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

171–180 of 362 posts

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

#171

Post by piuantiderp »

ximus wrote: post #120

It's comforting to see first nations of canada recovering a central role in modern canadian society. However, having lived here for a year a year now, I have observed a concerning aspect of this re-integration, which is mentioned in the article: First nations aren't just propped back up and re-integrated in society, it goes further in that they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian…

What are you going to do? It's an aristocracy, very difficult to remove short of revolution.

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

#172

Post by nightowl_games »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #145
ximus wrote: post #120

It's comforting to see first nations of canada recovering a central role in modern canadian society. However, having lived here for a year a year now, I have observed a concerning aspect of this re-integration, which is mentioned in the article: First nations aren't just propped back up and re-integrated in society, it goes further in that they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian…

> they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian citizens have access to > I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others The reason for this is because they are using their rights from signed treaties that define how resources are used on their lands. Persons that are part of First Nations like the Squamish and the Haida are not just "some citizen…

> power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada.

Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada?

Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?

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

#173

Post by gotoeleven »

amackera wrote: post #165
ximus wrote: post #120

It's comforting to see first nations of canada recovering a central role in modern canadian society. However, having lived here for a year a year now, I have observed a concerning aspect of this re-integration, which is mentioned in the article: First nations aren't just propped back up and re-integrated in society, it goes further in that they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian…

Part of the point of reconciliation is to accept unequivocally the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Is it not morally questionable to ignore indigenous peoples' sovereign rights (over fishing, forests, lands, etc.) as we have been doing up until now?

How can this work in practice, though? Wouldn't acknowledging indigenous peoples' sovereign rights over their lands require the formation of entirely new nations with their own borders and laws and military and courts etc etc that would cover the entirety of canada ? If they are have the right of a sovereign over these lands then can't they just tell everyone else to leave?

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

#174

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

gotoeleven wrote: post #173
amackera wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the point of reconciliation is to accept unequivocally the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Is it not morally questionable to ignore indigenous peoples' sovereign rights (over fishing, forests, lands, etc.) as we have been doing up until now?

How can this work in practice, though? Wouldn't acknowledging indigenous peoples' sovereign rights over their lands require the formation of entirely new nations with their own borders and laws and military and courts etc etc that would cover the entirety of canada ? If they are have the right of a sovereign over these lands then can't they just tell everyone else to leave?

There are various weird traditional middle grounds, e.g. the City of London.

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

#175

Post by Seattle3503 »

systemstops wrote: post #119
Seattle3503 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why that matters? If others would offer the tribe a better offer, I'm sure they would accept it.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the public is being manipulated by the moral framing of this project. The buildings would not be normally allowed in that area, and the proponents of project are using an explicit racial justice narrative to counteract criticism of their violation of norms. I'm agnostic about whether or not the project is good idea, but I think it's generally bad to manipulate people in…

The moral framing almost certainly a part of the strategy to get the public to accept the projects. But at the same time, I'm not sure the moral framing (that natives should have more autonomy over their ancestral land) is incorrect, or detracts at all. Is an appeal to ethics really "manipulation" if you agree with the underlying ethical principle? Or is it just emphasizing a point that we have ignored for too long?

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

#176

Post by TSiege »

gotoeleven wrote: post #173
amackera wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the point of reconciliation is to accept unequivocally the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Is it not morally questionable to ignore indigenous peoples' sovereign rights (over fishing, forests, lands, etc.) as we have been doing up until now?

How can this work in practice, though? Wouldn't acknowledging indigenous peoples' sovereign rights over their lands require the formation of entirely new nations with their own borders and laws and military and courts etc etc that would cover the entirety of canada ? If they are have the right of a sovereign over these lands then can't they just tell everyone else to leave?

This is essentially what we do in the United States. I've yet to see any problems from it. This is also why laws and treaties exist. How do you think the rest of the world works with multiple nation states close to one another? My counter question would be, would it be fair to give peoples land that first belonged to them as well as independence and then tell them what they can or can't do with that land? That would from my point of view be tantamount to an occupation

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

#177

Post by davis »

spxneo wrote: post #102
camg55 wrote: post #90

Think this is great for Vancouver which needs more housing. The zoning is broken, and far too conservative. Glad to see the Squamish addressing a need that will likely benefit all, and hopefully this encourages the city of Vancouver to do the same on their own accord.

Building more homes in Vancouver will not result in lower prices because this is not a supply problem it is the financial assetization of home equity that drives higher and higher prices. Blue collar workers turned multi-millionaires rely on the continued rise of home prices to purchase cheap credit which they use to speculate on more homes. When they couldn't find anymore locals they turned to the international mark…

Building more housing (of all kinds) == cheaper housing. Sorry but it really is that simple.

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

#178

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

camg55 wrote: post #90

Think this is great for Vancouver which needs more housing. The zoning is broken, and far too conservative. Glad to see the Squamish addressing a need that will likely benefit all, and hopefully this encourages the city of Vancouver to do the same on their own accord.

Yeah, this is great. The way I see it, potential sovereigns gain legitimacy by organizing things for the good of the people. Right now it looks like the exercise of Squamish sovereignty is in the interest of all people (except property leeches). In which case, by all means run the show. You're doing a better job than the other guys.

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

#179

Post by lukan »

extr wrote: post #167
elevaet wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true, but fundamentally this is about autonomy. These Nations do not necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of the National or Provincial government since they never ceeded their territory. It's a bit of a grey area for sure, but this isn't about "giving the people of the forest" stewardship of the land in order for them to protect it, it's recognizing that they didn't sign up to be governed under the na…

The idea that they do not fall under jusrisdiction is a farce and legal contrivance. In reality they have no international standing and do not and would not constitute an independent state under any normal criteria. What's happening here is the government is treating them with kid gloves because there is the perception what happened in the past is unfair (true!) and there is a desire to make amends for it. That's all…

"If tomorrow they decided to start developing nuclear weapons I don't think "they didn't consent to be governed" would fly."

Any nation developing nuclear weapons will get serious problems from the nations who already have them. Native, or not.

And it used to not be necessary, to have "international standing" to have your own state. You just minded your own buisness and tried to get along with the local neighbors. As far as I understand, this is a compromise, to bring some of it back. They are still subject to most of federal law and that is not going to change. So there won't be a true souvereign native state inside of canada anytime soon.

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

#180

Post by crtified »

nightowl_games wrote: post #172
Tiktaalik wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian citizens have access to > I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others The reason for this is because they are using their rights from signed treaties that define how resources are used on their lands. Persons that are part of First Nations like the Squamish and the Haida are not just "some citizen…

> power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?

If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island.

Why would that be different here?

Post reply on HN