1NCA. Link: The affirmative discourseand motivationsto ‘develop’ Latin America creates otherizingdichotomies 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)ZBThe first time the world heard and universally accepted the word “underdeveloped”to refer to areas of the world not scientifically or technologically advanced wason January 20, 1949 during U.S. President Truman’s 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 don’t. 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 well-being, 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). Oxford’s 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 baby’s 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.