Gabriel Kuhn”, conducted by David of the zine “No
Quarter” http://anarchistpirates.blogspot.com/2010/03/interview-with-gabriel-kuhn.html)CEFS
The answer is pretty simple, I think: I did a philosophy Ph.D. and I have always enjoyed reading theory.
At the same time, I've always wanted to tie theory to issues that seemed relevant politically, instead
of ending up in very isolated academic dialogue. My relationship with academia has never been easy,
and I have had very little to do with it since finishing my university studies almost fifteen years ago. If
you will, this book is an example of trying to make theory meaningful not only to academics but also
to people who share common interests – in this case, an interest in pirates and/or radical politics –
but never had the time or motivation to read up on this stuff . Among the nicest compliments I can get
is someone telling me, "This is the first time Foucault (or whoever) really grabbed my attention."
Pirates are good radicals.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck “Interview with Gabriel Kuhn”, conducted by David of the zine “No
Quarter” http://anarchistpirates.blogspot.com/2010/03/interview-with-gabriel-kuhn.html)CEFS
[David]: Ultimately what lessons do you think radicals can draw from the golden age of piracy? [Kuhn]: I
lay this out in more detail in the last chapter of the book, but the core aspects are: 1. The rejection of
authority and of dominant social norms. This seems an essential aspect of any radical engagement. 2.
The golden age pirates' internal social structure that stands as an extraordinary experiment in
egalitarianism and direct democracy. It's not to be idealized as it was exclusive, i.e. the guiding
principles were only shared among crew members and did not extend to others, but it is nonetheless a
shining and inspiring example of radical self-determination. 3. The "libidinal" dimension of golden age
pirate life which I consider indispensable for making radical politics attractive. You gotta have fun
being a radical. A boring society is hardly worth fighting for, and it will not endure either. It's like that
famous Emma Goldman quote, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." I think the
golden age pirates were always up for a good dance. Besides these central points, there are a few other
aspects: For example, the "Temporary Autonomous Zones" that the pirates created in the sense of
Hakim Bey. Then their challenge to the control of space which renders terms like "pirate radio" very
apt. And a number of important economic aspects, like the rejection of both the wage labor system
and capitalist production (which allows to draw interesting parallels to modern-day dumpster divers,
freegans, etc.), or the undermining of ownership rights (which today continues in the form of piracy as
"copyright violation"). There are a lot of lessons to draw from golden age pirates for contemporary
radicals, no doubt. As I argue in the book, though, the decisive question is how we can turn these
lessons into effective politics today. The golden age pirates are no model for a free and just society for
all, due to ever changing historical circumstances, their own contradictions, and also their special
relationship to the sea. They carry the said revolutionary "momentum," but today this has to be
brought to life by those who want to defend this legacy. In this context, crucial is not whether the
golden age pirates were revolutionary, but how we and future generations can keep their legacy a
revolutionary one. This has no longer to do with projection – it is a matter of adaptation.
Diversion from Euro Culture.
Pirate culture was a complete diversion from European culture.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under the Jolly Roger, Reflections on Golden Age Piracy” pp. 2324)CEFS
There seems to be wide agreement among scholars that the golden age ¶ pirate community constituted a special—and
possibly unique—cultural ¶ phenomenon. Stephen Snelders speaks of “pirate customs,”1¶ “a shared pirate ¶
culture,”2¶ “an alternative society with alternative rules,”3¶ and even of “an ¶ unbroken social tradition
of piracy with clear forms of organization, a repertoire of behavior, and a developed code of ethics.”4¶
He concludes that “the ¶ pirates were clearly very conscious of their traditions, as is shown by their ¶ adaptation of common symbolic forms
and their regard for elder representatives of their kind.”5¶ The
authors of “Pirate Utopias” identify “a specifically ¶
‘pirate consciousness,’” a “‘pirate ideology,’” “a world of their own making,” and “one community,
with a common set of customs shared across the ¶ various ships.”6¶ German scholar Heiner Treinen speaks of the
pirates’ “own ¶ world,”7¶ his compatriot Rüdiger Haude of a “common pirate culture,”8¶ and ¶ Frank Sherry of an “original and lurid style of
life”9¶ as well as a “separate community in the world.”10¶ Some
observers stress the distance that the golden age
pirates put between ¶ themselves and their cultures of origin. Peter Lamborn Wilson even calls ¶ “the
pirate…first and foremost the enemy of his own civilization.”11 For ¶ Marcus Rediker, too, “everything pirates
did reflected their deep alienation from most aspects of European society.”12 As a consequence,
“pirates ¶ constructed their own social order in defiant contradistinction to the ways ¶ of the world
they had left behind,”13 and created—borrowing the title of ¶ a Christopher Hill book—a “world
turned upside down”14 with “common symbols and standards of conduct,”15 set “apart from the
dictates of 24 Life Under the Jolly Roger¶ mercantile and imperial authority.”16 The fact that
buccaneers allegedly shed ¶ their Christian names by joining the buccaneer communities would only ¶
confirm this.
Dionysian Frame
We solve for the Dionysian frame without Nietzsche’s elitism
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under the Jolly Roger, Reflections on Golden Age Piracy”)CEFS
Dionysus in the West Indies: A Nietzschean Look at Golden Age Piracy While it is difficult to define golden age piracy politically, the possibilities
for radical adaptations remain wide open, since at
the core of golden age pirate life lies an unrestrained existential
vitality, or, in Nietzsche’s terms, a Dionysian philosophy—an incredibly strong and powerful antiauthoritarian and liberatory force that knows no restriction by social considerations, ethical
principles, or political ideals. It is a force that can therefore turn into any- thing: an ally in the fight for freedom or justice, or a
dreadful fascist enemy. Dionysus, the Greek god of wine, ecstasy, festivity, and, according to some, “inspired madness,” plays a principal role in
Nietzsche’s philosophy since his first published work, The Birth of Tragedy (1872). In this essay, Nietzsche analyzes Greek tragedy as an art that
blends both “Apollonian” and “Dionysian” elements—the latter often being neglected in our lives and finally totally abandoned by the
“Socratian tendency.”1 Nietzsche,
however, urges us to “believe in the Dionysian life”2 and, to his last texts, declares
himself the defender of the “Dionysian spell.”3 In one of his best known works, Beyond Good and Evil (1886), he calls himself “the last disciple
and initiate of the god Dionysus.”4 So
what does the Dionysian moment stand for? It is, according to Nietzsche,
“a fundamental counter-doctrine and counter evaluation of life, purely artistic, purely anti-Christian.”5
Its desires are characterized by “initiative, audacity, revenge, cleverness, rapacity, lust for power,”6 its values
by “a vigorous physicality, a blooming, rich, abundant health, and by everything this depends on: war,
adventure, hunting, dance, fighting, and everything that implies strong, free, joyful activity.” 7 In the
words of Gilles Deleuze, arguably the most sophisticated representative of what has been dubbed a left Nietzscheanism, “it is Dionysus’
task to make us graceful, to teach us to dance, to give us the instinct of play.”8 It would be wrong to suggest that golden age
pirates represented a Dionysian community in Nietzsche’s eyes. Given his cultural elitism, Nietzsche
would have probably seen the festive excesses of pirate crews as the expression of a “grotesque and
vulgar” Dionysianism which he criticizes in the Birth of Tragedy.9 Nonetheless, disregarding
Nietzsche’s own possible objections, it is certainly revealing to analyze the golden age pirates’ social
experiment from a Dionysian perspective
AT Earle
La Buse is hugely popular today, and piracy is more complex than Earle realizes.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under the Jolly Roger, Reflections on Golden Age Piracy” pp.
17)CEFS
La Buse might have been hanged before a cheering crowd, yet his tombstone receives nightly
offerings from secret admirers to this day. While Peter ¶ Earle might see this as hopeless romanticism,
the practice proves the political ¶ complexity of the pirate legacy, a legacy this book attempts to
investigate
Deleuze
AT Elitism
1) Not specific to pirates.
2) Our Kuhn evidence makes it pretty clear that pirates were anti-authoritarian
and anti-societal in pretty much every way. People became pirates to ESCAPE
elitism.
Social Systems Turn
1) Their evidence talks about how we don’t have a blueprint or what a social
society would look like, doesn’t apply to the aff, we just have to win that Pirate
Utopias were good and that our way of looking at space is good.
2) Their Zizek evidence assumes some sort of sinister master that tells us how to
think, not true in the case of pirates who had no external leadership structure
and captain’s positions were in consant flux.
Social Fragementation
1) Their zizek evidence literally says nothing. Cross apply our Foucault and
Deleuze evidence, their idea of external social movements is outdated and
flawed, when in reality theory is practice.
2) Kuhn attempts with his book to make theory meaningful to disrupt meaningless
academic dialogue
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck “Interview with Gabriel Kuhn”, conducted by David of the zine “No
Quarter” http://anarchistpirates.blogspot.com/2010/03/interview-with-gabriel-kuhn.html)CEFS
The answer is pretty simple, I think: I did a philosophy Ph.D. and I have always enjoyed reading theory.
At the same time, I've always wanted to tie theory to issues that seemed relevant politically, instead
of ending up in very isolated academic dialogue. My relationship with academia has never been easy,
and I have had very little to do with it since finishing my university studies almost fifteen years ago. If
you will, this book is an example of trying to make theory meaningful not only to academics but also
to people who share common interests – in this case, an interest in pirates and/or radical politics –
but never had the time or motivation to read up on this stuff . Among the nicest compliments I can get
is someone telling me, "This is the first time Foucault (or whoever) really grabbed my attention."
Authoritarianism
Barbrook is talking about direct democracy in the early Bolshevik movement, not
pirates. The constant flux of pirate leadership because of mutiny made hierarchy
impossible
K
Perms
Zheng Shi
Perm: The neg should become pirates. We specifically present the narrative of Zheng
Shi, the Chinese female pirate who is arguably the coolest and influential pirate of all
time.
Szczepanski No Date (Kallie Szczepanski, Historian, “Zheng Shi, Pirate Lady of China”
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/modernchina/p/Zheng-Shi-Pirate-China.htm)CEFS
The most successful pirate in history was not Blackbeard (Edward Teach) or Barbarossa, but Zheng
Shi or Ching Shih of China . She acquired great wealth, ruled the South China Seas, and best of all,
survived to enjoy the spoils.¶ We know next to nothing about Zheng Shi's early life. In fact, "Zheng Shi" means
simply "widow Zheng" - we don't even know her birth name. She was likely born in 1775, but the other details of
She first enters the historical record in 1801. The
beautiful young woman was working as a prostitute in a Canton brothel when she was captured by
pirates. Zheng Yi, a famous pirate fleet admiral, claimed the captive to be his wife. She pluckily agreed
to marry the pirate leader only if certain conditions were met. She would be an equal partner in
leadership of the pirate fleet, and half the admiral's share of the plunder would be hers. Zheng Shi
must have been extremely beautiful and persuasive, because Zheng Yi agreed to these terms.¶ Over
the next six years, the Zhengs built a powerful coalition of Cantonese pirate fleets. Their combined force
her childhood are lost to history.¶ Zheng Shi's Marriage:¶
consisted of six color-coded fleets, with their own "Red Flag Fleet" in the lead. Subsidiary fleets included the Black, White, Blue, Yellow, and
Green.¶ In
April of 1804, the Zhengs instituted a blockade of the Portuguese trading port at Macau.
Portugal sent a battle squadron against the pirate armada, but the Zhengs promptly defeated the
Portuguese. Britain intervened, but did not dare take on the full might of the pirates - the British
Royal Navy simply began providing naval escorts for British and allied shipping in the area. ¶ On
November 16, 1807, Zheng Yi died in Vietnam, which was in the throes of the Tay Son Rebellion. At the time
of his death, his fleet is estimated to have included 400 to 1200 ships, depending upon the source, and 50,000 to
As soon as her husband died, Zheng Shi began calling in favors and consolidating her
position as the head of the pirate coalition. She was able, through political acumen and willpower, to
70,000 pirates.¶
bring all of her husband's pirate fleets to heel. Together they controlled the trade routes and fishing
rights all along the coasts of Guangdong, China and Vietnam.¶ Zheng Shi, Pirate Lord:¶ Zheng Shi was
as ruthless with her own men as she was with captives. She instituted a strict code of conduct, and
enforced it strictly. All goods and money seized as booty was presented to the fleet and registered
before being redistributed. The capturing ship received 20% of the loot, and the rest went into a
collective fund for the entire fleet. Anyone who withheld plunder faced whipping; repeat offenders or
those who concealed large amounts would be beheaded.¶ A former captive herself, Zheng Shi also had
very strict rules about treatment of female prisoners. Pirates could take beautiful captives as their
wives or concubines, but they had to remain faithful to them and take care of them - unfaithful
husbands would be beheaded. Likewise, any pirate who raped a captive was executed. Ugly women
were to be released unharmed and free of charge on shore.¶ Pirates who deserted their ship would be pursued, and
if found, had their ears cut off. The same fate awaited any who went absent without leave, and the earless culprits
would then be paraded in front of the entire squadron. Using this code of conduct, Zheng Shi built a pirate
empire in the South China Sea that is unrivaled in history for its reach, fearsomeness, communal spirit,
and wealth.¶ In 1806, the Qing dynasty decided to do something about Zheng Shi and her pirate
empire. They sent an armada to fight the pirates, but Zheng Shi's ships quickly sank 63 of the
government's naval ships, sending the rest packing. Both Britain and Portugal declined to directly
intervene against "The Terror of the South China Seas." Zheng Shi had humbled the navies of three
world powers.
Blackness
Perm: the neg should become pirates. Historically, piracy offered a chance of freedom
for escaped slaves in the 18th century
Do or die 99 Do or die, anarchist journal, “Pirate Utopias: Under the Banner of King Death” 1999.
http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no8/pirate.html ES
However, not all pirates participated in the slave trade. Indeed large numbers of pirates were ex-slaves;
there was a much higher proportion of blacks on pirate ships than on merchant or naval vessels, and
only rarely did the observers who noted their presence refer to them as 'slaves'. Most of these black
pirates would have been runaway slaves, either joining with the pirates on the course of the voyage
from Africa, deserting from the plantation, or sent as slaves to work on board ship. Some may have
been free men, like the "free Negro" seaman from Deptford who in 1721 led "a Mutiney that we had too
many Officers, and that the work was too hard, and what not." Seafaring in general offered more
autonomy to blacks than life on the plantation, but piracy in particular, could - although it was a risk –
offer[ed] one of the few chances at freedom for an African in the 18th century Atlantic. For example, a
quarter of the two-hundred strong crew of Captain Bellamy's ship the Whydah were black, and
eyewitness accounts of the sinking of the pirate vessel off Wellfleet, Massachusetts in 1717 report that
many of the corpses washed up were black. Pirate historian Kenneth Kinkor argues that although the
Whydah was originally a slave ship, the blacks on board at the time of the sinking were members of the
crew, not slaves. Partially because pirates, along with other tars, "entertain'd so contemptible a Notion
of Landsmen," a black man who knew the ropes was more likely to win respect than a landsman who
didn't. Kinkor notes: "Pirates judged Africans more on the basis of their language and sailing skills - in
other words, on their level of cultural attainment - than on their race."(24)
Afropessimism (Wilderson)
1. Perm use the nomadic war machine to conduct a paradigmatic analysis:
Paradigmatic analysis for wilderson is a continuous questioning or burning
down of the state, and our Kuhn evidence makes it pretty clear how pirates
(and the nomadic war machine associated with them) declared a perpetual war
on striation and the state. We ARE paradigmatic analysis.
2. Perm do both: Historically, piracy offered a chance of freedom for escaped
slaves in the 18th century
Do or die 99 Do or die, anarchist journal, “Pirate Utopias: Under the Banner of King Death” 1999.
http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no8/pirate.html ES
However, not all pirates participated in the slave trade. Indeed large numbers of pirates were ex-slaves;
there was a much higher proportion of blacks on pirate ships than on merchant or naval vessels, and
only rarely did the observers who noted their presence refer to them as 'slaves'. Most of these black
pirates would have been runaway slaves, either joining with the pirates on the course of the voyage
from Africa, deserting from the plantation, or sent as slaves to work on board ship. Some may have
been free men, like the "free Negro" seaman from Deptford who in 1721 led "a Mutiney that we had too
many Officers, and that the work was too hard, and what not." Seafaring in general offered more
autonomy to blacks than life on the plantation, but piracy in particular, could - although it was a risk –
offer[ed] one of the few chances at freedom for an African in the 18th century Atlantic. For example, a
quarter of the two-hundred strong crew of Captain Bellamy's ship the Whydah were black, and
eyewitness accounts of the sinking of the pirate vessel off Wellfleet, Massachusetts in 1717 report that
many of the corpses washed up were black. Pirate historian Kenneth Kinkor argues that although the
Whydah was originally a slave ship, the blacks on board at the time of the sinking were members of the
crew, not slaves. Partially because pirates, along with other tars, "entertain'd so contemptible a Notion
of Landsmen," a black man who knew the ropes was more likely to win respect than a landsman who
didn't. Kinkor notes: "Pirates judged Africans more on the basis of their language and sailing skills - in
other words, on their level of cultural attainment - than on their race."(24)
3. Melancholy is a disad to the alt. Simply talking about real problems in the
community and in civil society only serves to depress us so much that no real
paradigmatic analysis occurs and afropessimism becomes a self fulfilling
prophecy. Our affect is key to debunk sad affects that microfascisms transmit
in order to prevent action, that’s Deleuze and Parnet.
4. Their valorization of the “struggle” ignores the fact that collective society does
not want to struggle from an affective point of view. The only way to create
lasting change is to use our affect of piracy to create a space autonomous from
capitalism from which resistance can flourish with everyday desires.
Gilman-Opalsky 2012 (Dr. Richard Gilman-Opalsky, Professor of Political Science at the University of
Illinois Springfield, “Beyond the Old Virtue of Struggle: Autonomy, Talent, and Revolutionary
Theory”Rhizomes Issue 24 (2012) http://www.rhizomes.net/issue24/opalsky.html)CEFS
[1 ]
The concept of "struggle" has occupied a central place in the radical imagination. For Frederick Douglass,
all progress requires struggle, and for Karl Marx, human history consists of human conflict and class struggle. Struggle has become an
integral substance, and is often the crux, of transformative projects and politics. Even today,
influential thinkers like the autonomist Marxist John Holloway understand that, fundamentally,
revolution begins with a scream of sadness. From an affective point of view, however, people do not
want to struggle or to scream with sadness . I explore the contradiction of desire embodied in
wanting a different world without wanting to struggle. I argue that there is an intractable absurdity at the heart of any
politics that valorizes struggle: If the narrative on virtuous struggle is not deconstructed, it shall always be
ultimately undesirable to make the world that we desire.¶ [2] In 1979 Raoul Vaneigem—who in many ways wrote
the philosophy of autonomy that helped to articulate Italian and French movements in the late 1960s and 1970s—sharply observed the
general problematic as follows: "When the struggle against misery becomes the struggle for passionate
abundance, you get the reversal of perspective. Doesn't each of us dream of making what gives him
intense pleasure the ordinary stuff of everyday life?" [1] Vaneigem is right to call for a reversal of perspective, but the old
focus on struggle has not simply been the intellectual and existential error that his polemics make it out to be. That everyday life is
full of multifarious forms of struggle is not a fact of the world that can be "reversed" by taking on a
different perspective. And, while Vaneigem is also right that most (and sensibly all) individual persons
would prefer an everyday life of pleasure to an everyday life of pain no single individual can make it
so within his or her everyday living.¶ [3] The problem, I shall argue, is better understood through a
consideration of the conditions of everyday life, the field on which everyday life takes place. That field
is colonized (though not absolutely) by capital, which means that a critique of capitalism and its
culture remain indispensable.¶ [4] I draw on works in the autonomist Marxist tradition—mainly, key concepts from Félix Guattari
and Franco "Bifo" Berardi—and on the joyful and even ecstatic disposition of the Egyptian rebellion of 2011. I utilize these resources
to make the case for an autonomous conception of collective action that decenters struggle as a
virtue . Struggle happens. But theory must speak instead to the cultivation of human talent in
micropolitical projects and must aim to uncover the real desires obscured by everyday life.¶
[5] Very
generally, this article advances three distinct yet linked reversals of perspective relating to the questions of autonomy, struggle, and pleasure.
(1) Autonomy
as a form of freedom (or as freedom itself) is not reducible to the freedom of capitalism,
to the unbounded flow of capital and its arbitration. On the contrary, the logic of capital seeks to
organize everyday life such that autonomy is severely limited and even extinguished as our creative
energies are increasingly relegated to an almost-disappeared "leisure" time. In the actually existing
context of everyday life, then, autonomous action antagonizes the expectations of capital. (2)
Autonomous action is not incompatible with collective action, but its relationship to the individual
person must be made clearer than it currently is in the major works of autonomist Marxism . (3) While
capitalism does make autonomous action expendable in the harshest realizations of precarity,
autonomous action remains the possible and optimal mode for the displacement of struggle. All of the
technical terms of these preliminary gestures will be clearly defined below.¶ [6] In short, I aim to work out the
parameters for an autonomous theory of revolution that can help revolution overcome its historic fixation on struggle. Despite the
reality of struggle, the virtue of struggle must be overcome, and pleasure must play a part in
displacing the worn out logic of paying for everything with pain.
5. Pirates historically solve: 3 reasons
A. And, our Lysen and Peters evidence says that it was the striation of ocean space that made
things like the transatlantic slave trade and the colonialism of the Americas possible, which is
part of the destination-based method of travel that is exactly what we are critiquing, means
the aff is key and the alt alone fails.
B. Pirates interrupted and damaged the Atlantic Slave Trade which means that
they independently interrupted the process of social deadening.
Bialuschewski 8 Arne, history professor at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, “Black People under the Black
Flag: Piracy and the Slave Trade on the West Coast of Africa, 1718–1723”, published in volume 29 of “Slavery &
Abolition: A Journal of Slave and Post-Slave Studies” 2008.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01440390802486473#tabModule ES
Meanwhile, piracy caused extensive damage to British, Dutch, French and Portuguese shipping in
Africa. According to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade database, 124 vessels that reached the west coast of
Africa in 1719 made it safely on to America.34 At the same time there were 47 documented seizures of
slave vessels, but due to the fragmentary nature of the evidence the real figure was most likely much
higher.35 The French authorities in the Caribbean, for example, estimated that more than 100 mostly
English vessels had been captured by pirates, and a London newspaper published a list of 84 vessels
that had been seized off the west coast of Africa.36 Although many traders were able to resume their
voyage across the Atlantic after being plundered by pirates, the slave trade suffered heavy losses.
Presumably based on insurance figures, it was claimed that pirates had taken ships and cargoes valued
at £204,000 on the Guinea coast in 1719.37 This was an enormous sum in the early eighteenth century.
The effects of pirate depredations were felt in the New World in particular. In September 1719 the
intendant of Martinique claimed that no slaves had reached the island for almost two years.38 Even if
this statement exaggerates the situation, there was clearly a slump in the number of slaves that arrived
in the Lesser Antilles. One month later a merchant in Barbados wrote: ‘Negroes happen to be Dear now,
from [the] Vast Number the Pyrates have taken upon [the] Coast of Guinea that were Intended for our
Island’ and ‘The Price of Slaves is now Extravagantly High, there having been but one Sale for a
Considerable Time, & those [were] Angolians which are Deem'd the Worst Sort’.39 Merchants pressed
the authorities in London to protect shipping, but the threat from pirates did not stop them from
sending their vessels to Africa. To them, piracy was akin to the known risks of shipwreck and slave
mortality. Many traders dealt with risk by insuring their vessels and cargoes as well as spreading out
their investments.40 With increased risk usually came a substantial profit margin, and there may have
been some lucky merchants who made a fortune.
C. The pirate utopia of Libertalia fought against capitalism and slavery and were
awesome
Do or die 99 Do or die, anarchist journal, “Pirate Utopias: Under the Banner of King Death” 1999.
http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no8/pirate.html ES
The most famous pirate utopia is that of Captain Misson and his pirate crew, who founded their
intentional community, their lawless utopia of Libertalia in northern Mada-gascar in the Eighteenth
century.(42) Misson was French, born in Provence, and it was while in Rome on leave from the French
warship Victoire that he lost his faith, disgusted by the decadence of the Papal Court. In Rome he ran
into Caraccioli - a "lewd Priest" who over the course of long voyages with little to do but talk, gradually
converted Misson and a sizeable portion of the rest of the crew to his brand of atheistic communism:
"...he fell upon Government, and shew'd, that every Man was born free, and had as much Right to what
would support him, as to the Air he respired... that the vast Difference betwixt Man and Man, the one
wallowing in Luxury, and the other in the most pinching Necessity, was owing only to Avarice and
Ambition on the one Hand, and a pusilanimous Subjection on the other." Embarking on a career of
piracy, the 200 strong crew of the Victoire called upon Misson to be their captain. They collectivised
the wealth of the ship, deciding "all should be in common." All decisions were to be put to "the Vote
of the whole Company." Thus they set out on their new "Life of Liberty." Off the west coast of Africa
they captured a Dutch slave ship. The slaves were freed and brought aboard the Victoire, Misson
declaring that "the Trading for those of our own Species, cou'd never be agreeable to the Eyes of
divine Justice: That no Man had Power of Liberty of another" and that "he had not exempted his Neck
from the galling Yoak of Slavery, and asserted his own Liberty, to enslave others." At every engagement
they added to their numbers with new French, English and Dutch recruits and freed African slaves.
While cruising round the coast of Madagascar, Misson found a perfect bay in an area with fertile soil,
fresh water and friendly natives. Here the pirates built Libertalia, renouncing their titles of English,
French, Dutch or African and calling themselves Liberi. They created their own language, a polyglot
mixture of African languages, combined with French, English, Dutch, Portuguese and native
Madagascan. Shortly after the beginning of building work on the colony of Libertalia, the Victoire ran
into the pirate Thomas Tew, who decided to accompany them back to Libertalia. Such a colony was no
new idea to Tew; he had lost his quartermaster and 23 of his crew when they had left to form a
settlement further up the Madagascan coast. The Liberi - "Enemies to Slavery," aimed to boost their
numbers by capturing another slave ship. Off the coast of Angola, Tew's crew took an English slave ship
with 240 men, women and children below decks. The African members of the pirate crew discovered
many friends and relatives among the enslaved and struck off their fetters and handcuffs, regaling them
with the glories of their new life of freedom. The pirates settled down to become farmers, holding the
land in common - "no Hedge bounded any particular Man's Property." Prizes and money taken at sea
were "carry'd into the common Treasury, Money being of no Use where every Thing was in common."
D. The first pirates in the Caribbean Sea were maroons
Palmié and Scarano 11 Stephen, professor of anthropology and the social sciences at the University of
Chicago and Francisco, history professor at UW-M. “Masterless People: Maroons, Pirates, and
Commoners”. 2011. From “The Caribbean: a history of the region and its peoples”
file:///Users/evashapiro/Downloads/Curtis_2011_Masterless_People-libre.pdf ES
One alternative was the pirate ship. To understand what it meant to be a pirate, it¶ helpsto remember
what it meant to be a maroon. In a world of masters and slaves,¶ the maroon was neither. Masters and
slaves were interlocked parts of the same¶ system. Maroons could not have existed without that
system - indeed, marronage¶ arose out of and in direct response to it-but what defined a maroon
community¶ was its potential to transcend the dialectic between master and slave. In practice¶ these
societies took various forms, with varying degrees of engagement with the¶ plantation system and
varying degrees of masterlessness in their internal structure,¶ but at the most fundamental level a
maroon society existed in opposition to the¶ worldof masters and slaves. Pirates emerged from a
similarly stratified society, each¶ ship a wooden world contingent upon the domination of the captain
over his crew.¶ Although the world of captains and crews was destined to continue, pirates began to¶
challenge the foundation of that system in the 17th-century Caribbean. The first genuine pirates of the
Caribbean were the buccaneers, and the first buccaneers were in fact maroons. The 1620 journal of a
French sailor records an encounter on the coast of Hispaniola with two men, a “marron” and a “négre”
huddled around a campfire with a wooden grill that the two called by its indigenous name, boucan. The
two men described how they and others subsisted by poaching Spanish livestock and living in the
unoccupied northwester section of the island. Their lifestyle appealed to men who were trapped for so
much of their lives on ships and subjected to the whims of the high seas and violent captains. When the
French ship set sail a few day later, six of its crew had gone missing, swelling the ranks of these men of
the boucan, the buccaneers.
6. Microfascism is a disad to the alt. Absent the autonomy provided by smooth
space the fascist inside of all of us will only co-opt their movement and make
their line of flight away from civil society inevitably become a line of death back
towards it, that’s Deleuze and Guattari.
7. Our ability to create temporary autonomous zones means pirates are key
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck “Interview with Gabriel Kuhn”, conducted by David of the zine “No
Quarter” http://anarchistpirates.blogspot.com/2010/03/interview-with-gabriel-kuhn.html)CEFS
[David]: Ultimately what lessons do you think radicals can draw from the golden age of piracy? [Kuhn]: I
lay this out in more detail in the last chapter of the book, but the core aspects are: 1. The rejection of
authority and of dominant social norms. This seems an essential aspect of any radical engagement. 2.
The golden age pirates' internal social structure that stands as an extraordinary experiment in
egalitarianism and direct democracy. It's not to be idealized as it was exclusive, i.e. the guiding
principles were only shared among crew members and did not extend to others, but it is nonetheless a
shining and inspiring example of radical self-determination. 3. The "libidinal" dimension of golden age
pirate life which I consider indispensable for making radical politics attractive. You gotta have fun
being a radical. A boring society is hardly worth fighting for, and it will not endure either. It's like that
famous Emma Goldman quote, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." I think the
golden age pirates were always up for a good dance. Besides these central points, there are a few other
aspects: For example, the "Temporary Autonomous Zones" that the pirates created in the sense of
Hakim Bey. Then their challenge to the control of space which renders terms like "pirate radio" very
apt. And a number of important economic aspects, like the rejection of both the wage labor system
and capitalist production (which allows to draw interesting parallels to modern-day dumpster divers,
freegans, etc.), or the undermining of ownership rights (which today continues in the form of piracy as
"copyright violation"). There are a lot of lessons to draw from golden age pirates for contemporary
radicals, no doubt. As I argue in the book, though, the decisive question is how we can turn these
lessons into effective politics today. The golden age pirates are no model for a free and just society for
all, due to ever changing historical circumstances, their own contradictions, and also their special
relationship to the sea. They carry the said revolutionary "momentum," but today this has to be
brought to life by those who want to defend this legacy. In this context, crucial is not whether the
golden age pirates were revolutionary, but how we and future generations can keep their legacy a
revolutionary one. This has no longer to do with projection – it is a matter of adaptation.
Feminism/Violence Against Women
Perm: The neg should become pirates. We specifically present the narrative of Zheng
Shi, the Chinese female pirate who is arguably the coolest and influential pirate of all
time.
Szczepanski No Date (Kallie Szczepanski, Historian, “Zheng Shi, Pirate Lady of China”
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/modernchina/p/Zheng-Shi-Pirate-China.htm)CEFS
The most successful pirate in history was not Blackbeard (Edward Teach) or Barbarossa, but Zheng
Shi or Ching Shih of China . She acquired great wealth, ruled the South China Seas, and best of all,
survived to enjoy the spoils.¶ We know next to nothing about Zheng Shi's early life. In fact, "Zheng Shi" means
simply "widow Zheng" - we don't even know her birth name. She was likely born in 1775, but the other details of
She first enters the historical record in 1801. The
beautiful young woman was working as a prostitute in a Canton brothel when she was captured by
pirates. Zheng Yi, a famous pirate fleet admiral, claimed the captive to be his wife. She pluckily agreed
to marry the pirate leader only if certain conditions were met. She would be an equal partner in
leadership of the pirate fleet, and half the admiral's share of the plunder would be hers. Zheng Shi
must have been extremely beautiful and persuasive, because Zheng Yi agreed to these terms.¶ Over
the next six years, the Zhengs built a powerful coalition of Cantonese pirate fleets. Their combined force
her childhood are lost to history.¶ Zheng Shi's Marriage:¶
consisted of six color-coded fleets, with their own "Red Flag Fleet" in the lead. Subsidiary fleets included the Black, White, Blue, Yellow, and
Green.¶ In
April of 1804, the Zhengs instituted a blockade of the Portuguese trading port at Macau.
Portugal sent a battle squadron against the pirate armada, but the Zhengs promptly defeated the
Portuguese. Britain intervened, but did not dare take on the full might of the pirates - the British
Royal Navy simply began providing naval escorts for British and allied shipping in the area. ¶ On
November 16, 1807, Zheng Yi died in Vietnam, which was in the throes of the Tay Son Rebellion. At the time
of his death, his fleet is estimated to have included 400 to 1200 ships, depending upon the source, and 50,000 to
As soon as her husband died, Zheng Shi began calling in favors and consolidating her
position as the head of the pirate coalition. She was able, through political acumen and willpower, to
70,000 pirates.¶
bring all of her husband's pirate fleets to heel. Together they controlled the trade routes and fishing
rights all along the coasts of Guangdong, China and Vietnam.¶ Zheng Shi, Pirate Lord:¶ Zheng Shi was
as ruthless with her own men as she was with captives. She instituted a strict code of conduct, and
enforced it strictly. All goods and money seized as booty was presented to the fleet and registered
before being redistributed. The capturing ship received 20% of the loot, and the rest went into a
collective fund for the entire fleet. Anyone who withheld plunder faced whipping; repeat offenders or
those who concealed large amounts would be beheaded.¶ A former captive herself, Zheng Shi also had
very strict rules about treatment of female prisoners. Pirates could take beautiful captives as their
wives or concubines, but they had to remain faithful to them and take care of them - unfaithful
husbands would be beheaded. Likewise, any pirate who raped a captive was executed. Ugly women
were to be released unharmed and free of charge on shore.¶ Pirates who deserted their ship would be pursued, and
if found, had their ears cut off. The same fate awaited any who went absent without leave, and the earless culprits
would then be paraded in front of the entire squadron. Using this code of conduct, Zheng Shi built a pirate
empire in the South China Sea that is unrivaled in history for its reach, fearsomeness, communal spirit,
and wealth.¶ In 1806, the Qing dynasty decided to do something about Zheng Shi and her pirate
empire. They sent an armada to fight the pirates, but Zheng Shi's ships quickly sank 63 of the
government's naval ships, sending the rest packing. Both Britain and Portugal declined to directly
intervene against "The Terror of the South China Seas." Zheng Shi had humbled the navies of three
world powers.
Women used piracy as a way to find freedom from restrictive gender roles
Do or die 99 Do or die, anarchist journal, “Pirate Utopias: Under the Banner of King Death” 1999.
http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no8/pirate.html ES
Just as pirates in general defined themselves in opposition to the emerging capitalist social relations
of the 17th and 18th centuries, so also some women found in piracy a way to rebel against the
emerging gender roles. For example, Charlotte de Berry, born in England in 1636, followed her husband
into the navy by dressing as a man. When she was forced aboard an Africa-bound vessel, she led a
mutiny against the captain who had assaulted her, cutting off his head with a dagger. She then turned
pirate and became captain, her ship cruising the African coast capturing gold ships. There were also
other less successful women pirates; in Virginia in 1726, the authorities tried Mary Harley (or Harvey)
and three men for piracy. The three men were sentenced to hang but Harley was released. Mary's
husband Thomas was also involved in the piracy but seems to have escaped capture. Mary and her
husband had been transported to the colonies as convicts a year earlier. Three years later in 1729,
another deported female convict was on trial for piracy in the colony of Virginia. A gang of six pirates
were sentenced to hang, including Mary Crickett (or Crichett), who along with Edmund Williams, the
leader of the pirate gang, had been transported to Virginia as a felon in 1728.(37)
Queer Theory
The k critiques the binarism inherent in gender that excludes queerness and queer
bodies but this advocacy is in NO WAY competitive with our advocacy, multiple
arguments to star.
1) Our affirmative necessitates the condemnation of the binarism inherent in
striated spaces and microfascist thought processes that is what they are
critiquing
2) The way that the pirate zig-zags around smooth spaces is representative of the
fluidity of sexuality and gender. Our Kuhn evidence talks about the rhizomatic
terrain that the pirates would operate upon and this is exactly what sexuality
and gender should look like: an infinite rhizome in which anything is possible
and everything is interconnected.
3) Next, our advocacy means that sexuality would become a smooth space, when
right now it is striated by binarism, the aff solves.
Next, Perm: the neg should become pirates. Historically, pirates were given more
freedom with their sexuality than anywhere else in Europe
Do or die 99 Do or die, anarchist journal, “Pirate Utopias: Under the Banner of King Death” 1999.
http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no8/pirate.html ES
For some men the freedom that piracy offered from the constrained world they had left behind
extended to sexuality. European society of the 17th and 18th centuries was savagely anti-homosexual.
The Royal Navy periodically conducted brutal anti-buggery campaigns on ships on which men might be
confined together for years. In both the navy and the merchant service it was considered that sexuality
was inimical to work and good order on board ship, as Minister John Flavel wrote of seamen to
merchant John Lovering: "The Death of their Lusts, is the most Probable Means to give Life to your
Trade." B.R. Burg in Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition suggests that the vast majority of pirates were
homosexual, and although there isn't really enough evidence to support this, nevertheless to indulge in
these things a pirate colony was probably just about the safest place you could be. Some of the early
buccaneers of Hispaniola and Tortuga lived in a kind of homosexual union known as matelotage (from
the French for 'sailor' and possibly the origin of the word 'mate' meaning companion), holding their
possessions in common, with the survivor inheriting. Even after women joined the buccaneers,
matelotage continued with a partner sharing his wife with his matelot. Louis Le Golif in his Memoirs of a
Buccaneer complained about homosexuality on Tortuga, where he had to fight two duels to keep ardent
suitors at bay. Eventually the French Governor of Tortuga imported hundreds of prostitutes, hoping
thereby to wean the buccaneers away from this practice. The pirate captain Robert Culliford, had a
"great consort," John Swann, who lived with him. Some men bought "pretty boys" as companions. On
one pirate ship a young man who admitted a homosexual relationship was put in irons and maltreated,
but this seems to have been the exception rather than the rule. It is also significant that in no pirate
articles are there any rules against homosexuality.(35)
The perm solves best, pirates can and should be adapted to all radical movements.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck “Interview with Gabriel Kuhn”, conducted by David of the zine “No
Quarter” http://anarchistpirates.blogspot.com/2010/03/interview-with-gabriel-kuhn.html)CEFS
[David]: Ultimately what lessons do you think radicals can draw from the golden age of piracy? [Kuhn]: I
lay this out in more detail in the last chapter of the book, but the core aspects are: 1. The rejection of
authority and of dominant social norms. This seems an essential aspect of any radical engagement. 2.
The golden age pirates' internal social structure that stands as an extraordinary experiment in
egalitarianism and direct democracy. It's not to be idealized as it was exclusive, i.e. the guiding
principles were only shared among crew members and did not extend to others, but it is nonetheless a
shining and inspiring example of radical self-determination. 3. The "libidinal" dimension of golden age
pirate life which I consider indispensable for making radical politics attractive. You gotta have fun
being a radical. A boring society is hardly worth fighting for, and it will not endure either. It's like that
famous Emma Goldman quote, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." I think the
golden age pirates were always up for a good dance. Besides these central points, there are a few other
aspects: For example, the "Temporary Autonomous Zones" that the pirates created in the sense of
Hakim Bey. Then their challenge to the control of space which renders terms like "pirate radio" very
apt. And a number of important economic aspects, like the rejection of both the wage labor system
and capitalist production (which allows to draw interesting parallels to modern-day dumpster divers,
freegans, etc.), or the undermining of ownership rights (which today continues in the form of piracy as
"copyright violation"). There are a lot of lessons to draw from golden age pirates for contemporary
radicals, no doubt. As I argue in the book, though, the decisive question is how we can turn these
lessons into effective politics today. The golden age pirates are no model for a free and just society for
all, due to ever changing historical circumstances, their own contradictions, and also their special
relationship to the sea. They carry the said revolutionary "momentum," but today this has to be
brought to life by those who want to defend this legacy. In this context, crucial is not whether the
golden age pirates were revolutionary, but how we and future generations can keep their legacy a
revolutionary one. This has no longer to do with projection – it is a matter of adaptation.
Extend our Deleuze and Parnet evidence. The negative seeks to insert sad affects into
the debate space with their own impacts but the fact of the matter is that just talking
about their impacts only serves to make us sad about them because of the way that
the state and other power structures communicate this way of looking at problems so
that no change actually occurs. Instead of this vampirism we should flee this plague of
misery and use the spontaneous affect of the nomadic pirate to teach our souls to live
instead of saving our souls. This is an a priori question about how we look at provlsms
in this space.
AT Intersectionality
The idea of intersectionality is founded on the idea that we should transcend
subjectivity in order to put our faith in an external intersection that inevitably reforms
hierarchies. Instead we should focus on a fragmentation, in which each identity
present occupies their own autonomous, subjective space, but they can be
rhizomatically connected, and sailed like smooth space through fluidities, just like the
rhizomatic terrain of the carribean.
AT Queer Ecology
1) Under the viewpoint of the 1ac there is no way that queer CAN be viewed as
unnatural because there is no binary between natural and unnatural, that’s our
Kingsworth and Hine Evidence
2) D&G elaborate on this when they say that the striation of the land was what
divided up the nautral and the unnatural, so our adovacy for smooth space
solves any offense.
Anthro
Go to our deleuze and guattari evidence. They talk about how the natural and the
unnatural became binarized when the striation of the land in societies like ancient
Greece occurred, so our model of smooth space disavows the binary.
Cap
Perm, use pirates as the starting point to break down capitalism
And, extend our Deleuze and Parnet evidence. The way that they talk about the
oppression caused by the capitalist system without an external affect means that the
only affect present is that of sadness, which is transmitted by the hierarchies they’re
critiquing to preserve oppression and violence and stultify the praxis for change,
means the K can’t solve and only reifies hierarchies.
The way the criticism looks at resistance to capitalism is inherently flawed. There can
be no escape or liberation because the power of capital is that it always adds in more
axioms to reify its power. Pirates, however, let us become parasites to the system, in
which we are autonomous from capitalism which allows us to have the starting point
for real resistance.
Kuhn 97 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under Death’s Head, Anarchism and Piracy” pp. 273-74.
Originally published as an essay in Women Pirates.)CEFS
Pirates produced nothing with which to earn their livelihood. They robbed others. Pirates accumulated no
capital; they squandered everything. Their victims were mostly merchant ships. Pirates “caused such
great damage to ship travel that normal commercial traffic, and even the economies of a few
countries were greatly endangered. It made no difference whether a ship flew under a Spanish, French, English, Indian, or
Arabian flag. The pirates opposed all states, and any ship was acceptable as booty. Pirates threatened
capitalism . Instead of a circulation of production and consumption, they set up one of robbery and
squander. What pirates did is comparable to the burning of a factory by autonomen; except that in
the process pirates also took everything they needed for survival . The basis of their livelihood was
“redistribution.” It comes as no surprise that the decisive campaign of extermination against the
pirates was ultimately sounded by an association of English merchants. ¶ Commercial concerns are
powerful, and belong to the society of the State. Capitalism is totalitarian . It is clear that the pirates,
without naming it as their enemy, and certainly without analyzing it, nonetheless had to fight it. They
lived off the attempt to establish capitalism, at the same time blocking that attempt.¶ Why not just walk away from capitalism
and build “something else,” something “independent” (perhaps communes or something similarly libertarian and
romantic)? Now that is something easier said than done. In fact, it is as good as impossible. The
combination of fighting capitalism while also exploiting it is admittedly far more exciting and intensive
than mere escape . But finally, it is in the nature of capitalism that there can be no escape; it will
always catch up. “The potency of capitalism consists in a logic that is never saturated, and always
prepared to add on more axioms to the existing ones.” Thus: let’s go get’em and see what comes of
it!”—the pirate as parasite . Such parasitic groups have always created relatively free spaces within
capitalism, broken through its constitutive chains, established a connection to the outside, and
allowed for (more or less) autonomous living. The question is not how capitalism can be done away
with, nor that of what should replace it. The question is: how can I deal with it so as not to become a
prisoner ? Everything else will follow from that.¶ Pirates always behaved this way. P erhaps the only true
forerunners to Caribbean piracy were the Hanseatic pirates grouped around Klaus Storetbeker (“the Vitalien brothers”). They too did not want
to have their lives dictated by rulers and merchants. When these tried to consolidate their power in the Hanseatic area, Stortebeker and his
friends made the North Sea into their home. The life they lived was not dictated by the Hanseatic order, but their livelihood was based upon
Hanseatic trade: they robbed the merchants. “’Enemies of all the world, friends only of God,’ according to the legend of the Vitalien brothers.
At least this would mean that God was in favor of robbing rich merchants, of taking from the power ful that which they would probably not give
freely.Ӧ
There is much to talk about fighting capitalism. Pirates show us how to do it.
*****Feminist Pirates*****
Captain Eva Shapiro (Wilson HS) and Captain Helen Shi (Oakton HS)
1AC
Part one: Sexism
[social location]
Abstractly, sexism exists and replicates in our everyday speech
Johnson ND [First name not given] dissertation for the Catarina, Universidad de Las Americas Pueblos, “sexist
discourse in cosmopolitan and men's health”
http://catarina.udlap.mx/u_dl_a/tales/documentos/mla/johnson_k/capitulo2.pdf ES
Feminist began to challenge sexist discrimination from both a social perspective (equal pay and
opportunities for higher education for women) and a linguistic perspective (Cameron, 1992). They
began to postulate that the source of discrimination derived from discourse (in this case, English
discourse), which in turn also constructed gender ideologies and identities. Feminists state that gender
is not biologically inherited, but rather something that people perform and construct to form part of the
belief (ideologies) of a society. Ideologues are categories of identity, tasks, aims, values, positions and
interests of a society (van Dijk, 1997). Discourse is a powerful tool that maintains gender ideologies
because it constitutes a part of our daily lives through verbal and written communication (Weatherall,
2002). Discourse has held a powerful position in the creation and maintenance of male supremacy. In
Ancient Greece and Rome, feminists state that men have long occupied the leading positions of power
as poets, orators, grammarians, and philosophers to control discourse that produce gendered
ideologies. The powerful members and philosophers to control discourse that produce gendered
ideologies. The powerful members of society are those that control discourse and its production of
sexist gender ideologies that have discriminated women and men. As a result, feminists (and nonfeminist academics) began to question and critically analyze various genres of discourse such as
books, newspapers, advertisements, and magazine that they claimed to reproduce biased stereotypes
that demean women such as, “Blonde in fatal car crash” and “bitches wear furs” (Cameron, 1992, p. 6).
These two examples exemplify how female identities are described via metaphor or their physical
appearance instead of their names. They are merely represented as object instead of their own person
(Castaneda, 2002). If sexist discourse is frequently produces, it created an affect that early feminists
called conditioning (Cameron, 1992). This is when discourse representation becomes naturalized and
therefore goes unquestioned and becomes apart of society’s unwired social statutes (Cameron, 1992;
Castaneda, 2002). As a way to explain conditioning, feminists pondered the theory of linguistic
determinism that states how discourse determines the way a person views the world (Mills, 1995).
In practice, 700 new laws were proposed in 2013 to further regulate women’s bodies
Strasser 13 (Annie-Rose Strasser is Senior Editor of ThinkProgress, where she edits feature pieces and
investigative stories, as well as daily content. She also serves on the leadership team for the DC chapter of Women,
Action, and the Media, has appeared on several TV and radio programs. Before joining ThinkProgress, Annie-Rose
worked for the Center for Community Change as a new media specialist, focusing on economic equality.
Previously, Annie-Rose served as a press assistant for Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She holds a B.A.
in English and Creative Writing from the George Washington University, 4/12/13, “Republicans Push 700 New Laws
to Regulate Women's Bodies”, http://www.alternet.org/republicans-push-700-new-laws-regulate-womens-bodies
HS)
A new report released on Thursday by the Guttmacher Institute takes a comprehensive look at how
the War on Women has continued past the election cycle and into 2013. It shows that the new
legislatures across the country are still very much dedicated to restricting sex education, availability of
medication, and abortion access for women. Indeed, 47 percent of the 694 provisions were directly
related to abortion: During the first three months of 2013, legislators in 14 states introduced provisions
seeking to ban abortion prior to viability. These bans fall into three categories: measures that would
prohibit all abortions, those that would ban abortions after a specified point during the first trimester
of pregnancy and those that would block abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization (the equivalent of 22
weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period, the conventional method physicians use to measure
pregnancy). All of these proposals are in direct violation of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Legislators
in 10 states have introduced proposals that would ban all, or nearly all, abortions. In eight states (AL,
IA, MS, ND, OK, SC, VA and WA), legislators have proposed defining “personhood” as beginning at
conception; if adopted, these measures would ban most, if not all, abortions. Seven states are edging
closer to achieving full approval for laws that would reduce or essentially eliminate abortion access.
National speech and debate tournaments suffer from low female participation and
success, along with consistent demeaning and insulting of female competitors
Mazeitis 14 Jake, high school Lincoln Douglas debater and writer for the Soapbox, a student written publication
of the National Speech and Debate Association “Policy Proposal to End Sexism in Debate Forensics” The Soapbox.
May 13, 2014. http://www.studentsoapbox.org/2014/05/policy-proposal-end-sexism-debate-foreniscs/ ES
Gender inequality is pervasive throughout the speech and debate community. It manifests in three
forms. The first form is simply an inequality in participation, as demonstrated when Cindi¶ Timmons, a
member of the NSDA Hall of Fame, crunched a few numbers for the Texas Forensics¶ Association and
he discovered that original oratory was the only event where even half of the participants were female.
The full extents of her findings are as follows:¶ ¶ LD – 187 entries, 31% women¶ Policy – 144 teams,
13.8% women¶ PF – 126 teams, 32% women¶ Congress (combined) – 211, 31.7% women¶ Duo Interp –
66 teams, 44.6% women¶ Duet Acting – 84 teams, 45.8% women¶ HI – 97, 36% women¶ DI – 112,
43.7% women¶ OO – 93, 52.6% women¶ USX – 111, 31.5% women¶ IX – 105 – 28.5% women¶ Of the
coaches listed for the 207 schools participating (some listing multiple coaches), 49.3%¶ were women.¶
¶ Clearly, the challenges of not only recruiting young women into the activity, but getting them to
actually stay is prominent, but just the tip of the iceberg.¶ ¶ The second form of inequality that
persists is inequality in competitive success. Fortunately, each year around half of the competitors at
the National Tournament are female, but that’s where the good news stops. In the past 20 years,
women have only won 30% of the¶ NSDA’s National Championships. At the 2013 NFL National
Tournament about 40% of the finalists were women but only brought home 30% of the national
championships. Everyone lauds 2013 as a great year for young women, so it’s hard to imagine how bad
a bad year¶ might look. Take, for example 2011, when only two national championships were awarded
to women, neither in the 11 primary events. The lack of success isn’t limited to the National
Tournament. Take, for example, the representation of women in public forum debate at the 2013
Tournament of Champions:¶ ¶ Breaking Female Debaters – 5/40¶ Breaking All-Female Teams – 0/20¶
Female Speakers in Top 20 – 0/20¶ Female Judges in Outrounds ~ 30%¶ Female Judges in Quarters or
beyond ~ 15%¶ ¶ The last two statistics present an interesting part of the problem, the lack of female
judges.¶ Not only is their lack of involvement an issue in itself, but studies have concluded that male
judges are more likely to rank male competitors higher than female competitors. At the National
Tournament, judges for semi-finals and finals are chosen because they are coaches who have a lot of
diamonds, have coached past semi-finalists or finalists or they are recommended by their district chair.
The problem here is that while diamonds typically signify a long and successful coaching career, more
men were coaching in the 1970s and 1980s than women so they have a higher chance of selection.
Furthermore, women only make up 36% of district chairs which renders two out of the three ways of
picking judges problematic. These demographic discrepancies show in the results of the tournament
every year. The traditional way of naming judges to semi-final and final rounds has been
systematically putting women at a disadvantage for decades and no one has noticed.¶ ¶ The final way
in which sexism rears its ugly head is the most pressing of all: harassment.¶ ¶ One does not have to
look very far to find a young woman in this activity who finds herself consistently demeaned, made
uncomfortable or deemed unworthy by comments or actions in round or even on the internet. This
century’s less than satisfactory cyber influence has even spread to the speech and debate community; a
couple of years ago the popular speech and debate themed blog Forensic Foxes featured posts calling
successful female competitors bitches, sluts and even once threatening to sexually assault a national
circuit extemper. This year, stories have arisen of young men offering fellow competitors evidence in
exchange for sexual favors. On top of this, the number of female competitors who have been told that
their success can be attributed to their physical appearances is, disgustingly, above the number zero.¶
When speech and debate turns into a hostile environment it is no wonder the number of young
women involved is quickly dwindling.
Our role of the ballot is to best explore the ocean of our community to empower
ourselves and others by speaking out in debate
Sexism in debate exists because we don’t have discussions and follow it up with concrete change
Debaters against sexism 14 Debaters against sexism is an organization of college policy debaters looking
to decrease sexism in debate by calling attention to is. “Preface” 2014. http://www.debatersagainstsexism.org/ ES
We are tired of online discussions about gender disparities in debate dying out without resulting in
any concrete changes. We are tired of sexism becoming the talk of the day, and then fading away as
people settle back into their normal routines of cutting cards and trying to win tournaments. We are
tired of waiting for someone else to do something, so we are taking a stand now.¶ The biggest problem
is not that tournament rules are written to disadvantage women, or that workshop and institute policies
don’t account for sexual harassment (although policies lacking enforcement are meaningless). The
biggest problem is the way that we as a community behave. Gender discrimination is so prevalent
because we fail to embrace mature dialogue, underestimate the power of disparaging remarks, and
stigmatize victims. We need to examine the way we think and behave as a community; no real change
can occur until we do.
Part two: Piracy
Pirates represent a break from traditional norms in order to find freedom and liberty
Brewin 12 Kester Brewin, teacher and writer on issues around theology, theology, technology, and occasionally
pirates. “Mutiny! Why We Love Pirates and How They Can Save Us” 2012. ES
A splinter of Roberts’ spirit is in each of us. We are all pirates now because, in these times of increasing
corporate greed, cultural privatization and financial oppression the fight that was once their has now
become ours. Infamous in their time, pirates like Roberts were nonetheless distant characters, exotic
figures from the far off high seas, firing cannon on Her Majesty’s ships or mounting raids on trade
vessels transporting goods around far-flung colonies. Their distant battles have now arrived on our
doorsteps and flashed up on our screens. Pirates are now everywhere, taking up residence in radio
stations, winning seats in elections, distributing films and music because their ancient battles against
rich merchants have come home to us in our modern struggles navigating the channels of consumer
capitalism. Perhaps we allow our children to imitate these disreputable characters, and metaphorically
take up our own cutlasses with smiles on our faces, because part of us knows that pirates offer
something that speaks deeply to our human ache for justice. Roberts and his crew sing to us, in bawdy
tones no doubt, of freedom, of rebellion, of high-spirited liberty from all in our culture that would
seek to tie us down, hold us back and eek out of our pockets every last taxable dime that is owed.
Pirates like Bartholomew Roberts rose up because they had had enough of the violence and injustice
they suffered at the hands of ship captains moving commodities around the New World, a ‘triangle of
trade’ which funded the violence imperialism of Spain, Portugal, and England. The aristocratic
merchants and princes who controlled this proto-capitalism did so without thought for the slaves they
abused nor the sailors they paid pittance to. Though skilled seamen were integral to the creation of
fantastic wealth, they were completely disenfranchised from it, denied any rights to benefit from their
labour.
We use pirates as a metaphor for finding freedom in the debate community. Our use
of piracy as a metaphor for our actions us good because it allows people to better
understand how we advocate rethinking the debate community
Krippendorff 93 Klaus, professor of communication at the Annenburg School for Communication, part of the
University of Pennsylvania, “Major Metaphors of Communication and some Constructivist Reflections on their
Use” Cybernetic and Human Knowledge, 1993. http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/krippendorff/metaphor.htm ES
Instead of treating metaphors of communication as separate objects, summarizing or drawing general
conclusions from statistical accounts of them, let me shift gear here and step one logical level above the
metaphors as reviewed, and consider in the following the "social reality" of their apparent multitude. In
the above, I took metaphors as windows into how their users create their understanding of
communication. In trying now to understand their variety in use, I am in fact moving from an
individual understanding of communication through metaphor to an understanding of this
understanding of communication. This shift is important for it enables an understanding of Others'
understanding, including self-understanding, and could therefore be called second-order
understanding. First-order understanding can not embrace self-referential phenomena. Second-order
understanding does and thus lies at the root of social phenomena. which I take to be constituted in the
understanding participants' have of their involvement with each other. First-order understanding is
unable to reflect on human knowledgeable participation in these phenomena. Second-order
understanding offers researchers a way of recursively reflecting on their own role in the phenomena
of their concern. First-order understanding condemns researchers to the role of unreflexive spectators
of a logically flat world.
Pirates are an especially good metaphor for women, because historical piracy offered
a chance for women to break free from traditional gender roles.
Do or die 99 Do or die, anarchist journal, “Pirate Utopias: Under the Banner of King Death” 1999.
http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no8/pirate.html ES
Just as pirates in general defined themselves in opposition to the emerging capitalist social relations
of the 17th and 18th centuries, so also some women found in piracy a way to rebel against the
emerging gender roles. For example, Charlotte de Berry, born in England in 1636, followed her husband
into the navy by dressing as a man. When she was forced aboard an Africa-bound vessel, she led a
mutiny against the captain who had assaulted her, cutting off his head with a dagger. She then turned
pirate and became captain, her ship cruising the African coast capturing gold ships. There were also
other less successful women pirates; in Virginia in 1726, the authorities tried Mary Harley (or Harvey)
and three men for piracy. The three men were sentenced to hang but Harley was released. Mary's
husband Thomas was also involved in the piracy but seems to have escaped capture. Mary and her
husband had been transported to the colonies as convicts a year earlier. Three years later in 1729,
another deported female convict was on trial for piracy in the colony of Virginia. A gang of six pirates
were sentenced to hang, including Mary Crickett (or Crichett), who along with Edmund Williams, the
leader of the pirate gang, had been transported to Virginia as a felon in 1728.(37)
We are specifically interested in the narrative of the Chinese pirate Zheng Shi, who
captained one of the most famous pirates ships of all time.
Szczepanski No Date (Kallie Szczepanski, Historian, “Zheng Shi, Pirate Lady of China”
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/modernchina/p/Zheng-Shi-Pirate-China.htm)CEFS
The most successful pirate in history was not Blackbeard (Edward Teach) or Barbarossa, but Zheng
Shi or Ching Shih of China . She acquired great wealth, ruled the South China Seas, and best of all,
survived to enjoy the spoils.¶ We know next to nothing about Zheng Shi's early life. In fact, "Zheng Shi" means
simply "widow Zheng" - we don't even know her birth name. She was likely born in 1775, but the other details of
her childhood are lost to history.¶ Zheng Shi's Marriage:¶ She first enters the historical record in 1801. The
beautiful young woman was working as a prostitute in a Canton brothel when she was captured by
pirates. Zheng Yi, a famous pirate fleet admiral, claimed the captive to be his wife. She pluckily agreed
to marry the pirate leader only if certain conditions were met. She would be an equal partner in
leadership of the pirate fleet, and half the admiral's share of the plunder would be hers. Zheng Shi
must have been extremely beautiful and persuasive, because Zheng Yi agreed to these terms.¶ Over
the next six years, the Zhengs built a powerful coalition of Cantonese pirate fleets. Their combined force
consisted of six color-coded fleets, with their own "Red Flag Fleet" in the lead. Subsidiary fleets included the Black, White, Blue, Yellow, and
Green.¶ In
April of 1804, the Zhengs instituted a blockade of the Portuguese trading port at Macau.
Portugal sent a battle squadron against the pirate armada, but the Zhengs promptly defeated the
Portuguese. Britain intervened, but did not dare take on the full might of the pirates - the British
Royal Navy simply began providing naval escorts for British and allied shipping in the area. ¶ On
November 16, 1807, Zheng Yi died in Vietnam, which was in the throes of the Tay Son Rebellion. At the time
of his death, his fleet is estimated to have included 400 to 1200 ships, depending upon the source, and 50,000 to
70,000 pirates.¶ As soon as her husband died, Zheng Shi began calling in favors and consolidating her
position as the head of the pirate coalition. She was able, through political acumen and willpower, to
bring all of her husband's pirate fleets to heel. Together they controlled the trade routes and fishing
rights all along the coasts of Guangdong, China and Vietnam.¶ Zheng Shi, Pirate Lord:¶ Zheng Shi was
as ruthless with her own men as she was with captives. She instituted a strict code of conduct, and
enforced it strictly. All goods and money seized as booty was presented to the fleet and registered
before being redistributed. The capturing ship received 20% of the loot, and the rest went into a
collective fund for the entire fleet. Anyone who withheld plunder faced whipping; repeat offenders or
those who concealed large amounts would be beheaded.¶ A former captive herself, Zheng Shi also had
very strict rules about treatment of female prisoners. Pirates could take beautiful captives as their
wives or concubines, but they had to remain faithful to them and take care of them - unfaithful
husbands would be beheaded. Likewise, any pirate who raped a captive was executed. Ugly women
were to be released unharmed and free of charge on shore.¶ Pirates who deserted their ship would be pursued, and
if found, had their ears cut off. The same fate awaited any who went absent without leave, and the earless culprits
would then be paraded in front of the entire squadron. Using this code of conduct, Zheng Shi built a pirate
empire in the South China Sea that is unrivaled in history for its reach, fearsomeness, communal spirit,
and wealth.¶ In 1806, the Qing dynasty decided to do something about Zheng Shi and her pirate
empire. They sent an armada to fight the pirates, but Zheng Shi's ships quickly sank 63 of the
government's naval ships, sending the rest packing. Both Britain and Portugal declined to directly
intervene against "The Terror of the South China Seas." Zheng Shi had humbled the navies of three
world powers.
Thus we advocate becoming pirates in order to break down traditional sexist norms
and improve the debate community and our lives.
By speaking out, becoming pirates, Helen and I empower ourselves as outsiders in the
debate community. We explore the ocean and explore the world as free kings, going
in the directions that we want, zigzagging the oceans, and telling our stories.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under the Jolly Roger, Reflections on Golden Age Piracy” pp. 2426)CEFS
Khazanov concedes, however, that “some scholars have defined nomads as ¶ all those leading a mobile way of life independent of its economic
specificity.”2¶ If we apply this latter definition,
the golden age pirates—a fluctuating community of marauding
bands ranging in number from a few dozen members ¶ to a maximum of about 200 without a secure
home base—would definitely ¶ belong to the wider community of nomads. The clearest expression of
the fact ¶ that the golden age pirates themselves—who “knew themselves to be homeless and cut off
from their countries of origin”3¶ —understood their community to be nomadic was the common
pirate response to enquiries about where ¶ they came from: From the Seas.¶ 4¶ In fact, the early
buccaneers of Hispaniola ¶ already revealed nomadic tendencies. “According to the French missionary ¶ Abbé du Tertre, ‘they were
without any habitation or fixed abode, but rendezvoused where the animals were to be found.’”5¶ How
radically these tendencies expressed themselves during the golden age of piracy is best described ¶ by David Cordingly:¶ Apart from the
obvious desire to avoid North America in winter, and ¶ a sensible use of the trade winds when crossing
the Atlantic, there ¶ was no consistency in the planning and execution of most voyages. ¶ Indeed, there
was very little forward planning by any of the pirate ¶ crews. The democratic nature of the pirate
community meant that a ¶ vote must be taken by the entire crew before the destination of the ¶ next
voyage could be agreed on, and this inevitably led to many decisions being made on the spur of the
moment. A study of the tracks ¶ of the pirate ships shows many zig-zagging all over the place without ¶
apparent reason.6 One aspect of the golden age pirates’ zig-zagging nomadism is the complete ¶ lack
of a productive economy. Pastoralists, for example, develop patterns of ¶ movement that guarantee
grazing opportunities for their herds, while the ¶ pirates’ movements are bound to the availability of
“prey.” In this respect, ¶ the nomadic culture they most closely resemble in terms of economics is ¶
that of hunters and gatherers . Raiding merchant ships—and the occasional ¶ onshore community or
trading post—might be a peculiar way of hunting ¶ and gathering, of course, but a structurally similar
one. Golden age pirates ¶ share with hunters and gatherers a “nomadism required by the foraging ¶ economy.”7¶ The dependency on
prey in the form of European merchant ships reveals ¶ another structural similarity between golden
age pirates and other nomads, ¶ namely their dependency on the outside world. As Khazanov explains: ¶
“Nomads could never exist on their own without the outside world and its ¶ non-nomadic societies, with their different economic systems.
Indeed, a ¶ nomadic society could only function while the outside world not only existed ¶ but also allowed for those reactions from it…which
ensured that the nomads ¶ remained nomads.”8¶ A
historian of the Caribbean realm confirms that this is ¶ true for
the buccaneers as well, who he calls “essentially stateless persons who ¶ lived comfortably by
commerce with the settled communities of European ¶ colonists.”9
2AC
General AT: Pirates bad
we endorse pirates as a metaphor—we don’t actually support getting on boats and
stealing from the British Royal Navy—pirates are a good metaphor because they
represent a freedom from traditional norms of the time
AT pirates rape
the idea that pirates raped women is a common historical misconception—most
pirates ships executed rapists, or forced them off the ship—that’s the Szczepanski
evidence
AT slave trade
Pirates did not participate in the Atlantic Slave trade, in fact, they were most hated by
the European governments for boarding slave ships across the Atlantic and letting the
people on board leave free.
Piracy offered a chance of freedom for escaped slaves in the 18 th century
Do or die 99 Do or die, anarchist journal, “Pirate Utopias: Under the Banner of King Death” 1999.
http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no8/pirate.html ES
However, not all pirates participated in the slave trade. Indeed large numbers of pirates were ex-slaves;
there was a much higher proportion of blacks on pirate ships than on merchant or naval vessels, and
only rarely did the observers who noted their presence refer to them as 'slaves'. Most of these black
pirates would have been runaway slaves, either joining with the pirates on the course of the voyage
from Africa, deserting from the plantation, or sent as slaves to work on board ship. Some may have
been free men, like the "free Negro" seaman from Deptford who in 1721 led "a Mutiney that we had too
many Officers, and that the work was too hard, and what not." Seafaring in general offered more
autonomy to blacks than life on the plantation, but piracy in particular, could - although it was a risk –
offer[ed] one of the few chances at freedom for an African in the 18th century Atlantic. For example, a
quarter of the two-hundred strong crew of Captain Bellamy's ship the Whydah were black, and
eyewitness accounts of the sinking of the pirate vessel off Wellfleet, Massachusetts in 1717 report that
many of the corpses washed up were black. Pirate historian Kenneth Kinkor argues that although the
Whydah was originally a slave ship, the blacks on board at the time of the sinking were members of the
crew, not slaves. Partially because pirates, along with other tars, "entertain'd so contemptible a Notion
of Landsmen," a black man who knew the ropes was more likely to win respect than a landsman who
didn't. Kinkor notes: "Pirates judged Africans more on the basis of their language and sailing skills - in
other words, on their level of cultural attainment - than on their race."(24)
Pirates interrupted and damaged the Atlantic Slave Trade
Bialuschewski 8 Arne, history professor at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, “Black People under the Black
Flag: Piracy and the Slave Trade on the West Coast of Africa, 1718–1723”, published in volume 29 of “Slavery &
Abolition: A Journal of Slave and Post-Slave Studies” 2008.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01440390802486473#tabModule ES
Meanwhile, piracy caused extensive damage to British, Dutch, French and Portuguese shipping in
Africa. According to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade database, 124 vessels that reached the west coast of
Africa in 1719 made it safely on to America.34 At the same time there were 47 documented seizures of
slave vessels, but due to the fragmentary nature of the evidence the real figure was most likely much
higher.35 The French authorities in the Caribbean, for example, estimated that more than 100 mostly
English vessels had been captured by pirates, and a London newspaper published a list of 84 vessels
that had been seized off the west coast of Africa.36 Although many traders were able to resume their
voyage across the Atlantic after being plundered by pirates, the slave trade suffered heavy losses.
Presumably based on insurance figures, it was claimed that pirates had taken ships and cargoes valued
at £204,000 on the Guinea coast in 1719.37 This was an enormous sum in the early eighteenth century.
The effects of pirate depredations were felt in the New World in particular. In September 1719 the
intendant of Martinique claimed that no slaves had reached the island for almost two years.38 Even if
this statement exaggerates the situation, there was clearly a slump in the number of slaves that arrived
in the Lesser Antilles. One month later a merchant in Barbados wrote: ‘Negroes happen to be Dear now,
from [the] Vast Number the Pyrates have taken upon [the] Coast of Guinea that were Intended for our
Island’ and ‘The Price of Slaves is now Extravagantly High, there having been but one Sale for a
Considerable Time, & those [were] Angolians which are Deem'd the Worst Sort’.39 Merchants pressed
the authorities in London to protect shipping, but the threat from pirates did not stop them from
sending their vessels to Africa. To them, piracy was akin to the known risks of shipwreck and slave
mortality. Many traders dealt with risk by insuring their vessels and cargoes as well as spreading out
their investments.40 With increased risk usually came a substantial profit margin, and there may have
been some lucky merchants who made a fortune.
AT crossdressing
women oftentimes had to dress up as men to join the navy to get access to the pirate
ships. Once on the ships, women often went back to dressing like women. Also, in the
context of 1800s, “dressing like men” means wearing pants—it’s not the worst the in
the world for women to have wanted freedom from the restrictions of nineteenth
century clothing—that’s in the Do or Die evidence from the 1AC about breaking down
gender roles
General AT arguments against “queer”
We use the word “queer” to mean anyone who does not fit within the “normal” ideas
of social expectations, or in this case, debate. We use a broad term so that we can
include anyone who is excluded from debate. We do not necessarily align ourselves
with any movement of queer theory or queer ecology, but we use this language in
order to allow as many people into our movement
AT focus on individual
Focus on the individual—because there are so many ways to be “queer”, some focus
on individualism is necessary—this does not necessarily mean that a movement
cannot work—the disabled community has a wide variety of identities, that doesn’t
mean that they can’t make productive change
AT Creates differences
Creates more differences—the queer identity allows for lots of separate identities
based on race, gender, sexuality, etc, but umbrellas them under the term queer—this
doesn’t mean people can’t focus on certain parts of their identity, it allows for a
broader movement
AT Makes people uncomfortable
The term queer might make people uncomfortable, but it also makes them think—
that’s good
***** Nomadism (No Pirates)*****
Written by your good friendo Zach Babat (Baby
Whiteness)
Deleuzian Nomads Aff (Piratesless)
****1AC****
This is not a war
It's a conversation about what people really need
Fear is a poison
It breeds violence and apathy and greed
So people occupy the streets
So they can occupy the hearts of the fearful
This is not a war
It's a conversation about what people really need
This is not a movement
It's a body's immune system reacting to a disease
It's been trying to cure cancer
With echinacea, vitamin c, and lots of sleep
Now the tumor got so big
That the blood cells have started to speak
This is not a movement
It's a body's immune system reacting to a disease
This is not a protest
It's a tortoise slowly pushing through a race
I hope the tortoise keeps its patience
While the hare continues to pepper spray its face
Unconditional, positive regard
To the ones who hurt you, they're just scared
This is not a protest
It's a tortoise slowly pushing through a race
There is no enemy
There's only people that also love their families
And they're scared that they won't have enough
Long after they are deceased
But how much money do they need?
Love turns into fear, and fear turns into greed
There is no enemy
There's only dummies that also love their families
And this is not a phase,
It's just a matter of time
With diligence and peacefulness
You will reach them & you will change their minds
If you stay there long enough,
They'll start to see you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll start to hear you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll stop trying to hurt you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll understand you
If you stay there long enough,
They will believe you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll start to work with you
Because
This is not a war
It's a conversation about what people really need
There are delineations between the types of knowledge. We need to pursue smooth
space thinking and remove the ontological maps from our thought processes.
Kingsworth and Hine 2009 (Paul Kingsworth add Dougald Hine wrote “The Dark Mountain
Manifesto” and co-founded the Dark Mountain Project. “Uncivilization”)CEFS
The converse also applies. Those voices which tell other stories tend to be rooted in a sense of place. Think of John Berger’s novels and essays
from the Haute Savoie, or the depths explored by Alan Garner within a day’s walk of his birthplace in Cheshire. Think of Wendell Berry or WS
Merwin, Mary Oliver or Cormac McCarthy.
Those whose writings [15] approach the shores of the Uncivilised are
those who know their place, in the physical sense, and who remain wary of the siren cries of
metrovincial fashion and civilised excitement.¶ If we name particular writers whose work embodies what we are arguing
for, the aim is not to place them more prominently on the existing map of literary reputations. Rather, as Geoff Dyer has said of Berger, to
take their work seriously is to redraw the maps altogether — not only the map of literary reputations,
but those by which we navigate all areas of life.¶ Even here, we go carefully, for cartography itself is
not a neutral activity. The drawing of maps is full of colonial echoes. The civilised eye seeks to view
the world from above, as something we can stand over and survey. The Uncivilised writer knows the
world is, rather, something we are enmeshed in — a patchwork and a framework of places,
experiences, sights, smells, sounds. Maps can lead, but can also mislead. Our maps must be the kind
sketched in the dust with a stick, washed away by the next rain. They can be read only by those who
ask to see them, and they cannot be bought.
We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.
This division is the striation of a previously smooth ocean space with grids,
measurements, sea lanes, and ownership.
Lysen and Pisters 12 (Flora Lysen, PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, Patricia Pisters,
Film Studies Prof at the University of Amsterdam “Introduction: The Smooth and the Striated” Deleuze
Studies 6.1 2012 http://dare.uva.nl/document/444829)CEFS
A Thousand Plateaus’ ‘1440: The Smooth and the Striated’ introduces¶ smoothness and striation as a
conceptual pair to rethink space as¶ a complex mixture between nomadic forces and sedentary
captures.¶ Among the models Deleuze and Guattari describe for explicating where¶ we encounter smooth and striated spaces, the
maritime model presents¶ the special problem of the sea (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 479). The¶ sea is a smooth
space par excellence: open water always moved by¶ the wind, the sun and the stars, nomadically
traversable by noise,¶ colour and celestial bearings. Increased navigation of the open water¶ resulted
in demands for its striation. Although Deleuze and Guattari¶ note that this took hold progressively, the year 1440, when
Portuguese¶ discoverers introduced the first nautical charts, marked a turning point¶ in the striation
of the sea. Maps with meridians, parallels, longitudes,¶ latitudes and territories gridded the oceans,
making distances calculable¶ and measurable. It meant the beginning of the great explorations –¶ and
of the transatlantic slave trade and the expansion of the European¶ State apparatus. The smooth and
the striated concern the political and¶ politics.¶
While the
smooth and the striated are not of the same nature
and¶ de jure oppositional, Deleuze and Guattari indicate that de facto they¶ only exist in complex mixed forms. Moreover, the
smooth and the¶ striated work in different domains. If the sea is the spatial field par¶ excellence that brings out
smoothness and striation, art is perhaps the¶ domain that can give the most varied and subtle
expression of the¶ complex dynamics between them.¶ The present collection investigates¶ the smooth and the striated in
the broad field of artistic production. It¶ was instigated by the Third International Deleuze Studies Conference ¶ in Amsterdam (2010) that
focused on the connections between art,¶ science and philosophy. Along with conference papers, the role of art¶ was explored through the
work of participating artists and in a curated¶ exhibition, The Smooth and the Striated. This exhibition focused on¶ the constant interplay
between delineating and opening forces in the¶ works of the eight participating contemporary artists. Together, the¶ installations, videos,
drawings and photographs spurred a wealth of¶ new connections and ideas in relation to the concepts of smoothness¶ and striation: the
artworks touched upon the solidification of historical¶ memory and the transformation of ever growing archival material; the¶ striation of
subterranean city space; the politics of vast demographic¶ datasets; the visualisation of scientific patents; and more.1¶ Similar to the exhibited
artists in the context of the Deleuze Studies¶ Conference, the authors in this volume think with art to shed new and¶ interdisciplinary light upon
the concepts of smoothness and striation,¶ and, conversely, upon the way the smooth and the striated can give¶ important insights into artistic
practices. The smooth and the striated¶ directly address processes in (social, political, geographical, biological)¶ life, taken up in philosophy and
art. Most of the contributions in¶ this volume discuss the concepts of the smooth and the striated in¶ relation to specific artworks that, in Claire
Colebrook’s words, ‘are not¶ representations of images of life’, but, if we consider the emergence of¶ the genesis of art and philosophy, can be
understood as ‘something¶ of life’s creative potential’ (Colebrook 2006: 30). Hence, the singular¶ artworks or artistic practices are not to be
taken as illustrations of¶ the concepts but as singular ways of embodying or expressing the¶ various aspects that the smooth and the striated
envision. ‘If we intuit¶ the forces that produce any single work of art or any single concept,¶ then we might begin to approach singularity as
such: the power of¶ making a difference’ (Colebrook 2006: 30). The essays in this special¶ issue contribute to this power of difference in the
complex interweaving¶ between the smooth and the striated in its philosophical and artistic¶ dimensions.
The conceptual ordering in the striation of the ocean erects a fascist bureaucracy in
the minds of the community that justifies violence from the macropolitcal.
Deleuze & Guattari 80 (Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari “A Thousand Plateaus” pp. 214-215)CEFS
It is not sufficient to define bureaucracy by a rigid segmentarity with ¶ compartmentalization of
contiguous offices, an office manager in each ¶ segment, and the corresponding centralization at the
end of the hall or on ¶ top of the tower. For at the same time there is a whole bureaucratic segmentation, a suppleness of and
communication between offices, a bureaucratic ¶ perversion, a permanent inventiveness or creativity practiced even against ¶ administrative
regulations. If Kafka is the greatest theorist of bureaucracy, ¶ it is because he shows how, at a certain level (but which one? it is not ¶
localizable), the barriers between offices cease to be "a definite dividing ¶ line" and are immersed in a molecular medium (milieu) that dissolves
¶ them and simultaneously makes the office manager proliferate into ¶ microfigures impossible to recognize or identify, discernible only when ¶
they are centralizable: another regime, coexistent with the separation and ¶ totalization of the rigid segments.I0
We would even say
that fascism implies ¶ a molecular regime that is distinct both from molar segments and their
centralization. Doubtless, fascism invented the concept of the totalitarian ¶ State, but there is no
reason to define fascism by a concept of its own devising: there are totalitarian States, of the Stalinist
or military dictatorship ¶ type, that are not fascist. The concept of the totalitarian State applies only ¶
at the macropohtical level, to a rigid segmentarity and a particular mode of ¶ totalization and
centralization. But fascism is inseparable from a proliferation of molecular focuses in interaction,
which skip from point to point, ¶ before beginning to resonate together in the National Socialist State.
Rural ¶ fascism and city or neighborhood fascism, youth fascism and war veteran's ¶ fascism, fascism of the Left and fascism of the Right,
fascism of the couple, ¶ family, school, and office: every fascism is defined by a micro-black hole ¶ that stands on its own and communicates
with the others, before resonating in a great, generalized central black hole.1¶ ' There is fascism when a war ¶ machine is installed in each hole,
in every niche.
Even after the National ¶ Socialist State had been established, microfascisms persisted that
gave it ¶ unequaled ability to act upon the "masses." ¶ Daniel Guerin is correct to say ¶ that if Hitler took power,
rather then taking over the German State administration, it was because from the beginning he had at
his disposal ¶ microorganizations giving him "an unequaled, irreplaceable ability to ¶ penetrate every
cell of society," in other words, a molecular and supple ¶ segmentarity, flows capable of suffusing every kind of
cell. Conversely, if ¶ capitalism came to consider the fascist experience as catastrophic, if it preferred to ally itself with Stalinist totalitarianism,
which from its point of ¶ view was much more sensible and manageable, it was because the egmentarity and centralization of the latter was
more classical and less ¶ fluid. What
makes fascism dangerous is its molecular or micropolitical ¶ power, for it is
a mass movement: a cancerous body rather than a totalitarian organism. American film has often
depicted these molecular focal ¶ points; band, gang, sect, family, town, neighborhood, vehicle fascisms
¶ spare no one. Only microfascism provides an answer to the global question: Why does desire desire
its own repression, how can it desire its own ¶ repression? The masses certainly do not passively
submit to power; nor do ¶ they "want" to be repressed, in a kind of masochistic hysteria; nor are they ¶
tricked by an ideological lure. Desire is never separable from complex ¶ assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from
¶ microforma-tions already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions, ¶ expectations, semiotic systems, etc. Desire is never an
undifferentiated ¶ instinctual energy, but itself results from a highly developed, engineered ¶ setup rich
in interactions: a whole supple segmentarity that processes ¶ molecular energies and potentially gives
desire a fascist determination. ¶ Leftist organizations will not be the last to secrete microfascisms . It's
too ¶ easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist ¶ inside you, the fascist you
yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with ¶ molecules both personal and collective.¶
Four errors
concerning this molecular and supple segmentarity are to be ¶ avoided. The first is axiological and consists in believing that a little suppleness is
enough to make things "better."
But microfascisms are what ¶ make fascism so dangerous , and fine segmentations are
as harmful as the ¶ most rigid of segments. The second is psychological, as if the molecular ¶ were in the realm of the imagination and applied
only to the individual and ¶ interindividual. But there is just as much social-Real on one line as on the ¶ other. Third, the two forms are not
simply distinguished by size, as a small ¶ form and a large form; although it is true that the molecular works in detail ¶ and operates in small
groups, this does not mean that it is any less coextensive with the entire social field than molar organization. Finally, the qualitative difference
between the two lines does not preclude their boosting or ¶ cutting into each other; there is always a proportional relation between the ¶ two,
directly or inversely proportional.
We present the sea as a metaphor for the mind and knowledge. The first maps of
things such as the ocean placed more importance on some things than others, like
making Europe bigger than Africa. This is a reflection of our ontological maps, our
flawed way of interacting with knowledge.
In striated space, according to Deleuze’s Maritime Model, people often decide the
location, the endpoint, over the journey. They commit to a set path, thereby striating
knowledge.
Striation is epistemological brainwashing that society commits us to.
Just like in 1984, wherein Winston tries to reject his society’s ontological thought map
and attempted to sail the high seas of the mind and knowledge and society as a
romanticized nomad. However, he only served as a passenger on his ship. And his
captain was truly an agent of subterfuge, navigating the ship into the rocks, casting
Winston under the waves. We must be at the helm of our own ship, navigating off
nobody’s map, for it is when we navigate towards what we assume as a safe port that
we so often run aground.
WE MUST EMBRACE THE PARADOX THAT EXISTS IN ACADEMIC SETTINGS
HALL
vice-chancellor @ University of Salford
2k10
Martin-historical archaeologist; He was for a time President of the World Archaeological Congress and General Secretary of the South African Archaeological Society. He moved to UCT
(University of Capetown) in 1983, where he led the Centre for African Studies and later became the Head of the Department of Archaeology. He was the inaugural Dean of Higher
Education Development between 1999 and 2002; was deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCT for six years. Professor Hall is married with three children. His wife, Professor Brenda Cooper, is
an academic specialising in post-colonial and African literature; There Was An Ocean; Professional Inaugural Lecture at University of Salford, September 29;
http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73628/There-Was-an-Ocean-final.pdf
Paul Simon’s lyrics capture a paradox. And because paradoxes must, by definition, embody profound truth, this
signals something interesting, worth exploring further. Change emerges from the unchanging. The
predictability and solidity of mountains and oceans foreclose on our ability to alter our
environment. But, at the same time, they also enable us to navigate the world around us,
including our intellectual and emotional conceptualization of experience. The ability of
universities to bring about change and to produce new knowledge rests on this paradox.
Like the ocean, they are robust and survive as organizational forms. Like mountains, they
are solidly built and steeped in traditions and processes that may appear, and sometimes
are, arcane. They remain reassuringly familiar , founded in disciplines and systems of
accreditation that persist stubbornly. But they are also sites of new ideas and opportunities,
unstoppable in their motion, which are entwined with their traditions.
CHANGE emerges from the UNCHANGING; hence the symbolism of MOUNTAINS,
which shapes where the oceans can flow, and OCEANS, which shape the mountain.
This year’s topic about Ocean Exploration and/or development can enable us to
NAVIGATE the world around us, build on our INTELLECUTAL and EMOTIONAL
conceptualization of experience. The university, like the ocean, is ROBUST and
SURVIVES as organizational forms while simultaneously resembling the mountains,
solidly built and steeped in traditions and ARCANE practices. REASSURINGLY
FAMILIAR, STUBBORN PERSISTENCE, universities are sites of new ideas and
opportunities UNSTOPPABLE in their MOTION that are entwined with their traditions.
The persistence of the institution of debate, constantly advocating things of import,
enables it to be an outlet for change.
Nomads of the sea disrupt striation on the smoothness of the sea of the mind,
attacking the mindset the state, a metaphor for society, advocates.
Heckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge is an
independent peer-reviewed online journal (ISSN 1555-9998) born at Bowling Green State University,
“"Gotta Catch 'em All": Capitalism, the War Machine, and the Pokémon Trainer”,
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#nomad . This article may seem to be very odd, as
the root deals heavily with Pokemon. The article seeks to connect multiple concepts.)
Nomad: " Nomadism" is a way of life that exists outside of the organizational "State." The nomadic
way of life is characterized by movement across space which exists in sharp contrast to the rigid and
static boundaries of the State. Deleuze and Guattari explain:¶ The nomad has a territory; he follows
customary paths; he goes from one point to another; he is not ignorant of points (water points, dwelling
points, assembly points, etc.). But the question is what in nomad life is a principle and what is only a
consequence.
To begin with,
although the points determine paths, they are strictly subordinated to the
paths they determine, the reverse happens with the sedentary. The water point is reached only in
order to be left behind; every point is a relay and exists only as a relay. A path is always between two
points, but the in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an autonomy and a
direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the intermezzo. (380)¶ The nomad, is thus, a way of being
in the middle or between points. It is characterized by movement and change, and is unfettered by
systems of organization. The goal of the nomad is only to continue to move within the "intermezzo."
We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.
Thus we advocate the exploration of the mind and knowledge that follows no
fixed path, has no goal, and has no forseeable end. We advocate the zig-zagging
exploration of our own oceans as nomads, in an attempt to burn our flawed
knowledge maps.
We, as nomads, are part of the nomadic war machine on the ocean that preserves this
space as the space of freedom.
Heckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge is an
independent peer-reviewed online journal (ISSN 1555-9998) born at Bowling Green State University,
“"Gotta Catch 'em All": Capitalism, the War Machine, and the Pokémon Trainer”,
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#warmachine . This article may seem to be very
odd, as the root deals heavily with Pokemon. The article seeks to connect multiple concepts.)
WAR MACHINE:¶ The
"War Machine" is a tool of the nomad through which capture can be avoided and
smooth space preserved. Rather than the military (which is a State appropriation of the war machine),
the war machine is a collection of nomad-warriors engaged in resistance to control , war being only a
consequence—not the intended object. The military on the other hand, is an organization formed by the State
formed specifically to wage wars and immobilize adversaries (which are determined by the State):¶ The
question is therefore less the realization of war than the appropriation of the war machine. It is at the
same time that the State apparatus appropriates the war machine, subordinates it to its "political" aims,
and gives it war as its direct object. (D&G 420)¶ Unlike the military, the war machine is not influenced by the
economic and political concerns of the State. The war machine is a "grass roots" affair which bubbles
up from common concerns for freedom to move, and as a result it is part and parcel of nomadic life.
Melancholy negates the will to act – it makes us slaves of the powerful and uses our
fears to exterminate difference. We must focus on the affects of nomadism to reject
the salvation morality.
Deleuze and Parnet ‘87
famous philosopher, Professor of Philosophy at the Sorbonne, Dialogues II, European Perspectives, with
Claire Parnet, freelance journalist, translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, 2002 pgs.6162
Edited for gendered language.
When Spinoza says 'The surprising thing is the body ... we do not yet know what a body is capable of ... ',
he does not want to make the body a model, and the soul simply dependent on the body. He has a
subtler task. He wants to demolish the pseudo-superiority of the soul over the body. There is the soul
and the body and both express one and the same thing: an attribute of the body is also an expressed of
the soul (for example, speed). Just as you do not know what a body is capable of, just as there are
many things in the body that you do not know, so there are in the soul many things which go beyond
your consciousness. This is the question: what is a body capable of? what affects are you capable of?
Experiment, but you need a lot of prudence to experiment. We live in a world which is generally
disagreeable, where not only people but the established powers have a stake in transmitting sad
affects to us. Sadness, sad affects , are all those which reduce our power to act. The established
powers need our sadness to make us slaves. The tyrant, the priest, the captors of souls need to
persuade us that life is hard and a burden. The powers that be need to repress us no less than to
make us anxious or, as Virilio says, to administer and organize our intimate little fears . The long,
universal moan about life: the lack-to-be which is life ... In vain someone says, 'Let's dance'; we are
not really very happy. In vain someone says, ‘What misfortune death is'; for one would need to have
lived to have something to lose. Those who are sick, in soul as in body, will not let go of us, the
vampires, until they have transmitted to us their neurosis and their anxiety, their beloved castration,
the resentment against life, filthy contagion. It is all a matter of blood. It is not easy to be a free man,
to flee the plague , organize encounters, increase the power to act, to be moved by joy, to multiply
the affects which express or encompass a maximum of affirmation . To make the body a power which
is not reducible to the organism, to make thought a power which is not reducible to consciousness.
Spinoza’s famous first principle (a single substance for all attributes) depends on this assemblage and
not vice versa. There is a Spinoza-assemblage: soul and body, relationships and encounters, power to be
affected, affects which realize this power, sadness and joy which qualify these affects. Here philosophy
becomes the art of a functioning, of an assemblage. Spinoza, the man of encounters and becoming, the
philosopher with the tick, Spinoza the imperceptible, always in the middle, always in flight although he
does not shift much, a flight from the Jewish community, a flight from Powers, a flight from the sick and
the malignant. He may be ill, he may himself die; he knows that death is neither the goal nor the end,
but that, on the contrary, it is a case of passing his life to someone else. What Lawrence says about
Whitman’s continuous life is well suited to Spinoza: the Soul and the Body, the soul is neither above nor
inside, it is ‘with’, it is on the road, exposed to all contacts, encounters, in the company of those who
follow the same way, ‘feel with them, seize the vibration of their soul and their body as they pass’, the
opposite of a morality of salvation, teaching to soul its life, not to save it.
We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.
OUR DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH IS KEY TO SOCIAL CHANGE. The University,
academia, values intelligent debate. It is individuals who must listen and learn. It is
individuals and intellectuals that cause spillover.
HALL
vice-chancellor @ University of Salford 2k10
Martin-historical archaeologist; He was for a time President of the World Archaeological Congress and General Secretary of the South
African Archaeological Society. He moved to UCT (University of Capetown) in 1983, where he led the Centre for African Studies and later
became the Head of the Department of Archaeology. He was the inaugural Dean of Higher Education Development between 1999 and
2002; was deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCT for six years. Professor Hall is married with three children. His wife, Professor Brenda Cooper,
is an academic specialising in post-colonial and African literature; There Was An Ocean; Professional Inaugural Lecture at University of
Salford, September 29; http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73628/There-Was-an-Ocean-final.pdf
This leads in turn to a final example of the ways in which formal legislation, which tends towards
tradition, must be rendered malleable by lived experience in a recursive network
of stable change. It is an example which brings us back to Cape Town, in the circulating system of references that has
constituted this presentation. As with South Africa, British universities are subject to legislation that
seeks to advance equality for defined “equality strands”, broadly the equivalent of designated
groups in South African legislation. And, as with South Africa, there is a clear danger that legislation, which
is a vital site for resistance to the Apartheid past, will remain at the formal level as an issue
of compliance.
Our Listen! strategy seeks to address this by taking a development approach to
equality and diversity. The focus on “listening” evokes one of the founding values of the
academy; a constant openness to new possibilities and a willingness to challenge and debate the
status quo . Listening, in turn, leads to appropriate actions that advance respect for
the values of diversity. This has been expressed by Judith Butler in her essay, “Giving an Account on Oneself”, “our shared,
invariable, and partial blindness about ourselves”. Our knowledge of ourselves is inevitably
incomplete. Opportunities come from creating spaces for new voices to be heard.
For a university, where respect for new thinking and expression is a founding
value, the virtue of listening is paramount.
By taking a developmental approach, Listen! seeks the recognition of diversity and
difference as educational assets, the protection and advancement of minority
groups, and the provision of opportunities for all individuals to realize their full
potential. Whether in Cape Town or Salford, the university with its enshrined rituals, customs,
respect for debate and status, has the potential to drive the battle for social
justice. I have suggested that these processes of institutional transformation can be
analysed as the interplay between formal and substantive elements of making
meaning, traced as circulating systems of references. But thickening and
deepening this understanding of structures, both formal and substantive, at the
end of a long swim and a big climb, it is individuals who have to listen and learn
and change as part of their university education. This accounts for the slight, but
crucial change in the sameness of the repetition of Paul Simon’s ballad:
Once upon a time there was an ocean. But now it’s a mountain range. Something
unstoppable set into motion. Nothing is different, but everything’s changed.
I figure that once upon a time I was an ocean. But now I’m a mountain range.
Something unstoppable set into motion. Nothing is different, but everything’s
changed.
****1NC Policy Affs****
This is not a war
It's a conversation about what people really need
Fear is a poison
It breeds violence and apathy and greed
So people occupy the streets
So they can occupy the hearts of the fearful
This is not a war
It's a conversation about what people really need
This is not a movement
It's a body's immune system reacting to a disease
It's been trying to cure cancer
With echinacea, vitamin c, and lots of sleep
Now the tumor got so big
That the blood cells have started to speak
This is not a movement
It's a body's immune system reacting to a disease
This is not a protest
It's a tortoise slowly pushing through a race
I hope the tortoise keeps its patience
While the hare continues to pepper spray its face
Unconditional, positive regard
To the ones who hurt you, they're just scared
This is not a protest
It's a tortoise slowly pushing through a race
There is no enemy
There's only people that also love their families
And they're scared that they won't have enough
Long after they are deceased
But how much money do they need?
Love turns into fear, and fear turns into greed
There is no enemy
There's only dummies that also love their families
And this is not a phase,
It's just a matter of time
With diligence and peacefulness
You will reach them & you will change their minds
If you stay there long enough,
They'll start to see you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll start to hear you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll stop trying to hurt you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll understand you
If you stay there long enough,
They will believe you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll start to work with you
Because
This is not a war
It's a conversation about what people really need
There are delineations between the types of knowledge. We need to pursue smooth
space thinking and remove the ontological maps from our thought processes.
Kingsworth and Hine 2009 (Paul Kingsworth add Dougald Hine wrote “The Dark Mountain
Manifesto” and co-founded the Dark Mountain Project. “Uncivilization”)CEFS
The converse also applies. Those voices which tell other stories tend to be rooted in a sense of place. Think of John Berger’s novels and essays
from the Haute Savoie, or the depths explored by Alan Garner within a day’s walk of his birthplace in Cheshire. Think of Wendell Berry or WS
Merwin, Mary Oliver or Cormac McCarthy.
Those whose writings [15] approach the shores of the Uncivilised are
those who know their place, in the physical sense, and who remain wary of the siren cries of
metrovincial fashion and civilised excitement.¶ If we name particular writers whose work embodies what we are arguing
for, the aim is not to place them more prominently on the existing map of literary reputations. Rather, as Geoff Dyer has said of Berger, to
take their work seriously is to redraw the maps altogether — not only the map of literary reputations,
but those by which we navigate all areas of life.¶ Even here, we go carefully, for cartography itself is
not a neutral activity. The drawing of maps is full of colonial echoes. The civilised eye seeks to view
the world from above, as something we can stand over and survey. The Uncivilised writer knows the
world is, rather, something we are enmeshed in — a patchwork and a framework of places,
experiences, sights, smells, sounds. Maps can lead, but can also mislead. Our maps must be the kind
sketched in the dust with a stick, washed away by the next rain. They can be read only by those who
ask to see them, and they cannot be bought.
We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.
This division is the striation of a previously smooth ocean space with grids,
measurements, sea lanes, and ownership.
Lysen and Pisters 12 (Flora Lysen, PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, Patricia Pisters,
Film Studies Prof at the University of Amsterdam “Introduction: The Smooth and the Striated” Deleuze
Studies 6.1 2012 http://dare.uva.nl/document/444829)CEFS
A Thousand Plateaus’ ‘1440: The Smooth and the Striated’ introduces¶ smoothness and striation as a
conceptual pair to rethink space as¶ a complex mixture between nomadic forces and sedentary
captures.¶ Among the models Deleuze and Guattari describe for explicating where¶ we encounter smooth and striated spaces, the
maritime model presents¶ the special problem of the sea (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 479). The¶ sea is a smooth
space par excellence: open water always moved by¶ the wind, the sun and the stars, nomadically
traversable by noise,¶ colour and celestial bearings. Increased navigation of the open water¶ resulted
in demands for its striation. Although Deleuze and Guattari¶ note that this took hold progressively, the year 1440, when
Portuguese¶ discoverers introduced the first nautical charts, marked a turning point¶ in the striation
of the sea. Maps with meridians, parallels, longitudes,¶ latitudes and territories gridded the oceans,
making distances calculable¶ and measurable. It meant the beginning of the great explorations –¶ and
of the transatlantic slave trade and the expansion of the European¶ State apparatus. The smooth and
the striated concern the political and¶ politics.¶
While the
smooth and the striated are not of the same nature
exist in complex mixed forms. Moreover, the
smooth and the¶ striated work in different domains. If the sea is the spatial field par¶ excellence that brings out
smoothness and striation, art is perhaps the¶ domain that can give the most varied and subtle
expression of the¶ complex dynamics between them.¶ The present collection investigates¶ the smooth and the striated in
and¶ de jure oppositional, Deleuze and Guattari indicate that de facto they¶ only
the broad field of artistic production. It¶ was instigated by the Third International Deleuze Studies Conference ¶ in Amsterdam (2010) that
focused on the connections between art,¶ science and philosophy. Along with conference papers, the role of art¶ was explored through the
work of participating artists and in a curated¶ exhibition, The Smooth and the Striated. This exhibition focused on¶ the constant interplay
between delineating and opening forces in the¶ works of the eight participating contemporary artists. Together, the¶ installations, videos,
drawings and photographs spurred a wealth of¶ new connections and ideas in relation to the concepts of smoothness¶ and striation: the
artworks touched upon the solidification of historical¶ memory and the transformation of ever growing archival material; the¶ striation of
subterranean city space; the politics of vast demographic¶ datasets; the visualisation of scientific patents; and more.1¶ Similar to the exhibited
artists in the context of the Deleuze Studies¶ Conference, the authors in this volume think with art to shed new and¶ interdisciplinary light upon
the concepts of smoothness and striation,¶ and, conversely, upon the way the smooth and the striated can give¶ important insights into artistic
practices. The smooth and the striated¶ directly address processes in (social, political, geographical, biological)¶ life, taken up in philosophy and
art. Most of the contributions in¶ this volume discuss the concepts of the smooth and the striated in¶ relation to specific artworks that, in Claire
Colebrook’s words, ‘are not¶ representations of images of life’, but, if we consider the emergence of¶ the genesis of art and philosophy, can be
understood as ‘something¶ of life’s creative potential’ (Colebrook 2006: 30). Hence, the singular¶ artworks or artistic practices are not to be
taken as illustrations of¶ the concepts but as singular ways of embodying or expressing the¶ various aspects that the smooth and the striated
envision. ‘If we intuit¶ the forces that produce any single work of art or any single concept,¶ then we might begin to approach singularity as
such: the power of¶ making a difference’ (Colebrook 2006: 30). The essays in this special¶ issue contribute to this power of difference in the
complex interweaving¶ between the smooth and the striated in its philosophical and artistic¶ dimensions.
The conceptual ordering in the striation of the ocean erects a fascist bureaucracy in
the minds of the community that justifies violence from the macropolitcal.
Deleuze & Guattari 80 (Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari “A Thousand Plateaus” pp. 214-215)CEFS
It is not sufficient to define bureaucracy by a rigid segmentarity with ¶ compartmentalization of
contiguous offices, an office manager in each ¶ segment, and the corresponding centralization at the
end of the hall or on ¶ top of the tower. For at the same time there is a whole bureaucratic segmentation, a suppleness of and
communication between offices, a bureaucratic ¶ perversion, a permanent inventiveness or creativity practiced even against ¶ administrative
regulations. If Kafka is the greatest theorist of bureaucracy, ¶ it is because he shows how, at a certain level (but which one? it is not ¶
localizable), the barriers between offices cease to be "a definite dividing ¶ line" and are immersed in a molecular medium (milieu) that dissolves
¶ them and simultaneously makes the office manager proliferate into ¶ microfigures impossible to recognize or identify, discernible only when ¶
they are centralizable: another regime, coexistent with the separation and ¶ totalization of the rigid segments.I0
We would even say
that fascism implies ¶ a molecular regime that is distinct both from molar segments and their
centralization. Doubtless, fascism invented the concept of the totalitarian ¶ State, but there is no
reason to define fascism by a concept of its own devising: there are totalitarian States, of the Stalinist
or military dictatorship ¶ type, that are not fascist. The concept of the totalitarian State applies only ¶
at the macropohtical level, to a rigid segmentarity and a particular mode of ¶ totalization and
centralization. But fascism is inseparable from a proliferation of molecular focuses in interaction,
which skip from point to point, ¶ before beginning to resonate together in the National Socialist State.
Rural ¶ fascism and city or neighborhood fascism, youth fascism and war veteran's ¶ fascism, fascism of the Left and fascism of the Right,
fascism of the couple, ¶ family, school, and office: every fascism is defined by a micro-black hole ¶ that stands on its own and communicates
with the others, before resonating in a great, generalized central black hole.1¶ ' There is fascism when a war ¶ machine is installed in each hole,
in every niche.
Even after the National ¶ Socialist State had been established, microfascisms persisted that
gave it ¶ unequaled ability to act upon the "masses." ¶ Daniel Guerin is correct to say ¶ that if Hitler took power,
rather then taking over the German State administration, it was because from the beginning he had at
his disposal ¶ microorganizations giving him "an unequaled, irreplaceable ability to ¶ penetrate every
cell of society," in other words, a molecular and supple ¶ segmentarity, flows capable of suffusing every kind of
cell. Conversely, if ¶ capitalism came to consider the fascist experience as catastrophic, if it preferred to ally itself with Stalinist totalitarianism,
which from its point of ¶ view was much more sensible and manageable, it was because the egmentarity and centralization of the latter was
more classical and less ¶ fluid. What
makes fascism dangerous is its molecular or micropolitical ¶ power, for it is
a mass movement: a cancerous body rather than a totalitarian organism. American film has often
depicted these molecular focal ¶ points; band, gang, sect, family, town, neighborhood, vehicle fascisms
¶ spare no one. Only microfascism provides an answer to the global question: Why does desire desire
its own repression, how can it desire its own ¶ repression? The masses certainly do not passively
submit to power; nor do ¶ they "want" to be repressed, in a kind of masochistic hysteria; nor are they ¶
tricked by an ideological lure. Desire is never separable from complex ¶ assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from
¶ microforma-tions already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions, ¶ expectations, semiotic systems, etc. Desire is never an
undifferentiated ¶ instinctual energy, but itself results from a highly developed, engineered ¶ setup rich
in interactions: a whole supple segmentarity that processes ¶ molecular energies and potentially gives
desire a fascist determination. ¶ Leftist organizations will not be the last to secrete microfascisms . It's
too ¶ easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist ¶ inside you, the fascist you
yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with ¶ molecules both personal and collective.¶
Four errors
concerning this molecular and supple segmentarity are to be ¶ avoided. The first is axiological and consists in believing that a little suppleness is
enough to make things "better."
But microfascisms are what ¶ make fascism so dangerous , and fine segmentations are
as harmful as the ¶ most rigid of segments. The second is psychological, as if the molecular ¶ were in the realm of the imagination and applied
only to the individual and ¶ interindividual. But there is just as much social-Real on one line as on the ¶ other. Third, the two forms are not
simply distinguished by size, as a small ¶ form and a large form; although it is true that the molecular works in detail ¶ and operates in small
groups, this does not mean that it is any less coextensive with the entire social field than molar organization. Finally, the qualitative difference
between the two lines does not preclude their boosting or ¶ cutting into each other; there is always a proportional relation between the ¶ two,
directly or inversely proportional.
We present the sea as a metaphor for the mind and knowledge. The first maps of
things such as the ocean placed more importance on some things than others, like
making Europe bigger than Africa. This is a reflection of our ontological maps, our
flawed way of interacting with knowledge. In striated space, according to Deleuze’s
Maritime Model, people often decide the location, the endpoint, over the journey.
They commit to a set path, a path where only the USFG can do things, thereby
striating knowledge.
Striation is epistemological brainwashing that society commits us to. Just like in 1984,
wherein Winston tries to reject his society’s ontological thought map and attempted
to sail the high seas of the mind and of society as a romanticized nomad. However, he
only served as a passenger on his ship. And his captain was truly an agent of
subterfuge, navigating the ship into the rocks, casting Winston under the waves. We
must be at the helm of our own ship, navigating off nobody’s map, for it is when we
navigate towards what we assume as a safe port that we so often run aground.
Melancholy and sad affects, such as that the aff has inserted into this debate space,
negates the will to act – it makes us slaves of the powerful and uses our fears to
exterminate difference. We must focus on the affects of nomadism to reject the
salvation morality.
Deleuze and Parnet ‘87
famous philosopher, Professor of Philosophy at the Sorbonne, Dialogues II, European Perspectives, with
Claire Parnet, freelance journalist, translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, 2002 pgs.6162
Edited for gendered language.
When Spinoza says 'The surprising thing is the body ... we do not yet know what a body is capable of ... ',
he does not want to make the body a model, and the soul simply dependent on the body. He has a
subtler task. He wants to demolish the pseudo-superiority of the soul over the body. There is the soul
and the body and both express one and the same thing: an attribute of the body is also an expressed of
the soul (for example, speed). Just as you do not know what a body is capable of, just as there are
many things in the body that you do not know, so there are in the soul many things which go beyond
your consciousness. This is the question: what is a body capable of? what affects are you capable of?
Experiment, but you need a lot of prudence to experiment. We live in a world which is generally
disagreeable, where not only people but the established powers have a stake in transmitting sad
affects to us. Sadness, sad affects , are all those which reduce our power to act. The established
powers need our sadness to make us slaves. The tyrant, the priest, the captors of souls need to
persuade us that life is hard and a burden. The powers that be need to repress us no less than to
make us anxious or, as Virilio says, to administer and organize our intimate little fears . The long,
universal moan about life: the lack-to-be which is life ... In vain someone says, 'Let's dance'; we are
not really very happy. In vain someone says, ‘What misfortune death is'; for one would need to have
lived to have something to lose. Those who are sick, in soul as in body, will not let go of us, the
vampires, until they have transmitted to us their neurosis and their anxiety, their beloved castration,
the resentment against life, filthy contagion. It is all a matter of blood. It is not easy to be a free man,
to flee the plague , organize encounters, increase the power to act, to be moved by joy, to multiply
the affects which express or encompass a maximum of affirmation . To make the body a power which
is not reducible to the organism, to make thought a power which is not reducible to consciousness.
Spinoza’s famous first principle (a single substance for all attributes) depends on this assemblage and
not vice versa. There is a Spinoza-assemblage: soul and body, relationships and encounters, power to be
affected, affects which realize this power, sadness and joy which qualify these affects. Here philosophy
becomes the art of a functioning, of an assemblage. Spinoza, the man of encounters and becoming, the
philosopher with the tick, Spinoza the imperceptible, always in the middle, always in flight although he
does not shift much, a flight from the Jewish community, a flight from Powers, a flight from the sick and
the malignant. He may be ill, he may himself die; he knows that death is neither the goal nor the end,
but that, on the contrary, it is a case of passing his life to someone else. What Lawrence says about
Whitman’s continuous life is well suited to Spinoza: the Soul and the Body, the soul is neither above nor
inside, it is ‘with’, it is on the road, exposed to all contacts, encounters, in the company of those who
follow the same way, ‘feel with them, seize the vibration of their soul and their body as they pass’, the
opposite of a morality of salvation, teaching to soul its life, not to save it.
We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.
WE MUST EMBRACE THE PARADOX THAT EXISTS IN ACADEMIC SETTINGS
HALL
vice-chancellor @ University of Salford
2k10
Martin-historical archaeologist; He was for a time President of the World Archaeological Congress and General Secretary of the South African Archaeological Society. He moved to UCT
(University of Capetown) in 1983, where he led the Centre for African Studies and later became the Head of the Department of Archaeology. He was the inaugural Dean of Higher
Education Development between 1999 and 2002; was deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCT for six years. Professor Hall is married with three children. His wife, Professor Brenda Cooper, is
an academic specialising in post-colonial and African literature; There Was An Ocean; Professional Inaugural Lecture at University of Salford, September 29;
http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73628/There-Was-an-Ocean-final.pdf
Paul Simon’s lyrics capture a paradox. And because paradoxes must, by definition, embody profound truth, this
signals something interesting, worth exploring further. Change emerges from the unchanging. The
predictability and solidity of mountains and oceans foreclose on our ability to alter our
environment. But, at the same time, they also enable us to navigate the world around us,
including our intellectual and emotional conceptualization of experience. The ability of
universities to bring about change and to produce new knowledge rests on this paradox.
Like the ocean, they are robust and survive as organizational forms. Like mountains, they
are solidly built and steeped in traditions and processes that may appear, and sometimes
are, arcane. They remain reassuringly familiar , founded in disciplines and systems of
accreditation that persist stubbornly. But they are also sites of new ideas and opportunities,
unstoppable in their motion, which are entwined with their traditions.
CHANGE emerges from the UNCHANGING; hence the symbolism of MOUNTAINS,
which shapes where the oceans can flow, and OCEANS, which shape the mountain.
This year’s topic about Ocean Exploration and/or development can enable us to
NAVIGATE the world around us, build on our INTELLECUTAL and EMOTIONAL
conceptualization of experience. The university, like the ocean, is ROBUST and
SURVIVES as organizational forms while simultaneously resembling the mountains,
solidly built and steeped in traditions and ARCANE practices. REASSURINGLY
FAMILIAR, STUBBORN PERSISTENCE, universities are sites of new ideas and
opportunities UNSTOPPABLE in their MOTION that are entwined with their traditions.
The persistence of the institution of debate, constantly advocating things of import,
enables it to be an outlet for change.
Nomads of the sea disrupt striation on the smoothness of the sea of the mind,
attacking the mindset the state, a metaphor for society, advocates.
Heckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge is an
independent peer-reviewed online journal (ISSN 1555-9998) born at Bowling Green State University,
“"Gotta Catch 'em All": Capitalism, the War Machine, and the Pokémon Trainer”,
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#nomad . This article may seem to be very odd, as
the root deals heavily with Pokemon. The article seeks to connect multiple concepts.)
Nomad: " Nomadism" is a way of life that exists outside of the organizational "State." The nomadic
way of life is characterized by movement across space which exists in sharp contrast to the rigid and
static boundaries of the State. Deleuze and Guattari explain:¶ The nomad has a territory; he follows
customary paths; he goes from one point to another; he is not ignorant of points (water points, dwelling
points, assembly points, etc.). But the question is what in nomad life is a principle and what is only a
consequence.
To begin with,
although the points determine paths, they are strictly subordinated to the
paths they determine, the reverse happens with the sedentary. The water point is reached only in
order to be left behind; every point is a relay and exists only as a relay. A path is always between two
points, but the in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an autonomy and a
direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the intermezzo. (380)¶ The nomad, is thus, a way of being
in the middle or between points. It is characterized by movement and change, and is unfettered by
systems of organization. The goal of the nomad is only to continue to move within the "intermezzo."
We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.
Thus we advocate the exploration of the mind and knowledge that follows no
fixed path, has no goal, and has no forseeable end. We advocate the zig-zagging
exploration of our own oceans as nomads, in an attempt to burn our flawed
knowledge maps.
We, as nomads, are part of the nomadic war machine on the ocean that preserves this
space as the space of freedom.
Heckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge is an
independent peer-reviewed online journal (ISSN 1555-9998) born at Bowling Green State University,
“"Gotta Catch 'em All": Capitalism, the War Machine, and the Pokémon Trainer”,
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#warmachine . This article may seem to be very
odd, as the root deals heavily with Pokemon. The article seeks to connect multiple concepts.)
WAR MACHINE:¶ The
"War Machine" is a tool of the nomad through which capture can be avoided and
smooth space preserved. Rather than the military (which is a State appropriation of the war machine),
the war machine is a collection of nomad-warriors engaged in resistance to control , war being only a
consequence—not the intended object. The military on the other hand, is an organization formed by the State
formed specifically to wage wars and immobilize adversaries (which are determined by the State):¶ The
question is therefore less the realization of war than the appropriation of the war machine. It is at the
same time that the State apparatus appropriates the war machine, subordinates it to its "political" aims,
and gives it war as its direct object. (D&G 420)¶ Unlike the military, the war machine is not influenced by the
economic and political concerns of the State. The war machine is a "grass roots" affair which bubbles
up from common concerns for freedom to move, and as a result it is part and parcel of nomadic life.
OUR DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH IS KEY TO SOCIAL CHANGE. The University,
academia, values intelligent debate. It is individuals who must listen and learn. It is
individuals and intellectuals that cause spillover.
HALL
vice-chancellor @ University of Salford 2k10
Martin-historical archaeologist; He was for a time President of the World Archaeological Congress and General Secretary of the South
African Archaeological Society. He moved to UCT (University of Capetown) in 1983, where he led the Centre for African Studies and later
became the Head of the Department of Archaeology. He was the inaugural Dean of Higher Education Development between 1999 and
2002; was deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCT for six years. Professor Hall is married with three children. His wife, Professor Brenda Cooper,
is an academic specialising in post-colonial and African literature; There Was An Ocean; Professional Inaugural Lecture at University of
Salford, September 29; http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73628/There-Was-an-Ocean-final.pdf
This leads in turn to a final example of the ways in which formal legislation, which tends towards
tradition, must be rendered malleable by lived experience in a recursive network
of stable change. It is an example which brings us back to Cape Town, in the circulating system of references that has
constituted this presentation. As with South Africa, British universities are subject to legislation that
seeks to advance equality for defined “equality strands”, broadly the equivalent of designated
groups in South African legislation. And, as with South Africa, there is a clear danger that legislation, which
is a vital site for resistance to the Apartheid past, will remain at the formal level as an issue
of compliance.
Our Listen! strategy seeks to address this by taking a development approach to
equality and diversity. The focus on “listening” evokes one of the founding values of the
academy; a constant openness to new possibilities and a willingness to challenge and debate the
status quo . Listening, in turn, leads to appropriate actions that advance respect for
the values of diversity. This has been expressed by Judith Butler in her essay, “Giving an Account on Oneself”, “our shared,
invariable, and partial blindness about ourselves”. Our knowledge of ourselves is inevitably
incomplete. Opportunities come from creating spaces for new voices to be heard.
For a university, where respect for new thinking and expression is a founding
value, the virtue of listening is paramount.
By taking a developmental approach, Listen! seeks the recognition of diversity and
difference as educational assets, the protection and advancement of minority
groups, and the provision of opportunities for all individuals to realize their full
potential. Whether in Cape Town or Salford, the university with its enshrined rituals, customs,
respect for debate and status, has the potential to drive the battle for social
justice. I have suggested that these processes of institutional transformation can be
analysed as the interplay between formal and substantive elements of making
meaning, traced as circulating systems of references. But thickening and
deepening this understanding of structures, both formal and substantive, at the
end of a long swim and a big climb, it is individuals who have to listen and learn
and change as part of their university education. This accounts for the slight, but
crucial change in the sameness of the repetition of Paul Simon’s ballad:
Once upon a time there was an ocean. But now it’s a mountain range. Something
unstoppable set into motion. Nothing is different, but everything’s changed.
I figure that once upon a time I was an ocean. But now I’m a mountain range.
Something unstoppable set into motion. Nothing is different, but everything’s
changed.
****1NC Kritikal Affs****
This is not a war
It's a conversation about what people really need
Fear is a poison
It breeds violence and apathy and greed
So people occupy the streets
So they can occupy the hearts of the fearful
This is not a war
It's a conversation about what people really need
This is not a movement
It's a body's immune system reacting to a disease
It's been trying to cure cancer
With echinacea, vitamin c, and lots of sleep
Now the tumor got so big
That the blood cells have started to speak
This is not a movement
It's a body's immune system reacting to a disease
This is not a protest
It's a tortoise slowly pushing through a race
I hope the tortoise keeps its patience
While the hare continues to pepper spray its face
Unconditional, positive regard
To the ones who hurt you, they're just scared
This is not a protest
It's a tortoise slowly pushing through a race
There is no enemy
There's only people that also love their families
And they're scared that they won't have enough
Long after they are deceased
But how much money do they need?
Love turns into fear, and fear turns into greed
There is no enemy
There's only dummies that also love their families
And this is not a phase,
It's just a matter of time
With diligence and peacefulness
You will reach them & you will change their minds
If you stay there long enough,
They'll start to see you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll start to hear you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll stop trying to hurt you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll understand you
If you stay there long enough,
They will believe you
If you stay there long enough,
They'll start to work with you
Because
This is not a war
It's a conversation about what people really need
There are delineations between the types of knowledge. We need to pursue smooth
space thinking and remove the ontological maps from our thought processes.
Kingsworth and Hine 2009 (Paul Kingsworth add Dougald Hine wrote “The Dark Mountain
Manifesto” and co-founded the Dark Mountain Project. “Uncivilization”)CEFS
The converse also applies. Those voices which tell other stories tend to be rooted in a sense of place. Think of John Berger’s novels and essays
from the Haute Savoie, or the depths explored by Alan Garner within a day’s walk of his birthplace in Cheshire. Think of Wendell Berry or WS
Merwin, Mary Oliver or Cormac McCarthy.
Those whose writings [15] approach the shores of the Uncivilised are
those who know their place, in the physical sense, and who remain wary of the siren cries of
metrovincial fashion and civilised excitement.¶ If we name particular writers whose work embodies what we are arguing
for, the aim is not to place them more prominently on the existing map of literary reputations. Rather, as Geoff Dyer has said of Berger, to
take their work seriously is to redraw the maps altogether — not only the map of literary reputations,
but those by which we navigate all areas of life.¶ Even here, we go carefully, for cartography itself is
not a neutral activity. The drawing of maps is full of colonial echoes. The civilised eye seeks to view
the world from above, as something we can stand over and survey. The Uncivilised writer knows the
world is, rather, something we are enmeshed in — a patchwork and a framework of places,
experiences, sights, smells, sounds. Maps can lead, but can also mislead. Our maps must be the kind
sketched in the dust with a stick, washed away by the next rain. They can be read only by those who
ask to see them, and they cannot be bought.
We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.
This division is the striation of a previously smooth ocean space with grids,
measurements, sea lanes, and ownership.
Lysen and Pisters 12 (Flora Lysen, PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, Patricia Pisters,
Film Studies Prof at the University of Amsterdam “Introduction: The Smooth and the Striated” Deleuze
Studies 6.1 2012 http://dare.uva.nl/document/444829)CEFS
A Thousand Plateaus’ ‘1440: The Smooth and the Striated’ introduces¶ smoothness and striation as a
conceptual pair to rethink space as¶ a complex mixture between nomadic forces and sedentary
captures.¶ Among the models Deleuze and Guattari describe for explicating where¶ we encounter smooth and striated spaces, the
maritime model presents¶ the special problem of the sea (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 479). The¶ sea is a smooth
space par excellence: open water always moved by¶ the wind, the sun and the stars, nomadically
traversable by noise,¶ colour and celestial bearings. Increased navigation of the open water¶ resulted
in demands for its striation. Although Deleuze and Guattari¶ note that this took hold progressively, the year 1440, when
Portuguese¶ discoverers introduced the first nautical charts, marked a turning point¶ in the striation
of the sea. Maps with meridians, parallels, longitudes,¶ latitudes and territories gridded the oceans,
making distances calculable¶ and measurable. It meant the beginning of the great explorations –¶ and
of the transatlantic slave trade and the expansion of the European¶ State apparatus. The smooth and
the striated concern the political and¶ politics.¶
While the
smooth and the striated are not of the same nature
exist in complex mixed forms. Moreover, the
smooth and the¶ striated work in different domains. If the sea is the spatial field par¶ excellence that brings out
smoothness and striation, art is perhaps the¶ domain that can give the most varied and subtle
expression of the¶ complex dynamics between them.¶ The present collection investigates¶ the smooth and the striated in
and¶ de jure oppositional, Deleuze and Guattari indicate that de facto they¶ only
the broad field of artistic production. It¶ was instigated by the Third International Deleuze Studies Conference ¶ in Amsterdam (2010) that
focused on the connections between art,¶ science and philosophy. Along with conference papers, the role of art¶ was explored through the
work of participating artists and in a curated¶ exhibition, The Smooth and the Striated. This exhibition focused on¶ the constant interplay
between delineating and opening forces in the¶ works of the eight participating contemporary artists. Together, the¶ installations, videos,
drawings and photographs spurred a wealth of¶ new connections and ideas in relation to the concepts of smoothness¶ and striation: the
artworks touched upon the solidification of historical¶ memory and the transformation of ever growing archival material; the¶ striation of
subterranean city space; the politics of vast demographic¶ datasets; the visualisation of scientific patents; and more.1¶ Similar to the exhibited
artists in the context of the Deleuze Studies¶ Conference, the authors in this volume think with art to shed new and¶ interdisciplinary light upon
the concepts of smoothness and striation,¶ and, conversely, upon the way the smooth and the striated can give¶ important insights into artistic
practices. The smooth and the striated¶ directly address processes in (social, political, geographical, biological)¶ life, taken up in philosophy and
art. Most of the contributions in¶ this volume discuss the concepts of the smooth and the striated in¶ relation to specific artworks that, in Claire
Colebrook’s words, ‘are not¶ representations of images of life’, but, if we consider the emergence of¶ the genesis of art and philosophy, can be
understood as ‘something¶ of life’s creative potential’ (Colebrook 2006: 30). Hence, the singular¶ artworks or artistic practices are not to be
taken as illustrations of¶ the concepts but as singular ways of embodying or expressing the¶ various aspects that the smooth and the striated
envision. ‘If we intuit¶ the forces that produce any single work of art or any single concept,¶ then we might begin to approach singularity as
such: the power of¶ making a difference’ (Colebrook 2006: 30). The essays in this special¶ issue contribute to this power of difference in the
complex interweaving¶ between the smooth and the striated in its philosophical and artistic¶ dimensions.
The conceptual ordering in the striation of the ocean erects a fascist bureaucracy in
the minds of the community that justifies violence from the macropolitcal.
Deleuze & Guattari 80 (Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari “A Thousand Plateaus” pp. 214-215)CEFS
It is not sufficient to define bureaucracy by a rigid segmentarity with ¶ compartmentalization of
contiguous offices, an office manager in each ¶ segment, and the corresponding centralization at the
end of the hall or on ¶ top of the tower. For at the same time there is a whole bureaucratic segmentation, a suppleness of and
communication between offices, a bureaucratic ¶ perversion, a permanent inventiveness or creativity practiced even against ¶ administrative
regulations. If Kafka is the greatest theorist of bureaucracy, ¶ it is because he shows how, at a certain level (but which one? it is not ¶
localizable), the barriers between offices cease to be "a definite dividing ¶ line" and are immersed in a molecular medium (milieu) that dissolves
¶ them and simultaneously makes the office manager proliferate into ¶ microfigures impossible to recognize or identify, discernible only when ¶
they are centralizable: another regime, coexistent with the separation and ¶ totalization of the rigid segments.I0
We would even say
that fascism implies ¶ a molecular regime that is distinct both from molar segments and their
centralization. Doubtless, fascism invented the concept of the totalitarian ¶ State, but there is no
reason to define fascism by a concept of its own devising: there are totalitarian States, of the Stalinist
or military dictatorship ¶ type, that are not fascist. The concept of the totalitarian State applies only ¶
at the macropohtical level, to a rigid segmentarity and a particular mode of ¶ totalization and
centralization. But fascism is inseparable from a proliferation of molecular focuses in interaction,
which skip from point to point, ¶ before beginning to resonate together in the National Socialist State.
Rural ¶ fascism and city or neighborhood fascism, youth fascism and war veteran's ¶ fascism, fascism of the Left and fascism of the Right,
fascism of the couple, ¶ family, school, and office: every fascism is defined by a micro-black hole ¶ that stands on its own and communicates
with the others, before resonating in a great, generalized central black hole.1¶ ' There is fascism when a war ¶ machine is installed in each hole,
in every niche.
Even after the National ¶ Socialist State had been established, microfascisms persisted that
gave it ¶ unequaled ability to act upon the "masses." ¶ Daniel Guerin is correct to say ¶ that if Hitler took power,
rather then taking over the German State administration, it was because from the beginning he had at
his disposal ¶ microorganizations giving him "an unequaled, irreplaceable ability to ¶ penetrate every
cell of society," in other words, a molecular and supple ¶ segmentarity, flows capable of suffusing every kind of
cell. Conversely, if ¶ capitalism came to consider the fascist experience as catastrophic, if it preferred to ally itself with Stalinist totalitarianism,
which from its point of ¶ view was much more sensible and manageable, it was because the egmentarity and centralization of the latter was
more classical and less ¶ fluid. What
makes fascism dangerous is its molecular or micropolitical ¶ power, for it is
a mass movement: a cancerous body rather than a totalitarian organism. American film has often
depicted these molecular focal ¶ points; band, gang, sect, family, town, neighborhood, vehicle fascisms
¶ spare no one. Only microfascism provides an answer to the global question: Why does desire desire
its own repression, how can it desire its own ¶ repression? The masses certainly do not passively
submit to power; nor do ¶ they "want" to be repressed, in a kind of masochistic hysteria; nor are they ¶
tricked by an ideological lure. Desire is never separable from complex ¶ assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from
¶ microforma-tions already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions, ¶ expectations, semiotic systems, etc. Desire is never an
undifferentiated ¶ instinctual energy, but itself results from a highly developed, engineered ¶ setup rich
in interactions: a whole supple segmentarity that processes ¶ molecular energies and potentially gives
desire a fascist determination. ¶ Leftist organizations will not be the last to secrete microfascisms . It's
too ¶ easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist ¶ inside you, the fascist you
yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with ¶ molecules both personal and collective.¶
Four errors
concerning this molecular and supple segmentarity are to be ¶ avoided. The first is axiological and consists in believing that a little suppleness is
enough to make things "better."
But microfascisms are what ¶ make fascism so dangerous , and fine segmentations are
as harmful as the ¶ most rigid of segments. The second is psychological, as if the molecular ¶ were in the realm of the imagination and applied
only to the individual and ¶ interindividual. But there is just as much social-Real on one line as on the ¶ other. Third, the two forms are not
simply distinguished by size, as a small ¶ form and a large form; although it is true that the molecular works in detail ¶ and operates in small
groups, this does not mean that it is any less coextensive with the entire social field than molar organization. Finally, the qualitative difference
between the two lines does not preclude their boosting or ¶ cutting into each other; there is always a proportional relation between the ¶ two,
directly or inversely proportional.
We present the sea as a metaphor for the mind and knowledge. The first maps of
things such as the ocean placed more importance on some things than others, like
making Europe bigger than Africa. This is a reflection of our ontological maps, our
flawed way of interacting with knowledge. In striated space, according to Deleuze’s
Maritime Model, people often decide the location, the endpoint, over the journey.
They commit to a set path, thereby striating knowledge.
Striation is epistemological brainwashing that society commits us to. Just like in 1984,
wherein Winston tries to reject his society’s ontological thought map and attempted
to sail the high seas of the mind and knowledge and of society as a romanticized
nomad. However, he only served as a passenger on his ship. And his captain was truly
an agent of subterfuge, navigating the ship into the rocks, casting Winston under the
waves. We must be at the helm of our own ship, navigating off nobody’s map, for it is
when we navigate towards what we assume as a safe port that we so often run
aground.
Melancholy and sad affects, such as that the aff has inserted into this debate space,
negates the will to act – it makes us slaves of the powerful and uses our fears to
exterminate difference. We must focus on the affects of nomadism to reject the
salvation morality.
Deleuze and Parnet ‘87
famous philosopher, Professor of Philosophy at the Sorbonne, Dialogues II, European Perspectives, with
Claire Parnet, freelance journalist, translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, 2002 pgs.6162
Edited for gendered language.
When Spinoza says 'The surprising thing is the body ... we do not yet know what a body is capable of ... ',
he does not want to make the body a model, and the soul simply dependent on the body. He has a
subtler task. He wants to demolish the pseudo-superiority of the soul over the body. There is the soul
and the body and both express one and the same thing: an attribute of the body is also an expressed of
the soul (for example, speed). Just as you do not know what a body is capable of, just as there are
many things in the body that you do not know, so there are in the soul many things which go beyond
your consciousness. This is the question: what is a body capable of? what affects are you capable of?
Experiment, but you need a lot of prudence to experiment. We live in a world which is generally
disagreeable, where not only people but the established powers have a stake in transmitting sad
affects to us. Sadness, sad affects , are all those which reduce our power to act. The established
powers need our sadness to make us slaves. The tyrant, the priest, the captors of souls need to
persuade us that life is hard and a burden. The powers that be need to repress us no less than to
make us anxious or, as Virilio says, to administer and organize our intimate little fears . The long,
universal moan about life: the lack-to-be which is life ... In vain someone says, 'Let's dance'; we are
not really very happy. In vain someone says, ‘What misfortune death is'; for one would need to have
lived to have something to lose. Those who are sick, in soul as in body, will not let go of us, the
vampires, until they have transmitted to us their neurosis and their anxiety, their beloved castration,
the resentment against life, filthy contagion. It is all a matter of blood. It is not easy to be a free man,
to flee the plague , organize encounters, increase the power to act, to be moved by joy, to multiply
the affects which express or encompass a maximum of affirmation . To make the body a power which
is not reducible to the organism, to make thought a power which is not reducible to consciousness.
Spinoza’s famous first principle (a single substance for all attributes) depends on this assemblage and
not vice versa. There is a Spinoza-assemblage: soul and body, relationships and encounters, power to be
affected, affects which realize this power, sadness and joy which qualify these affects. Here philosophy
becomes the art of a functioning, of an assemblage. Spinoza, the man of encounters and becoming, the
philosopher with the tick, Spinoza the imperceptible, always in the middle, always in flight although he
does not shift much, a flight from the Jewish community, a flight from Powers, a flight from the sick and
the malignant. He may be ill, he may himself die; he knows that death is neither the goal nor the end,
but that, on the contrary, it is a case of passing his life to someone else. What Lawrence says about
Whitman’s continuous life is well suited to Spinoza: the Soul and the Body, the soul is neither above nor
inside, it is ‘with’, it is on the road, exposed to all contacts, encounters, in the company of those who
follow the same way, ‘feel with them, seize the vibration of their soul and their body as they pass’, the
opposite of a morality of salvation, teaching to soul its life, not to save it.
We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.
WE MUST EMBRACE THE PARADOX THAT EXISTS IN ACADEMIC SETTINGS
HALL
vice-chancellor @ University of Salford
2k10
Martin-historical archaeologist; He was for a time President of the World Archaeological Congress and General Secretary of the South African Archaeological Society. He moved to UCT
(University of Capetown) in 1983, where he led the Centre for African Studies and later became the Head of the Department of Archaeology. He was the inaugural Dean of Higher
Education Development between 1999 and 2002; was deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCT for six years. Professor Hall is married with three children. His wife, Professor Brenda Cooper, is
an academic specialising in post-colonial and African literature; There Was An Ocean; Professional Inaugural Lecture at University of Salford, September 29;
http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73628/There-Was-an-Ocean-final.pdf
Paul Simon’s lyrics capture a paradox. And because paradoxes must, by definition, embody profound truth, this
signals something interesting, worth exploring further. Change emerges from the unchanging. The
predictability and solidity of mountains and oceans foreclose on our ability to alter our
environment. But, at the same time, they also enable us to navigate the world around us,
including our intellectual and emotional conceptualization of experience. The ability of
universities to bring about change and to produce new knowledge rests on this paradox.
Like the ocean, they are robust and survive as organizational forms. Like mountains, they
are solidly built and steeped in traditions and processes that may appear, and sometimes
are, arcane. They remain reassuringly familiar , founded in disciplines and systems of
accreditation that persist stubbornly. But they are also sites of new ideas and opportunities,
unstoppable in their motion, which are entwined with their traditions.
CHANGE emerges from the UNCHANGING; hence the symbolism of MOUNTAINS,
which shapes where the oceans can flow, and OCEANS, which shape the mountain.
This year’s topic about Ocean Exploration and/or development can enable us to
NAVIGATE the world around us, build on our INTELLECUTAL and EMOTIONAL
conceptualization of experience. The university, like the ocean, is ROBUST and
SURVIVES as organizational forms while simultaneously resembling the mountains,
solidly built and steeped in traditions and ARCANE practices. REASSURINGLY
FAMILIAR, STUBBORN PERSISTENCE, universities are sites of new ideas and
opportunities UNSTOPPABLE in their MOTION that are entwined with their traditions.
The persistence of the institution of debate, constantly advocating things of import,
enables it to be an outlet for change.
Nomads of the sea disrupt striation on the smoothness of the sea of the mind,
attacking the mindset the state, a metaphor for society, advocates.
Heckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge is an
independent peer-reviewed online journal (ISSN 1555-9998) born at Bowling Green State University,
“"Gotta Catch 'em All": Capitalism, the War Machine, and the Pokémon Trainer”,
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#nomad . This article may seem to be very odd, as
the root deals heavily with Pokemon. The article seeks to connect multiple concepts.)
Nomad: " Nomadism" is a way of life that exists outside of the organizational "State." The nomadic
way of life is characterized by movement across space which exists in sharp contrast to the rigid and
static boundaries of the State. Deleuze and Guattari explain:¶ The nomad has a territory; he follows
customary paths; he goes from one point to another; he is not ignorant of points (water points, dwelling
points, assembly points, etc.). But the question is what in nomad life is a principle and what is only a
consequence.
To begin with,
although the points determine paths, they are strictly subordinated to the
paths they determine, the reverse happens with the sedentary. The water point is reached only in
order to be left behind; every point is a relay and exists only as a relay. A path is always between two
points, but the in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an autonomy and a
direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the intermezzo. (380)¶ The nomad, is thus, a way of being
in the middle or between points. It is characterized by movement and change, and is unfettered by
systems of organization. The goal of the nomad is only to continue to move within the "intermezzo."
We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.
Thus we advocate the exploration of the mind and knowledge that
follows no fixed path, has no goal, and has no forseeable end. We
advocate the zig-zagging exploration of our own oceans as nomads, in
an attempt to burn our flawed knowledge maps. The affirmative has
not gone far enough in their action, and they are still attempting to
reach a certain set point of knowledge.
We, as nomads, are part of the nomadic war machine on the ocean that preserves this
space as the space of freedom.
Heckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge is an
independent peer-reviewed online journal (ISSN 1555-9998) born at Bowling Green State University,
“"Gotta Catch 'em All": Capitalism, the War Machine, and the Pokémon Trainer”,
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#warmachine . This article may seem to be very
odd, as the root deals heavily with Pokemon. The article seeks to connect multiple concepts.)
WAR MACHINE:¶ The
"War Machine" is a tool of the nomad through which capture can be avoided and
smooth space preserved. Rather than the military (which is a State appropriation of the war machine),
the war machine is a collection of nomad-warriors engaged in resistance to control , war being only a
consequence—not the intended object. The military on the other hand, is an organization formed by the State
formed specifically to wage wars and immobilize adversaries (which are determined by the State):¶ The
question is therefore less the realization of war than the appropriation of the war machine. It is at the
same time that the State apparatus appropriates the war machine, subordinates it to its "political" aims,
and gives it war as its direct object. (D&G 420)¶ Unlike the military, the war machine is not influenced by the
economic and political concerns of the State. The war machine is a "grass roots" affair which bubbles
up from common concerns for freedom to move, and as a result it is part and parcel of nomadic life.
OUR DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH IS KEY TO SOCIAL CHANGE. The University,
academia, values intelligent debate. It is individuals who must listen and learn. It is
individuals and intellectuals that cause spillover.
HALL
vice-chancellor @ University of Salford 2k10
Martin-historical archaeologist; He was for a time President of the World Archaeological Congress and General Secretary of the South
African Archaeological Society. He moved to UCT (University of Capetown) in 1983, where he led the Centre for African Studies and later
became the Head of the Department of Archaeology. He was the inaugural Dean of Higher Education Development between 1999 and
2002; was deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCT for six years. Professor Hall is married with three children. His wife, Professor Brenda Cooper,
is an academic specialising in post-colonial and African literature; There Was An Ocean; Professional Inaugural Lecture at University of
Salford, September 29; http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73628/There-Was-an-Ocean-final.pdf
This leads in turn to a final example of the ways in which formal legislation, which tends towards
tradition, must be rendered malleable by lived experience in a recursive network
of stable change. It is an example which brings us back to Cape Town, in the circulating system of references that has
constituted this presentation. As with South Africa, British universities are subject to legislation that
seeks to advance equality for defined “equality strands”, broadly the equivalent of designated
groups in South African legislation. And, as with South Africa, there is a clear danger that legislation, which
is a vital site for resistance to the Apartheid past, will remain at the formal level as an issue
of compliance.
Our Listen! strategy seeks to address this by taking a development approach to
equality and diversity. The focus on “listening” evokes one of the founding values of the
academy; a constant openness to new possibilities and a willingness to challenge and debate the
status quo . Listening, in turn, leads to appropriate actions that advance respect for
the values of diversity. This has been expressed by Judith Butler in her essay, “Giving an Account on Oneself”, “our shared,
invariable, and partial blindness about ourselves”. Our knowledge of ourselves is inevitably
incomplete. Opportunities come from creating spaces for new voices to be heard.
For a university, where respect for new thinking and expression is a founding
value, the virtue of listening is paramount.
By taking a developmental approach, Listen! seeks the recognition of diversity and
difference as educational assets, the protection and advancement of minority
groups, and the provision of opportunities for all individuals to realize their full
potential. Whether in Cape Town or Salford, the university with its enshrined rituals, customs,
respect for debate and status, has the potential to drive the battle for social
justice. I have suggested that these processes of institutional transformation can be
analysed as the interplay between formal and substantive elements of making
meaning, traced as circulating systems of references. But thickening and
deepening this understanding of structures, both formal and substantive, at the
end of a long swim and a big climb, it is individuals who have to listen and learn
and change as part of their university education. This accounts for the slight, but
crucial change in the sameness of the repetition of Paul Simon’s ballad:
Once upon a time there was an ocean. But now it’s a mountain range. Something
unstoppable set into motion. Nothing is different, but everything’s changed.
I figure that once upon a time I was an ocean. But now I’m a mountain range.
Something unstoppable set into motion. Nothing is different, but everything’s
changed.
2C Blocks for This
OV
The nexus question for this debate is who best provides an intellectual model for the
exploration of the Earth’s oceans. We present the nomad, a homeless wanderer who
chooses in what direction he, she, or preferred pronoun, would like to go as a priority,
not specific locations. We reposition our politics of the mind and knowledge with the
nomad to focus on a different method of affectionate exploration that zig-zags across
smooth space, withdrawn of melancholy and full of spontaneity so that the nomads
can disrupt flawed mindsets in debate and teach the soul how to live with feeling
instead of how to survive, that’s Kuhn, and Deleuze and Parnet.
Ext Microfascism
Just as the assemblage that forms the state striated the smooth space of our minds,
this topic has tried to teach us that the only way to explore oceans is through
striation. This is part of the way that institutions like the state and traditional debate
order our thought process so that the only way we can only talk, question, and think is
through a controlled means. We’ve been made to think the only way we can advocate
for plans is through a transcendent ideal called government. This internalized
microfascism is just how these systems commit violent acts.
Ext Melancholy
Extend our Deleuze and Parnet evidence. My opponents seek to insert sad affects, or
emotions and feelings, into the debate space with their own impacts. But just talking
about their impacts only serves to make us sad about them because of the way that
the state and other power structures communicate this way of looking at problems so
that no change actually occurs. We should flee this plague of misery and use the
spontaneous affect of the nomads to teach our souls to live instead of saving our
souls. This is an a priori question about how we look at problems in this space.
We Need a Bottom Up Approach (Empirics)
Touissant L’Overture ( too-sant la over-chure), leader of the Haitian revolution was tricked and killed by
napoleon when he pursued governmental solvency. What worked was his bottom up revolution with
the prolitereat, what failed was working with the bourgeoisie who were fundamentally opposed to him.
When you make the bourgeoisie love you and think without a preconceived hate of you then they will
work with you. This is only possible through bottom up persistence, that’s our poem. The Haitian
people reified slavery because it was all that they knew. They didn’t wipe their minds clean of their
flawed ontology, and so they reinforced it. Now Haiti is a terrible place to live.
Bottom up revolutions are the only true solvency. Look also to the institution of Pedro II as the first
emperor of Brazil. His people were angry, his people wanted change, he heard them, he listened, and
he rejected his OWN FATHER THE KING OF PORTUGAL AND CREATED AN INDIPENDANT POLITICAL STATE
abolishing slavery and leading to the betterment of society. Brazil is doing a hell of a lot better than
Haiti right now. Pedro fundamentally altered his perception of reality.
Look also to the communist revolution in Russia. It was a top down revolution under the guise of
bottom up, and it reified serf oppression worse than the tsars. Instead look to Lech Walesa. His
movement was small, organizing labor unions of the proletariat in 80s era Russia, still under the
oppression of the upper members of the party. He organized bottom up revolution and ensured true
solvency and change. Then he was one of the first leaders of a free and independent Poland, and look at
Poland now. Doing a lot better than Haiti.
The fact of the matter is that the bottom up solves. Working at the micro-level extends to the macro
level because the macro-level is composed of the micro-level. It takes more time but its worth it. Do
things too fast and do them wrong, and suffer under oppression while under the impression that you
actually changed something.
Analytic Blocks
Spillover/Role Of Intellectual Cards
Extend our Hall 10 evidence tagged: OUR DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH IS KEY TO
SOCIAL CHANGE. The University, academia, values intelligent debate. It is individuals
who must listen and learn. It is individuals and intellectuals that cause spillover.
It is the role of an intellectual like you to speak out passionately about the right thing.
Empirically, stances of passivism lead to Nazi attitudes. The choice to not speak out
against anthropocentrism will have consequences and influence others. KETELS Assc
Prof of English @Temple University 1996
Violet-THE HOLOCAUST: REMEMBERING FOR THE FUTURE: "Havel to the Castle!" The Power of the Word; THE
ANNALS OF AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, November; 548 Annals 45;
Intellectuals are not customarily thought of as men and women of action. Our circumstances are ambiguous, our
credibility precarious. While our sense of past and future is "radically linguistic,' we scarcely have a common
human language anymore, and our fashionable linguistic skepticism elevates the denying of verities to
an article of faith, out of which we build academic careers of nay-saying.
We use the written word as the primary political medium for gaining attention. We are "writing
people," who traffic in words and thus carry an unavoidable accountability for what we say with
them.5° Havel defines intellectuals as people who devote their lives "to thinking in general terms about
the affairs of this world and the broader context of things . . . professionally,' for their occupation.
If we aspire to be distinguished from mere scribblers, history demands that we choose between being
"the apologist for rulers [and] an advisor to the people; the tragedy of the twentieth century is that
these two functions have ceased to exist independently of one another, and intellectuals like Sartre
who thought they were fulfilling one role were inevitably drawn to play both."
Alternatively, we can choose with Richard Rorty, echoing Max Weber, to stay out of politics, "where passionate
commitment and sterile excitation are out of place," keeping "politics in the hands of charismatic leaders
and trained officials." We can choose to pursue "[our] own private perfection.'
That particular stance, however expedient, did not work well in Germany. In Czechoslovakia, it produced
wartime Nazi collaborator Gustave Husak, the "President of Forgetting," who sought to perfect
totalitarianism by systematically purging "the Party and state, the arts, the universities, and the media
of everyone who dare [d] to speak critically, independently, or even intelligently about what the regime define[d]
as politics.' It produced Tudjman and Milogevie in Yugoslavia.
Intellectuals can choose their roles, but cannot not choose, nor can we evade the full weight of the
consequences attendant on our choices. "It is always the intellectuals, however
we may shrink from the chilling sound of that word . . . who must bear the full weight of moral responsibility."'
Links/Other Cool Stuff
Policy Affirmatives
Generic Links
As we outlined in our Deleuze and Parnet evidence, the melancholy that results from
inserting sad affects into the debate space makes it not a place to be free and teach
the soul to live, and this REDUCES OUR WILL TO ACT. Standing here in a debate space
talking about problems unleashes sad affects into our souls, negating our will to act
and making us slaves. We need an outlet to go and be free to act. The kriticism is a
prior question.
OSEA
T
“Exploration” is discovery through observation and recording
NAS 00 – National Academy of Science Study, “Ocean Exploration”,
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/exploration_final.pdf
What Is Ocean Exploration?
As defined by the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 2000), ocean exploration is discovery through disciplined, diverse observations and
recordings of findings . It includes rigorous, systematic observations and documentation of biological,
chemical, physical, geological, and archeological aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of space
and in time.
“Development” is focused on ocean resources, marine science and technology, and
targeted human resources
Pujari 12 – Saritha Pujari, BS Poona College of Arts Science & Commerce, “The Objectives and
Observation of Ocean Development around the World”, http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/ocean/theobjectives-and-observation-of-ocean-development-around-the-world/11207/
Objectives of Ocean Development:
India—a peninsula with an extensive coastline and groups of islands— has much to gain from
oceanographic research. The new ‘Ocean Regime’ established by United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, which has been signed by 159 countries including India, assigns much of the
world ocean to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) where coastal states have jurisdiction over exploration
and exploi-tation of resources and for other economic purposes.
The UNCLOS made declarations regarding (1) the sovereign rights of extraction in the 320 km. EEZ by
coastal states; (2) resources of the deep sea to be governed by International Sea Bed Authority and
extraction to be based on the principle of equitable sharing and common heritage of mankind. (Many
developed countries disagreed about the principle of equitable sharing.)
India’s coastline is more than 7,000 km long, and its territory includes 1,250 islands, its EEZ covers an
area of 2.02 million sq. km., and the continental shelf extends up to 350 nautical miles from the coast.
Recognising the importance of oceans in the economic development and progress of the nation, the
government set up a Department of Ocean Development (DOD) in July 1981, for planning and
coordinating oceanographic survey, research and development, management of ocean resources,
development of manpower and marine technology. The department is entrusted with the responsibility
for protection of marine environment on the high seas. (Later it became a ministry, then in 2006 it was
restructured as MoES.)
The broad objectives of ‘ocean development’ have been laid down by Parliament in the Ocean Policy
Statement of November 1982. The domain of our concern for development of oceanic resources and its
environment extends from the coastal lands and islands lapped by brackish water to the wide Indian
Ocean.
The ocean regime is to be developed in order to: (i) explore and assess living and non-living resources;
(ii) harness and manage its resources (materials, energy and biomass) and create additional resources
such as mariculture; (iii) cope with and protect its environment (weather, waves and coastal front);
(iv) develop human resources (knowledge, skill and expertise), and (v) play our rightful role in marine
science and technology in the international arena.
1. Reasons to prefer
a) limits and ground --- non-exploratory/developmental areas are huge, overstretch
research burdens and require completely different strategies --- our definition allows
sufficient flexibility but lock-in a core mechanism for preparation which is key to clash,
in-round education, and fairness. Voting issue for.
B) This plan violates effects topicality as well - they only derive
exploration/development from the effects resulting from the plan. The organization
itself is not either of those, the aff is just hoping to derive some
exploration/development from creating this institution.
2. Topicality is a voter- if it were not the aff could run the same case year after
year or unbeatable truths like 2 plus 2 is 4
Analyzing the ocean directly leads to it’s striation. Our Lysen and Pisters evidence
shows that since the first nautical maps were made in 1440, the oceans have been
becoming striated.
Kritikal Affs
We are advocating the burning of all the maps that compose the mind. By advocating
going to one destination, the aff directly endorses striation. We need to burn the
maps of the mind, the segmentation that society perpetuates into our minds. We
need to smooth the mind, burn all the maps, and doing so will solve for all
epistemology.
Any team that reads Kingsnorth and Hine
As we laid out in our Deleuze and Guittari evidence, in order for the “Nature/Culture”
binary to be deconstructed, we must first get rid of the striation of space. A direct
quote is “When the ancient Greeks speak ¶ of the open space of the nomos—nondelimited,
unpartitioned; the ¶ pre-urban countryside; mountainside, plateau, steppe—they oppose it not ¶ to
cultivation, which may actually be part of it, but to the polis, the city, ¶ the town”.
While this may sound like a link of omission, it’s incredibly germane, which is what
matters. Our kritik is a pre-requisite to their affirmative. In order to deconstruct the
binary that the affirmative is Kritiking, we first need to stop the striation of space.
Framework
AT Not an Ocean
Ocean: A vast expanse of something, such as the mind or knowledge Merriam
Webster 14
("Ocean." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 6 July 2014.
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ocean>. It’s Merriam Webster. Really?)
Full Definition of OCEAN¶ 1¶ a : the whole body of salt water that covers nearly three fourths
of the surface of the earth¶ b : any of the large bodies of water (as the Atlantic Ocean) into
which the great ocean is divided¶ 2¶ : a very large or unlimited space or quantity
Shell (long)
B. Counterinterpretation: We should have a discussion of the topic not a topical
discussion. The resolution cannot be abandoned but should serve as an
invitation to dialogue that can preserve a balance between the “clash of
civilizations” now occurring within debate.
Galloway Asst Prof and Director of Debate @ Samford 2k7
Ryan-former GMU debater; Dinner and Conversation at the Argumentative Table: Reconceptualizing
Debate as an Argumentative Dialogue; CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE; Vol. 28; p. 1-3.
By definition, debate coaches are contentious and the history of modern debate has been marked by
an inter-play of collegiality and competition (Bruschke, 2004, p. 82). However, modern debate has
amped up natural levels of antagonism so that it now exists in a clash between one group that
employs an argumentative style heavily centered on evidence and speed against another that seeks
to criticize the form and style of these debates. Debates between the two factions are frequently
conceived as a clash of civilizations (Solt, 2004, p.44). Rhetoric from both sides often reaches a fever
pitch. Tim O’Donnell of Mary Washington University’s judging philosophy says that, “right
now…there is a war going on…and the very future of policy debate as an educationally and
competitively coherent activity hangs in the balance” (2008). The other side of the coin is equally
forthright. Asha Cerian offered in her judge philosophy “to vote on Ks [kritiks] and alternative forms
of debate. And that’s it” (2007). Similarly, Andy Ellis has posted a series of you-tube videos to edebate calling for a more radical approach. In one video entitled “Unifying the opposition,” Ellis
describes debate as a war and calls for insurgents seeking to overthrow existing debate practices
(Ellis, 2008b). While these views are extreme, long-time observers have noted changes in the tone
and tenor of debate discussions. Jeff Parcher observed that the fragmentation of the 2004 National
Debate Tournament “seemed viscerally different” than previous disputes (2004, p. 89). These
disagreements seem highly personalized and “wrought with frustrations, anxiety, resistance, and
backlash” (Zompetti, 2004, p. 27). One coach noted that the difference between the current era of
factionalization and controversies of the past is that, “no one left counter-warrant debates in tears.”
Much of the controversy involves the resolution itself, and whether teams should have to defend the
resolution, or whether they can mount a broader criticism of the activity (Snider, 2003). Steve
Woods notes that, “Academic debate is now entering a third state, a critical turn in the activity. The
identifying element of this change is that abandonment of the role playing that the construct of fiat
enabled” (Woods, 2003, p. 87). This journal previously (2004) addressed issues regarding the growing
divide in policy debate. However, the role of the debate resolution in the clash of civilizations was
largely ignored. Here, I defend the notion that activist approaches of critical debaters can best
flourish if grounded in topical advocacy defined in terms of the resolution. This approach encourages
the pedagogical benefits of debates about discourse and representations while preserving the
educational advantages of switch-side debate. Debaters’ increased reliance on speech act and
performativity theory in debates generates a need to step back and re-conceptualize the false
dilemma of the “policy only” or “kritik only” perspective. Policy debate’s theoretical foundations
should find root in an overarching theory of debate that incorporates both policy and critical
exchanges. Here, I will seek to conceptualize debate as a dialogue, following the theoretical
foundations of Mikhail Bakhtin (1990) and Star Muir (1993) that connects the benefits of dialogical
modes of argument to competitive debate. Ideally, the resolution should function to negotiate
traditional and activist approaches. Taking the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a
particular set of ideas would preserve the affirmative team’s obligation to uphold the debate
resolution. At the same time, this approach licenses debaters to argue both discursive and
performative advantages. While this view is broader than many policy teams would like, and
certainly more limited than many critical teams would prefer, this approach captures the advantages
of both modes of debate while maintaining the stable axis point of argumentation for a full clash of
ideas around these values. Here, I begin with an introduction to the dialogic model, which I will relate
to the history of switch-side debate and the current controversy. Then, I will defend my conception
of debate as a dialogical exchange. Finally, I will answer potential criticisms to the debate as a
dialogue construct.
Prefer it:
1. Our education is better: first, framework refuses to make specific indicts to the aff,
especially the methodology. Second, they lose education because they don’t bother
learning anything from our aff.
2. Fairness and infinite regression – there are infinite amount of things they could
deem “unacceptable.” Framework is an excuse to skirt arguments that they don’t
want to prep for and gain ballots based solely on manipulating the rules of debate.
This is unfair-- debate is supposed to be a about the content, not about the rules.
3. Our two methods aren’t mutally exclusive. Charlie’s narrative from the top of the
1AC clearly says that sometimes he advocates for USFG action, so at the very least
we’ll win that we only add more forms of education and there’s no educational reason
that we have to advocate for the USFG every round.
4. Our 1AC method directly turns their framework. Our Kuhn 97 talks about how as
pirates we operate as the nomadic war machine. Our existence is based upon
combating and defending against the forces of the state to preserve our autonomy.
Kuhn speicifcally outlines how the modern state apparatus necessarily striates space,
and how our method is the only way to return to the smooth.
5. Overlimiting outweighs their standards – they still get predictable ground –they can
internal link turn striated space, they can say Deleuze bad, they can say pirates bad,
the list goes on.
6. Predictable norms of debate serve to undermine cultural and social education in
return for a “fair contest”. This furthers the striation of the debate space that leads to
endless violence from the macropolitical.
Warner 3 [September 2003, Ede Warner Jr. is a Professor of Communications and debate coach at the
University of Louisiana, "Go Homers, Makeovers or Takeovers? A Privilege Analysis of Debate as a
Gaming Simulation”]
More often than not, talk about privilege in debate is relegated mostly to economic and occasionally
gender- or race-based discussions. Refocused recruiting efforts and accomplishments like Urban
Debate Leagues and Women’s Caucuses at tournaments are addressing more overt concerns in an
effort to create more equal playing fields, yet tremendous inequities remain that require
explanation. Over twenty years of various diversity efforts, especially in CEDA, have failed to
substantially change the racial, gender, social and economic composition of interscholastic policy
debate at its highest levels. The reason is simple: privilege extends much further than just
acknowledging overt and obvious disparities. Privilege creeps into more subtle, covert spaces, like
the essence of why and how people “play the game,” recognizing that the rules and procedures are
created by those carrying that privilege. Snider argues that the greatness of debate as a game is in
his belief that it is short on inflexible rules and long on debatable procedures. However, if procedures
are functionally not debatable and begin to look more like participation requirements than starting
points of discussion, the quality of the game, is “not as successful and well-designed” (Snider, 1987,
p. 123). Privilege envelopes both substantive and stylistic procedures, increasing the likelihood that
supposedly debatable conventions become rigid norms, preventing achievement of a “more
thoughtful” game and creating entrance barriers to successful participation. Here’s how. Snider
(1987) says that evaluation of a “winning” procedural argument occurs through the lenses of
determining which procedures best facilitate achieving the goals of the debate activity. Snider offers
three such goals: 1) education of the participants; 2) discussion of important issues in the resolution;
and 3) creation of a fair contest. He concedes that some may be missing. Of course, interested
participants with lesser privilege might select different goals as more important, such as having a
voice to discuss the topic through the perspective of their social concerns, even if this perspective
doesn’t fit nicely with some of the other goals. More often than not, the creation of a “fair contest”
is given an absolute priority relative to other goals and justifies ignoring attempts to achieve other
game objectives. At least one implicit goal deserves mention: incorporation of the cultural and social
values of the participants. It makes sense that the like-minded values of the largest participating class
will dominant procedural and rule development of a game simulation. Cultural and social values may
appear to have little or no relationship to the first three goals of debate. But in fact, the cultural and
social values will in many ways dictate the meaning of Snider’s goals. What types of education do the
participants’ value? Who decides what the important issues are—the participants? The
communities most directly related to the topic? Do cultural and social values privilege any notions of
“fairness”? Cultural and social background surely impacts each of these areas tremendously. If there
are cultural or social disagreements over what constitutes “education,” what “issues” are important,
or what is “fair,” then privilege plays a much larger role in game development than has been
acknowledged to date.
7. Microfascism Disad: Extend our Deleuze and Guattari evidence. Their attempt to
striate the previously smooth space of this debate round by telling us that we are
restricted from reading types of arguments like the 1AC necessarily results in the
microfascist thought process that we are critiquing. When they attempt to censor out
certain affects, this results in the sterilization of this round so that we as the nongovernmental masses desire our repression. This why debate trains us to think certain
ways about things like the state, and the ocean, and land, and it even changes the
ways that we communicate out of round. It makes us agents of hegemony, which is
why this community of so violent.
8. Melancholy Disad: Extend our Deleuze and Parnet evidence. One of the ways that
microfascism works is that it tells us that we need to be sterile of most affects and
that only way to look at problems is through a sad affect. This affect is transmitted to
us through pessimism and resentment, and it’s the way that the debate space has
taught us to advocate. Always be serious, extinction outweighs, these are the affects
that established powers use to make us sad about the problems in the world so that
we follow them blindly. In the end, we become so sad about these problems that we
can never hope to solve them, which renders their external offense null. The affect of
the 1AC is a key disad to their interp because we are the only ones who have of
solving anything. Ever.
9. Their representative censorship is wholly intolerant and necessitates globalized
forms of repression. Instead, the way we frame our work through “obscure theories”
are the only practical outlet, it’s a box of tools with which we can question and break
down oppressive structures.
Foucault & Deleuze 72 (Michel, Philosopher at the College de France, Gilles, Philosopher at
Vincennes, “Intellectuals and Power: A conversation between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze”,
March 4, 1972. Posted on libcom.org by Joseph Kay on Sep 6 2006.
https://libcom.org/library/intellectuals-power-a-conversation-between-michel-foucault-and-gillesdeleuze)CEFS
*edited for gendered language*
FOUCAULT: It seems to me that the political involvement of the intellectual was traditionally the product of two different aspects of his activity:
his position as an intellectual in bourgeois society, in the system of capitalist production and within the ideology it produces or imposes (his
exploitation, poverty, rejection, persecution, the accusations of subversive activity, immorality, etc); and his proper discourse to the extent that
it revealed a particular truth, that it disclosed political relationships where they were unsuspected. These two forms of politicisation did not
exclude each other, but, being of a different order, neither did they coincide. Some were classed as "outcasts" and others as "socialists." During
moments of violent reaction on the part of the authorities, these two positions were readily fused: after 1848, after the Commune, after 1940.
The intellectual was rejected and persecuted at the precise moment when the facts became
incontrovertible, when it was forbidden to say that the emperor had no clothes. The intellectual
spoke the truth to those who had yet to see it, in the name of those who were forbidden to speak the
truth: [he/she] was conscience, consciousness, and eloquence. In the most recent upheaval (3) the intellectual
discovered that the masses no longer need him to gain knowledge: they know perfectly well, without illusion; they know far better than he and
they are certainly capable of expressing themselves. But
there exists a system of power which blocks, prohibits, and
invalidates this discourse and this knowledge, a power not only found in the manifest authority of
censorship, but one that profoundly and subtly penetrates an entire societal network. Intellectuals
are themselves agents of this system of power-the idea of their responsibility for "consciousness"
and discourse forms part of the system. The intellectual's role is no longer to place [itself]
"somewhat ahead and to the side" in order to express the stifled truth of the collectivity; rather, it is
to struggle against the forms of power that transform him into its object and instrument in the
sphere of "knowledge," "truth," "consciousness," and "discourse. "(4)¶ In this sense theory does not
express, translate, or serve to apply practice: it is practice . But it is local and regional, as you said, and not totalising.
This is a struggle against power, a struggle aimed at revealing and undermining power where it is
most invisible and insidious. It is not to "awaken consciousness" that we struggle (the masses have been aware for some time that
consciousness is a form of knowledge; and consciousness as the basis of subjectivity is a prerogative of the bourgeoisie), but to sap power, to
take power; it is an activity conducted alongside those who struggle for power, and not their illumination from a safe distance. A "theory " is
the regional system of this struggle.¶ DELEUZE: Precisely.
A theory is exactly like a box of tools . It has nothing to do with the
signifier. It must be useful. It must function. And not for itself. If no one uses it, beginning with the theoretician himself (who then ceases to be
a theoretician), then the theory is worthless or the moment is inappropriate. We don't revise a theory, but construct new ones; we have no
choice but to make others. It is strange that it was Proust, an author thought to be a pure intellectual, who said it so clearly: treat my book as a
pair of glasses directed to the outside; if they don't suit you, find another pair; I leave it to you to find your own instrument, which is necessarily
an investment for combat. A theory does not totalise; it is an instrument for multiplication and it also multiplies itself .
It is in the
nature of power to totalise and it is your position. and one I fully agree with, that theory is by nature
opposed to power . As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a particular point, we realise that it will never possess the slightest practical
importance unless it can erupt in a totally different area. This is why the notion of reform is so stupid and hypocritical.
Either reforms are designed by people who claim to be representative, who make a profession of
speaking for others, and they lead to a division of power, to a distribution of this new power which is
consequently increased by a double repression; or they arise from the complaints and demands of
those concerned. This latter instance is no longer a reform but revolutionary action that questions
(expressing the full force of its partiality) the totality of power and the hierarchy that maintains it. This
is surely evident in prisons: the smallest and most insignificant of the prisoners' demands can puncture Pleven's pseudoreform (5). If the
protests of children were heard in kindergarten, if their questions were attended to, it would be enough to explode the entire educational
system. There
is no denying that our social system is totally without tolerance; this accounts for its
extreme fragility in all its aspects and also its need for a global form of repression. In my opinion, you
were the first-in your books and in the practical sphere-to teach us something absolutely
fundamental: the indignity of speaking for others. Pre ridiculed representation and said it was
finished, but we failed to draw the consequences of this "theoretical" conversion-to appreciate the
theoretical fact that only those directly concerned can speak in a practical way on their own behalf.
Standards
AT Cede the Political
1. The political is already ceded
2. The negative doesn’t access the political either—they are roleplaying fiat, but don’t
actually use the political systems
3. The political in the status quo oppresses us as women, and lots of other people
4. Focusing only on political actions allows us to ignore our own
responsibilities to social movements
Kappeler, 95 (Susanne, professor of humanities and social sciences at Al Akhawayan
University and lecturer at the University of east Anglia, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)
`We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society - which
would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the notion of
`collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and where the conception of universal
responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal.' On the contrary, the object is precisely to analyse the specific and
differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash a war are indeed taken at particular levels of
power by those in a position to make them and to command such collective action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for
their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective `assumption' of responsibility. Yet our habit of focusing
on the stage where the major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight in relation
to our own sphere of competence, our own power and our own responsibility - leading to the
well-known illusion of our apparent `powerlessness’ and its accompanying phenomenon, our so-called
political disillusionment. Single citizens - even more so those of other nations - have come to feel secure in
their obvious non-responsibility for such large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-
Hercegovina or Somalia - since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we are not
responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no
responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgement, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our
own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between
our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own
personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls `organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack
of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually organized separate competences. It also
proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major powermongers: For we
tend to think that we cannot `do' anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation; because we are
not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with
politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of `What would I do if I
were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defence?' Since we seem to
regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political
analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to
peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as `virtually no
possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a
general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like `I want to
stop this war', `I want military intervention', `I want to stop this backlash', or `I want a moral revolution." 'We are this war',
however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our `noncomprehension’: our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring
innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the
advantages these offer. And we `are' the war in our `unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the `fact that you have a
yellow form for refugees and I don't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of
our own and one for the `others'. We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let
we shape `our feelings, our relationships, our values' according to
the structures and the values of war and violence.
them grow inside us, that is, in the way
Decision-Making Skills
1. We access good decision making for social movements outside of this round—this
should be flowed as offense for the aff
2. Specifically, a) we change the decision of the ballot by challenging the tranditional
debate structures and b) we critique that knowledge production that excludes people
from debate and academia.
AT Ground
1. You can critique our methodology, it’s not our problem if after an eight minute
speech, you have nothing to disagree with.
2. Along with our method, our impacts and our framing of the political are also neg
ground
3. Education outweighs, it’s the reason why we’re paying cash money to go to debate
camp. If we don’t learn from debate, there’s no reason for us to be here.
AT Limits
1. Limits are destructive, especially in the framework of expression. Our arguments
are based on our social location in debate and the world. By putting “limits” on our
social locations, you effectively remove us from the debate.
2. Innovation is a prerequisite to change – limits on a topic restrict the ability to create
new solutions and theories
Bleiker, professor of International Relations, and Leet, Senior Research Officer with
the Brisbane Institute 6 (Roland, and Martin, “From the Sublime to the Subliminal: Fear, Awe and
Wonder in International Politics” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 34(3), pg. 733 igm)
A subliminal orientation is attentive to what is bubbling along under the surface. It is mindful of how
conscious attempts to understand conceal more than they reveal, and purposeful efforts of progressive
change may engender more violence than they erase. For these reasons, Connolly emphasises that
‘ethical artistry’ has an element of naïveté and innocence. One is not quite sure what one is doing. Such
naïveté need not lead us back to the idealism of the romantic period. ‘One should not be naïve about
naïveté’, Simon Critchley would say.56 Rather, the challenge of change is an experiment. It is not
locked up in a predetermined conception of where one is going. It involves tentatively exploring the
limits of one’s being in the world, to see if different interpretations are possible, how those
interpretations might impact upon the affects below the level of conscious thought, and vice versa.
This approach entails drawing upon multiple levels of thinking and being, searching for changes in
sensibilities that could give more weight to minor feelings or to arguments that were previously
ignored.57 Wonder needs to be at the heart of such experiments, in contrast to the resentment of an
intellect angry with its own limitations. The ingredient of wonder is necessary to disrupt and suspend
the normal pressures of returning to conscious habit and control. This exploration beyond the
conscious implies the need for an ethos of theorising and acting that is quite different from the mode
directed towards the cognitive justification of ideas and concepts. Stephen White talks about ‘circuits
of reflection, affect and argumentation’.58 Ideas and principles provide an orientation to practice, the
implications of that practice feed back into our affective outlook, and processes of argumentation
introduce other ideas and affects. The shift, here, is from the ‘vertical’ search for foundations in
‘skyhooks’ above or ‘foundations’ below, to a ‘horizontal’ movement into the unknown.
3. Limits not key – if we prove impacts and solvency for our aff, that proves that our
advocacy is important, and outweighs the impact to limits.
4. Education is more important, it’s why we are here at debate camp and here as
debaters.
AT Predictability
1. Lack of predictability is inevitable- you’re trying to destroy our agency but
predictability is key to competitive debate
2. They use this as a weapon against new arguments- running this against k affs
destroys the creativity in this round and it justifies always debating the same topicsimagine hearing that damned planes aff again
3. Predictable debate is boring debate, we make it more interesting from round to
round, which means you are learning more, and it better for competitive debate
4. This is a camp round. We disclosed. We’re the antilab, you should have been
expecting this
AT Roleplaying Good / State Good
1. We access all of their portable skills, just because we’re not roleplaying doesn’t
mean we’re not debating.
2. We can roleplay, but we know that what we say when we are roleplaying won’t
happen after we walk out of the round—with our advocacy and using our social
location, we can use what we say in round outside in the rest of our lives
3. State focused debates preclude discussions of individual action – kills effectiveness
and agency and justifies violence
Bleiker, professor of International Relations, 2k (Roland, “Popular Dissent, Human Agency and
Global Politics” pg. 8, Cambridge University Press, igm)
To expand the scope of international theory and to bring transversal struggles into focus is not to
declare the state obsolete. States remain central actors in international politics and they have to be
recognised and theorised as such. In fact, my analysis will examine various ways in which states and the
boundaries between them have mediated the formation, functioning and impact of dissent. However,
my reading of dissent and agency makes the state neither its main focus nor its starting point. There
are compelling reasons for such a strategy, and they go beyond a mere recognition that a state-centric
approach to international theory engenders a form of representation that privileges the authority of
the state and thus precludes an adequate understand¬ing of the radical transformations that are
currently unfolding in global life. Michael Shapiro is among an increasing number of theor¬ists who
convincingly portray the state not only as an institution, but also, and primarily, as a set of 'stories' — of
which the state-centric approach to international theory is a perfect example. It is part of a
legitimisation process that highlights, promotes and naturalises cer¬tain political practices and the
territorial context within which they take place. Taken together, these stories provide the state with a
sense of identity, coherence and unity. They create boundaries between an inside and an outside,
between a people and its others. Shapiro stresses that such state-stories also exclude, for they seek 'to
repress or delegitimise other stories and the practices of identity and space they reflect.' And it is
these processes of exclusion that impose a cer¬tain political order and provide the state with a
legitimate rationale for violent encounters.22
AT Switch-Side Debate
1. The negative doesn’t switch sides. They don’t read our arguments. They probably
don’t even read switch side bad.
2. Switch-side style destroys debate- without conviction behind statements the
purpose for this quest for truth becomes meaningless. The pathos in this round comes
from narratives in the form of aff
Greene and Hicks 5- (Ronald Walter and Darrin, Insert Quals. “Lost convictions”. Cultural Studies.
Volume 19, Issue 1. InformaWorld.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a738568563&fulltext=713240928) SLS
While the opposition to debating both sides probably reaches back to the challenges against the ancient practice of dissoi logoi, we want
to turn our attention to the unique cultural history of debate during the Cold War. In the midst of Joseph McCarthy’s impending censure
by the US Senate, the US Military Academy, the US Naval Academy and, subsequently, all of the teacher colleges in the state of
Nebraska refused to affirm the resolution Á ‘Resolved: The United States should diplomatically recognize the People’s Republic of
China’. Yet, switch-side debating remained the national standard, and, by the fall of 1955, the military academies and the teacher
colleges of Nebraska were debating in favour of the next resolution. Richard Murphy (1957), however, was not content to let the
controversy pass without comment. Murphy launched a series of criticisms that would sustain the debate about debate for the next ten
years. Murphy held that debating both sides of the question was unethical because it divorced conviction
from advocacy and that it was a dangerous practice because it threatened the integrity of public debate by
divorcing it from a genuine search for truth. Murphy’s case against the ethics of debating both sides rested on what he
thought to be a simple and irrefutable rhetorical principle: A public utterance is a public commitment. In Murphy’s
opinion, debate was best imagined as a species of public speaking akin to public advocacy on the affairs of the day. If
debate is a form of public speaking, Murphy reasoned, and a public utterance entails a public commitment, then
speakers have an ethical obligation to study the question, discuss it with others until they know their
position, take a stand and then and only then engage in public advocacy in favour of their viewpoint.
Murphy had no doubt that intercollegiate debate was a form of public advocacy and was, hence, rhetorical, although this point would be
severely attacked by proponents of switch-side debating. Modern debating, Murphy claimed, ‘is geared to the public platform and to
rhetorical, rather than dialectical principles’ (p. 7). Intercollegiate debate was rhetorical, not dialectical, because its propositions were
specific and timely rather than speculative and universal. Debaters evidenced their claims by appeals to authority and opinion rather than
formal logic, and debaters appealed to an audience, even if that audience was a single person sitting in the back of a room at a relatively
isolated debate tournament. As such, debate as a species of public argument should be held to the ethics of the platform. We would
surely hold in contempt any public actor who spoke with equal force, and without genuine conviction,
for both sides of a public policy question. Why, asked Murphy, would we exempt students from the
same ethical obligation?
3. No impact- the potential for all of debate can’t be ruined by just this individual
round- at worst, this argument is not a reason to vote neg
AT Topical Version of the Aff
1. We aren’t going to support the government holding power over us in order to break
free from the government.
2. The most important part of our advocacy is in how it relates to us, our social
location, and how we view debate and the world. Our advocacy doesn’t function in
isolation, it needs to be personal.
Pirates Neg
Off Case Links
Anti-blackness
Pirates held slaves
Davis 04 (Robert Davis, professor ofhistory at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology
to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, 3/08/04,
“WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON
THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED”, http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm)
Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and
Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture
men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain
each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost
completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some
areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.
Pirates were part of the slave trade
Clements Library No Date (The Clements Library collects primary source materials in all formats relating
to early American history. Its collections of rare books, pamphlets, maps, prints, photographs, and
manuscripts shed light on North American history from Columbus through the 19th century, offering
researchers a wealth of unique resources, “Barbary Captivity Narratives”,
http://clements.umich.edu/exhibits/online/barbary/barbary-captivity.php) HDS
Much of the outrage surrounding Barbary piracy stemmed from their practice of enslaving Christian
captives. Muslim privateers would sell captured crew members and passengers to private
slaveholders who in turn would demand ransom for the prisoners' release or force them into hard
labor. A handful of these captives, upon returning to America or England, wrote books describing and
dramatizing their time as prisoners in North Africa. Much like Indian captivity narratives, the authors
often sensationalized their experiences and focused on the exotic aspects of their captors' society.
Though these narratives should not be relied on as strictly factual accounts, they provide insights into
daily life in Ottoman North Africa, and are expressions of how one culture viewed another. Some
captives, such as William Ray (Horrors of Slavery), used their experiences as a Barbary slave to criticize
slavery in America. Barbary slaves suffered heavy labor, poor diets, and demeaning circumstances,
much like their African counterparts in the United States. However, white captives could often escape
slavery by converting to Islam and adopting North Africa as their home.
Feminism
(Can also be read as a case turn)
Pirates lifestyle was unethical
Zacks No Date (Richard Zacks is a graduate of University of Michigan and Columbia Journalism School;
he's the author of "History Laid Bare" and "An Underground Education", and has written articles for the
Atlantic, Time, Village Voice, and many other publications, “THE PIRATE LIFE”,
http://www.echonyc.com/~rzacks/kidd/piratelife.htm) HDS
Pirates were mostly young, foul-mouthed men on stolen ships on a constant search for liquor, money
and women. More often than not, they terrified under-manned merchant ships into surrender
without having to fight. Since few of them ever returned home with their stolen loot, pirates knew they
were choosing a lifestyle--"A merry life and a short one," boasted Bartholomew Roberts--rather than a
shot at accumulating a nest egg. Few pirates were married, and some crews even forbade married
men.
"Their lives were a continual alternation between idleness and extreme toil, riotous debauchery and
great privation, prolonged monotony and days of great excitement and adventure," wrote John
Biddulph in "Pirates of Malabar". "At one moment, they were revelling in unlimited rum, and gambling
for handfuls of gold and diamonds; at another half starving for food and reduced to a pint of water a day
under a tropical sun." Drunk, cursing, hungry, horny. And violent. Pirates--these cursing young men in
their crazy clothes, brandishing swords and pistols, expected immediate surrender and were deeply
offended by being forced to fight. When pirates prevailed, they tortured their victims to reveal where
any scrap of treasure might be concealed. (Some merchants swallowed jewels--pirates off the China
Sea forced captives to take purgatives.) A simple hoisting and drubbing was most common but some
pirate captains delighted in offbeat torture. "Sweating", to take one example, neatly combined sadism
and amusement. The fiddler struck up a tune and the pirates poked the victim with forks and daggers to
keep him dancing and dancing until he confessed or collapsed. And pirates often raped the female
prisoners. The Admiralty clerks who took depositions from rogues under arrest wrote phrases such as
the women were "barbarously used" or "outraged", but the simple fact was "rape". A member of
Bartholomew Roberts crew was being led to the gallows in Cape Coast Castle off West Africa. David
"Lord" Symson recognized a woman's face in the crowd, one Elizabeth Trengrove, a passenger on a ship
they had captured. "I have lain with that bitch three times," bragged the unrepentent pirate, "and now
she has come to see me hanged."
(AT Women Pirates) Women Had To Assimilate
Pennell 01 (Richard Pennell did both his BA (in Arabic and Spanish) and his PhD (in Islamic History) at the
University of Leeds in Britain. Before joining the History Department at the University of Melbourne he
taught at the National University of Singapore, at the University of Nairobi in Kenya, at Garyounis
University in Benghazi, Libya, and at Bogazici University in Turkey, 4/1/01, “Bandits at Sea: A Pirates
Reader”, http://www.amazon.com/Bandits-Sea-Pirates-C-R-Pennell/dp/0814766781) HDS
On the third, final, and most intimate level of interaction, women interacted with male pirates by
becoming pirates themselves. This seems surprising for quite a few reasons. First, there are very few
female pirates documented by name, and the information on them is often shady and filled with
speculation and flourishes rather than facts. In addition to this, pirates did not let women on their
ships very often. There were not many conveniences of technology on pirate ships, and not many
women were up to the physically demanding tasks the crew had to do. In fact, there were not many
men who were up to it, either. Women were also often regarded as bad luck among pirates, and it was
feared that arguments would break out between the male members of the crew about them. On many
ships, women, young boys, and even different acts such as gambling were prohibited by the ship's
contract that the crew all signed.[7] Also, many women on pirate ships did not identify themselves as
such. Anne Bonny, for example, dressed and acted as a man while on Captain Calico Jack's ship.[7] She
and Mary Read, another female pirate, are often credited with this act as if they had been creative and
innovative in their cross-dressing. However, that was not the case. Many women dressed as men during
this time period, in an effort to take advantage of the many rights, privileges, and freedoms that were
exclusive to men.
Ecopedagogy
Ecopedagogy Turn – Eco-pedagogy blends the ideology of privileged institutions
and the experience of oppressed populations, a collision of political necessity and
educational theory – as such, it has the ability to generate new pedagogies to deal
with the root of environmental problems and directly apply those theories to a
political project – this guts their solvency and proves that only we can solve
Kahn 10
(Richard Kahn, an educator whose primary interests are in researehing the history of social movements as pedagogically
generative forces in society, and in critically challenging the role dominant institutions play in blocking the realization of greater
planetary freedom, peace, and happiness. In 2007, he graduated with a PhD from UCLA with a specialization in the philosophy
and history of education. An alter-globalization activist, Kahn has been at the forefront of championing and organizing what he
terms, “total liberation politics,” that seek to advocate for nonhuman animals, the biosphere as a sacred entity, and social justice
through systemic transformation. Kahn’s writing and teaching to date have thus sought to synthesize the field of critical
pedagogy with types of ecological and vegan education in order to arrive at a radical education for sustainability that seeks both
individual and collective emancipation. Academia.edu, Critical Pedagogy,Ecoliteracy,& Planetary Crisis, 2010,
http://www.academia.edu/167226/Critical_Pedagogy_Ecoliteracy_and_Planetary_Crisis_The_Ecopedagogy_Movement, AFGA)
Though nascent, the international ecopedagogy movement"' represents a profound transformation
in the radical educational and political project derived from the work of Paulo Freire known as critical
pedagogy.20 Ecopedagogy seeks to interpolate quintessentially Freirian aims of the humanization of
experience and the achievement of a just and free world with a future- oriented ecological politics
that militantly opposes the globalization of neoliberalism and imperialism, on the one hand, and attempts to
foment collective ecoliteracy and realize culturally relevant forms of knowledge grounded in
normative concepts such as sustainability, planetarity, and biophilia, on the other. In this, it
attempts to produce what Gregory Martin (2007) has theorized as a much needed "revolutionary
critical pedagogy based in hope that can bridge the politics of the academy with forms of grassroots
political organizing capable of achieving social and ecological transformation" (p. 349).
The ecopedagogy movement grew out of discussions first conducted around the time of the Rio Earth Summit in
1992. During the years leading up to the event, environmental themes became increasingly prominent in Brazilian
circles. Then, following the Summit, a strong desire emerged among movement intellectuals to support grassroots
organizations for sustainability as well as worldwide initiatives such as the Earth Charter. In 1999, the Instituto Paulo
Friere under the direction of Moacir Oadotti, along with the Earth Council and UNESCO, convened the First
International Symposium on the Earth Charter in the Perspective of Education, which was quickly followed by the
First International Forum on Ecopedagogy. These conferences led not only to the final formation of the Earth
Charter Initiative but also to key movement documents such as the Ecopedagogy Charter (Spring, 2004). Oadotti and
others in the ecopedagogy movement have remained influential in advancing the Earth Charter Initiative and
continue to mount ecopedagogy seminars, degree programs, workshops, and other learning opportunities through an
ever-growing number of international Paulo Freire institutes.31
As previously noted, scholars and activists interested in furthering either environmental literacy
through environmental education or variants of social and environmental ecoliteracy via education
for sustainable development and its many potential subfields, have a wide number of alternatives from
which to choose. However, these frameworks often ultimately derive, are centered in, or are otherwise
directed from relatively privileged institutional domains based in North America, Europe, or Australia—
primary representatives of the global north (Brandt, 1980). The ecopedagogy movement, by contrast, has
coalesced largely within Latin America over the last two decades. Due in part to its being situated
in the global south, the movement has thus provided focus and political action on the ways in which
environmental degradation results from fundamental sociocultural, political, and economic
inequalities.22
As Gonzalcz-Gaudiano (2005) has emphasized, it is exactly these types of views and protocols that are
necessary for ecoliteracy in the twenty-first century, due to their being routinely left of northern
intellectual agendas in the past. However, in a manner that moves beyond Gonzalcz-Gaudiano*s
anthropocentric, social justice—oriented approach to environmental issues, the ecopedagogy
movement additionally incorporates more typically northern ecological ideas such as the intrinsic
value of all species, the need to care for and live in harmony with the planet, as well as the
emancipatory potential contained in human aesthetic experiences of nature.23
In this way, the ecopedagogy movement represents an important attempt to synthesize a key opposition within the
worldwide environmental movement, one that continues to be played out in major environmental and economic
policy meetings and debates. Further, as an oppositional movement with connections to grassroots
political groups such as Brazil's Landless Rural Workers' Movement and alternative social
institutions such as the World Social Forum, but also academic departments and divisions within
the United Nations Environment Programme, the ecopedagogy movement has begun to build the
extra- and intra-institutional foundations by which it can contribute meaningful ecological policy,
philosophy, and curricular frame- works toward achieving its sustainability goals. Still, the
ecopedagogy movement might not presently demand much interest from northern educational scholars—beyond
those whose specialty is in the field of interna- tional and comparative education—save for the movement's historical
relationship to the critical pedagogy of Paulo Freire.
Eco-pedagogy is action oriented and proponents have been successful in spreading
awareness and support – this proves that we create real world change and only
through our blend of privileged institutions and the experience of oppressed
populations can we solve for the breaking down of the striation that the 1NC talks
about
Antunes and Gadotti 5
(Angela Antunes is Executive Secretary of Paulo Freire Institute, Doctor of Education from the University of Sao Paulo and
author of many books. Her Ph.D. thesis for the School of Education at the University of Sao Paulo was on “Sustainability
Pedagogy”, using the Earth Charter as one of the philosophical keystone documents upon which to build that pedagogy -- Moacir
Gadotti is Professor at the University of Sao Paulo, the Director of the Paulo Freire Institute, and author of many widely-read and
translated books, among others: Education Against Education (1979); Invitation to Read Paulo Freire (1988); History of
Pedagogical Ideas (1993); Praxis Pedagogy (1994); and Current Issues on Education (2000), The Earth Charter Initiative, “Ecopedagogy as the Appropriate Pedagogy to the Earth Charter Process,” 10/5/05, http://earthcharterinaction.org/pdfs/TEC-ENGPDF/ENG-Antunes.pdf, AFGA)
Eco-pedagogy is a fitting pedagogy for these times of paradigmatic reconstruction, fitting to a culture of sustainability and
peace, and, therefore, adequate for the Earth Charter process. It has been gradually growing, benefiting from much
Input originated in recent decades, principally inside the ecologic movement. It is based upon a
philosophical paradigm supported by Paulo Freire, Fritjof Capra, Leonardo Boff, Sebastiao
Salgado, Boaventura de Sousa Santos, and Milton Santos; arising from education and offering an ensemble of
interdependent knowl- edge and values. Among them, we would like to mention the following: educate to think globally; educate
feelings; teach about the Earth's identity as essential to the human condition; shape the planetary conscience; educate for
understanding; and educate for simplicity, care, and peacefulness. In the midst of that, we consider the Earth Charter
not only a code for planetary ethics - it Is also a call for action. In this sense, we would like to mention some of
the real examples where the Earth Charter was used as an instrument for real action.6
With the support of the Paulo Freire Institute, Sao Paulo City (2001-2004) used the Earth Charter
to train education managers for the Unified Educational Centers dedicated to developing educational,
cultural, sport, and leisure activities. Education leaders were trained on the principles of the culture of peace and sustainability so
that they can incorporate them in their educational projects and in their decision-making. The Earth Charter was submitted as an
educational project during this process. Training education, in the fullest meaning of the words, is a very fertile field to promote
the principles and values of the Earth Charter.
The preparation of social studies teachers Is another strategy to practice the principles and values
of the Earth Charter. Some examples include: the "Youth Peace Project," which took place in three
cities of the state of Sao Paulo and included 225 social studies teachers; the "Citizen School
Project," which used the "reading of the world" methodology of Paulo Freire and addressed coexistence principles based on the Earth Charter's values for developing the Political-Pedagogical
Project of the schools8; the "MOVE-Brazil" adult education project which pur- pose is to teach
literacy to forty thousand young people and adults in six Brazilian states within three years, and
Includes the Earth Charter as a reference for education; the "Budget for Participating Child"; and,
"Exercising Citizenship from Childhood," which involved all children of elementary education in
the Sao Paulo city network schools of five hundred educational units, promoting child and youth
participation and a direct participa- tion In priorities for education and for the city. The Paulo
Freire Institute was responsible for the direct education of 2,500 teachers and ten thousand
children involved in the project. The Earth Charter was one of the documents used as a basis for reflecting on education
and on the city, and It also guided the education of children. The project to develop as many as five hundred people as social
leaders was Included in the Participating Budget for the city of Guarulhos, a municipality which also used the Earth Charter as a
reference. Based upon the Earth Charter, social and environmental issues related to the city were discussed as well as priorities for
the budget, which included the direct participa- tion of the population.
Case
D&G=Authoritarianism
The direct democratic ideals of pirates will lead to authoritarian regimes and the reentrenchment of the sovereign
Barbrook 98 (Richard, coordinator of the Hypermedia Research Centre at the University of
Westminster, 8/27/98, “THE HOLY FOOLS”, http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l9808/msg00091.html
Techno-nomad TJs are attracted by the uncompromising theoretical radicalism expressed by Deleuze
and Guattari. However, far from succumbing to an outside conspiracy, Frequence Libre imploded
because of the particular New Left politics which inspired A Thousand Plateaus and the other sacred
texts. Unwilling to connect abstract theory with its practical application, the techno-nomads cannot
see how Deleuze and Guattari's celebration of direct democracy was simultaneously a justification for
intellectual elitism. This elitism was no accident. Because of their very different life experiences, many
young people in the sixties experienced a pronounced 'generation gap' between themselves and their
parents. Feeling so isolated, they believed that society could only be changed by a revolutionary
vanguard composed of themselves and their comrades. This is why many young radicals
simultaneously believed in two contradictory concepts. First, the revolution would create mass
participation in running society. Second, the revolution could only be organised by a committed
minority.<14> The New Left militants were reliving an old problem in a new form. Back in the 1790s,
Robespierre had argued that the democratic republic could only be created by a revolutionary
dictatorship. During the 1917 Russian revolution, Lenin had advocated direct democracy while
simultaneously instituting the totalitarian rule of the Bolsheviks. As their 'free radio' experience
showed, Deleuze and Guattari never escaped from this fundamental contradiction of revolutionary
politics. The absence of the Leninist party did not prevent the continuation of vanguard politics. As in
other social movements, Fr=E9quence Libre was dominated by a few charismatic individuals: the holy
prophets of the anarcho-communist revolution.<15> In Deleuze and Guattari's writings, this deep
authoritarianism found its theoretical expression in their methodology: semiotic structuralism.
Despite rejecting its 'wooden language', the two philosophers never really abandoned Stalinism in
theory. Above all, they retained its most fundamental premise: the minds of the majority of the
population were controlled by bourgeois ideologies.<16> During the sixties, this elitist theory was
updated through the addition of Lacanian structuralism by Louis Althusser, the chief philosopher of the
French Communist party.<17> For Deleuze and Guattari, Althusser had explained why only a
revolutionary minority supported the New Left. Brainwashed by the semiotic 'machinic assemblages' of
the family, media, language and psychoanalysis, most people supposedly desired fascism rather than
anarcho-communism. This authoritarian methodology clearly contradicted the libertarian rhetoric
within Deleuze and Guattari's writings. Yet, as the rappers who wanted to make a show for Frequence
Libre discovered, Deleuzoguattarian anarcho-communism even included the censorship of music. By
adopting an Althusserian analysis, Deleuze and Guattari were tacitly privileging their own role as
intellectuals: the producers of semiotic systems. Just like their Stalinist elders, the two philosophers
believed that only the vanguard of intellectuals had the right to lead the masses - without any formal
consent from them - in the fight against capitalism.
D&G=No Solvency—Too fast
The radical, non-strategic smoothing the 1AC proposes will fail and the Body without
Organs will not manifest
Deleuze and Guattari 80 (Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, philosophers and rhizomes, A Thousand Plateaus pg 160-161,
University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis London)
You have to keep enough of the organism for it to reform each dawn; and you have to keep small
supplies of signifiance and subjectification, if only to turn them against their own systems when the circumstances demand it,
when things, persons, even situations, force you to; and you have to keep small rations of subjectivity in sufficient quantity to enable you to
respond to the dominant reality. Mimic the strata. You
don't reach the BwO, and its plane of consistency, by wildly
destratifying. That is why we encountered the paradox of those emptied and dreary bodies at the very
beginning: they had emptied themselves of their organs instead of looking for the point at which they
could patiently and momentarily dismantle the organization of the organs we call the organism. There
are, in fact, several ways of botching the BwO: either one fails to produce it, or one produces it more
or less, but nothing is produced on it, intensities do not pass or are blocked. This is because the BwO is
always swinging between the surfaces that stratify it and the plane that sets it free. If you free it with
too violent an action, if you blow apart the strata without taking precautions, then instead of drawing
the plane you will be killed, plunged into a black hole, or even dragged toward catastrophe. Staying
stratified—organized, signified, subjected— is not the worst that can happen; the worst that can happen is if you throw the
strata into demented or suicidal collapse, which brings them back down on us heavier than ever. This is how it should be done: Lodge yourself
on a stratum, experiment with the opportunities it offers, find an advantageous place on it, find potential movements of deterritorialization,
possible lines of flight, experience them, produce flow conjunctions here and there, try out continuums of intensities segment by segment,
have a small plot of new land at all times.
It is through a meticulous relation with the strata that one succeeds in
freeing lines of flight, causing conjugated flows to pass and escape and bringing forth continuous
intensities for a BwO. Connect, con- jugate, continue: a whole "diagram," as opposed to still signifying and sub- jective programs. We
are in a social formation; first see how it is stratified for us and in us and at the place where we are;
then descend from the strata to the deeper assemblage within which we are held; gently tip the
assem- blage, making it pass over to the side of the plane of consistency. It is only there that the BwO
reveals itself for what it is: connection of desires, con- junction of flows, continuum of intensities. You
have constructed your own little machine, ready when needed to be plugged into other collective machines. Castaneda describes a long
process of experimentation (it makes little difference whether it is with peyote or other things): let us recall for the moment how the Indian
forces him first to find a "place," already a difficult operation, then to find "allies," and then gradually to give up interpretation, to construct
flow by flow and segment by segment lines of experimentation, becoming-animal, becoming-molecular, etc. For the BwO is all of that:
necessarily a Place, necessarily a Plane, necessarily a Collectivity (assembling elements, things, plants, animals, tools, people, powers, and
fragments of all of these; for it is not "my" body without organs, instead the "me" (moi) is on it, or what remains of me, unalterable and
changing in form, crossing thresholds).
Nomadic Cooption
Nomads are bad – their politics empirically gets reappropriated by da military to do
bad stuff
Weizman, Eyal 06 (Eyal Weizman is an Israeli journalist, architect, writer and Director of Goldsmith’s
College Centre for Research Architecture. His work deals with issues of conflict territories and human
rights., “The Art of War,” Fireze Magazine Issue 99, May 2006, Online,
http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/the_art_of_war/)
The attack conducted by units of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) on the city of Nablus in April 2002 was
described by its commander, Brigadier-General Aviv Kokhavi, as ‘inverse geometry’, which he explained
as ‘the reorganization of the urban syntax by means of a series of micro-tactical actions’.1 During the
battle soldiers moved within the city across hundreds of metres of ‘overground tunnels’ carved out
through a dense and contiguous urban structure. Although several thousand soldiers and Palestinian guerrillas were
manoeuvring simultaneously in the city, they were so ‘saturated’ into the urban fabric that very few would have been visible from the air.
Furthermore, they used none of the city’s streets, roads, alleys or courtyards, or any of the external doors, internal stairwells and windows, but
moved horizontally through walls and vertically through holes blasted in ceilings and floors. This form of movement, described by the military
as ‘infestation’, seeks to redefine inside as outside, and domestic interiors as thoroughfares. The
IDF’s strategy of ‘walking
through walls’ involves a conception of the city as not just the site but also the very medium of warfare
– a flexible, almost liquid medium that is forever contingent and in flux. Contemporary military theorists
are now busy re-conceptualizing the urban domain. At stake are the underlying concepts, assumptions and principles that
determine military strategies and tactics. The vast intellectual field that geographer Stephen Graham has called an international ‘shadow world’
of military urban research institutes and training centres that have been established to rethink military operations in cities could be understood
as somewhat similar to the international matrix of élite architectural academies. However, according to urban theorist Simon Marvin, the
military-architectural ‘shadow world’ is currently generating more intense and well-funded urban research programmes than all these
university programmes put together, and is certainly aware of the avant-garde urban research conducted in architectural institutions, especially
as regards Third World and African cities. There
is a considerable overlap among the theoretical texts considered
essential by military academies and architectural schools. Indeed, the reading lists of contemporary
military institutions include works from around 1968 (with a special emphasis on the writings of Gilles
Deleuze, Félix Guattari and Guy Debord), as well as more contemporary writings on urbanism, psychology, cybernetics, post-colonial
and post-Structuralist theory. If, as some writers claim, the space for criticality has withered away in late 20th-century
capitalist culture, it seems now to have found a place to flourish in the military. I conducted an interview with
Kokhavi, commander of the Paratrooper Brigade, who at 42 is considered one of the most promising
young officers of the IDF (and was the commander of the operation for the evacuation of settlements in the Gaza Strip).2 Like many
career officers, he had taken time out from the military to earn a university degree; although he originally
intended to study architecture, he ended up with a degree in philosophy from the Hebrew University.
When he explained to me the principle that guided the battle in Nablus, what was interesting for me was not so much the
description of the action itself as the way he conceived its articulation. He said: ‘this space that you look
at, this room that you look at, is nothing but your interpretation of it. […] The question is how do you
interpret the alley? […] We interpreted the alley as a place forbidden to walk through and the door as a
place forbidden to pass through, and the window as a place forbidden to look through, because a
weapon awaits us in the alley, and a booby trap awaits us behind the doors. This is because the enemy
interprets space in a traditional, classical manner, and I do not want to obey this interpretation and fall
into his traps. […] I want to surprise him! This is the essence of war. I need to win […] This is why that we
opted for the methodology of moving through walls. . . . Like a worm that eats its way forward,
emerging at points and then disappearing. […] I said to my troops, “Friends! […] If until now you were
used to move along roads and sidewalks, forget it! From now on we all walk through walls!”’2 Kokhavi’s
intention in the battle was to enter the city in order to kill members of the Palestinian resistance and
then get out. The horrific frankness of these objectives, as recounted to me by Shimon Naveh, Kokhavi’s instructor, is part of a
general Israeli policy that seeks to disrupt Palestinian resistance on political as well as military levels
through targeted assassinations from both air and ground. If you still believe, as the IDF would like you
to, that moving through walls is a relatively gentle form of warfare, the following description of the
sequence of events might change your mind. To begin with, soldiers assemble behind the wall and then,
using explosives, drills or hammers, they break a hole large enough to pass through. Stun grenades are
then sometimes thrown, or a few random shots fired into what is usually a private living-room occupied
by unsuspecting civilians. When the soldiers have passed through the wall, the occupants are locked
inside one of the rooms, where they are made to remain – sometimes for several days – until the
operation is concluded, often without water, toilet, food or medicine. Civilians in Palestine, as in Iraq, have
experienced the unexpected penetration of war into the private domain of the home as the most
profound form of trauma and humiliation. A Palestinian woman identified only as Aisha, interviewed by a journalist for
the Palestine Monitor, described the experience: ‘Imagine it – you’re sitting in your living-room, which you
know so well; this is the room where the family watches television together after the evening meal, and
suddenly that wall disappears with a deafening roar, the room fills with dust and debris, and through the
wall pours one soldier after the other, screaming orders. You have no idea if they’re after you, if they’ve
come to take over your home, or if your house just lies on their route to somewhere else. The children
are screaming, panicking. Is it possible to even begin to imagine the horror experienced by a five-yearold child as four, six, eight, 12 soldiers, their faces painted black, sub-machine-guns pointed everywhere,
antennas protruding from their backpacks, making them look like giant alien bugs, blast their way
through that wall?’3 Naveh, a retired Brigadier-General, directs the Operational Theory Research Institute, which trains staff officers
from the IDF and other militaries in ‘operational theory’ – defined in military jargon as somewhere between strategy and tactics. He summed
up the mission of his institute, which was founded in 1996: ‘We are like the Jesuit Order. We attempt to teach and train soldiers to think. […]
We read Christopher Alexander, can you imagine?; we read John Forester, and other architects. We are reading Gregory Bateson; we are
reading Clifford Geertz. Not myself, but our soldiers, our generals are reflecting on these kinds of materials. We
have established a
school and developed a curriculum that trains “operational architects”.’4 In a lecture Naveh showed a
diagram resembling a ‘square of opposition’ that plots a set of logical relationships between certain
propositions referring to military and guerrilla operations. Labelled with phrases such as ‘Difference and
Repetition – The Dialectics of Structuring and Structure’, ‘Formless Rival Entities’, ‘Fractal Manoeuvre’,
‘Velocity vs. Rhythms’, ‘The Wahabi War Machine’, ‘Postmodern Anarchists’ and ‘Nomadic Terrorists’,
they often reference the work of Deleuze and Guattari. War machines, according to the philosophers,
are polymorphous; diffuse organizations characterized by their capacity for metamorphosis, made up of
small groups that split up or merge with one another, depending on contingency and circumstances.
(Deleuze and Guattari were aware that the state can willingly transform itself into a war machine. Similarly, in their discussion of ‘smooth
space’ it is implied that this conception may lead to domination.) I
asked Naveh why Deleuze and Guattari were so popular
with the Israeli military. He replied that ‘several of the concepts in A Thousand Plateaus became
instrumental for us […] allowing us to explain contemporary situations in a way that we could not have
otherwise. It problematized our own paradigms. Most important was the distinction they have pointed
out between the concepts of “smooth” and “striated” space [which accordingly reflect] the
organizational concepts of the “war machine” and the “state apparatus”. In the IDF we now often use
the term “to smooth out space” when we want to refer to operation in a space as if it had no borders.
[…] Palestinian areas could indeed be thought of as “striated” in the sense that they are enclosed by
fences, walls, ditches, roads blocks and so on.’5 When I asked him if moving through walls was part of it, he explained that, ‘In
Nablus the IDF understood urban fighting as a spatial problem. [...] Travelling through walls is a simple mechanical solution that connects theory
and practice.’6
Nomadic Politics=Genocide
They also cause genocide
Barbrook, Richard 98 [Richard, coordinator of the Hypermedia Research Centre at U of Westminster, The Holy Fools
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/theory-holyfools6.html,]
While the nomadic fantasies of A Thousand Plateaus were being composed, one revolutionary
movement actually did carry out Deleuze and Guattari’s dream of destroying the city. Led by a
vanguard of Paris-educated intellectuals, the Khmer Rouge overthrew an oppressive regime
installed by the Americans. Rejecting the ‘grand narrative’ of economic progress, Pol Pot and his
organisation instead tried to construct a rural utopia. However, when the economy subsequently
imploded, the regime embarked on ever more ferocious purges until the country was rescued by an
invasion by neighbouring Vietnam. Deleuze and Guattari had claimed that the destruction of the city would create direct democracy and
libidinal ecstasy. Instead, the application of such anti-modernism in practice resulted in tyranny and
genocide. The ‘line of flight’ from Stalin had led to Pol Pot. [22]
Murdering Innocents
Pirates have been known to brutally kill anyone who comes on their territory,
advocating for them just advocates for the murder of innocent people.
Nagourney and Gettlemen 11 (Adam, Jeffrey, Reporters for New York Times, “Pirates Brutally End
Yachting Dream ”, 2/22/11, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/world/africa/23pirates.html?_r=0, CTC
)
LOS ANGELES — Jean and Scott Adam shared a dream through 15 years of marriage: to retire, build a boat and
sail the world. And that is precisely what they did, heading out in 2004 from Marina Del Rey, Calif., on a custom-built 58-foot yacht for
a permanent vacation that brought them to exotic islands and remote coastlines: Fiji, Micronesia, China, Phuket. Enlarge This Image Joe Grande
Phyllis Macay and Robert A. Riggle, above, were killed along with Jean and Scott Adam, the owners of the yacht Quest. Related Seizing of
Pirate Commanders Is Questioned (February 24, 2011) Week in Review: Suddenly, a Rise in Piracy’s Price (February 27, 2011) Enlarge This
Image Agence France-Presse — Getty Images The 58-foot Quest had departed from a convoy of yachts that was assembled to ward off attacks by
pirates. Readers’ Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (464) » “And now: Angkor Wat! And Burma!”
Mrs. Adam wrote just before Christmas, her blog post bustling with characteristic excitement. The
dream came to a brutal end on
Tuesday when the Adams and their crew — Phyllis Macay and Robert A. Riggle of Seattle — were killed by pirates
off the coast of Somalia in one of the most violent episodes since the modern-day piracy epidemic began several years ago, American
officials said. It is not clear why the pirates killed their hostages, either accidentally during a firefight or
possibly out of revenge for the Somali pirates killed by American sharpshooters in a hostage-taking
in 2009. United States naval forces had been shadowing the hijacked yacht, called the Quest, and as soon as
they saw a burst of gunfire on board, American Special Operations forces rushed to the yacht in assault craft, shot
one of the pirates and knifed another. But all four hostages were already dead or fatally wounded. Few people who
travel the high seas these days are unaware of the dangers from pirates, though it seemed a risk the Adams were willing to take in the spirit of
adventure and excitement. “She said to us, ‘If anything happens to us on these travels, just know that we died living our dream,’ ” said Richard
Savage, Mrs. Adam’s brother-in-law from her first marriage. “They were aware that this kind of thing has risks. But they were living their
dream.” Still, in a decision that troubled friends and family members, the Quest had departed from a convoy of yachts that was assembled to ward
off attacks by pirates in those waters — such maritime convoys are known as rallies — to go off on their own into some of the most dangerous
waters in the world. Mr. Adam took a security course last year from Blue Water Rallies, the organizer of the rally he had been on, and friends
said he often turned off his G.P.S. instrument because pirates had learned to use them as homing devices. “They were not risk-seekers,” said
Vivian Callahan, who had sailed with the Adams as a crew member over the years. “They were very well aware of the dangers and I can’t
imagine them straying from the rally unless conditions were very serious." The Adams had been married about 15 years. They had both been
married once before. He had a daughter, she had two sons. Before their retirement, Mrs. Adam was a dentist in Marina Del Rey, a graduate of
dental school at the University of California, Los Angeles. He worked as a film production manager, on such films as “The Goonies” and
“Deliverance,” before leaving the business to attend divinity school; he received a master’s of divinity in 2000 and a master’s of theology in
2010. Indeed, for the Adams, this was as much a voyage of faith as it was one of adventure. They would load the Quest up with tons of Bibles
and distribute them as they traveled the world. “They would stop in these small islands and connect with the church there, which were in isolated
places and really welcomed them,” said Richard Peace, a professor of ministry at Fuller Theological Seminary. “Scott would preach at times for
them and being a doctoral student, he would teach in Bible colleges. This was really a major part of their travels.” Still, friends said that the
Adams were not on a mission of proselytization. “They
were very much in love and shared both a love of the sea
and a love of God’s word,” Samantha Carlson, a fellow sailor, said in an e-mail to friends. She added: “They were NOT proselytizing
or converting anyone.” Ms. Macay and Mr. Riggle signed on to the Quest as crew members late last year, providing needed assistance and
companionship on these voyages, which are often rigorous and lonely. Both Mr. Adam, 70, and Mrs. Adam, 66, were in relatively good shape,
though Mrs. Adam battled with intense bouts of seasickness. “She certainly didn’t let that stop her,” Mr. Savage said, adding with a laugh, “It’s
kind of bizarre.” Ms. Macay, 59, was a freelance interior designer and Mr. Riggle, 67, a retired veterinarian. They had been a couple in the past
but were simply crewmates at the time of their deaths, friends said. They had met at the Seattle Singles Yacht Club and had been at sea together
for most of the past three and a half years. Enlarge This Image Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Jean and Scott Adam. Mr. Adam took a
security course last year from Blue Water Rallies, the organizer of the rally he had been on. Related Seizing of Pirate Commanders Is Questioned
(February 24, 2011) Week in Review: Suddenly, a Rise in Piracy’s Price (February 27, 2011) Enlarge This Image Readers’ Comments Readers
shared their thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (464) » “Originally, it was supposed to be a year-and-a-half long, but she kept extending
it,” said Joe Macay, her brother. “She wasn’t a thrill-seeker trying to live on the edge. She was just a person who loved sailing and was trying to
live the life she loved.” Don Jordan, the director of the Seattle Animal Shelter, said Mr. Riggle had served as a contract veterinarian there for the
past 15 to 20 years. “He was a natural fit for a vet, kind and compassionate,” Mr. Jordan said. The American Navy has pleaded with shipowners
to stick to designated shipping lanes when passing through the Arabian Sea, where pirates continue to strike with impunity, despite the presence
of dozens of warships. Yachters who knew the Adams said they had been, given these times, inclined to ship their boats overland to avoid
dangerous waters or travel in rallies. “I really have no idea why they would leave the rally when they specifically joined the rally to be in a safer
environment,” said Jeff Allen, a close friend. “I
hope this sends a message that you really shouldn’t be trying to go
through that area.” Friends of Ms. Macay and Mr. Riggle said that they were only serving as crew members. Cindy Kirkham, a friend of
Ms. Macay and her family, said, “The family is very upset that people are suggesting that they made the decision.” But Mr. Macay said that it
was not uncommon for boats to leave rallies and return. He said his sister had “expressed concern about pirates — anybody sailing in that Blue
Water Rally knows that a portion of risk goes along with it.” He added, “She knew the risk involved, and accepted it.”
The killings
underscore how lawless the seas have become in that part of the world. Just about every week another
ship gets hijacked. More than 50 vessels, from fishing trawlers and traditional wooden dhows to giant freighters and oil tankers, are
currently being held captive, with more than 800 hostages, according to Ecoterra International, a nonprofit maritime group that
monitors pirate attacks. “At the moment, it looks like it’s getting out of control,” said Capt. Pottengal Mukundan, director of the
International Maritime Bureau, which has tracked piracy at sea since 1991. The Somali seas are now known as the most perilous in the
world, crawling with young gunmen in lightweight skiffs cruising around with machine guns, looking for
quarry. The Adams had been sailing the world on the Quest, a Davidson 58 Pilot House Sloop, that they had custom built for $1.5 million in New
Zealand in 2001, using money they earned from selling their homes. “When designing the yacht, we had to make sure that the yacht trimmed well
when hundreds of Bibles were stored at the beginning of each adventure: It amounted to tons of weight,” said Kevin Dibley, the owner of Dibley
Marine Ltd., who was brought on to assist the project. On Friday, the Quest sent out an S O S, 275 miles from the coast of Oman, in the open seas
between Mumbai and Djibouti. A mother ship had been observed near the yacht when it was hijacked by pirates in a smaller craft, maritime
officials said, but it disappeared once warships drew close, or was captured. Either way, the pirates were blocked from escaping and that may be
one reason tensions rose on board, said Andrew Mwangura, the maritime editor of Somalia Report, a Web site that monitors piracy attacks.
“There were a big number of gunmen on a small yacht,” Mr. Mwangura said. “They could have been fighting over food, water, space. And with
military choppers overhead, people get jumpy.” According to Vice Adm. Mark Fox, the commander of United States Naval Forces Central
Command, shortly after the Quest was hijacked, the Navy began talking to the pirates’ financier as well as elders from the pirates’ village. Many
pirate crews are paid by wealthy Somali businessmen who later get a cut of the ransom. On Monday, two of the pirates boarded a naval destroyer
that had pulled within 600 yards of the Quest to negotiate further. But the talks seemed to unravel on Tuesday morning, when a pirate aboard the
Quest fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the destroyer. Almost immediately gunfire erupted from inside the yacht’s cabin, Admiral Fox said, and
several pirates then stepped up to the bow with their hands up. Fifteen Special Operations officers in two high-speed assault craft rushed in. When
they boarded the Quest, they shot and killed one pirate and stabbed another. Once aboard, the American forces found two pirates already dead,
apparently killed by their comrades. The pirates were in disarray, the American military said, and a fight had broken out among them. The deaths
of the Adams was particularly striking to many of their friends, considering the kind of mission they were on. “The irony of all this is that Scott
and Jean, like so many of us out here cruising the world, are out here to meet the people, learn about their culture and help those we meet in
whatever way we can,” said Mr. Allen.
Pirates were and continue to be pathological killers.¶
Berger 12 (Eric Berger, head of the SciGuy blog from the Houston Chronicle, “Many pirates are
pathological. So why do we romanticize them?” August 16, 2012
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/08/many-pirates-are-pathological-so-why-do-we-romanticizethem/)CEFS¶
We romanticize pirates. ¶ The question is why. Historically they did very bad things, not only stealing
but performing incredible acts of brutality. François l’Olonnais, a French pirate active in the
Caribbean in the 1660s, was known to cut open the chests of his victims and take a bite out of their
hearts. ¶
And modern
pirates are no better. There have been 189 piracy attacks this year, according to theInternational
Maritime Bureau. Somali pirates, who themselves are killers, may have earned $160 millionlast year. ¶ So why, then, do we
romanticize pirates? Why do we dress up like them and play pirates? Why do we name baseball and
football teams after them? ¶ It’s a question Thomas Oertling, a lecturer in maritime studies at Texas A&M University at Galveston,
has given some thought to. He teaches a very popular course on piracy at the university. The class covers everything from ancient piracy to the
Golden age from 1680 to 1720 when Black Bart, Captain Kidd and other pirates were active. ¶ The course also delves into popular culture and
piracy, Oertling says. ¶ “I like to get them to start asking about our image of pirates, and why our image of piracy from stories and books is a very
different one from reality. Why is that? We have a lot of recreational piracy in modern life, each Renaissance Faire has a pirate weekend, we have
national talk like a pirate day. Who is buying this, and why? Why is there this fascination with pirates?” ¶ So what’s the answer? ¶ “My guess is
because we need to.
Pirates did have a reputation for living outside the box, they made their own rules up,
and in late 17th or early 18th century they had freedom and they did what they want. A lot of people
can identify with freedom to do what they want. It’s inviting, gaining gold and wealth and doubloons.
What’s diminished is the price someone has to pay for that. What we forget about is the violence,
violation of people and their property. It’s glossed over and maybe it’s the Robin Hood effect.” ¶ But
the realities then, and today, are pretty ugly. ¶ “Many of these pirates were pathological, and I don’t
think the violence or brutality has changed at all. About the only thing that’s changed is modern
technology, with fast motor boats, rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47s. Ҧ
Pirates=Jerks
Pirates, Especially Henry “Long Ben” Avery, were Jerks, and so were those associated
with them
Minster No Date (Christopher W. Minster, PhD, is a literature professor and writer living in Quito, Ecuador. No date given.
http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/Pirates/p/Henry-Every-The-Pirate-Who-Kept-His-Loot.htm , About.com Latin American
History, “Henry Avery: The Pirate Who Kept His Loot”)
Looting and Torture:¶ The survivors
of the battle were subjected to several days of torture and rape by
the victorious pirates. There were many women on board, including a member of the court of the
Grand Moghul himself. Romantic tales of the day say that the beautiful daughter of the Moghul was on board
and fell in love with Avery and ran off to live with him on some remote island - Madagascar, perhaps - but the
reality was far more brutal.
The haul from the Ganj-i-Sawai was incredible: hundreds of thousands of
pounds worth of goods, gold, silver and jewels. It was quite possibly the richest haul in the history of
piracy.¶ Deception and Flight:¶ Avery and his men did not want to share all the loot with the other
pirates, so they tricked them. They loaded their holds with loot and arranged to meet and divide it,
but they took off instead. None of the other pirate captains had any chance of catching up with the
speedy Fancy. They decided to head for the lawless Caribbean. Once they reached New Providence,
Avery bribed Governor Nicholas Trott, essentially gaining protection for him and his men. The taking
of the Indian ships had put a great strain on relations between India and England, however, and once
a reward was put out for Avery and his fellow pirates, Trott could no longer protect them.
Pirates ineffective
Golden Age of pirates proves that pirates are easily destroyed by the state or disease.
Kuhn 10 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, “Life Under the Jolly Roger, Reflections on Golden Age Piracy” pp.
17)CEFS
The heyday of piracy’s golden age does not last very long, however. Angus ¶ Konstam, from the non-radical strain of
pirate historians, concludes somewhat complacently: “The worst of these pirate excesses was limited to an ¶ eight-year period, from 1714 until
1722, so the true golden age cannot even ¶ be called a ‘golden decade.’”48¶ In the words of Marcus Rediker, with the
killing of the
period’s most ¶ successful pirate captain, Bartholomew Roberts, and the subsequent capture of most
of his crew in 1722, the golden age “turned crimson.”49 These ¶ events have drawn self-satisfied commentary: “The
complete destruction of ¶ Bartholomew Roberts and his gang, much the strongest pirate combine at ¶ sea, was a devastating blow to the pirate
community as a whole.
It was rather ¶ humiliating that the two well-gunned, well-manned pirate ships
should Background 17¶ surrender so pusillanimously without a single royal sailor being killed in ¶ either
action.”50¶ 1722–1726 : A last, more desperate generation of golden age pirates tries to ¶ keep the Jolly
Roger alive even after “the war against the pirates was virtually ¶ won.”51
The tide, of course, has changed and
“the years 1722–26 were a time ¶ when pirates fought less for booty than for their very survival.”52 Peter Earle ¶ draws the following picture:¶
Getting on for a thousand pirates had been killed or captured on ¶ their ships or in attempts to escape
ashore. Many hundreds of others had been pardoned or had crept ashore in haunts such as the ¶
Virgin Islands, the Bay Islands of Honduras, the Mosquito Coast, ¶ Madagascar or West Africa where
many former pirates were said to be ¶ living among the natives. Many hundreds more must have died
of the ¶ diseases prevalent in West African and West Indian waters, for mortality was likely to have
been higher in the densely packed and very ¶ unhygienic pirate ships than those of the Royal Navy who
lost well ¶ over a thousand men to disease in this campaign. Such destruction ¶ and dispersal meant
that there were not many pirates left at sea, less ¶ than two hundred according to one estimate, most
of them in gangs ¶ led either by Lowe or by former consorts or subordinates of his, such ¶ as Spriggs,
Cooper, Lyne, and Shipton. These last remaining pirate ¶ captains and their men were to be hunted remorselessly by the navy, ¶ but
they were to prove amazingly elusive.53
People Hated Pirates
Pirate crews were pretty much completely eradicated often by their own design and to
the cheers of the populous.
Earle 06 (Peter Earle, Emeritus Reader at London University, “Pirate Wars” pp.206)CEFS
And so at
last the golden age of piracy came to an end. The freedom- ¶ and drink-loving pirates had their
moment of fame, but in the long ¶ run the navy, the law, and the self-destructive nature of the pirates
¶ themselves ensured that piracy was not an occupation with very long ¶ life expectancy. Of the fiftyfive pirate captains of this period whose ¶ fate has been determined—about two-thirds of the total
number—¶ twelve surrendered and lived out their lives in varying degrees of ¶ comfort or destitution,
one retired in poverty to Madagascar, six ¶ were killed in action, four drowned in shipwrecks, four
were shot by ¶ their own men, one shot himself and one was set adrift by his men ¶ in an open boat,
and never heard of again. The remaining twenty-six ¶ were hanged, often under their own black flags,
by the French, Dutch, ¶ Portuguese, and Spaniards as well as by the British, in Africa and ¶ Antigua, Boston, the Bahamas and Brazil, Carolina,
Olivier La Buse, the last
pirate of the ¶ golden age to be captured, was hanged on the beach in July 1730 ¶ ‘before a cheering crowd.’58
Curaçao and ¶ Cuba, London, Martinique, Rhode Island and the island of Bourbon ¶ in the Indian Ocean where