1. anthro k – race shell

8/18/2019 1. Anthro K – Race Shell

1/4

Anthro K – Race ShellThe 1AC ignores that racism is merely one amongst many tools

of axiological anthropocentrism whereby violence can always

be justie! when applie! to racially inferior groups" #nly acriti$ue which focuses on rejecting subhuman thin%ing can

contest the myria! forms of racism"

&ec%ha '%1( [Maneesha, faculty of law, university of Victoria, “it’s time toabandon the idea of human rights”, the scavenger, dec. 10

While the intersection of race and gender is often acknowledged in understanding the etiology of justificatory narratives for war, the presence of

species distinctions and the importance of the subhuman are less appreciated. Yet, the race (and gender) thinking that animates Raack!s

argument in normaliing violence for detainees (and others) is also centrally sustained by the subhuman figure. "s #harles $atterson notes with

respect to multiple forms of e%ploitation& Throughout the history of our ascent to dominance as the masterspecies, our victimization of animals has served as the model and foundation for our victimization

of each other. The study of human history reveals the pattern: first, humans exploit and slaughter

animals; then, they treat other people like animas and do the same to them. $atterson emphasies how the

human/animal hierarchy and our ideas about animals and animality are foundational for intra-

human hierarchies and the violence they promote. The routine violence against beings designated

subhuman serves as both a ustification and blueprint for violence against humans. 'or e%ample, indiscussing the specific dynamics of the ai camps, $atterson further notes how techniues to make the killing of detainees resemble the

slaughter of animals were deliberately implemented in order to make the killing seem more palatable and benign. *hat the detainees were made

naked and kept crowded in the gas chambers facilitated their animaliation and, in turn, their death at the hands of other humans who were

already culturally familiar and comfortable with killing animals in this way. Returning to Raack!s e%position of race thinking in contemporary

camps, one can see how subhuman thinking is foundational to race thinking. +ne of her primary arguments is that race

thinking, which she defines as !the denial of a common bond of humanity bet"een people of #uropeandescent and those "ho are not$, is !a defining feature of the "orld order$ today as in the past . n

other words, it is the !species thinking$ that helps to create the racial demarcation. %s &azack notes

"ith respect to the specific logic infusing the camps, they !are not simply contemporary excesses

born of the "est's current (uest for security, but instead represent a more ominous, permanent

arrangement of "ho is and is not a part of the human community$. )nce placed outside the

!human$ zone by race thinking, the detainees may be handled la"lessly and thus "ith violence that

is legitimated at all times. Raciali)ation is not enough an! !oes not complete

their #thering experience" Rather* they must be !ehumani)e! for the

larger public to accept the violence against them an! the increasing

+culture of exception, which sustains these human bo!ily exclusions . "lthough

nonhumans are not the focus of Raack!s work, the centrality of the subhuman

to the logic of the camps and racial andsexual violence contained therein is also clearly illustrated in her specific examples. n the course of heranalysis, to determine the import of race thinking in enabling violence, Raack uotes a newspaper story that describes the background mentality

of $rivate -ynndie ngland, the white female soldier made notorious by images of her holding onto imprisoned and naked rai men with a leash

around their necks. *he story itself uotes a resident from ngland!s hometown who says the following about the sensibilities of individuals

from their town& *o the country boys here, if you!re a different nationality, a different race, you!re sub/human. *hat!s the way that girls like

-ynndie ngland are raised. *ormenting rais, in her mind, would be no different from shooting a turkey. very season here you!re hunting

something. +ver there they!re hunting rais. Raack e%tracts this uote to illustrate how 0race overdetermined what went on1, but it may also be

observed that species 0overdetermined what went on1. &ace has a formative function, to be sure, but it "orks in

conunction "ith species difference to enable the violence at %bu *hraib and other camps.


2/4

+ehumanization promotes racialization, "hich further entrenches both identities. t is an

intert"ined logic of race, sex, culture and species that lays the foundation for the violence.

This species-contingent para!igm creates unen!ing genoci!al

violence against forms of life !eeme! politically un$ualie!"

K#C./ 0 #R&A 'K2 [tari! and noam, "ueen’s university and bar llanuniversity, “an argument for the global suicide of humanity”, vol #. no. $.,

bourderlands e%&ournal

3ithin the picture many 'aint of humanity* events such as the

.olocaust are consi!ere! as an e(ce'tion, an aberration" )he *olocaust is often'ortrayed as an e(am'le of +evil’, a moment of hatred, madness and cruelty cf. the di-ering accounts of +evil’

given in eiman, /00$. )he event is also treated as one through which humanity com'rehend its own

wea!ness and draw strength, via the resolve that such actions will never ha''en again. *owever* if weta%e seriously the !i4ering ways in which the .olocaust was 5evil6 *

then one must surely inclu!e along si!e it the almost uncountable

numbers of genoci!es that have occurre! throughout human

history. *ence, if we are to thin% of the content of the 5human

heritage6* then this must inclu!e the annihilation of in!igenous

peoples an! their cultures across the globe an! the manner in

which their beliefs, behaviours and social practices have been erase!from what the people of the 53est6 generally consi!er to be the

content of a human heritage. gain the history of colonialism is telling here. /t remin!s

us exactly how normal* regular an! mun!ane acts of annihilationof !i4erent forms of human life an! culture have been throughout

human history" /n!ee! the history of colonialism, in its various guises,

points to the fact that so many of our legal institutions an! forms

of ethical life 7i"e" nation-states which pri!e themselves on

protecting human rights through the rule of law8 have been

foun!e! upon colonial violence* war an! the appropriation of

other peoples6 lan! 2chmitt, /0034 5en&amin, 1678. 9urther, the history of

colonialism highlights the central function of 5race war6 that often

un!erlies human social organisation an! many of its legal an!

ethical systems of thought 9oucault, /003. This history of mo!erncolonialism thus presents a %ey to un!erstan!ing that events such

as the .olocaust are not an aberration an! exception but are

closer to the norm * an! sa!ly* lie at the heart of any heritage of

humanity. fter all, all too often the 9uropean colonisation of the globe was

justie! by arguments that in!igenous inhabitants were racially

5inferior6 an! in some instances that they were closer to 5apes6 than to humans


3/4

:iamond, /0088" Such violence justie! by an erroneous view of 5race6

is in many ways merely an extension of an un!erlying attitu!e of

speciesism involving a long history of %illing an! enslavement of

non-human species by humans" Such a connection between the

two histories of inter-human violence 7via the mythical notion of

!i4ering human 5races68 an! interspecies violence* is wellexpresse! in ;saac 5ashevis 2inger’s comment that whereas humans consi!er

themselves +the crown of creation,* for animals +all people are

a)is, an! animal life is +an eternal Treblin%a, 2inger, 1687, '.#


4/4

1. anthro k – race shell

Documents