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

41–50 of 362 posts

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

#41

Post by ivan_gammel »

gambiting wrote: post #36
ivan_gammel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

Feel free to suggest another term for a person of European origin and Eurocentric education who is lecturing indigenous people on how to live. Modern discourse isn’t about physical characteristics at all, even it does have roots in old racial theory. It’s certain views, it’s identity and culture. If someone behaves like in Kipling’s poem, he is the white man, not because of his race, but because of his actions.

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

#42

Post by badcppdev »

coldtea wrote: post #39
badcppdev wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"indigenous tradition or something that might distort or endanger"

Are certain groups not allowed to change? Why use the word distort or endanger?

We aren't talking about the discussions inside the community. We are talking about people outside the community applying judgements to their decisions and actions.

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

#43

Post by gambiting »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #41
gambiting wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

Feel free to suggest another term for a person of European origin and Eurocentric education who is lecturing indigenous people on how to live. Modern discourse isn’t about physical characteristics at all, even it does have roots in old racial theory. It’s certain views, it’s identity and culture. If someone behaves like in Kipling’s poem, he is the white man, not because of his race, but because of his actions.

I'm not debating the original point - I'm commenting on the clearly quoted section which says what white men are allowed to call other white men.

Like, it really doesn't ring any bells of "something is not right here" when you read it?

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

#44

Post by slily »

It will be interesting to see if this project ends up being seen as a success or a failure as things evolve, hopefully it inspires zoning reforms if it works out. I expected the article to be race-baity because of the gross comments here but no, it's pretty fair overall and apparently HN isn't above bringing up anti-white rhetoric unprompted.

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

#45

Post by ivan_gammel »

gambiting wrote: post #43
ivan_gammel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to suggest another term for a person of European origin and Eurocentric education who is lecturing indigenous people on how to live. Modern discourse isn’t about physical characteristics at all, even it does have roots in old racial theory. It’s certain views, it’s identity and culture. If someone behaves like in Kipling’s poem, he is the white man, not because of his race, but because of his actions.

I'm not debating the original point - I'm commenting on the clearly quoted section which says what white men are allowed to call other white men. Like, it really doesn't ring any bells of "something is not right here" when you read it?

Haha, now I got you and apologize for inaccurate choice of words. Those bells didn’t ring, as I’m not American and not native speaker. Of course, everyone can use it.

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

#46

Post by dudeinjapan »

badcppdev wrote: post #17
stavros wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a woman, actually. Your point is valid, I just don't like how "white man" has become a slur.

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…

The correct slur to use here is Honky.

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

#47

Post by nejkbnek »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #21
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…

I think I missed the meaning of the quote. Skyscrapers are not an indigenous lifestyle. I suppose that's not okay to bring up in this context? If someone put skyscrapers on the last Hawaiian island I'd be pretty upset about it. The entire population of the Earth should be. Can't we leave one thing undeveloped? But okay, maybe there is plenty of land to go around in Canada that looks the same as this land, so I could…

A modern "Indigenous lifestyle" means a lot of things. There's no contradiction in Indigenous people wanting to preserve their historical traditions, crafts and practices while also adapting to the current state of the world. Most Native people in Canada live in cities now and face issues of racism and generational trauma from colonial government practices like Residential Schools and the 60s Scoop which sought to cut their connections to their culture.

Developing land like this is a way for the tribe to generate revenue and take care of their members, but it's also a way for them to have meaningful input into the development process. They don't have some responsibility to leave the land as a pristine untouched wilderness, they can choose to develop it in a way that aligns with their values.

I visited a museum in the North once where they were talking about preserving the practice of carving giant canoes, to travel south and trade with Europeans. It struck me how this practice was historical and important culturally, but it also arose out of colonial interactions in the past 500 years. Both can be true.

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

#48

Post by api »

Let me see if I got this.

1. Settlers colonize indigenous lands, drive indigenous people into small parcels and reservations and try to exterminate their culture.

2. Settlers decide to start refusing to build enough housing for themselves because they don’t want to alter the “character of the neighborhood” after… uhh… very much doing that.

3. Indigenous people build housing on their remaining bits of land for settlers, make tons of money off it.

K, yeah, I think I got it.

Maybe there’s a solution for California in here: decolonize!

Who were the indigenous people who inhabited the Bay Area? If they’re still around, push a big decolonizing movement to return some land to them. Place looks like Tokyo in 20 years.

“Okay, okay, we suck, you can have your ancestors land back. Just can you let me reserve a condo when they go on sale?”

Then watch all the Bay Area lefty 60s homeowners suddenly become white nationalists. Their ideology is probably downstream of their home equity.

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

#49

Post by skywhopper »

stavros wrote: post #12
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…

It was a woman, actually. Your point is valid, I just don't like how "white man" has become a slur.

I wouldn’t call it a slur. To the extent it’s an effective insult, it’s due to centuries of behavior by white men. If someone uses “white man” to call out certain behavior, it might be worth their target considering why they got called out. Maybe sometimes it’s unfair to the white man to be called out, but often it isn’t. For folks who find it troublesome or disturbing to not receive the benefit of the doubt about their intentions as a white man, consider how much benefit of the doubt is given in everyday contexts to pretty much any individual who is not a white man.

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

#50

Post by stavros »

skywhopper wrote: post #49
stavros wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a woman, actually. Your point is valid, I just don't like how "white man" has become a slur.

I wouldn’t call it a slur. To the extent it’s an effective insult, it’s due to centuries of behavior by white men. If someone uses “white man” to call out certain behavior, it might be worth their target considering why they got called out. Maybe sometimes it’s unfair to the white man to be called out, but often it isn’t. For folks who find it troublesome or disturbing to not receive the benefit of the doubt about th…

Aren't you worried about the consequences of supporting generalizations over a group from the actions of their members? I learned at an early age that that's not OK, but it seems to be changing again, as long as the target is in a specific group.
Post reply on HN