Tournament: WaRu | Round: 4 | Opponent: Newton CV | Judge: J Hampton
Cuba Borders 1NC
1) You should be skeptical of their engagement with Cuba – expanding American geopolitical influence in the region only serves to further the goals of US regional domination and the securitization of borders.
Nicol 11
Heather Nicol, Associate Professor in the Department of Geography, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, “U.S. Hegemony in the 21st century: Cuba's Place in the regionalizing geopolitics of North America and Caribbean Countries” Journal of Borderlands Studies, 23:1, 31-52, DOI: 10.1080/08865655.2008.9695687
The process of U.S. hegemony in North American economies is not unique
AND
, particularly in North America and the countries immediately touching its geographical borders.
2) This construction of civilization around state borders is a colonial artifact. It undergirds the justification for the affirmative’s intervention into Cuba to stabilize, develop and extract resources from the barbaric other.
Slater 4
Slater, Professor of Social and Political Geography at Loughborough University, in ‘4 David, Geopolitics and the Post-colonial Rethinking North–South Relations
The interweavings of geopolitical power, knowledge and subordinating representations of the other have a
AND
and political processes it is possible to highlight a number of different tendencies.
3) Bounding nation-states through the enclosure of global borders is the control of territory through violence. This production of the space of the state obfuscates always on-going non-state violence and legitimates wars and genocides in the name of state-making.
Neocleous 3
Mark Neocleous is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Brunel University, “Off the Map: On Violence and Cartography”, European Journal of Social Theory 2003 6: 409
Thus in the modern state system the overlapping frontier is as anathema as the idea
AND
) state’s violence. Alternately, they are simply ‘off the map’.
The alternative is to begin from the epistemology of the subaltern.
4) It is impossible to think through the modernity from any other perspective than that of colonial difference. The kritik’s border thinking is a way of starting from the knowledge of those in the exteriority of the modern world order. No alternative can come from within the categories of modernity.
Escobar 2
Arturo, department of anthropology at university of north Carolina chapel hill, ““Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise”: The Latin American modernity/coloniality Research Program”, http://apse.or.cr/webapse/pedago/enint/escobar03.pdf
The question of whether there is an “exteriority” to the modern/colonial
AND
with the homogeneity of globalization, aiming at multiple and diverse social orders.