1NC – K
(Curtis)
I’ve got no Asian-blood flowing in my veins.
My blood type is all B positive. Not even A minus.
But despite all of this, I can’t B positive, always making a fuss,
My body will never be described in its entirety, just fractions to the whole.
Bits and pieces like a lego ship, off at sea, with each individual piece breaking off against the wave.
My bits and pieces on a checklist, my body’s only good in the lives I save.
(Curtis)
What is an Asian-American besides forever foreign?
What is my body if it only occupies foreign spaces?
If my body is not the standard,
Does it make me a coward? That I think about death.
That my body has more value in death than life – that my body is only good assisting those better.
(Kense)
What does it say about me? That my blood is O negative?
That I can give my life away, but no one can help me in my times of need?
What does it say about me, that my body is on a list in case yours break?
Does it make me a coward? That I think about death.
That my body has more value in death than life – that you don’t worry about dying because I can save
you.
Bring you back to life.
You, so valuable, you.
(Curtis)
Our life will always be defined by the affirmative in the utility of our organs to serve
Whiteness, to satisfy their hunger for consuming our organs – for us to willingly sign
away our lives.
Bell hooks, 1992 (Gloria Jean Watkins, better known by her pen name bell hooks, is an American author, feminist, and social activist,
“Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance”, p. 372-373 :)
This scenario is played out in the film Heart Condition when Mooney, a white racist cop, has a heart
transplant and receives a heart from Stone, a black man he has been trying to destroy because Stone
has seduced Chris, the white call girl that Mooney loves. Transformed by his new “black heart,”
Mooney learns how to be more seductive, changes his attitudes towards race, and, in perfect
Hollywood style, wins the girl in the end. Unabashedly dramatizing a process of “eating the Other” (in
ancient religious practices among so called “primitive” people, the heart of a person may be ripped
out and eaten so that one can embody that person’s spirit or special characteristics), a film like Heart
Condition addresses the fantasies of a white audience. At the end of the film, Mooney, reunited with Chris through
marriage and surrounded by Stone’s caring black kin, has become the “father” of Chris and Stone’s bi-racial baby who is dark-skinned, the color
of his father. Stone, whose ghost has haunted Mooney, is suddenly “history” - gone. Interestingly, this
main¬stream film suggests that patriarchal struggle over “ownership” (i.e., sexual posses¬sion of white women’s bodies) is the linchpin of
racism. Once Mooney can accept and bond with Stone on the phallocentric basis of their mutual possession and “desire” for Chris, their
homosocial bonding makes brotherhood possible and eradic¬ates the racism that has kept them apart. Significantly, patriarchal bonding
mediates and becomes the basis for the eradication of racism. In
part, this film offers a version of racial pluralism that
challenges racism by suggesting that the white male’s life will be richer, more pleasurable, if he
accepts diversity. Yet it also offers a model of change that still leaves a white supremacist capitalist
patriarchy intact, though no longer based on coercive domination of black people. It insists that white
male desire must be sustained by the “labor” (in this case the heart) of a dark Other. The fantasy, of
course, is that this labor will no longer be exacted via domination, but will be given willingly . Not
surprisingly, most black folks talked about this film as “racist.” The young desirable handsome intelligent black male
(who we are told via his own self-portrait is “hung like a shetland pony”) must die so that the aging
white male can both restore his potency (he awakens from the transplant to find a replica of a huge
black penis standing between his legs) and be more sensitive and loving. Torgovnick reminds readers in Gone
Primitive that a central element in the western fascination with primitivism is its focus on “overcoming alienation from the body, restoring the
body, and hence the self, to a relation of full and easy harmony with nature or the cosmos.” It
is this concep¬tualization of the
“primitive” and the black male as quintessential representative that is dramatized in Heart Condition.
One weakness in Torgovnick’s work is her refusal to recognize how deeply the idea of the “primitive”
is entrenched in the psyches of everyday people, shaping contemporary racist stereotypes,
perpetuating racism. When she suggests, “our own culture by and large rejects the association of blackness with rampant sexuality and
irrationality, with decadence and corruption, with disease and death,” one can only wonder what culture she is claiming as her own. Films like
Heart Condition make black culture and black life backdrop, scenery for narratives that essentially focus on white people. Nationalist
black voices critique this cultural crossover, its decentering of black experience as it relates to black
people, and its insistence that it is acceptable for whites to explore blackness as long as their ultimate
agenda is appropriation. Politically “on the case” when they critique white cultural appropriation of black experience that reinscribes
it within a “cool” narrative of white supremacy, these voices can not be dismissed as naive. They are misguided when they suggest that white
cultural imperialism is best critiqued and resisted by black separatism, or when they evoke outmoded notions of ethnic purity that deny the
way in which black people exist in the west, are western, and are at times positively influenced by aspects of white culture.
Refusing to eat is also an act of refusing to get on government soup-lines – the State
does not produce effective solutions for Asian-Americans. We are forever foreigners in
this land, disenfranchised, and collectively ignored. Delegitimized from the start,
acting through the State would not only serve more for consumption, but would be
inaccessible to Asian-Americans. Our roles are already defined for us when they know
we are standing-reserves instead of autonomous actors. The Asian-American
experience is also always one of an immigrant, even for fourth or fifth generation
Asians. It isn’t a lack of effort to reform the State, but rather the inability for single
steps to overhaul an inherently racist institution.
Tansy Woan, 2011 (Master of Arts in Philosophy, Politics, and Law in the Graduate School of Binghamton University, “THE VALUE OF
RESISTANCE IN A PERMANENTLY WHITE, CIVIL SOCIETY”, http://gradworks.umi.com/14/96/1496586.html, p. 15-19 :)
Notable achievements
during the Civil Rights Movement have served as a double-edged sword. While
the reformist strategies utilized during that period helped make certain advances possible, it also
drove other more overt expressions of racism underground. These more invisible instantiations of
racial injustice are far more difficult to identify than its previously more explicit forms . Praising these
victories risks giving off the illusion that the fight is over and that racism is a description of the past. /
For example, the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment gave off the illusion that all citizens thereafter
had equal access to the right to vote. Those who supported its ratification now felt entitled to the moral credentials necessary to
legitimize their ability to express racially prejudiced attitudes.21 For example, voter turnout today remains relatively low for
Asian-Americans, and many blame this on cultural differences between Asians and Americans.22
Asian-Americans are labeled as apathetic in the political community and they themselves have been
attributed the blame for relatively low representation of Asian-Americans in the government today.23
This however, ignores the way in which other more invisible practices serve to obstruct AsianAmericans from being able to exercise their right to vote. / Research by the United States Election
Assistance Commission by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, for example, indicates
that restrictive voter identification requirements have effectively served to disenfranchise Asian
Pacific Islanders (APIs) from voting.24 In the 2004 election, researchers found APIs in states where voters
were required to present proper identification at the polls were 8.5% less likely to vote.25 This study
confirmed that voter ID requirements prevented a large number of APIs from voting.26 / Voter suppression
tactics also play a large role in the disenfranchisement of APIs. According to a Voter Intimidation and Vote Suppression
briefing paper by Demos, a national public policy center, an estimated 50 Asian Americans were selectively challenged at
the polls in Alabama during August of 2004, as being ineligible to vote due to insufficient Englishspeaking skills.27 Many states have allowed this selective challenging of voters to take place at the
polls, resulting in a feeling of fear, intimidation, and embarrassment among APIs, driving them away from the
polls. / The danger in treasuring monumental victories such as the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment becomes apparent when people
interpret this ratification as an indication that voting discrimination is no longer a problem, and that if the voter turnout of Asian-Americans is
consistently low, it must be because they are politically apathetic or disinterested in American ideals. Because they originally supported the
ratification of the amendment, whites can now feel as if they have the moral credentials to make conclusions such as the cultural differences
rationale. The
same can be seen after courts ordered the desegregation of public schools and after
affirmative action programs became more widespread. People began assuming African-Americans
now had an equal opportunity for education and that if they did not succeed, it must be a reflection of
their intelligence or work-ethic, failing to see the ways the problem has not been solved, but rather
disguised itself in other costumes, such as tracking programs in schools or teachers who view their
presence as merely "affirmative action babies" and expect them to fail. / One might ask, then, why can we
not change the racial state one policy at a time? Perhaps one could first work to gain the right to vote,
and then move on to combat discriminatory identification requirements and political scare tactics. It
would not seem entirely implausible to assume that the success of individual piecemeal reforms
within the government could eventually result in a transformation of the institution itself. However,
simply eliminating discriminatory policies is insufficient for an overhaul of a racial institution. /
Understanding the motivating reasons for the elimination of individual racist policies is a critical factor
in determining the success of a movement. While one justification for passing the Fifteenth
Amendment might consist of arguments in favor of equality and exposing racial injustice, another
justification might involve maintaining order and minimizing disruption, which is important to the
federal government and its ability to run smoothly. Thus, the government often seeks out ways to
normalize society through eliminating disruptions to preserve order. When those being denied certain
rights grow significantly discontent, they rebel and become disruptions to the functioning of white,
civil society. This can take the form of civil disobedience, such as protests, peaceful demonstrations,
petitions, letters to the government, etc., or more revolutionary measures, such as damaging
government offices or violently harassing officials to acknowledge the injustices and change policy. / All
of these measures, however peaceful or violent, disrupt society. A town cannot run smoothly if protesters are filling up
the streets or blocking frequently-used road paths, and most certainly cannot run smoothly if town halls are being lit on
fire. Thus, in order to return to the desired homeostasis, those in power may often compromise and
offer to rectify the situation at hand by granting rights to individuals through changes in legislation in
order to appease them and "eliminate" the disruption (the protests, demonstrations, etc.). The lack of effort
made towards protecting these rights bolsters Bell's argument that these reforms serve more of a
symbolic value rather than functional. If still operating under the racial state, these piecemeal reforms
will fail to solve the original racial injustices in the long term, as they will only succeed in establishing
a new unstable equilibrium, only to be followed with the replication of new racial problems.28 These new
problems will once again create resentment, generate protest, and the cycle will begin to replicate itself, ensuring the permanence of racism.
Omi and Winant term this cycle of continuous disruption and restoration of order as the trajectory of racial politics.29 This trajectory supports
the treatment of racism as inevitable since even if the racial state mitigates racial disruption over a particular policy and "restores order,"
another policy based off a new definition of race will emerge triggering another racial disruption, continuing this cycle of racial politics.
1NC – Case
We should give up ostensible well-being to combat racialized-violence. Sacrificing
“bio-technology” in the face of solving, bio-terror, medical care, and disease, is the
impossibility of resistance that strives to create change.
Tansy Woan, 2011 (Master of Arts in Philosophy, Politics, and Law in the Graduate School of Binghamton University, “THE VALUE OF
RESISTANCE IN A PERMANENTLY WHITE, CIVIL SOCIETY”, http://gradworks.umi.com/14/96/1496586.html, p. 30-34 :)
Returning to the infamous fight with Covey, Douglass chose to fight for his self-worth, even in the face
of death, as opposed to continuing to submit to his master's beatings. He knew that his chances at
gaining freedom were slim to none. And yet, in his mind, he knew he deserved that freedom, and thus was
committed to expressing that entitlement, regardless of the consequences or the low probability of that
entitlement being fulfilled. The value he placed in affirming that entitlement was distinct from the ability of that entitlement to be
fulfilled. If Douglass were to continually and silently accept the beatings by Mr. Covey, he would be
accepting the beating as his fate, something that he deserved. He would be neglecting his commitment
to himself and his values of justice and self-dignity. Thus, he chose to fight, and it was in this battle that Douglass affirmed
his self-worth and engaged in resistance. / One then comes to see that resistance is valuable not merely for what it
produces, but also for what it expresses: it expresses a commitment to one's values. In the instance of
Douglass, his resistance represented his "determination to be free."43 Making clear this determination to be free,
not just to him but to Mr. Covey as well, was more important to him than "whatever else might follow."44 This is because his act of
resistance forced Mr. Covey to confront the injustice he was complicit in and represented his
objection to the unequal balance of power relations between the two of them. It was so important that he was
willing to risk his own life for it. This act of resistance would be worth it to him, even if death were to follow. 45
The reason I want to emphasize this fight with Covey and the value of fighting for a moral cause, even in the face of failure, is because it reveals
a value to resistance, even if one believes in the permanence of the white, civil society we live in today. There
are reasons to resist
even if one knows one might fail because the value to be found in resistance is not exclusively found
in what that resistance achieves. Resistance cannot be valuable merely because it might yield material
results. To assume so would necessarily treat resistance as lacking value if it failed to produce said
results. The expression of that resistance is equally important. Thus, if one believes one is entitled to
certain rights, yet realizes that one's ability to achieve said rights are next to impossible, there are
times in which one ought to still fight for them, even in face of that impossibility. / This I find to be the most
rewarding way in which we can express our commitment to the realization of our ideals - by testing our commitments in face of the impossible.
Absent a testing site for resistance, the importance of our values and our commitment to upholding them is not yet realized. We
can all
say that we value racial justice, and we can do so with ease. The test of our commitment to these
values comes in our decision to uphold them even when doing so might make us vulnerable to harm,
when doing so entails a personal sacrifice. For example, we can easily preach about the racial inequalities in the education
system and the need for affirmative action programs, but the greater difficulty lies in a situation in which after working hard, we find ourselves
accepted into Harvard, our dream school, but then are asked to give up our seat to an African-American student with a less impressive SAT
score.46 How
willing might one be to sacrifice one's own well-being for the sake of a value we have
vigorously claimed to be of utmost importance to us? How willing might one be to subject oneself to
arbitrary body cavities like many innocent African-Americans are in urban cities for simply looking at a
police officer the wrong way? How willing might one be to give up the white privilege he or she may
benefit from on a daily basis in order for all races to be treated more equally?47 / If one were to answer in the
affirmative, we could see how that might have not merely practical effects on racial justice, such as permitting someone of a traditionally
marginalized background to overcome one of the many obstacles the law has thrown at her, but how there would be a value in that act in and
of itself, not for what it achieves, but what it expresses, namely, a genuine commitment to racial justice that does not back down, even if
upholding that commitment entails personal sacrifice. It is more meaningful not just to the actor, for knowing that she did not back down in
face of a challenge or difficult, moral dilemma, but for the victims of racial injustice as well, who now understand her firm commitment to this
moral cause, even if it entails personal sacrifice. Recognizing
this firm commitment to a moral cause is important to
them because it makes them less fearful that she will jump ship if she later discovers that fighting for
said moral cause might not serve her best interests. It is also important to them because it infuses them with a sense of
solidarity, a sense of community that shows them she, too, understands the significant importance of the moral cause at hand. We must
recognize that some values are too important to turn our backs on, regardless of what may follow. By
embracing this expressive component of resistance, we realize that there is something more to life than working toward material gains, that
there is something more that we should hope to achieve. / But again, what is this "something more" that we are looking for? I contend the
answer is recognition. Express recognition of racial injustice, whenever possible, is necessary to make others aware of its pervasiveness. As
mentioned earlier, whiteness
becomes most dangerous when it is invisible, since the inability of many to recognize it
makes it more difficult to combat, allowing it to continue on unnoticed. It is what allows others to believe racism no longer
exists, and thus resort to racist assumptions to explain continued inequalities between the races
today, such as blaming the drop-out rates of black youth in public schools on the blacks themselves, or
resorting to the cultural differences rationale to explain the low voter turn-out of Asian-Americans. I
suggest that racial resistance ought to take recognition more seriously, and develop strategies that aim not merely at alleviating racial injustice,
but pointing out its invisibility in all instances possible.