CRT

Critical Race Theory K

a.) Framework: rhetoric determines reality

What we say determines reality. For example, in Eastern languages you’re more likely to
state things as facts, whereas in Western languages you would assign blame. So in
Eastern languages you would say “the eggs are broken”, but in English you would say
“Peter broke the eggs”. The words we use have real-world impacts. Since the arguments
in the round are purely academic and won’t change anything in the real world, we should
evaluate how we say things over what we say.

b.) Violation: ethnocentrism.

All their applications are specific to American or European governments. I think we can
all agree that countries around the world have different perspectives on governments,
rights, democracy, and legitimacy. The phrase “a government” is not specific to Euro-
American governments. And yet my opponent assumes that the Euro-American system is
undoubtedly correct. There are several impacts to this.

c.) Implications:
1. Racism - I’m definitely not calling my opponent a racist, but the ideology that
claims Euro-American culture and government to be superior to others is an
ideology shared by white supremacist groups throughout the world. An example
is interventionism. The idea that the US can go in and do whatever we want to
foreign governments is racist and dangerous.
2. Silencing of culture - using only successes from Euro-American countries
silences the cultures of other ethnicities. It strips cultures of their tradition, voice,
and purpose. For example, Britain created Kuwait to stop Iraq from accessing the
sea. Since the British thought their form of government was more legitimate than
the Iraqi government, they were able to strip the citizens inside the new country of
Kuwait of any sense of self-determination or culture.
3. Fails resolution - the Resolution isn’t specific to Euro-American governments, so
we cannot pretend that those governments are proof of the resolution as a whole.
Since “a government” is a phrase specific to every government regardless of
ethnicity, their action of proving the resolution true based on Euro-American
government actually fails to prove the resolution true. It’s “a government”, not
“some governments”.

d.) Alternative: reevaluate legitimacy.

We need to reevaluate the way we see a government’s legitimacy. We need a universal
standard that can only come from individual rights. The Affirmative side is trapping us
into a confinement of Euro-American principles. Only voting negative votes against this
restriction and actually reaches a debate about a government’s legitimacy.