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

251–260 of 362 posts

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

#251

Post by travisb »

defrost wrote: post #239
nikitaga wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

Might makes right is how all land is owned. Always has been, always will be.

We've stacked lots of layers of paper and convention on top of that fact to reduce the amount of war we make, but people ignore this basic fact of the world at their peril.

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

#252

Post by FpUser »

defrost wrote: post #239
nikitaga wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

>"might makes right, we took it, it's ours now, and we will shoot or imprison anyone who says otherwise"

This is how it works approximately.

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

#253

Post by wahnfrieden »

wolfhumble wrote: post #238
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…

> 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 . . .

You’re suggesting the 90% native Palestinian population previously stole the land

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

#254

Post by Tiktaalik »

bobthepanda wrote: post #225
Tiktaalik wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Maybe the worst case scenario for a typical British Columbian is that a backcountry enthusiast could find a potential activity limited by some FN that seeks to limit access to their lands. That's already happened. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/joffre-lakes...

Yep that's what I was thinking of.

And that's something that a lot of people have trouble with, but ultimately it's a potential outcome (hopefully avoidable!) that comes along with Canada ceding back some power and control to FNs they stole land from or negotiated treaties with that they immediately reneged on or ignored.

In all sorts of aspects people hate to lose things and have things taken away from them, and so that's why these discussions become such heated flashpoints.

Ultimately I think the strongest drive from FNs on these issues is simply to become masters of their own destiny and to benefit from the wealth of their lands; to seek an end to the sort of resource exploitation that Canada pursued through much of its history, extracting resource wealth from FN lands while returning little of that wealth back.

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

#255

Post by brailsafe »

anigbrowl wrote: post #244

Off topic remark on the story drafting... Sen̓áḵw How is anyone supposed to pronounce this if they're not from Vancouver and haven't been exposed to indigenous culture there? You'd think they'd include an English approximation or a link to an audio recording. I don't think the average person has the time or energy to resolve 3 stacked diacriticals and a consonant juxtaposition.

> How is anyone supposed to pronounce this if they're not from Vancouver and haven't been exposed to indigenous culture there?

Same way they do anywhere that isn't English first if it's relevant to them, learn.

I'm not so familiar with the language yet, but here's what seems to be a start https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/signs-along-...

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

#256

Post by [deleted] »

Erikun wrote: post #7

It’s a pretty interesting development. I wonder what the legal framework for someone living there will be if they’re not a First Nation citizen? From the article: “ But Indigenous nations are accountable, first and foremost, to their own citizens. That could mean temporarily barring access to traditional lands, as in Joffre Lakes. It could also mean maximizing the economic potential of their property, to provide hous…

[deleted]

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

#257

Post by travisb »

philistine wrote: post #206
BigParm wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the catch up is in the form of hiring quotas for a mining project on native lands, that’s just a consensual business deal and it’s positive. But sometimes the situation is taken advantage of and the appeasement goes too far. Like instead of cutting firewood for the wood stove, you just throw all your furniture and cabinetry and doors in there. Then you just ask for new ones from a big company who just wants to q…

To do that you need to break international law by declaring the treaties signed in the past null and void. You also need to break international law by refusing to negotiate with nations who never signed treaties, and want deals at least as good as nations who signed treaties. There’s a very good reason why what you’re proposing is not what’s happening: it’s because you’re dealing with nation to nation negotiations, a…

How would it be breaking international law? Who would enforce it? Would the US stop trading with Canada because Canada nullified some treaties with a third party (ie. not the USA)? Would Germany invade Canada?

Treaties are just agreements and are broken all the time; for an obvious example look at trade treaties or weapons treaties. In the Canadian context the constitution states that Canada must maintain those existing treaties with Aboriginal tribes, but constitutions are changeable. Every other treaty is a mere act of Government away from nullification.

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

#258

Post by defrost »

travisb wrote: post #251
defrost wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Might makes right is how all land is owned. Always has been, always will be. We've stacked lots of layers of paper and convention on top of that fact to reduce the amount of war we make, but people ignore this basic fact of the world at their peril.

> Always has been, always will be.

Not always, eg: in Austraia the British declared Terra Nullus across the continent ( 'land belonging to nobody' ) and were later forced by their own legal system to return ownership to places still occupied.

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

#259

Post by Auracle »

InitialLastName wrote: post #186
TSiege wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> that would cover the entirety of canada This is very much not what we do in the United States. Rather, we forcibly uprooted, exterminated, and/or migrated indigenous people until they only occupied the most marginal land available, and then told them "here's your bit".

I would like to point out that’s way better than what most people did over the course of human history, certainly including a lot of those Native Americans themselves.

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

#260

Post by spxneo »

julienb_sea wrote: post #192
Seattle3503 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a mistake to blame the high cost of housing on market forces. It is largely the product of local housing policy. It is a choice.

Local housing policy only sets housing costs explicitly if they override market forces e.g. via rent control. There are plenty of examples of how the market responds to this type of intervention, by not building more supply, letting existing supply fall into disrepair and constricting uncontrolled supply, resulting in much higher market rate. In general, housing policy affects supply, and market forces decide the pri…

I think you meant inelastic demand. Housing would fall under that category where supply does not impact price, which is my point.
Post reply on HN