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

291–300 of 362 posts

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

#291

Post by trimethylpurine »

nejkbnek wrote: post #47
trimethylpurine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cu…

I'm wondering if you were talking to someone else but I can't figure out who.

My question was pretty simple.

How are you guys (commenters) drawing a connection between what the author quoted, and the assumption that the person being quoted opposes the building project?

What context are you using to correlate those?

Here's a logic diagram to help. Assume P1 is true, since that's what he's saying:

P1: indigenous lifestyle is not skyscrapers.

P2: skyscrapers can be built by indigenous people.

C: indigenous people can't build skyscrapers

The above is nonsensical. Your conclusion is in direct opposition to the premise.

Introducing this person's quote to the article was totally irrelevant unless you're aware of some context that is missing from the story.

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

#292

Post by trimethylpurine »

timmytokyo wrote: post #23
trimethylpurine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In a city completely inundated with skyscrapers, it's odd -- and maybe a bit telling -- that some people become concerned for the first time in their lives only once an indigenous nation decides to build a skyscraper.

I get concerned when anyone builds a skyscraper. It's typically purported to increase density and thereby create affordable housing. What actually happens is that I still can't afford anything in the skyscrapers, even in non major metros, and I'm in the top 1% of earners. I guess affordable only applies to the top half of a percent?

Destroying land to build them, I don't care who's land, is typically in opposition to environmental efforts. So before you say it's not my business, stop and consider that this is everyone's business. And using minorities as a scapegoat through what might be an underhanded deal might be pretty disgusting.

Since I don't know which it is, I'm asking.

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

#293

Post by trimethylpurine »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #35
trimethylpurine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 minima…

My property value is dependent on what happens to the neighborhood around me. It's literally my business. That makes the rest of your comment just ridiculous.

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

#294

Post by trimethylpurine »

downut wrote: post #32
trimethylpurine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The island is owned by the natives. And it's still a tragedy to the entire world if they decide to put skyscrapers on it. It's the last bit of untouched wilderness in a unique ecosystem.

This story doesn't make a case for not telling people what to do. It makes a case for not trusting natives to protect the wilderness.

Or maybe not. I don't have context. I am asking a question.

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

#295

Post by nikitaga »

bawolff wrote: post #289
nikitaga wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about treaties – BC signed very few treaties, unlike other provinces. The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes. For example, does the constitution guarantee the indigenous people the right to sub…

> The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes. That is the supreme court's job. They decide how to interpret things. Their interpretation is law. Interpreting the constitution in the context of current social…

You say it like it's a good thing, but it's not. Specifically, the fact that our country's foundational document is so vague about our fundamental rights, is a very bad thing for everyone involved. If it was more specific, our fundamental rights would not only be more clear, they would also be more stable, not subject to the momentary (on a historical scale) whims of pop culture.

If our fundamental rights are subject to change every few years with a new Supreme Court decision, then we're either abusing the process to make these changes, or these rights should not be in the constitution in the first place. The constitution is supposed to contain the most fundamental, the most immutable rights.

We have a proper democratic process to update the constitution, but it requires a certain high level of consensus, as it should – these being our fundamental rights, after all. Yet this process is completely bypassed by activist judges who of course are happy to use the power that their predecessors afforded themselves. That is not a good thing in any way.

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

#296

Post by gwervc »

systemstops wrote: post #92

Someone at Westbank is a genius: fund the building of a massive skyscraper project on land that was recently returned to indigenous tribes because of a lawsuit, a project that would never be normally approved because of zoning laws. Then, declare any criticism of the project as racist, thus guaranteeing it will be built. I wonder how much of the money the tribe is actually getting out of this?

> Then, declare any criticism of the project as racist

One criticism quoted in the article is this:

> "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."

Which is indeed literally racist. Like White can build towers using concrete but other people should stick with small wood structures or whatever. Spoiler: technology is spreading among people around the world, and Chinese, Arab, Japanese, etc. built skyscrapers despite it not being their traditional way of building.

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

#297

Post by defrost »

gwervc wrote: post #296
systemstops wrote: post #92

Someone at Westbank is a genius: fund the building of a massive skyscraper project on land that was recently returned to indigenous tribes because of a lawsuit, a project that would never be normally approved because of zoning laws. Then, declare any criticism of the project as racist, thus guaranteeing it will be built. I wonder how much of the money the tribe is actually getting out of this?

> Then, declare any criticism of the project as racist One criticism quoted in the article is this: > "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." Which is indeed literally racist. Like White can build towers using concrete but other people should stick with small wood structures or whatever. Spoiler: technology is spreading among p…

Hilariously:

    From the Empire State Building to the George Washington Bridge, and the glory that was the World Trade Center—Mohawk people helped build them all.

    Mohawk ironworkers have built bridges and skyscrapers for more than 100 years.
https://americanindian.si.edu/explore/exhibitions/item?id=61...

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

#298

Post by [deleted] »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #237
rayiner wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

[deleted]

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

#299

Post by wolfhumble »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #253
wolfhumble wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

It is possible to have two thoughts in the head at the same time.

The Palestinians living in this geographical area have a connection based on the history of their families living in the area. The Jewish people have a connection to the area based on the fact that most of their culture was founded in the area, but were later driven out as consequence of Roman and Byzantine actions – wars, enslavement, expulsions etc. This of course is the root of the whole conflict (with the additional pressure from surrounding hostile nations).

From what you have written it sounds like you mean that the Jewish people have no connection to this area. You also put words in my mouth that I have not said: "You’re suggesting the 90% native Palestinian population previously stole the land"

This is a difficult conflict to solve because both sides have valid arguments. It doesn't help to pretend one side doesn't have any valid arguments at all.

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

#300

Post by dflock »

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're the rag tag survivors of genocide, perpetrated by white settlers, over the past 200 yrs.

Giving them a tiny fraction of their ancestral fishing rights back, now w that we've severely degraded the ecosystems they call home, is literally the least we can do.

Post reply on HN