1NC

A. Link: The affirmative discourse and motivations to develop Latin America creates otherizing dichotomies and props up US imperialism. Meyer, 12 (Dominique, Department of International Affairs, Florida State University, April 1, 2012, Making Development
Discourse Work in Latin American Indigenous Communities, Google Scholar)ZB

The first time the world heard and universally accepted the word underdeveloped to refer to areas of the world not scientifically or technologically advanced was on January 20, 1949 during U.S. President Trumans inaugural address, where he coined it as an emblem of his own policy (Esteva, 1992) (Richard Peet, 2009). On that day, two billion people became underdeveloped , as the hegemonic power of the time drew a line in the sand between Us and Them. It is that date that welcomed the
age of development where the label of underdeveloped provided the cognitive base for what would become the systematic gesture of development efforts in the preceding years (Esteva, 1992). The concept of Development and its political merits have well been debated by policy makers, scholars, and regular folks alike, further dividing the world into two camps: those who favor development schemes, and those who dont. Those

who look favorably on Development efforts praise it as a means for making a better life for everyone *providing+ basic needs: sufficient food to maintain good health;
a safe, healthy place in which to live; affordable services available to everyone; and being treated with dignity and respect (Peet & Hartwick, 2009, pg 1). For

the members of this camp, development refers to improvements in wellbeing, living standards, and opportunities (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005). This optimistic worldview of Development starkly contrasts to the more pessimistic one- the in which Wolfgang Sachs describes as a cracked and crumbling lighthouse standing alone as a ruin of our intellectual landscape (Sachs, 1992). According to this view of development, the discourse refers to the historical processes of commodification, industrialization, modernization, and globalization (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005). In fact, the term development its self is an unstable term . According to Marc Edelman and Angelique Howard, development is an
ideal, an imagined future towards which institutions and individuals strive (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005). Oxfords

Dictionary defines the concept of development as the gradual growth of something so that it becomes more advanced, stronger, etc, and the same entry provides a babys development in the womb as a proper example of development (Oxford University Press, 2012). This example is fitting to accentuate the very debate surrounding the idea of international development as it is understood today- where proponents of development view themselves in the maternal role, feeding into and supporting the advancement of underdeveloped states, and those rejecting the idea insist that growth and advancement occur
from within the state its self.

Being more civilized gives the U.S more reason to develop Latin America, implies that we are above them.

B. Impact: Development discourse paradoxically produces poverty, insecurity, structural violence, and destroys value to life. Kothari/Harcourt, 4 (Smitu, founding member of the International Accountability Project/Wendy, Rural Development,
International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2004, Introduction: The violence of development, Development, <http://www.palgrave-journals.com/development/journal/v47/n1/full/1100024a.html>)ZB Fourthly, the destabilization of natural systems and the threat to cultures and traditions and ensuing insecurities and violence is

a problem not of poverty but rather the reverse. It is a problem of wealth creation. The privileging of materialism and the dominant patterns of achieving economic growth as the

only road to development creates poverty, threatens and destroys livelihoods, creates mass insecurities, breaking down homes and communities, forcing men and women, often displaced from their familiar environment, into criminality.
It is this criminalization of poverty that has led to some of the worst forms of gender violence as insecurities compound violence within the family as men are compelled to redefine their identities, both culturally and individually and endure life-threatening economic insecurities. The underbelly of the violence inherent in development is reflected in the heightened levels of domestic violence, the discrimination against the girl child, the increase of women entering the workforce in debilitating and unhealthy conditions, the trafficking of women and children, the increase in suicides and the spread of HIV/AIDS. All

this while those doing development claim to be alleviating poverty and listening to the voices of those they label poor. Moving from the community level to the geopolitical level, it is also important to look at the macro-context of violence that allows policymakers to pay little attention to the voices from the marginalized and the growing mass resistance to economic globalization. The process of national and global policymaking and today's geopolitics in the wake of September 11, the invasion of Iraq and the growing US hegemony is the enabling environment for so much violence to go unheeded in the name of freedom, democracy and development.

Trying to help developing countries through the USFG is bad because of these impacts. The way the affirmative is framing the world is bad because Development tries to mold Latin America into whatever it looks like.

C. Vote Negative 1. The question posed by this years resolution is not for us to answer solutions must come from below and include local peoples participation. Kangas, 13 (Laura, Department of Communication, Aalto University, 2013, The WTO and ambiguous
language of development. A rhetorical analysis of the development discourse of the World Trade Organization., <https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/8955/hse_ethesis_13145.pdf?sequence=1>)ZB

The human focus is shared also by the participatory development approach, the purpose of which is to involve local people in their own development. This approach condemns the classical development practices as western ethnocentric, disempowering, and characterized by top-downism. (Mohan, 2008, 46-47) The main idea is that every society must define development for itself and find its own strategy. (Servaes, 1999, 6) As Mohan (2008, 47) mentions, the focus is on the grass-roots level, often involving civil society, which permits a plurality of development goals to be realized, as well as giving communities self-determination they need. A central concept in
participatory development is empowerment, which Melkote and Kandath (2001, 197) define as a dynamic process that enhances the possibilities of an individual or a community to face the continuous social changes. Hence, the

process of development is being formed in a bottom-up -manner, and the agency in development is given to developing countries. The emphasis on participation is part of a wider movement, which has transformed orthodox thinking about public sector management over the last two decades and made decision-making based on participation, rather than imposition, central to the idea of modernity.
(Brett, 2003, 2) The demand for participatory development is an integral part of personal and social emancipation. Mohan (2008, 46) argues that behind the approach is also the belief in not relying on the state, and therefore it might not be coincidental that participatory development gained popularity around the same time as the neoliberal counter-revolution of the 1980s, with its discourse of self-help and individualism.

The citizens of Latin America must include the local peoples participation in order for the solution to be effective and not cause the U.S. to intervene and mold it into what the U.S. wants it to look like. Reject the aff because the impacts and link because of

their discourse. Alternative means letting the indigenous population take control of their own country. U.S. wont allow the local people to take control of their own country.

2. This solves Rejecting their discourse of development and economic engagement allows this debate to act as a counter-spatiality to hegemonic knowledge production. Motta, 13 (Sara C., Lecturer in Latin American and Comparative Politics at the School of Politics and
International Relations, University of Nottingham, UK, July 2013, Reinventing the Lefts in Latin America: Critical Perspectives from Below, <http://lap.sagepub.com/content/40/4/5.full>)ZB

Out of these counter-spatialities come new conceptions of the political. First, there is a politics of life that cuts to the very heart of the logics of neoliberal globalization, in which large sections of the popular classes become disposable, reduced to conditions of bare life in which they are unable to ensure their social reproduction and survival (see Agamben, 1998; Rancire, 2004). Yet from these conditions emerge struggles that challenge the foundations of capitalist accumulation. Paradigmatic of this is the contribution of Philipp Terhorst, Marcela Olivera, and Alexander Dwinell, who point
out that the basis of water movements in a commons approach generates . . . a renewed reference point for the community and alternative community economies of water. The

activists themselves see it as a new kind of politics, a new kind of economics, and a new model of life that has far-reaching implications for politics and society in general. It is from concrete and particular struggles for basic resources that practices are developed that enable
the flourishing, remembering, and reinvention of cosmologies, social relationships, and political imaginaries. This prefigurative politics challenge the basis of capitalism by enacting an alternative basis of social life. Social Reproduction and Feminized Resistance

The contributors call attention to the centrality of social reproduction as a place of resistance and popular political construction around struggles over health care, education, land ownership and use, housing, and community and family life. As Chris Hesketh points out in his article on Mexican movements, the Zapatistas have created counter-spaces in which spatial production is based upon collective need. Collective control is asserted over space, and political activity is
associated with everyday life.

We have to use this debate round to stop this hegemonic knowledge production that is causing these impacts. If we reject the affirmative, we are making this debate space to produce knowledge against the developmental discourse against the affirmative.