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

351–360 of 362 posts

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

#351

Post by LunaSea »

williamcotton wrote: post #68
chrisco255 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure if you want to be racist. The shoe on the other foot, replace White man with Black man, Red man, etc and its clear that its racist.

Five year olds and internet commenters care about things being even-handed and fair. The rest of the world either settles their matters or employs lawyers to do so for them. Most time settlement is a disappointing serving a crow, hence the glint of involving the courts. How much will that serving of crow cost? Why do I bring this up? This “replace X with Y” is the ultimate form of an algebraic rhetoric that demands a…

Ironically, this is the most Twitter-logic garbage explanation I've seen in this thread.

Laws do impose parity so in fact it's not just some online rhetorical device.

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

#352

Post by wahnfrieden »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #348
wolfhumble wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I don't think the root of the problem is that. There are currently 10-12 million people with nowhere else to go. That's the root of the conflict. Most people don't care enough about "where" to get shot over it. They just want to raise their families in peace and Israel happens to be where politics landed them. Historically as refugees, and today as having been born there or escaping persecution or discrimination, or…

The one you’re commenting on will say things like they aren’t refugees, they democratically chose their current predicament, the civilian population is filled with terrotists and collaborators, they already turned down good deals for ending the conflict, and more questionable ancient oral tradition histories etc. Just useless to debate

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

#353

Post by kjkjadksj »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #122
systemstops wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proponents of project are using an explicit racial justice narrative to counteract criticism of their violation of norms. Pretty easy to do when some of the criticism indeed sounds kinda racist. Example from the article: > 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,…

White man brought the horse over too.

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

#354

Post by kjkjadksj »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #162
ipaddr wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is could someone build a similiar structure beside or does zoning prevent this. If so parent has a valid point

The answer is that no, there is no zoning in that area because that parcel of land is not subject to City of Vancouver zoning laws, being not part of the City of Vancouver. The adjacent properties are part of the City of Vancouver, and therefore are subject to zoning that the City of Vancouver chooses to impose upon them. That zoning could be removed if city hall so chooses, but Kitsilano NIMBYs would oppose it. But…

This kind of begs a sort of “yes and..” line of questioning. Zoning permitting these things didn't happen because nimbys, right, I get that. But, why are the people just outside the reservation nimbys, and the people in the reservation yimbys? What messaging was used to lead to this dichotomy of opinions? I’m not so sure, but the answer to that question would likely make it possible to do such things elsewhere, even without a reservation legal loophole, since most places seem to have mechanisms to issue variances to zoning which would get used if messaging made such things popular.

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

#355

Post by ecoquant »

lm411 wrote: post #248
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…

2024 Canada is an absurd time and place to be alive. Canada 2024: - Universities have "Black only" swim hours and segregated "Person of Colour" buildings - "no whites allowed". - Indigenous people get special treatment by courts (the courts were literally instructed not to hold them to the same standards as others) - The courts now use the term "person with a vagina" to refer to women - Land acknowledgements... Every…

I have spent so much time in Canada and it is just unbelievable watching the country go more and more insane.

What I have read about the Harms act is so bat shit crazy that it is hard to believe it can be real. Then looking at polling on support of the bill it seems like that is what Canadians want.

I actually didn't know there are buildings that say "no whites allowed". How incredibly disturbing. All while electing a leader with multiple pictures in black face.

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

#356

Post by janalsncm »

astrange wrote: post #349
janalsncm wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is extremely expensive in China as well. It’s one of the main barriers to Chinese yuppies having the three kids their government wants them to.

Isn't China having a real estate overproduction crisis right now? There can be different problems in different places, I mean, it's a big country, but that's mostly the opposite problem. The hukou system also can't help - you can stop immigration to an expensive city but presumably you also stop emigration to a cheaper one.

China has overproduction in undesirable places. Desirable places are still expensive.

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

#357

Post by jazzyjackson »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #221
wolfhumble wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or the founding of Israel by Britain. Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of thin air.

So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were

See "Who’s Killing Who? A Viewer’s Guide" by Nina Paley:

https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/

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

#358

Post by pcthrowaway »

bawolff wrote: post #285
pcthrowaway wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were

The Jebusites (who were a type of cannanite) if you believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible... while who knows if the battle is even a real historical event. If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, both sides of the battle are probably more closely related to modern jews than any other modern ethnic…

> If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did,

I neither believe in the bible, nor think some events from 3000 years ago should have any bearing on who has a fair claim to the land today.

But if someone is going to use a conquest from 3000 years ago as an explanation for why the Israeli government is justified in ruling the land and occupying territories within it, I think the identity of the owners prior to that conquest is more relevant.

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

#359

Post by wahnfrieden »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #357
pcthrowaway wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were

See "Who’s Killing Who? A Viewer’s Guide" by Nina Paley: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/

Garbage pro-colonialist perspective which treats anti-colonial struggle as fanaticism

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

#360

Post by kennywinker »

nikitaga wrote: post #343
kennywinker wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 threat of that over our heads to get more special treatment based on race. This is a terrible misrepresentation of how “unceeded land” is used. To characterize it as a call to privatize 90% of the land based on race is bonkers. Nobo…

> To characterize it as a call to privatize 90% of the land based on race is bonkers. Nobody means that. And who are you, to make that claim so confidently on behalf of First Nations, to put limits on them? We used to have a treaty process to make such claims formally. The First Nation and the Canadian government would sign a treaty that would outline the extent of First Nation's claims, and the same treaty would FIN…

> And who are you, to make that claim so confidently on behalf of First Nations, to put limits on them?

This is a transparently cynical "gotcha" argument, so I'm going to ignore it.

> As of 2019, this process has been officially abandoned by the BC NDP. Any treaties or agreements signed nowadays do not include finalization, so the First Nations are always free to demand more land, as they do.

There have been no treaties signed in BC since 2016, so I don't know what you're basing your "treaties or agreements signed nowadays" or "as they do" comments on. Certainly not things that have actually come to pass.

> Pretty much every First Nation consistently denies Canada's ownership of their lands, saying that their lands were stolen, that the colonialism continues today, that Canada has no right to govern their lands, that they should be the ones deciding what happens on their lands, etc.

Their lands were stolen. Colonialism does continue today. The right of a democratic nation to govern is dependent on the consent of the people - so it is well within their rights to challenge that right.

> Is it perhaps this high number that's unbelievable to you? Well, the Tsilqhot Supreme Court decision [2] awarded that First Nation 45% of their claimed traditional territory into aboriginal title. 45% isn't 100%

You're doing some fancy math there. If I claim 100% of my house, and am granted 45% of it... I wasn't granted 45% of all houses. Afaik land claims come with a high burden of proof, I would be shocked if their original claim was for 50% of their actual traditional land.

> previously publicly owned land with public access is transferred into ownership with restricted access

This is nonsense. Previously access to the land was restricted by the canadian government. If you wanted to use it, you had to a) be canadian, or b) get permission from canada. If that land now belongs to another nation guess what the new rules are? If you want to use it you have to a) belong to that nation, or b) get permission from that nation. You're just describing being on the wrong side of a border.

> No, because nobody will honor your piece of paper, whereas pretty much everyone in Canada and in the world honors Canada's title to its land, whether they like it or not.

You've just described colonialism. Odd, because it seemed like you were implying earlier you didn't believe the idea that colonialism was happening today.

Post reply on HN