The us uses economic engagement as a disguise to hide their colonialist efforts towards Latin America

Block Stuff

Discourse First

Discourse shapes reality specifically in the context of education about Latin America - even if they win that their plan isn’t imperialist, the way they frame it makes the link exponentially bigger

Beech 2002

[Jason Beech, “Latin American Education: Perceptions of Linearities and the Construction of Discursive Space”, Educational Transfer, November 2002, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3099544]

The perspective which stresses 'domination' argues that the similarities of national¶ educational systems in Latin America do not derive from voluntary educational borrowing.¶ Similarities are rather a result of cultural imperialism and neo-colonialism exercised especially¶ by international agencies that have imposed a 'neo-liberal agenda' on Latin American¶ countries in order to keep them economically, politically and culturally dependent. This view¶ is represented by much of the writing by Martinez Boom (2000) and Corragio (1997).¶ Even though the sharing of similar problems amongst Latin American nations and the¶ processes of cultural imperialism can be noted, this article suggests a different perspective- based on the analysis of discourse-to understand the similarities in the Latin American¶ educational reforms.¶ A perspective that puts discourse at the centre of the analysis explains the similarity in¶ the latest educational reforms in Latin America by the existence of a regional educational¶ discourse: a discourse that has Latin American education as its object. The way in which we view the world, the way in which we think and speak or write about the world affects the way in which we act upon it. Thus, the existence of a regional educational discourse creates the¶ conditions of possibility for certain things to be said and done in Latin American education,¶ but at the same time this discourse implies a limit on educational thought and action. In other¶ words, why is it that of all the things that could be said and done in Latin American education¶ only certain things are said and done?¶ Overall, then, this essay offers an analysis of the process by which the Latin American¶ discursive space is constructed in the educational literature. The argument is that there are¶ a number of themes that dominate contemporary 'Latin American educational discourse' and¶ that this can partly explain the similarities in the latest educational reforms in the region. This¶ closed discursive space creates the conditions for the production of certain ideas and¶ practices, but at the same time it becomes a limit for the production of other ideas and¶ practices.

Epistemology Stuff

Epistemology disad – The way the affirmative understands Latin America has been constructed through colonialism, their truth claims have been created in the interest of domination

Casella ‘99

[Ronnie Casella, “Pedagogy as View Sequence: Popular Culture, Education, and Travel”, Anthropology & Education Quarterly, June 1999, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3196072]

Repeated images in travel advertising make evident that U.S. under- standings of Latin America are discursively constructed, that is, con- nected to a web of meanings found in U.S. popular culture-in Mexican restaurant chains, for example, or adventure films (such as Mosquito Coast). Today, constructions of Latin America revolve around a legacy of colonialism and distinctions of class, gender, and race that have contin- ued to define Latin America as "colorful" and the United States as "sci- entific" (Duncan 1993). As individuals from the United States become more aware of Latin America-through travel, television, immigration, agreements such as NAFTA-there grows the feeling that the United States must better monitor and control the activities in Central and South America. Borders between the Americas no longer seem as pro- nounced. This effect is partly achieved through the overt manipulation of images. When appropriate and advantageous, Latin America is con- structed as corrupt. When appropriate, it is pristine, friendly, and color- ful. Brochures take part in this production. They contribute to U.S. un- derstandings of the world and reiterate and therefore support knowledge about Latin America-about its history, culture, and rela- tionship with the United States. The advertisements tell us about Latin America, but they also tell us about U.S. power to define Latin America for political and economic purposes (Munt 1994). How this is accom- plished in the case of brochures is a trip in itself-a textual tour-a form of "armchair traveling" (Bartkowski 1995) that I call brochure mini tours.

The aff’s approach to globalized knowledge subverts local knowledge and prevents opposition, their epistemology is upheld through the destruction of local knowledges

Alcadipani ‘11

[Rafael Alcadipani and Alexandre Reis Rosa, “From global management to local management: Latin American perspectives as a counter-dominant management epistemology”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, January 4 2011, Wiley interscience]

This approach raises arguments both for and against¶ globalization (Kellner, 2002). Those in favour of globalization¶ see an end to borders as a positive thing, which will¶ create new economic, political, and cultural opportunities.¶ On the other hand, critics of globalization consider it a form¶ of imperialism that takes advantage of the end of borders to¶ impose market and capital logics throughout the world¶ (Kellner, 2002). These two possibilities can lead us to ask:¶ What is management’s role in the global picture?¶ As an area of academic knowledge and social practice,¶ management is a globally widespread phenomenon. It is¶ taught at almost all the world’s universities, and practiced¶ professionally and nonprofessionally in all corporations,¶ governments, NGOs, and so forth. However, this “global”¶ aspect also implies that management knowledge and practices¶ generated and developed in Western countries, especially¶ in the United States (US), can then be seamlessly¶ transferred to other contexts (i.e., Jack, Calas, Nkomo, &¶ Peltonen, 2008). The assumption is that knowledge in management¶ can be universally applicable and is, supposedly,¶ neutral. The resultant view is that management globalization¶ is positive, and is indeed an opportunity created by¶ globalization. On the other hand, if analyzed from a critical¶ perspective and from the viewpoint of Latin America—¶ a region that is a recipient of management knowledge¶ and practices—the process can pose many problems. This¶ is especially because globalized management tends to¶ impact management knowledge and experiences developed¶ locally.¶ The logic behind this impact is linked to a wider context¶ in which epistemologies are based on a dividing line¶ that creates a hierarchy of knowledge and that subordinates¶ local thinking (which is considered as particular) to global¶ thinking (which is considered universal. This unequal¶ knowledge-power relationship, which undermines the particular¶ knowledge of many colonized peoples, is called¶ “coloniality of power” by Quijano (2000), and the manner¶ in which this epistemological difference was (re)produced¶ is called “abyssal thinking” by Santos (2007). Both of them¶ define lines that divide experiences, knowledge, and social¶ players into two groups that inhabit each side of the “abyss.”¶ On one side is the hegemonic, useful, intelligible, and¶ visible knowledge produced by the North (or “First World”),¶ and on the other is the inferior, useless or dangerous, and¶ unintelligible knowledge produced by the South (or “Third¶ World”), which is meant to be forgotten. In management¶ terms, this means that the colonial meeting between Northern¶ and Southern knowledge has created a naturalized view¶ that useful, intelligible, and visible ways to manage an organization¶ are necessarily found in the knowledge produced¶ in the North. Here North refers to the countries in the Northern¶ Hemisphere formed by Europe and the US and South¶ refers to countries in the Southern Hemisphere, formed by¶ regions that were colonized by Europe but which have not¶ achieved the same level of “development” as the North¶ (Santos, 1995).

Independent reason to vote neg – rejecting the colonizers is the only way to create a true epistemology

Alcadipani ‘11

[Rafael Alcadipani and Alexandre Reis Rosa, “From global management to local management: Latin American perspectives as a counter-dominant management epistemology”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, January 4 2011, Wiley interscience]

To consider management from a Southern point of view¶ means to reclaim the principle that the world is epistemologically¶ diverse and that this diversity could enrich human¶ capacity to manage and organize social life. It also means¶ denouncing coloniality and reclaiming other types of knowledge¶ that have resisted the colonial encounter and that today¶ are deprived of a horizontal dialogue with Northern knowledge.¶ It is to defend global perspective for management. In¶ this sense, this article aims at denaturalizing management¶ by exploring its diversity in the world, particularly regarding¶ the way in which management is conceived and carried¶ out in Latin American contexts and by exploring how this¶ can help change current global management.¶ This article will show how management has spread¶ around the world as a North American phenomenon, becoming¶ characterized as an agent of Americanization. We argue¶ that this Americanization of management led to the emergence¶ of the grobal management perspective and, as a result,¶ took on the aspect of “epistemic coloniality,” as problems¶ might emerge during its encounter with local realities.¶ For this reason, based on ideas conceived by Latin¶ American social scientists and on the experiences of local¶ organizations, this article defends a global management¶ approach that takes into consideration local realities and¶ challenges knowledge produced in the North.

General FW Evd

Understanding the oppression of imperialism is key for scholarly discussions

Sachs ‘03

[Aaron Sachs, “The Ultimate "Other": Post-Colonialism and Alexander Von Humboldt's Ecological Relationship with Nature”, History and Theory, December 2003, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3590683]

There is no denying the value of the post-colonial critique and its relevance to all studies of travel and the environment. Post-colonialism, at its best, means recuperating the objects of the traveler's gaze. In a world so profoundly shaped-damaged, I would argue-by colonialism and imperialism, it is imperative that scholars focus on celebrating the colonized, on hearing the voices of "others." We must understand all the ways in which Western civilization has come to depend directly on forms of domination. Indeed, it makes perfect sense, as David Spurr has noted in The Rhetoric of Empire (1993), that "works once studied primarily as expressions of traditionally Western ideals are now also read as evidence of the manner in which such ideals have served in the historical process of colonization."16

Imperialism is held up through discourse, voting aff only normalizes it more

Pease ‘02

[Donald Pease, “Imperial Discourse”, Diplomatic History, December 17 2002, Wiley interscience]

As grounds for associating questions of foreign policy with travelers’ itineraries and museum exhibits, Endy and Conn both depended on an understanding of the role that discourse played in fashioning imperialism as an American way of life. As a discourse, imperialism correlated a broad range of cultural spheres to solicit the public’s consent to imperialism as a U.S. foreign policy but also to the domestic arrangements that policy valorized. It reorganized such disparate practices as museum displays and traveling abroad within a much more inclusive network of linguistic and extra-linguistic practices that naturalized imperial norms. Conn highlighted this discourse’s hegemonizing effects when he remarked that American imperialism was not “exclusively, or even most importantly, an episode in American foreign relations, presidential policy, or military history.” “The process of Empire” took place on a “multiplicity of terrains, domestic and foreign, public and private.” I have mentioned the hegemonizing aspect of the discourse of imperialism because of the parts played by Wilson’s commercial museum and imperial travel in producing it. In discussing the means whereby the discourse of imperialism forged a hegemony out of linkages between such unrelated cultural terrains as travel and ethnographic exhibits, I propose an addendum to Conn’s and Endy’s fine essays. In what follows, I hope to track one of the relays whereby imperialism became an American way of life through an analysis of three interdependent aspects in evidence in Conn’s and Endy’s discussions. The analysis shall begin with an account of how Wilson’s museum displaced the distinction between (Europe’s) territorial and (U.S.) commercial expansionism from a contested point within the field of debate into a normative presupposition that regulated its terms. Discussion will then move to a topic that Endy left out of his essay, namely, how the discourse of imperialism constructed linkages between travel abroad and ethnic and racial hierarchies in the domestic sphere. The question of the relationship between Conn’s and Endy’s “knowledges” and the hegemonizing discursive formation they analyze will shape the contours of this entire discussion.

The education created by the affirmative team is uniquely bad because it is used to engrain colonialism within society

Kumaravadivelu ‘99

[B. Kumaravadivelu, “Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis”, TESOL Quarterly, Autumn 1999, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587674]

Postcolonial theorists offer a refreshingly challenging perspective on¶ education in general and on English language education in particular.¶ They tell us that education was "a massive canon in the artillery of¶ empire," effecting, in Gramsci's (1971) phrase, "a domination by consent"¶ (p. 28). They also tell us that language¶ is a fundamental site of struggle for post-colonial discourse because the¶ colonial process itself begins in language. The control over language by the¶ imperial centre-whether achieved by displacing native languages, by installing¶ itself as a "standard" against other variants which are constituted as¶ "impurities,"or by planting the language of empire in a new place-remains¶ the most potent instrument of cultural control. (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin,¶ 1995, p. 283)¶ Perhaps no language is as much implicated in colonialism as English¶ is. Several postcolonial commentators have pointed out that the same¶ ideological climate informed both the growth of English and the growth¶ of Empire. In her pioneering study Masks of Conquest, Viswanathan¶ (1989) argues that in colonial India, the English literary text functioned¶ as a mask that camouflaged the conquering activities of the colonizing¶ authority. She wonders at the historical "irony that English literature¶ appeared as a subject in the curriculum of the colonies long before it was¶ institutionalized in the home country" (p. 3) of England. Noting that¶ "the superiority of English rested on a racialized and gendered equation¶ between language and nation" (p. 20), Krishnaswamy's (1998) Effeminism:¶ The Economy of Colonial Desire shows how colonialists relied "heavily upon¶ a vocabulary of effeminacy to describe and codify Eastern languages and¶ literatures while defining European languages and literatures, especially¶ English, as hard, energetic, rational, and masculine" (p. 20).¶ Connecting this line of thinking specifically to English language¶ teaching (ELT), Pennycook (1998), in English and the Discourses of¶ Colonialism, offers an in-depth analysis of what he calls "the continuity of¶ cultural constructs of colonialism" (p. 19) and demonstrates how ELT is¶ deeply interwoven with the discourses of colonialism. ELT, he argues,¶ is a product of colonialism not-just because it is colonialism that produced the¶ initial conditions for the global spread of English but because it was¶ colonialism that produced many of the ways of thinking and behaving that¶ are still part of Western cultures. European/Western culture not only produced¶ colonialism but was also produced by it; ELT not only rode on the back¶ of colonialism to the distant corners of the Empire but was also in turn¶ produced by that voyage. (p. 19)

The education that the aff claims their framework sponsors is just a tool used by imperialists to hold power and control over their subjects

Tikly ‘04

[Leon Tikly, “Education and the New Imperialism”, Comparative Education, May 2004, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4134648]

Modern forms of education with their roots in western cultures and civilizations¶ have been deeply implicated in and provide a common thread between European¶ imperialism and colonialism and the new imperialism. Firstly, formal educational¶ institutions have provided a key disciplinary institution within the context of classical¶ and settler colonialism. It provided in many contexts a basis for the exercise of the¶ pastoral power of the colonial missionaries who often controlled formal schooling.¶ Through reinforcing and legitimizing the trusteeship status of the colonial master¶ through a particular interpretation of the bible, it helped to forge the colonized as¶ colonial subjects rather than as equal citizens. This imperative of schooling, however,¶ often clashed with a more 'modernist', economic imperative, namely to¶ prepare through the inculcation of basic skills, dispositions and attitudes, indigenous¶ workers intended largely to staff the colonial administrations. For the small minority¶ who progressed beyond basic education, colonial schooling was also 'disciplinary' in¶ another sense because it inculcated these indigenous elites into a western way of¶ thinking based on western forms of knowledge, part of a process that scholars such¶ as Ngugi Wa Thiong'o (1981) and more recently, Nandy (1997) have described as¶ a 'colonisation of the mind'. The effects of colonial schooling were, however,¶ contradictory. To begin with the experience differed slightly with respect to differing¶ colonizing powers and contexts. Secondly, however, the effects of schooling on those¶ who were subject to it was to produce a bifurcation, a split in the loyalties and¶ identities of the colonized that Fanon (1970) captures so vividly in his metaphor of¶ Black skins white masks. Thirdly, the spread of the western episteme based on¶ Eurocentric conceptions of human nature and of social reality, led in some cases to¶ the development of oppositional discourses although these were inevitably couched¶ within a western discursive framework, most usually either liberalism or Marxism.¶ Following independence, formal education continued to operate as a disciplinary¶ technology in both senses of the term. To begin with, education remained in¶ missionary hands, although as schooling increasingly became subject to government¶ control in many countries, it was used by emerging elites as a tool for transforming¶ colonial subjects into new kinds of postcolonial identities linked to alternative forms¶ of sovereignty. In some instances, the receivers of formal education remained as subjects of a new illiberal sovereignty under dictatorial and oppressive regimes or¶ under one party rule. In other cases, they were constituted more as citizens of an¶ emerging liberal form of state. Postcolonial education was not just disciplinary in the¶ sense that it sought to forge postcolonial subjectivities in relation to new political¶ imperatives and identities. It was also disciplinary in that it extended the modernist,¶ economic imperative of schooling through the gradual expansion of formal education¶ at all levels in the post-independence period. This belief in the modernist view¶ of the role of formal schooling was a necessary precondition for the subsequent¶ spread of global governmentality.

This form of education turns the workforce of a nation into “human capital” to be spent by the imperialist nation and it entrenches imperialism into everyday life

Tikly ‘04

[Leon Tikly, “Education and the New Imperialism”, Comparative Education, May 2004, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4134648]

Education has historically had a key role to play in relation to the development¶ project for all of the multilateral agencies. Education was, however, constructed in¶ different ways in relation to the overall object of development, namely, economic¶ growth and poverty reduction. From the perspective of the United Nations and the¶ non-aligned movement, for example, education was often constructed as a basic¶ human right and the extension of education was a means for extending a notion of¶ global citizenship (although as Santos (1999) reminds us, this form of global¶ citizenship and of human rights implied in these discourses often remained a¶ peculiarly western one). Of more relevance here was the extent to which education¶ was constructed, following the ground-breaking theoretical work of Theodore¶ Schultz in the discourses of the World Bank in primarily economic terms as a¶ question of raising 'human capital'. Human capital theory has remained a central¶ tenet of World Bank thinking on education and has proved to be a flexible and¶ resilient discursive resource (Fagerlind & Saha, 1989; Ilon, 1996; Rose, 2002; Little,¶ 2003).¶ As Ilon (1996) has argued, in the post-war period and until the late 1970s, human¶ capital was primarily conceived of in terms of its contribution to raising GNP. In this¶ discursive context, the World Bank and the other agencies supported a range of¶ projects to expand the skills base of low-income countries to provide the necessary¶ human capital to kick-start the industrialization process. In this context, human¶ capital was conceived largely as a 'technical' question of inculcating the necessary¶ skills required for economic competitiveness and growth. As such, human capital¶ theory contributed to the de-politicization of development discourse mentioned¶ above through removing reference to the role of education in relation to reproducing¶ social inequality. In human capital discourses, the notion of skills was itself conceived¶ in terms of discrete competencies acquired by individuals, with little attention¶ paid to the social nature of many skills (such as team work, communication, etc.)¶ and to the cultural context of skills acquisition. By way of contrast, more recent¶ work, within a skills formation framework has emphasized these dimensions as a key¶ to understanding different skills paths adopted by different countries and regions¶ (Brown 1998; Tikly et al., 2003). In these formulations, social, cultural and political factors and differences in context are seen to play a key role in determining¶ the skills formation strategy adopted.¶ Human capital theory also has a distinctive cultural bias. In the 1960s and 1970s,¶ for example, the development of human capital through education was seen as a key¶ means to promote 'modernization' (Fagerlind & Saha, 1989). This was achieved¶ through the further institutionalization of a form of western education in the¶ post-independence era. The nature of this bias has, however, changed in relation to¶ the uses of human capital theory itself.¶ Given the obvious failure of the human capital/modernization coupling to¶ promote growth and to reduce poverty, attention shifted during the 1980s to¶ the role of human capital in determining levels of resource allocation to different¶ levels of education. Here, George Psacharopoulos' (1983) work on individual and¶ social rates of return to different levels of education was significant. In relation to¶ rates of return analysis, primary education is seen as a principal means to eradicate¶ poverty because of its relatively high social rates of return to gross domestic product¶ (GDP) and growth. In this way, human capital theory became linked to structural¶ adjustment lending and the increased use of development targets by multilateral¶ agencies.¶ This new role for education, however, only serves to reinforce the new imperialism¶ through further limiting the capacity of low-income countries to determine their¶ own educational agendas. Dependency and the resulting incapacity generated are¶ reinforced through the disciplinary mechanisms of poverty-conditional lending,¶ poverty reduction strategies and international target setting, as highlighted above.¶ Firstly, as has been argued elsewhere and is gradually being recognized by some of¶ the multi-lateral development agencies themselves, the over-emphasis on primary¶ education at the expense of other levels of education removes the indigenous¶ capacity for research and innovation which is centrally important if countries are to¶ link education to indigenously determined future development priorities (Crossley,¶ 2001; Tikly, 2003b; Tikly et al., 2003). Secondly, as Rose (2003) points out,¶ education and training are treated as a black box in relation to the underlying¶ processes that take place. In this context, and given the continued hegemony of¶ western text books, materials and resources, it is likely that education will continue¶ to serve as a basis for a Eurocentric kind of education for most of the world's¶ children.

A2 Perm

All permutations fail - sacrificing something from the alternative will destroy the movement – empirics prove

Amin ‘03

[Samir Amin, “The Alternative to the neoliberal system of globalization and militarism Imperialism Today and the Hegemonic Offensive of the United States.”, February 25 2003]

THE ALTERNATIVE: SOCIAL PROGRESS, DEMOCRATIZATION, AND NEGOTIATED INTERDEPENDENCE 1. What people need today, as well as yesterday, are society wide projects (national and / or regional) articulated to regulated and negotiated globalized structures (while assuring a relative complementarity between them), which would simultaneously permit advances in three directions: -Social Progress: this demands that economic progress (innovation, advances in productivity, the eventual expansion of the market) are necessarily accompanied by social benefits for all (by guaranteeing employment, social integration, reduction in inequalities, etc.) -The democratization of society in all dimensions, understood as a never-ending process and not as a “blue print”, defined once for all. Democratization demands that its reach is felt in social and economic spheres, and not to be restricted to just the political sphere. -The affirmation of society-wide economic and social development, and the building of forms of globalization that offer this possibility. It needs to be understood that the unavoidable auto-centric character of development does not exclude either the opening (on condition that it remains controlled) or the participation in “globalization” (“inter-dependence”). But it conceives of these as needing to be formulated in terms that would permit the reduction-not the accentuation-of the inequalities of wealth and power between nations and regions. 2. The “alternative” that we are defining by advances in three directions – demands that all three progress in parallel. The experiences of modern history, which were founded on the absolute priority of “National independence” whether accompanied by social progress,or even sacrificing it, but always without democratization, continually demonstrate their inability to go beyond the rapidly attained historical limits. As a complementary counterpoint, contemporary democracy projects, which have accepted to sacrifice social progress and autonomy in globalized interdependence, have not contributed to reinforcing the emancipatory potential of democracy, but have, instead, eroded it - even to discredit and finally delegitimize it. If, as the predominant neoliberal discourse pretends, submitting to the demands of the market presents no other alternative, and if, this idea would by itself produce social progress (which is not true), why bother voting? Elected governments become superfluous decorations, since“change” (a succession of different heads who all do the same thing) is substituted to alternative choices by which democracy is defined. The reaffirmation of politics and the culture of citizenship define the very possibility of a necessary alternative to democratic decadence. 3. It is therefore necessary to advance in the three dimensions of the alternative, each one connected to the other. Less can be more-developing step-by-step strategies which allow for the consolidation of progress, even ones that are so modest that they can be achieved immediately, to go even further while minimizing the risk of failure, going off-course or moving backwards.

Alt is mutually exclusive- neoliberalism has created the demand for a new form of social struggle that the state cannot engage in

Stahler-Sholk 07 [Richard Stahler-Sholk, Resisting Neoliberal Homogenization: The Zapatista Autonomy Movement, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 34, No. 2, Globalizing Resistance: The New Politics of Social Movements in Latin America (Mar., 2007), pp. 48-63]

In the documentary ?Zapatista! there is a scene in which the ski-masked ¶ Subcomandante Marcos tells the camera that the rebels rose up against the ¶ Mexican government in 1994 only to discover that the Mexican government ¶ didn't exist; instead, they found themselves fighting against the structures of ¶ global capital.1 Social movements do not literally resist neoliberalism; they ¶ resist a specific landlord's hired guns trying to drive them off the land they ¶ need for subsistence or a specific agency that privatizes their water supply ¶ and triples the rates. In Mexico they resist a golf course in Tepoztl?n, an air ¶ port in San Salvador Ateneo, a Costeo in Cuernavaca?all local and concrete ¶ manifestations of a global logic that disempowers people who lack capital and ¶ ignores their right to establish their own priorities. A growing number of ¶ movements in Latin America are engaging in innovative organizing against ¶ the injustices of the neoliberal paradigm (Gills, 2000), departing from the revolutionary focus on seizing state power (Foran, 2003). Privatization, fiscal austerity, and economic liberalization have resulted in the contraction and redeployment of the state, shifting the locus of political struggles away from ¶ direct contestation for state power and opening new spaces to contestation (by ¶ new movements and old) over whether they will be controlled from above or ¶ below. ¶ The Mexican state acts increasingly as a broker for global capital as it attempts ¶ to re-regulate the conditions for accumulation on a global scale. Neoliberalism ¶ involves not simply a headlong retreat of the state but rather a renegotiation of ¶ state-society relations. The attempted recomposition of capitalist hegemony ¶ included targeted social compensation programs such as the National Solidarity ¶ Program?PRONASOL. These somewhat contradictory efforts to create a reformulated clientelism for the neoliberal era (Hellman, 1994) one more selective ¶ and flexible than the old corporatist structures had allowed did not entirely ¶ succeed in shielding the dominant-party form of the Mexican authoritarian state ¶ from political change. The shift from state-orchestrated to market mechanisms of ¶ distribution overlapped with new forms of social-movement-based struggles, ¶ ranging from the debtors' movement El Barzon to independent unions and ¶ neighborhood associations (Williams, 2001; Otero, 2004). As the turn to the ¶ market left state authorities in control of fewer resources for co-optation, increasingly independent social sectors formulated their demands not in terms of clien ¶ telistic expectations but in terms of citizenship rights (Fox, 1997). This discourse ¶ of rights is characteristic of the newly constituted social subjects confronting ¶ neoliberalism throughout Latin America by simultaneously claiming indigenous ¶ and other collective rights that markets deny and the citizenship rights that the ¶ neoliberal state pretends to offer equally to all (Eckstein and Wickham-Crowley, ¶ 2003). The Zapatistas organize in newly contested spaces paradoxically created ¶ by neoliberal globalization itself (Stahler-Sholk, 2001), joining independent peasant and liberation-theology organizing that predated the neoliberal era (Harvey, ¶ 1998) The forces of globalization that affect class relations are experienced (and ¶ resisted) through a variety of locally relevant identities, including ethnicity ¶ and gender (Nash, 2001; Yashar, 2005). In Chiapas, elaborate structures of ¶ labor control were constructed in the centuries after colonization by grafting ¶ them onto co-opted "traditional" religious/civic hierarchies in indigenous ¶ communities. Changes in the global political economy of post-1982 (oil/debt ¶ shock) Mexico were experienced locally as community power struggles that ¶ went to the core of what it meant to be part of the indigenous community ¶ (Collier, 1994; Rus, 1995). The state regularly mediated private capitalist development initiatives (e.g., logging operations in the Lacandon Jungle in the second half of the twentieth century) by reinventing indigenous identities and ¶ lines of authority in ways that facilitated the particular strategy of capital ¶ accumulation (De Vos, 2002). Resistance to neoliberalism, then, has taken the ¶ form of a movement for autonomy, with the protagonists struggling for the right to define themselves culturally, socially, and politically.

Perm fails- AFF takes on 1 of the 3 following paths to failed autonomy. ALSO, Zapatista’s movement is K2 spill-over.

Stahler-Sholk 07 [Richard Stahler-Sholk, Resisting Neoliberal Homogenization: The Zapatista Autonomy Movement, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 34, No. 2, Globalizing Resistance: The New Politics of Social Movements in Latin America (Mar., 2007), pp. 48-63]

The Zapatista movement is continually evolving, reflecting the dynamic ¶ interaction between neoliberalism and the social movements that contest it. As ¶ the state brokers the reconfiguration of markets in accordance with the logic of ¶ global capital, new organizational bases and forms of organizing are emerging ¶ within civil society, attempting to build alternatives from the grassroots. This ¶ necessarily involves these movements in political struggles as they claim rights ¶ to organize autonomously from control by the state or market actors. The Zapatista example suggests that "autonomy" is not a monolithic concept or a magic bullet against neoliberalism. States implementing neoliberal projects ¶ have a variety of ways of responding to autonomy movements, trying to neutralize or divert them. Several potential dead ends for autonomy movements are ¶ identified here. One is a version of autonomy defined merely as territorial decentralization, which could convert the regional authorities into appendages of the existing power structure. A second is autonomy that cuts off local claimants from resources, "freeing" them to fend for themselves as the central state paves the way for the penetration of the global market. A third is the neoliberal multiculturalism trap, recognizing multiple (ethnic) identities while denying any substantive collective rights to the diverse groups. In navigating between these shoals, the Zapatistas have created a space for ¶ local communities to experiment with the construction of new models of government. This pluralism and flexibility of autonomies helped the movement survive over 10 years of intense state-organized counteroffensive, but the ¶ Zapatistas' future depends on their ability (limited so far) to articulate this local resistance into a national movement. Community- controlled social and political institutions- schools, clinics, systems of justice, and regional planning-are part ¶ of the struggle to define collective priorities independently of the logic of the ¶ market. As global market forces reduce space for self-sufficient development, the importance of the microcosm of Zapatista autonomous communities-like the ¶ spaces occupied and transformed by Argentine piqueteros and Brazilian land ¶ less-is in symbolizing alternative and inspiring new political movements that challenge the state’s posture as broker for global capital.

A2 Perm (Mexico Specific)

Permutation DO BOTH fails: State and Zapatista utilization of tourism are completely different and cannot both utilized at the same time

Martin 2004 [Desiree A. Martin, Assistant Professor of English at the University of California, Davis; she is currently completing her dissertation, "Bordered Saints: Unorthodox Sanctity Along the Border in Mexican and Chicano/a Literature" in the Graduate Program in Literature at Duke University, “Excuse the inconvenience, but this is a revolution”: Zapatista Paradox and the Rhetoric of Tourism, South Central Review 21.3, 2004]

The union of "national and indigenous identity" represents a paradox within dominant Mexican nationalism, since indigenous identity is routinely collapsed into state discourse in order to facilitate a universalizing nationalism that effectively excludes living indigenous people. In other words, although the post-revolutionary Mexican state celebrates its indigenous past in the form of monuments, museums, murals, and the presentation of ancient ruins, indigenous groups in Chiapas and elsewhere in the republic are marginalized and condemned to a life of poverty. The presence of living indigenous difference in Mexico reminds the state that it is not a unified whole whose inhabitants are all equal under the rubric of Mexican national belonging and citizenship, while state oppression brutally reminds the indigenous people of their status as non-entities to the state. The suggestion is that indigenous difference and Mexican national belonging and citizenship are incompatible and in fact, preclude each other, for each can seemingly only exist without [End Page 109] the other. To this end, the Zapatistas counter the state's imposition of paradox with their own series of paradoxes. The Zapatistas wear concealing black ski masks in order to reveal their faces, identify themselves as "soldiers who are soldiers so that one day no one will have to be a soldier," or as revolutionaries who wish to end the need for revolution, are represented by a titular leader (Subcomandante Marcos) who is not a leader, and live by the refrain, "everything for everyone, nothing for ourselves."10 Unlike within Mexican state discourse, which contends that certain conditions necessarily preclude others, as in the representation of the union of national citizenship and indigenous self-determination as irresolvable paradox, the use of paradox within Zapatista discourse creates a situation where multiple possibilities can exist at once.¶ However, despite the fact that hegemonic Mexican nationalism calls forth a unified idea of the "people" through the incorporation of the indigenous past, the critic David Lloyd argues that nationalism "is always confronted with that people as a potentially disruptive excess over the nation and its state."11 In the case of the Mexican state, an official version of hybridity between tradition and modernity proposes a solution to the presence of certain unruly sectors of the population by establishing a place where the two can co-exist through state appropriation. There are, however, several instances in which the illusion of hybridity as an all-inclusive mechanism breaks down or isolates and emphasizes its multiple parts. Some examples quite obviously reveal the confrontation or clash between the nation-state and its "potentially disruptive excess," such as moments of indigenous rebellion or the paramilitary repression of indigenous groups, as in the case of the 1997 Acteal massacre in Chiapas.12 Others, such as tourism, aim to present a united front for national and indigenous identity. However, as the conflict over El Rancho Esmeralda reveals, the state's version of national identity and indigenous difference and the Indians' version of the two are opposed, and their distinctions may be revealed through the practice of tourism.¶ Indeed, in Chiapas, tourism becomes a paradox as well, for it strives to present a neatly packaged version of indigenous Mexican difference for easy consumption, yet carries with it the constant threat that this indigenous difference will escape its Mexican national packaging and reveal the true alterity beneath. In this context, tourism takes on multiple functions in relation to indigenous groups, as it blurs the distinctions between both the preservation and destruction and between the commodification and self-determination of such groups. Furthermore, since the experience of tourism is predicated upon access and authenticity, [End Page 110] the presence of the Zapatistas in Chiapas raises new concerns for the Mexican state, as it expands the avenues for access and changes the scope of tourism. In the eyes of the state, the fear that Zapatistas will block access to tourist areas, thus hindering the free flow of capital, is compounded by the fear that too much access will unravel its carefully constructed version of the authentic indigenous experience, or worse yet, encourage tourists' support of Zapatismo, and even provoke collusion in "international terrorism." The state wishes to preserve its control over the representation of authentic indigenousness at all costs, as well as its control over the tourists themselves. Indeed, the Mexican state manipulates the idea of tourism in order to delegitimate and marginalize Zapatismo, as when President Ernesto Zedillo labeled foreign and metropolitan Mexican Zapatista supporters "revolutionary tourists," a term which was principally used to describe the Zapatour. The state's use of the "revolutionary tourist" label seeks to remove the potential power of Zapatista political praxis by converting it into a "repetition of outdated 1960s political activism" which has remained stagnant without producing concrete results in Mexico.13 At the same time, the Zapatistas reclaim the power of political praxis, at least symbolically, by utilizing tourism as a rhetorical device to represent and analyze the construction of national and indigenous identity within Zapatista discourse. Through the use of mock tourist guides or travel narratives, the EZLN demonstrates the confluence and inversion of the so-called "non-modern" and "modern," in which both the nation-state and indigenous groups are revealed to appropriate and reject or alienate official national discourse and autonomous indigenous identity. As such, tourism becomes a space not to access potential national unity, as the state would have it, but rather, to access the potential national difference of Mexicans.

A2 Cede the Political

No cede the political- The Zapatista movement is a political force that restructures democratic participation by defining its own debates in terms of the non-dominant peoples

Pollack 99 [Aaron Pollack, “Epistemological Struggle and International Organizing: Applying the Experience of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation”, Institute of Social Studies, August 1999, PhD program for the scientific basis for the formulation of appropriate development policies, Working Paper series]

Just as the global economy is nothing new to Chiapas, neither is protest and¶ rebellion, occurring periodically through colonial times and continuing after¶ independence (Bricker 1989: 111-140, 235-248). This history has arrived at another¶ ‘active’ phase in the last 30 years with a great deal of religious, indigenous and¶ campesino organizing, the most visible manifestation at present being the EZLN.¶ Unlike many other movements, armed and unarmed, the EZLN position, in¶ addition to the social and economic revindications which form the backbone of its¶ demands, also questions some of the basic ideas regarding the distribution of political¶ power within a nation-state and, more broadly, the political implications of ‘diversity’ at the level of epistemology or cosmovision. In the Mexican case, the power differential¶ between the dominant and the dominated can only be understood in reference to the¶ relative importance given in public discussion to the epistemological differences of the¶ indigenous and mestizos. The negation and denial of the indigenous cosmovision, not¶ only by those who oppose them, but also by those who would help them (be they¶ Maoists, priests or state officials), has meant that all debate has taken place on the terms¶ defined by the dominant groups.¶ This denial has also meant that the various ideological debates both between¶ liberals and Marxists, as well as within the ‘Left’ are of secondary importance for the¶ Mayans themselves (See Rabasa 1997: 420). The history and struggle of the Mayans in¶ Chiapas goes back further than these differences of opinion between the ‘kaxlanes’33¶ and, in many senses, regardless of which camp might gain the upper hand in the¶ struggle, their own voices would be ignored. An important aspect of the Zapatista¶ rebellion is that it has allowed these epistemological differences, as well as their¶ political implications, to be openly voiced and to be heard outside of the indigenous¶ communities.¶ From a perspective which sees the modern episteme as, at the very least,¶ problematic, a political force such as the EZLN which actively questions it, and does so¶ within a discourse of social justice (or at times of an isomorphic non-modern one), is an¶ important actor to watch, and reflect upon, as the Left goes ambling confusedly into the¶ twenty-first century, seemingly trapped in modernity and unable (or unwilling) to look¶ outside of it. In this regard, the EZLN has successfully made contact with a number¶ of other political actors in Mexico and around the globe (through the use of internet and¶ email), gaining politically important support from many organizations, while¶ simultaneously promoting and participating in new national and global¶ networks/alliances/encounters.

A2 Neolib Helps Mexico

Neoliberal’s economic benefits are falsified and only exist for the richer, more dominant country-Mexico and US proves

Delgado-Wise 04 [Raul Delgado-Wise, “Critical Dimensions of Mexico-US Migration under the Aegis of Neoliberalism and NAFTA”, Canadian Journal of Development Studies 25.4 (2004): 591-605, Director of Doctoral Program in Migration Studies, Professor of Development Studies, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Mexico]

Paradoxically, in spite of the Mexican economy’s dedication to exports — the total volume of¶ which rose from US$ 22 million to US$ 158 billion between 1982 and 2001 — this does not help mitigate the country’s severe external deficit problems; on the contrary, it translates into an ever-increasing volume of imports. It is particularly revealing that between 1988 and 1994, manufactured exports¶ grew at an average annual rate (5%) that was less than half the rate of growth recorded for imports of¶ those same products (12%) (Rueda 1998, 110). So pronounced are these tendencies that Enrique¶ Dussel (1996, 80) has called this “import-oriented” model industrialization.2¶ And although this¶ import dynamic was momentarily interrupted by Mexico’s 1995 economic crisis, it soon picked up¶ again with deficits of slightly over US$ 6 billion in 1997 and US$ 17.5 billion in 2002.¶ All of this casts a diminished and relativized view on the scope of the new export dynamic,¶ making it clear that this process, contrary to what might be expected from its evolution toward a¶ model of secondary exporting (i.e., a specialization in manufactured exports), bears little relation to¶ the domestic economy and has a minimal multiplying effect on it.¶ In addition to showcasing the fragility and volatility of the export dynamic, the comments made¶ above require that we accurately assess the nature and scope of what the country actually exports. In¶ this regard, it is clear that the name “manufactured exports” is too grand a title for most of Mexico’s¶ foreign trade, which takes place within the realm of intra-firm commerce and primarily involves the¶ maquiladora sector. As Tello (1996, 50) has correctly pointed out, what Mexico essentially exports is¶ its labour force, without ever having it leave the country. Thus, the veil of supposed progress in¶ secondary exports conceals the contraction of a part of the Mexican economy, which is reduced and¶ compelled to serve as a reserve of manpower for foreign capital.

Five key points that Aff’s neoliberal immigration discussion of Mexico fails to take into account

Delgado-Wise 04 [Raul Delgado-Wise, “Critical Dimensions of Mexico-US Migration under the Aegis of Neoliberalism and NAFTA”, Canadian Journal of Development Studies 25.4 (2004): 591-605, Director of Doctoral Program in Migration Studies, Professor of Development Studies, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Mexico]

The contradictory dynamic that arises between migration and economic growth in that context¶ can be summarized as follows. First, international migration brings some “positive” elements for the Mexican economy. On the¶ one hand is the importance of migrants’ remittances as a source of foreign exchange for the country.¶ This assumes a new relevance following reductions in other sources of external funding (debt and¶ direct foreign investment) and the drop-off in maquiladora industry exports.5¶ At the same time, with¶ regard to the domestic economy, pressure on the job market is reduced and the risk of social conflict is diminished, thus enabling migration to act as a kind of escape valve (and a safety valve) vis-à-vis¶ the economy’s reduced structural capacity to expand employment. Thus, remittances (family and¶ collective alike but more particularly the latter) help cover social spending and pay for the minimal¶ infrastructure previously supplied through public investment or, alternatively, help cover the subsistence expenses of numerous Mexican households (García Zamora 2003). Consequently, they tend to¶ mitigate the distributive conflict between the state and the most vulnerable groups in the social spectrum, improving to some extent the levels of poverty and marginalization that prevail in the areas¶ where migration is most common.¶ Second, over and above the previous remarks, migration in and of itself implies that the economy loses valuable resources through these exports of potential wealth. In turn, exporting labour implies transferring to the receiving country the costs of reproducing and training those resources that were originally covered by the Mexican population as a whole.¶ Third, unlike labour that is exported indirectly (through maquiladoras), workers who emigrate¶ and settle in the United States consume a very significant part of the wages in that country, whereby the potential multiplying impact of their earnings is transferred to the US economy. Note that, in 2000,the incomes of workers of Mexican origin in the United States totalled some US$ 250 billion,of which US$ 87 billion were earned by Mexican-born emigrants. These amounts contrast sharply with the remittances sent back to Mexico, which, impressive as they may seem, accounted for a total of US$ 6.57 billion during that same year.¶ Fourth, from a fiscal point of view, international migrants contribute more to the receiving economy than they receive in benefits and public services. Through transfers of resources, migrants¶ contribute to the mass of social capital available to the US state. According to data from The National¶ Immigration Forum (Moore 1998), during 1997 the migrant population in the United States¶ contributed US$ 80 billion more to that country’s coffers than they received in benefits from the US¶ government at the local, state, and national levels. With these contributions, migrants dynamize the¶ receiving economy. ¶ Fifth, although this aspect is difficult to quantify, by bringing pressure to bear on the job market, migrants tend to have an adverse affect on wage increases in the receiving economy, particularly in the areas and sectors in which they are employed. In connection with this, a recent study by Papail (2001) points out that the gap between the average income of migrant workers and the US federal minimum wage has been decreasing for the past 25 years. Measured in constant 2000 prices, the minimum wage fell by 38% over that period, from US$ 11.70 to US$ 7.20 per hour. The paradox of this situation is that it is taking place alongside the changes in migrant profiles described above — in other words, that migrants now have higher education standards and greater presence in the manufacturing sector.¶ This clearly reveals the perverse dialectic that arises between the Mexican export dynamic and¶ international migration. While it falls to Mexico to reproduce and train the workers it exports (both¶ directly and indirectly), the United States avails itself of those advantages to restructure its industry¶ and reduce its costs.