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 this way. What I was implying is that the whole thing seems like a really clever scheme by a real estate developer during a time in Canada when indigenous issues are hugely popular. But, maybe I am being too cynical.
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?
> 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, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building.”
I'm sorry, but does he expect indigenous people to only build log cabins forever or something? Maybe they should also forgo cars and buses and only use horses?
It seems like he's expressing criticism over the racial narrative that this is an "indigenous way of being" building project instead of another corporate development that happens to be built on indigenous land.
Obviously, no one is expecting indigenous people to use ancient building techniques that haven't been used in centuries, but the groups behind the project are making the explicit claim that the project is somehow tied to a racial identity. Criticizing their claim is perfectly reasonable.
The thing is, you don't need racism to make the adjacent residents seem like the people they are, it's just one more reason to build spite towers. They're standard rich boomers who'll show up to every hearing and persistently move the goal posts until any change is impossible, and they're on record doing so in a way that's beyond embarassing.
