Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
I don't have a super strong opinion on this, but I imagine a lot of people acknowledge and recognize First Nations reserves having autonomy and protection because they are intended to be a place where First Nations rights and culture and way of life can be protected (at least in theory) from the "European neoliberal settler colonial way of life". We hear this rhetoric over and over that First Nations need control over their own fisheries and lands and forests and watersheds to protect their way of life from industrial fishing and property development and logging and pipelines. However, if First Nations are going to use their specially protected lands to more or less engage in the same cultural practices done in the surrounding Canadian jurisdiction, namely real estate development and property management, and do it in a way that even Canadian jurisdictions would restrict, what's the point?
|
The point is that ultimately settlers are still trying to control the decision-making powers of Indigenous peoples on their own land. The maintenance of that paternalistic power structure, where we always ultimately know "best," is what they are rightfully rebelling against. We left them scraps that eventually turned out to have value and now we have the gall to say that they aren't using them how we would prefer. Well, we have 99% of the rest of the city land to have it our way so maybe we should shut up for once.
These developments are providing homes the city needs, and most of the criticisms just centre around NIMBY thinking anyways. Disingenuously trying to use indigeneity as a tactic against them takes it to a new low.