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

231–240 of 362 posts

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

#231

Post by LegibleCrimson »

rory wrote: post #215
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…

I wonder if a more workable arrangement would stipulate that indigenous people are exempt from these regulations only when the work and management of a project is also designed and implemented by Indigenous people. That would seemingly circumvent this loophole where a large, private corporation run by white canadians effectively uses the indigenous people as a loophole, cutting them in to circumvent regulations. Woul…

Would be pretty easy for a motivated corporation to set up a branch composed entirely of those indigenous people for the purpose, or to form a partnership with a company of those indigenous people.

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

#232

Post by joe_the_user »

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 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?

I don't know to what degree indigenous people have integrated their laws with Canada but it seems utterly obvious that any degree to which Canadian law and customs aren't applying is the degree to which indigenous laws and customs do apply so whatever else, "no, this doesn't mean a rando can do what they want".

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

#233

Post by bitwize »

Good. Do it. Let's see what they build.

I lived in Connecticut when the Mashantucket Pequot tribe successfully sued for the right to build casinos on their land, resulting in Foxwoods, the first of many casino developments on Native land from coast to coast. It was all over the news. Today, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are tourist attractions, and the casinos create jobs in Native communities and bring in buttloads of money.

Personally, I hate casinos. I'm not too fond of high rises either. But if Native American and First Nations people are doing things with their land that bring autonomy and benefits to their community, we'd be stupid to object -- and that's before bringing up the treaty violations.

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

#234

Post by rayiner »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #218
rayiner wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems pretty relevant.

It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic: >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 sti…

> It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out

Why is that the relevant time?

If somehow native Americans got together and took back Oklahoma, would white Americans have any basis to complain? I would say no.

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

#235

Post by wolfhumble »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #223
wolfhumble wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason Israel was founded were it was, can only be justfied by its first nations like connection to the chosen territory. It was not like Britain was lacking other colonies, protectorates, and mandates to choose from for the Jewish people at the given time.

Indeed several other locations such as Uganda were considered and were leading candidates beforehand. It originated as a colonial project, not a "land-back" initiative. > Herzl approached Britain because, he said, it was "the first to recognize the need for colonial expansion." According to him, "the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily and quickly understood in England.38 In 1902 Herzl approac…

This comment makes it sound like the formation of Israel in the chosen territory was more or less random. Uganda was not chosen for a reason, don’t you think? Are you trying to say that the millenial history of the Jews has nothing to do with the chosen territory?

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

#236

Post by nikitaga »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #222
nikitaga wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really see how this is that challenging. "Not challenging"? Ok, suppose you split the province of BC into 100+ of these independent indigenous-run jurisdictions, or maybe a bit less if any First Nations decide to amalgamate in the process. What will actually make these jurisdictions independent / sovereign? What mechanism will they use to keep the power in the hands of indigenous people? Are the millions of…

The significant thing that makes this less challenging than the bizarre and inflammatory fears in your last paragraph is that FNs are simply seeking jurisdiction over land use on their lands and over their people that are part of their FN. You seem to be dreaming up scenarios that FNs themselves have not been advancing. The day to day reality of someone who is not part of a FN that lives in an existing municipality d…

You claim that I am "dreaming up", yet you refuse to say what exactly do you suppose indigenous sovereignty could look like.

Everything you just said is not sovereignty, it is already the status quo in 2024, yet there are zero First Nations in BC who are happy with the level of "sovereignty" they are currently getting, they all still want more, despite getting more land, more meaningful consultations, and more rights today than even a few years ago.

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

#237

Post by wahnfrieden »

rayiner wrote: post #234
wahnfrieden wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic: >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 sti…

> It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out Why is that the relevant time? If somehow native Americans got together and took back Oklahoma, would white Americans have any basis to complain? I would say no.

You’re saying Palestinians stole the land and deserved losing it

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

#238

Post by wolfhumble »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #218
rayiner wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems pretty relevant.

It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic: >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 sti…

> accounted for over 90% of the territory.

So in this case the Family 2 in Canada would be the Canadian people I would assume? It is always a question of how far back you go . . .

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

#239

Post by defrost »

nikitaga wrote: post #196
nightowl_games wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

"Unceded land" means that because 100+ years ago the British settled as they wanted without asking for permission, the land actually still belongs to indigenous people, and not to Canadians, not to the people who currently live on it. "Unceded land" isn't exactly a legal concept, it's more of an activist slogan from people who want to see all public land (e.g. >90% of BC) privatized based on race, or want to hold the…

> Legally, Canada does have title to the land

is that under Canadian law?

Was this land openly sold | gifted to Canada or staked and claimed despite prior occupation?

I recognise the current state of affairs, etc. but this "Legally Canada owns the land" is at root just a way of saying "might makes right, we took it, it's ours now, and we will shoot or imprison anyone who says otherwise".

Post reply on HN