Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

macleans.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 362 posts

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#31

Post by verticalscaler »

lisper wrote: post #3

I think this is terrific. It's high time the indigenous people reclaimed their sovereignty. The idea that "When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building" is just ridiculous. Who the fuck are you, white man, to say what is and is not consistent with an "Indigenous way of building"? You aren't living the same lifestyle and building the sa…

> Who the fuck are you, white man, to say what is and is not consistent with an "Indigenous way of building"?

Who the fuck are you, white man, to say "It's high time the indigenous people reclaimed their sovereignty"? You're foisting your notions of sovereignty and time unto them, which is racist.

P.S.: I'm indigenous ;)

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#32

Post by downut »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #28
ivan_gammel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Can't we leave one thing undeveloped? Sure. Undevelop your own land and that will solve the problem.

I don't own the last Hawaiian island, but I'm thankful someone who does hasn't developed it. If they did and then "undeveloped" it, that wouldn't much help. Right? The last island will have been destroyed for future generations to study and enjoy. Not being Canadian, I have no clue what the context is. This might be the last of a unique piece of nature, or it could be the first acre of an endless desert. That context…

If the island is privately owned then hard to see how "future generations" will be able to study and enjoy it. Maybe, but probably not, eh? That's the point of it being privately owned. Now if the State of Hawaii were to assert eminent domain, acquire it at fair market value, and then turn it into public park lands as designated wilderness, well that might work for your intent, I think.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#33

Post by ethanbond »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #27
badcppdev wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the quote is from a white man called Gordon Price. Full quote to assist you. "In 2022, Gordon Price, a prominent Vancouver urban planner and a former city councillor, told Gitxsan reporter Angela Sterritt, “When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building." "White man" can be used in that form when the white man appears to be telli…

I disagree. It's an ad hominem point. Comments should focus on ideas. Race based commentary like this is a discredit to one's own argument and character.

Race: Famously irrelevant to the whole tribal lands/indigenous rights topic

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#34

Post by badcppdev »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #27
badcppdev wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the quote is from a white man called Gordon Price. Full quote to assist you. "In 2022, Gordon Price, a prominent Vancouver urban planner and a former city councillor, told Gitxsan reporter Angela Sterritt, “When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building." "White man" can be used in that form when the white man appears to be telli…

I disagree. It's an ad hominem point. Comments should focus on ideas. Race based commentary like this is a discredit to one's own argument and character.

You could take the word fuck out of the original comment and it would still have the clear reasoning that Gordon Price as a white person should not be telling an indigenous group that what they want to do is not the "Indigenous way".

White person should not define "Indigenous way".

How else can we misinterpret this argument?

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#35

Post by ivan_gammel »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #28
ivan_gammel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Can't we leave one thing undeveloped? Sure. Undevelop your own land and that will solve the problem.

I don't own the last Hawaiian island, but I'm thankful someone who does hasn't developed it. If they did and then "undeveloped" it, that wouldn't much help. Right? The last island will have been destroyed for future generations to study and enjoy. Not being Canadian, I have no clue what the context is. This might be the last of a unique piece of nature, or it could be the first acre of an endless desert. That context…

It is simply not your business to tell disadvantaged people how they should exercise their rights. They have agency and can decide for themselves. If this means, some of the nature has to be sacrificed, that’s their business, not yours to decide.

If you care so much, undevelop your own land and restore the nature and the balance. Plant forests over your parking lots and golf courses, erase suburbia and embrace minimalist living. That is so simple.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#36

Post by gambiting »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #25
chrisco255 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure if you want to be racist. The shoe on the other foot, replace White man with Black man, Red man, etc and its clear that its racist.

“White man” is not racist, it is a self-describing short term for Eurocentric supremacy and a quote from Kipling. As such it is not replaceable by Black/Red etc. Everyone can use it in such context as a metaphor, not as a racial reference. Edit: previously my message included some poor choice of words, which I will keep here for history and an example of accidental bias: “White men are absolutely allowed to use it as…

>>White men are absolutely allowed to use it as a slur towards other white men.

What kind of nonsense is that, the mental gymnastics to not call it what it simply is - racism - is just unbelivable.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#37

Post by coldtea »

lisper wrote: post #3

I think this is terrific. It's high time the indigenous people reclaimed their sovereignty. The idea that "When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building" is just ridiculous. Who the fuck are you, white man, to say what is and is not consistent with an "Indigenous way of building"? You aren't living the same lifestyle and building the sa…

>Who the fuck are you, white man, to say what is and is not consistent with an "Indigenous way of building"?

A person univolved with the colonization of Canada, not even from there or living there, that still believes that?

>You aren't living the same lifestyle and building the same buildings that your ancestors were hundreds of years ago

And that's bad in a lot of ways too. Not all modernization is for the better. It can turn a vibrant community into a gentrified Starbucks shitscape, for example.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#38

Post by coldtea »

ethanbond wrote: post #33
trimethylpurine wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It's an ad hominem point. Comments should focus on ideas. Race based commentary like this is a discredit to one's own argument and character.

Race: Famously irrelevant to the whole tribal lands/indigenous rights topic

It's irrelevant to "does this follow indigenous tradition or violate it" point, which is the point discussed in the subthread - not tribal lands/indigenous rights.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#39

Post by coldtea »

badcppdev wrote: post #34
trimethylpurine wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It's an ad hominem point. Comments should focus on ideas. Race based commentary like this is a discredit to one's own argument and character.

You could take the word fuck out of the original comment and it would still have the clear reasoning that Gordon Price as a white person should not be telling an indigenous group that what they want to do is not the "Indigenous way". White person should not define "Indigenous way". How else can we misinterpret this argument?

>White person should not define "Indigenous way"

Any person, white, black, asian, whatever, can however assess whether this development is in line with the indigenous tradition or something that might distort or endanger it.

Or do you think the same discussion doensn't happen within the indigenous community as well?

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#40

Post by badcppdev »

coldtea wrote: post #38
ethanbond wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Race: Famously irrelevant to the whole tribal lands/indigenous rights topic

It's irrelevant to "does this follow indigenous tradition or violate it" point, which is the point discussed in the subthread - not tribal lands/indigenous rights.

Why would Indigenous people have to follow tradition? I believe it is racist (or sexist) to say that a group of people cannot do something because that is not something they've done in the past.

For Mr Gordon Price to imply that a group should not do something because it has not been done before is him trying to deny their agency.

Post reply on HN