Abstract Ethics Fail.

Saying we ought to engage in

something implies a moral obligation that the black thinker
does not have access to because the world is framed by white
supremacy. [Curry] Curry, Tommy J. [doctor in Associate Professor of Philosophy,
Affiliated Professor of Africana Studies, Texas A & M University] In the Fiat of Dreams: The
Delusional Allure of Hope, the Reality of Anti-Black Violence and the Demands of the Anti-

13.

Ethical. 20

Ought implies a projected (futural) act. The word commands a deliberate

action to reasonably expect the world to be able to sustain or support. For
the Black thinker, the Black citizen-subject-slave-(in) human, ought is not
rational but repressive. For the oppressed racialized thinker, the ethical
provocation is an immediate confrontation with the impossibility of actually acting
towards values like freedom, liberty, humanity, and life, since none of these
values can be achieved concretely for the Black in a world controlled by
and framed by the white. The options for ethical actions are not ethical in
and of themselves, but merely the options the immorality of the racist
world will allow, thus the oppressed is forced to idealize their ethical positions,
eliminating the truth of their reality, and the peeling away the tyranny of white
bodies, so that as the oppressed, the can ideally imagine an if condition,
whereby they are allowed to ethical engage racism from the perspective of: if
whites were moral and respected the humanity of Blacks, then we can ethically
engage in these behaviors. Unfortunately, this ought constraint only forces
Blacks to consciously recognize the futility of ethical engagement, since it
is in this ought deliberation that they recognize that their cognition of all
values are dependent not on their moral aspirations for the world, but the
determined by the will of white supremacy to maintain virtue throughout all
ethical calculations. In short, Black ethical deliberation is censored so that it can
only engage moral questions by asserting that whites are virtuous and hence
capable of being ethically persuaded towards right action, hence all ethical
question about racism, white supremacy and anti-Blackness is not about
how Blacks think about the world, but what possibility the world allows
Blacks to contemplate under the idea of ethics.
The black thinker cannot ought to do something under a veil of morality given to
use by the world framed by white supremacy. Morality is contingent upon black
demise, so when we say we value morality, we are valuing a system of morality
constituted by European anthropology that needs Black Death in order to survive.

B-Impact [2] - And this abstraction allows us to assume racist

entities will somehow act justly rather than looking to how
they have historically acted. Tommy Curry writes: Curry, Tommy J. [doctor in
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Affiliated Professor of Africana Studies, Texas A & M University] In
the Fiat of Dreams: The Delusional Allure of Hope, the Reality of Anti-Black Violence and the Demands
of the Anti-Ethical. 2013. SPHS//SS

Traditionally we have taken ethics to be, as Henry Sidgwicks claims, "any

rational procedure by which we determine what individual human beings
'ought'or what is right for themor to seek to realize by voluntary [Link]
This rational procedure is however at odds with the empirical reality the
ethical deliberation must concern itself with. To argue, as is often done, that
the government, its citizens, or white people should act justly, assumes that the
possibility of how they could act defines their moral disposition. If a white person
could possibly not be racist, it does not mean that the possibility of not being racist,
can be taken to mean that they are not racist. In ethical deliberations dealing
with the problem of racism, it is common practice to attribute to
historically racist institutions, and individuals universal moral qualities
that have yet to be demonstrated. This abstraction from reality is what
frames our ethical norms and allows us to maintain, despite history or
evidence, that racist entities will act justly given the choice. Under such
complexities, the only ethical deliberation concerning racism must be antiethical, or a judgment refusing to write morality onto immoral entities.

C: Alternative- we should be reject the affirmatives ethical

stance and become Antiethical. [Curry] Curry, Tommy J. [doctor in Associate
Professor of Philosophy, Affiliated Professor of Africana Studies, Texas A & M University] In the Fiat of Dreams: The
Delusional Allure of Hope, the Reality of Anti-Black Violence and the Demands of the Anti-Ethical. 20

13.

Anti-ethics; the call to demystify the present concept of man as illusion, as

delusion, and as stratagem, is the axiomatic rupture of white existence
and the multiple global oppressions like capitalism, militarism, genocide, and
globalization, that formed the evaluative nexus which allows whites to claim
they are the civilized guardians of the worlds darker races. It is the
rejection of white virtue, the whites axiomatic claim to humanity that allows the
Black, the darker world to sow the seeds of consciousness towards liberation from
oppression. When white (in)humanity is no longer an obstacle weighed
against the means for liberation from racism, the oppressed are free to
overthrow the principles that suggest their paths to liberation are immoral
and hence not possible. To accept the oppressor as is, the white made manifest in
empire, is to transform white western (hu)man from semi-deitous sovereign citizen
to contingent, mortal, and un-otherable. Exposing the inhumanity of white humanity
is the destruction/refusal of the disciplinary imperative for liberal reformism and
dialogue as well as a rejection of the social conventions that dictate speaking as if
this white person, the white person and her white people before you are in fact not
racist white people, but tolerablenot like the racist white people abstracted from
reality, but really spoken of in conversations about racism. The revelatory call, the
coercively silenced but intuitive yearning to describe the actual reality set before

Black people in an anti-Black society, is to simply say there is no negotiating the

boundaries of anti-Blackness or the horizons of white supremacy. Racism, the
debasement of melaninated bodies and nigger-souls, is totalizing.

There is no hope to deal with the question of humanity, the potential of

what humans should be, should think, and how they should act based
on these stances within the anthropology of white European models of
thought. Regardless of the critique, the white call to action allows
Europe the continued power to construct MAN, within their own systems
of thought. Their position is just another example of a moral plea to white
decadent anthropology.
Syliva Wynter2006 ( Interview with Syliva Wynter,ProudFlesh Interview: New Afrikan Journal of
Culture, Politics & Consciousness, Issue 4)

your writing without thinking of its

critical thesis on humanism, of Western humanism, or what it calls Man, which
also raises critical questions of consciousness, does it not? And other questions, too, of
course. SYLVIA WYNTER: Such as, Why does this meaning have to be put on being
Blackthis meaning of non-being? These are the kinds of questions that you guys are going to
PROUD FLESH: At this point in your lifes work, who could think of

ask. I beg you guys to go back and read about Copernicus, Galileo and so on. The Darwinian thing was a bit of a
struggle, but not as much--strangely enough . . . PROUD FLESH: Yes, you consistently show how the Copernican
revolution was one enabled by imperialist exploration-cum-exploitation or conquest. For undergraduates in
Western universities, in particular, they simply stick the Copernicus issue in the anthology of modern Western
philosophy, as a lesser textual concern, without dealing with it or its significance; I mean, with no context or
explanation. SYLVIA WYNTER: They never even wanted to write about it! And why? Because I think they are aware

We have to take it all

seriously. YOU CANNOT SOLVE THE ISSUE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN TERMS
OF THEIR BODY OF KNOWLEDGE. You just cant. Just as within the medieval
order of knowledge there was no way in which you could explain why it is that
certain planets seemed to be moving backwards. Because you were
coming from a geocentric model, right? So you had to know the world in that
way. Whereas from our Man-centric model, we cannot solve
consciousness because Man is a purely ontogenetic/purely biological
conception of being, who then creates culture. So if we say
consciousness is constructed, who does the constructing? You see? Whereas
of the implications, if taken seriously. Thats how they took over the world.

in Fanons understanding of ontogeny-and-sociogeny, theres no problem. Do you see what I mean?

II. Social systems of power must be discursively legitimated. The issue is

not what we speak, but how what we speak, perpetuates very specific
cultural determinations of how systems work and respond to our
discursive appeals. The Negatives position is not simply about a
difference of values about the world, rather this is a difference about how
the Aff reifies and naturalizes the structures, systems, and types of
knowledge that perpetuate the cultural concepts of white supremacy.
Sylvia Wynter1992 (Beyond the Categories of the Master Conception: The Counterdoctrine of the
Jamesian Poiesis, in C.L.R. James Caribbean, eds. Paget Henry & Paul Buhle, 63-91)

To be effective systems of power must be discursively legitimated. This is not to say

that power is originally a set of institutional structures that are subsequently
legitimated. On the contrary, it is to suggest the equiprimordiality of structure and cultural
conceptions in the genesis of power. These cultural conceptions, encoded in
language and other signifying systems, shape the development of political
structures and are also shaped by them. The cultural aspects of power are as
original as the structural aspects; each serves as a code for the other's
development. It is from these elementary cultural conceptions that complex
legitimating discourses are constructed.

III. Heres a Big Ass Impact and another Link to this Theoretical
crap: they cannot claim to address much less solve any
problems of human existence without addressing Racism first
and foremost. This in and of itself misses the anthropological
cause of colonial/neo-colonial differences the world over. This
is not to say that Racism is in itself of more consequence than
other problems, but to say that Racism is the template of
modernity used to refuse humanity to other people, to make
them different kinds of things that do not deserve humanity.
The alt is to reject the aff in order to produce knowledge that
centers around the antihuman as a starting point
Wynter 3 (Sylvia Wynter, Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human,
After Man, Its Overrepresentation--An Argument, CR: The New Centennial Review, Volume 3, Number 3,257-337)//
The argument proposes that the struggle of our new millennium will be one
the ongoing imperative of securing the well-being of our present ethnoclass (i.e., Western bourgeois)

between

conception of the human, Man, which overrepresents itself as if it were the human itself, and that
of securing the well-being, and therefore the full cognitive and behavioral autonomy of the human species
itself/ourselves. Because of this overrepresentation, which is defined in the first part of the title as the Coloniality of

any attempt to unsettle the coloniality of power will call

for the unsettling of this overrepresentation as the second and now purely secular form of
what Anbal Quijano identifies as the Racism/ Ethnicism complex, on whose basis the
world of modernity was brought into existence from the fifteenth/sixteenth centuries
Being/Power/Truth/Freedom,

onwards (Quijano 1999,2000), and of what Walter Mignolo identifies as the foundational colonial difference on
which the world of modernity was to institute itself (Mignolo 1999, 2000). The correlated hypothesis here is that all

our present struggles with respect to race, class, gender, sexual

orientation, ethnicity, struggles over the environment , global warming,
severe climate change, the sharply unequal distribution of the earth resources (20
percent of the worlds peoples own 80 percent of its resources, consume two-thirds of its food, and are responsible
for 75 percent of its ongoing pollution, with this leading to two billion of earths peoples living relatively affluent
lives while four billion still live on the edge of hunger and immiseration, to the dynamic of overconsumption on the
part of the rich techno-industrial North paralleled by that of overpopulation on the part of the dispossessed poor,
still partly agrarian worlds of the South4)these

are all differing facets of the central

ethnoclass Man vs. Human struggle. Central to this struggle also is the usually
excluded and invisibilized situation of the category identified by Zygmunt Bauman as the New Poor (Bauman
1987). That is, as a category defined at the global level by refugee/economic migrants stranded outside the gates
of the rich countries, as the postcolonial variant of Fanons category of les damns (Fanon 1963)with this category
in the United States coming to comprise the criminalized majority Black and dark-skinned Latino inner-city males
now made to man the rapidly expanding prison-industrial complex, together with their female peersthe kicked-

about Welfare Momswith both being part of the ever-expanding global, transracial category of the homeless/the
jobless, the semi-jobless, the criminalized drug-offending prison population. So that if we see this category of the

a
global archipelago, constituted by the Third- and Fourth-World peoples of the socalled underdeveloped areas of the worldmost totally of all by the peoples of the
continent of Africa (now stricken with AIDS, drought, and ongoing civil wars, and whose
damns that is internal to (and interned within) the prison system of the United States as the analog form of

bottommost place as the most impoverished of all the earths continents is directly paralleled by the situation of its
Black Diaspora peoples, with Haiti being produced and reproduced as the most impoverished nation of the
Americas)a

systemic pattern emerges. This pattern is linked to the fact that while in the postthe Black population group, of all the multiple
groups comprising the post-sixties social hierarchy, has once again come to be placed at the
bottommost place of that hierarchy (Gans, 1999), with all incoming new nonwhite/non-Black
sixties United States, as Herbert Gans noted recently,

groups, as Ganss fellow sociologist Andrew Hacker (1992) earlier pointed out, coming to claim normal North
American identity by the putting of visible distance between themselves and the Black population group (in effect,
claiming normal human status by distancing themselves from the group that is still made to occupy the nadir,
nigger rung of being human within the terms of our present ethnoclass Mans overrepresentation of its
descriptive statement [Bateson 1969] as if it were that of the human itself), then the struggle of our times, one
that has hitherto had no name, is the struggle against this overrepresentation. As a struggle whose
first phase, the Argument proposes, was first put in place (if only for a brief hiatus before being coopted,
reterritorialized [Godzich 1986]) by the multiple anticolonial social-protest movements and intellectual challenges of
the period to which we give the name, The Sixties. The further proposal here is that, although the brief hiatus
during which the sixties large-scale challenge based on multiple issues, multiple local terrains of struggles (local
struggles against, to use Mignolos felicitous phrase, a global design [Mignolo 2000]) erupted was soon to be
erased, several of the issues raised then would continue to be articulated, some in sanitized forms (those pertaining
to the category defined by Bauman as the seduced), others in more harshly intensified forms (those pertaining to
Baumans category of the repressed [Bauman 1987]). Both forms of sanitization would, however, function in the
same manner as the lawlike effects of the post-sixtiesvigorous discursive and institutional re-elaboration of the

enables the interests, reality, and well-being of the empirical

human world to continue to be imperatively subordinated to those of the now globally
hegemonic ethnoclass world of Man. This, in the same way as in an earlier epoch and
central overrepresentation, which

before what Howard Winant identifies as the immense historical rupture of the Big Bang processes that were to

lead to a contemporary modernity defined by the rise of the West and the
subjugation of the rest of us (Winant 1994)before, therefore, the secularizing intellectual
revolution of Renaissance humanism, followed by the decentralizing religious heresy of the Protestant Reformation
and the rise of the modern statethe then world of laymen and laywomen, including the institution of the political
state, as well as those of commerce and of economic production, had remained subordinated to that of the postGregorian Reform Church of Latin-Christian Europe (Le Goff 1983), and therefore to the rules of the social order
and the theories which gave them sanction (See Konrad and Szelenyi guide-quote), as these rules were
articulated by its theologians and implemented by its celibate clergy (See Le Goff guide-quote).

Butler 95
Butler, Paul. 1995. Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System. The Yale Law
Journal 105 (3). The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 677725. doi:10.2307/797197.

criminal law is racist because, like other American law, it is an instrument of

white supremacy. Law is made by white elites to protect their interests
and, especially, to preserve the economic status quo, which benefits those elites
at the expense of blacks, among others. Due to discrimination and segregation,
the majority of African-Americans receive few meaningful educational and
employment opportunities and, accordingly, are unable to succeed, at least in the terms
of the capitalist ideal. Some property crimes committed by blacks may be understood as [are]
an inevitable result of the tension between the dominant societal message
equating possession of material resources with success and happiness and
the power of white supremacy to prevent most African-Americans from
It suggests that

acquiring "enough" of those resources in a legal manner. "Black-on-black"

violent crime, and even "victimless" crime like drug offenses, can be
attributed to internalized racism, which causes some African-Americans to
devalue black lives. Either those of others or their own. The political process does not
allow for the creation or implementation of effective "legal" solutions to
this plight, and the criminal law punishes predictable reactions to it . I am
persuaded by the radical critique when I wonder about the roots of the ugly truth that blacks commit many crimes at substantially
higher rates than whites. Most

white

Americans, especially liberals, would publicly offer an environmental, as opposed

would probably concede that racism, historical and current,
plays a major role in creating an environment that breeds criminal
conduct. From this premise, the radical critic deduces that but for the (racist) environment, the African- American criminal
would not be a criminal. In other words, racism creates and sustains the criminal breeding
ground, which produces the black criminal. Thus, when many AfricanAmericans are locked up, it is because of a situation that white supremacy
created. Obviously, most blacks are not criminals, even if every black is exposed to
racism. To the radical critics, however, the law-abiding conduct of the majority of
African-Americans does not mean that racism does not create black
criminals. Not everyone exposed to a virus will become sick, but that does not mean that the virus does not cause the illness
to genetic, explanation for this fact. They

of the people who do.

WHITES HAVE CONSISTENTLY NOT ONLY USED THE GUN AS A TOOL

TO OPPRESS BLACKS BUT HAVE ALSO STOPPED BLACKS FROM
OWNING THEM AS A WAY TO CRUSH REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS.

Gun control laws have historically been used to only reinforce

the oppressor with the tools to marginalize the oppressed.
Clayton E. Cramer The Racist Roots of Gun Control Clayton E. Cramer is an American historian, author, and
software engineer. Copyright 1993
The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle

. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated

as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet
the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of
way

gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as "suspect ideas," analogous to
the "suspect classifications" theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system. Racist arms laws

Starting in 1751, the French Black Code

required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat
"any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to
stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." [1] Slave
possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet
laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks
from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. [2] Similarly, in
the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave
revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms. [3]
predate the establishment of the United States.

Black Americans have and continue to be victims of state

tyranny. The right to self-defense is even more important now
than ever. The history of state violence against Black people
and the disarming of Black Americans is relevant to our
understanding of self-defense.
Robert J. Cottrol--2014 (Second Amendment, Constitutional Dysfunction or Necessary Safeguard?
Boston University Law Review 49 [2014]: 837-850)

We should approach the notion that it cannot happen here with due humility.
The United States has been spared the reign of mad dictators bent on
subjugating, terrorizing, and destroying whole populations. But state

tyranny can come in other forms, including the deliberate refusal of

authorities to protect unpopular groups from violence by hostile majorities. A
number of scholars, myself included, have written about this from the
perspective of the Afro-American experience, and how a right to arms
played an important role in mitigating racial violence during the Jim Crow
era and in providing the physical protection that enabled the voter

registration efforts and other activities of civil rights workers in the South in
the 1950s and 1960s.54 These examples should not be disregarded as
simply historical examples from a past that is now mercifully, or hopefully,
far behind us. Instead they should be seen as case studies in the need for
vulnerable minorities to have the means of self-defense . The names of the
minorities who might have such needs will change over time, but the
principle that there is a need for the means of self-defense, that it should
not be taken away, and that it is dangerous to force a people to rely solely
on the state for protection, remains sound policy, and not an example of

constitutional dysfunction. [849-50]