General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours

[Bjays93]

Part of the problem is the racist minority will often hijack legitimate issues that they think agree with them because they're delusional. All the sudden topics that are real issues become non starter's as a result.

Take the rich asians buying up our housing as an example. This is a legitimate problem. I grew up in china, I've seen it firsthand, fall out of favour with the CCP and Canada is one of the top destinations to send you money, with real estate being one of the main investments. It is a legitimate problem, unfortunately all the anti asian bigots take the problem and turn it into a racist one.

This is pervasive throughout society and frankly I dont know what the answer to a lot of this stuff is

[Bjays93]

the idea that descendants of Europeans have some sort of inherited guilt is ridiculous, and more importantly, unhelpful.

I think it's important you (and all else) do feel something. It isn't ridiculous nor unhelpful as you claim it is.

It doesn't need to be guilt, but to us people of colour, we don't always want to just pretend everything is okay, that we all live here together now, that we're all some homogenized mass where there is no X Y Z. We are here and need representation - and need it always, not just on some National Aboriginal Day or something. I think white people in particular need to feel something - and if that means guilt, okay - but I would prefer a gnawing thing in your mind that reminds you of why you get to live a luxurious life here on this particular place on earth. Just remember what you built this country on. Genocide, slavery, cultural assassination, eugenics, rape. Keep in mind that currently you're living on land that isn't yours - it's part of the Haldimand Proclamation Tract. We're building all of this on land that belongs to a group of Indigenous people that have no power to stop it, even though they own this.

When white (and all other people) can acknowledge this and try their damn hardest to be able to reconcile with us, the better. Let's build more affordable housing high in the sky (and nice condos for those who can afford them). NIMBYs can complain and we'll listen to their voices too, but a handful of privilege white boomers and their heritage groups should not hold so much power to change things when we can't even get enough affordable housing built for people of all classes and races.

I think this thread has derailed quite far from its intent, however, so maybe we ought to stop the conversation or move it elsewhere.

With all due respect this is merely your opinion. Part of the problem is there will never be unanimous consensus on things. I agree we the people of today should strive to build bridges to communities that our ancestors marginalized in the past. All people should strive to live in harmony with eachother regardless of the past. 

However even amongst indigenous people there is such a wide range of varying views. Being white, and not knowing much about indigenous people other than them being "Indians" when I grew up, i took it upon myself to learn. I've spent multiple summers on reserves, not to.go partake in some white saviourism where I fix a broken community, but rather to listen and learn. And I have listened and learnt so much and now some of my best friends are indigenous and I cant believe I never met an indigenous person until I was 16. 

But one of the many things I've learnt is that surprise surprise even in the first nations communities the difference in opinion amongst people is just as divided and polarized as the rest of society. Some think it's time for the government to stop doling out money to tribes and time to integrate with the rest of Canada, and others see anything and everything that isnt native as attempted assimilation. 

What's the best way forward. I couldn't tell you I have no clue. I have my own opinion but that doesnt really matter that much when it comes to solving the actual issues at hand. But the issues run much deeper than just white people recognizing what their ancestors did wrong. I'm not saying that's not a start but societal polarization to me is the most glaring issue right now.

[plam]

Take the rich asians buying up our housing as an example. This is a legitimate problem. I grew up in china, I've seen it firsthand, fall out of favour with the CCP and Canada is one of the top destinations to send you money, with real estate being one of the main investments. It is a legitimate problem, unfortunately all the anti asian bigots take the problem and turn it into a racist one.

Since we're discussing various things not directly related to urban Cambridge... NZ banned non-residents from buying real estate in 2018 and that did nothing to decrease the prices of houses in NZ. It does happen in Canada that overseas investors buy houses, but I don't think it increases the prices significantly. That would likely be Canadians.

[tomh009]

Joseph Brant wanted to lease the land to people like Beasley for 999 years and collect the taxes from the land - he wanted to share the land with settlers but allow 6 nations to live in it. However, in many history books they paint Brant as ' a bad person' and portray that the colonists wanted to stop him from selling the land or some falsehood.

I believe you are correct that Brant wanted to coexist with the white settlers, he saw that as the best outcome for his people.

I do believe the land was sold as the documents refer to mortgages. Beasley made is payments but many others apparently did not, hoping that they would be able to grab the land for free.

A lot of research was done by James Paxton, who subsequently published Joseph Brant and His World. A book that I really should read ...

[ijmorlan]

But one of the many things I've learnt is that surprise surprise even in the first nations communities the difference in opinion amongst people is just as divided and polarized as the rest of society.

Current example: remember way back before Covid in early 2020 when protesters were blockading railway tracks to express opposition to pipeline development on Wet'suwet'en lands? In that case the democratically elected parliament of the Wet'suwet'en had agreed to the pipelines, but the unelected hereditary royals disagreed. Note that I’m deliberately using British/Canadian terminology, although I’m aware it doesn’t translate exactly and there are many differences. But the point is I found that weird: shouldn’t they have picketed the band council offices rather than an unrelated railway line thousands of kilometres away? That’s a prototypical example of an issue that some see as “settlers” continuing the colonial project but which clearly is somewhere between more complex than that and completely the opposite of that.

[danbrotherston]

But one of the many things I've learnt is that surprise surprise even in the first nations communities the difference in opinion amongst people is just as divided and polarized as the rest of society.

Current example: remember way back before Covid in early 2020 when protesters were blockading railway tracks to express opposition to pipeline development on Wet'suwet'en lands? In that case the democratically elected parliament of the Wet'suwet'en had agreed to the pipelines, but the unelected hereditary royals disagreed. Note that I’m deliberately using British/Canadian terminology, although I’m aware it doesn’t translate exactly and there are many differences. But the point is I found that weird: shouldn’t they have picketed the band council offices rather than an unrelated railway line thousands of kilometres away? That’s a prototypical example of an issue that some see as “settlers” continuing the colonial project but which clearly is somewhere between more complex than that and completely the opposite of that.

Would you even know about it if they did?

The point of protest is to change people's (specifically the people who have power) minds, inherent to that is actually being noticed by those people.

[Bjays93]

Current example: remember way back before Covid in early 2020 when protesters were blockading railway tracks to express opposition to pipeline development on Wet'suwet'en lands? In that case the democratically elected parliament of the Wet'suwet'en had agreed to the pipelines, but the unelected hereditary royals disagreed. Note that I’m deliberately using British/Canadian terminology, although I’m aware it doesn’t translate exactly and there are many differences. But the point is I found that weird: shouldn’t they have picketed the band council offices rather than an unrelated railway line thousands of kilometres away? That’s a prototypical example of an issue that some see as “settlers” continuing the colonial project but which clearly is somewhere between more complex than that and completely the opposite of that.

Would you even know about it if they did?

The point of protest is to change people's (specifically the people who have power) minds, inherent to that is actually being noticed by those people.

It was just an example this is totally off topic and even off the point of his argument. I suggest the mods move all these posts to a thread dedicated to discussing race relations (that wouldn't be a bad thing to have)

That said, in response, many of the natives protesting weren't even from the affect bands or reserves they were just hijacking the issue to make some noise. As was pointed out, the elected chiefs supported the proposal, and as is clear from interviews, many locals also supported the pipeline as it would create revenue and jobs. Yes there was also opposition there always will be but it would be hard to say that it was a majority opposition for certain. 

And before someone brings up how the elected chiefs are just another canadian attempt of cultural assimilation and forcing our systems on the natives. I get some people hold that view, but one way or another there needs to be some form of governance in the reserves, and hereditary chiefs have just as many issues as the elected ones. What white settlers did to the indigenous people was horrible and abhorrent but it wasnt like everything was totally harmonious before we showed up. As with any form of governance at any level there is always going to be problems and reserves no exception. 

The whole reason that the hereditary chiefs opposed the pipeline anyway is because they weren't going to get a cut of the revenue iirc and the elected chiefs were as apart of the negotiation process.

[danbrotherston]

Would you even know about it if they did?

The point of protest is to change people's (specifically the people who have power) minds, inherent to that is actually being noticed by those people.

It was just an example this is totally off topic and even off the point of his argument. I suggest the mods move all these posts to a thread dedicated to discussing race relations (that wouldn't be a bad thing to have)

That said, in response, many of the natives protesting weren't even from the affect bands or reserves they were just hijacking the issue to make some noise. As was pointed out, the elected chiefs supported the proposal, and as is clear from interviews, many locals also supported the pipeline as it would create revenue and jobs. Yes there was also opposition there always will be but it would be hard to say that it was a majority opposition for certain. 

And before someone brings up how the elected chiefs are just another canadian attempt of cultural assimilation and forcing our systems on the natives. I get some people hold that view, but one way or another there needs to be some form of governance in the reserves, and hereditary chiefs have just as many issues as the elected ones. What white settlers did to the indigenous people was horrible and abhorrent but it wasnt like everything was totally harmonious before we showed up. As with any form of governance at any level there is always going to be problems and reserves no exception. 

The whole reason that the hereditary chiefs opposed the pipeline anyway is because they weren't going to get a cut of the revenue iirc and the elected chiefs were as apart of the negotiation process.

Oh goodness...I'm not going to even touch that one.

-----------------

Yes, there does need to be some form of government. But given our history, we should have exactly zero say in how that comes about. Our choosing to negotiate with one group vs. another is inherently the problem.

[ijmorlan]

Current example: remember way back before Covid in early 2020 when protesters were blockading railway tracks to express opposition to pipeline development on Wet'suwet'en lands? In that case the democratically elected parliament of the Wet'suwet'en had agreed to the pipelines, but the unelected hereditary royals disagreed. Note that I’m deliberately using British/Canadian terminology, although I’m aware it doesn’t translate exactly and there are many differences. But the point is I found that weird: shouldn’t they have picketed the band council offices rather than an unrelated railway line thousands of kilometres away? That’s a prototypical example of an issue that some see as “settlers” continuing the colonial project but which clearly is somewhere between more complex than that and completely the opposite of that.

Would you even know about it if they did?

The point of protest is to change people's (specifically the people who have power) minds, inherent to that is actually being noticed by those people.

I don’t know what’s so unclear about “it was approved by the elected band council”: they are the ones whose minds would need to be changed. And if they can’t be convinced, voted out. And if that can’t be done, maybe the band as a whole actually agrees with the project? Obviously, as with every contentious issue, that does not and cannot mean that every single member agrees. Again, framing this pipeline as colonial society imposing its will on the band is simply incorrect on the facts; sensible opposition to the pipeline has to be on the basis of “we shouldn’t be building this”, not “we’re continuing to colonize the Wet'suwet'en”.

Personally, I’m inclined to be opposed to new pipeline construction; but I have no right to impose that belief on the group whose land is affected, and especially not “on their behalf” (although I could legitimately push it from the other side of encouraging our national government not to allow the project to proceed).

As to the whole “choosing which group with which to negotiate” thing, of course we negotiate with the elected government. The right to live in a democratic society is a universal human right. That being said, if the band decided they wanted to get rid of their elected government and revert to being ruled by royal families, they could do that. That’s the cool thing about democracy, even if flawed: if the people overwhelmingly want to change something, they can. In this case they might need to petition for a change to the relevant Canadian legislation (a legacy we should be able to improve), but I would hope that if the elected council, with support from their people, did so that the Federal government would make the changes.

In real life, though, hardly anybody wants to be ruled by royals. Although these hereditary chiefs aren’t really hereditary, at least not at present: I saw something about there being disagreement amongst the chiefs; then the anti-pipeline chiefs kicked out the pro-pipeline chiefs. So really it’s some sort of self-selected group which is intolerant of dissent. I’d be interested in the perspective of actual Indigenous people on this, but based on what I’ve heard I think if I were a band member I’d probably rather be governed by the elected council. The chiefs can do the ceremonial thing on important occasions, exactly as is done in post-British Colonial societies around the world.

[Bjays93]

Would you even know about it if they did?

The point of protest is to change people's (specifically the people who have power) minds, inherent to that is actually being noticed by those people.

I don’t know what’s so unclear about “it was approved by the elected band council”: they are the ones whose minds would need to be changed. And if they can’t be convinced, voted out. And if that can’t be done, maybe the band as a whole actually agrees with the project? Obviously, as with every contentious issue, that does not and cannot mean that every single member agrees. Again, framing this pipeline as colonial society imposing its will on the band is simply incorrect on the facts; sensible opposition to the pipeline has to be on the basis of “we shouldn’t be building this”, not “we’re continuing to colonize the Wet'suwet'en”.

Personally, I’m inclined to be opposed to new pipeline construction; but I have no right to impose that belief on the group whose land is affected, and especially not “on their behalf” (although I could legitimately push it from the other side of encouraging our national government not to allow the project to proceed).

As to the whole “choosing which group with which to negotiate” thing, of course we negotiate with the elected government. The right to live in a democratic society is a universal human right. That being said, if the band decided they wanted to get rid of their elected government and revert to being ruled by royal families, they could do that. That’s the cool thing about democracy, even if flawed: if the people overwhelmingly want to change something, they can. In this case they might need to petition for a change to the relevant Canadian legislation (a legacy we should be able to improve), but I would hope that if the elected council, with support from their people, did so that the Federal government would make the changes.

In real life, though, hardly anybody wants to be ruled by royals. Although these hereditary chiefs aren’t really hereditary, at least not at present: I saw something about there being disagreement amongst the chiefs; then the anti-pipeline chiefs kicked out the pro-pipeline chiefs. So really it’s some sort of self-selected group which is intolerant of dissent. I’d be interested in the perspective of actual Indigenous people on this, but based on what I’ve heard I think if I were a band member I’d probably rather be governed by the elected council. The chiefs can do the ceremonial thing on important occasions, exactly as is done in post-British Colonial societies around the world.

Not indigenous but I have spent quite a lot of time on reserves and from my experience it really depends on how good the chief is at their job. Elected vs hereditary doesnt really matter to much if they're managing the reserve well and fairly. But that's just from my own experience. I'd be interested to hear what ac3r has to say.

[danbrotherston]

Would you even know about it if they did?

The point of protest is to change people's (specifically the people who have power) minds, inherent to that is actually being noticed by those people.

I don’t know what’s so unclear about “it was approved by the elected band council”: they are the ones whose minds would need to be changed. And if they can’t be convinced, voted out. And if that can’t be done, maybe the band as a whole actually agrees with the project? Obviously, as with every contentious issue, that does not and cannot mean that every single member agrees. Again, framing this pipeline as colonial society imposing its will on the band is simply incorrect on the facts; sensible opposition to the pipeline has to be on the basis of “we shouldn’t be building this”, not “we’re continuing to colonize the Wet'suwet'en”.

Personally, I’m inclined to be opposed to new pipeline construction; but I have no right to impose that belief on the group whose land is affected, and especially not “on their behalf” (although I could legitimately push it from the other side of encouraging our national government not to allow the project to proceed).

As to the whole “choosing which group with which to negotiate” thing, of course we negotiate with the elected government. The right to live in a democratic society is a universal human right. That being said, if the band decided they wanted to get rid of their elected government and revert to being ruled by royal families, they could do that. That’s the cool thing about democracy, even if flawed: if the people overwhelmingly want to change something, they can. In this case they might need to petition for a change to the relevant Canadian legislation (a legacy we should be able to improve), but I would hope that if the elected council, with support from their people, did so that the Federal government would make the changes.

In real life, though, hardly anybody wants to be ruled by royals. Although these hereditary chiefs aren’t really hereditary, at least not at present: I saw something about there being disagreement amongst the chiefs; then the anti-pipeline chiefs kicked out the pro-pipeline chiefs. So really it’s some sort of self-selected group which is intolerant of dissent. I’d be interested in the perspective of actual Indigenous people on this, but based on what I’ve heard I think if I were a band member I’d probably rather be governed by the elected council. The chiefs can do the ceremonial thing on important occasions, exactly as is done in post-British Colonial societies around the world.

I would say that the right to choose how you are governed is a universal right. We have no right to impose governance on indigenous people, even if that governance is democratic. God knows, our democracy is flawed enough.

That being said, this is a very strange argument. BLM protest in Kitchener, we didn't object and say that they should be protesting at a police station. When there were protests in support of the protests in Colombia this weekend, I didn't suggest that those people should be going to Colombia.

Protests are protests...we shouldn't be telling people how to do it, at best, you might suggest that certain protests are more effective than others...but again, the very fact that we are talking about it now pretty conclusively proves that false in this case.

[ijmorlan]

I would say that the right to choose how you are governed is a universal right. We have no right to impose governance on indigenous people, even if that governance is democratic. God knows, our democracy is flawed enough.

That’s fair. I just sometimes see claims that the Chinese, say, can’t take democracy or have a innate disposition that lends itself to authoritarian governments. While cultural attitudes may well affect how easy it is for democracy to take root and flourish, I don’t believe there is any such thing as a culture whose members are really better off being ruled by a self-selected cabal. I’m not sure what it would take to convince me that the unelected leaders are the legitimate leaders of the Wet'suwet'en over the elected council. I do agree that there is a problem if their government structure is imposed by the Indian Act (is it still called that?); but surely in the modern context they would be able to change it, even if an extra step of getting an amendment passed would be needed.

That being said, this is a very strange argument. BLM protest in Kitchener, we didn't object and say that they should be protesting at a police station. When there were protests in support of the protests in Colombia this weekend, I didn't suggest that those people should be going to Colombia.

BLM didn’t shut down any transportation routes. I actually drove right through the protest (that sounds wrong: to be clear, I stayed on the road, driving with due caution and a lower speed given the extreme levels of pedestrian traffic, and I didn’t hit anybody) and they didn’t even block the streets in the area.

Protests are protests...we shouldn't be telling people how to do it, at best, you might suggest that certain protests are more effective than others...but again, the very fact that we are talking about it now pretty conclusively proves that false in this case.

I’m not telling people how to protest; but what I do believe is that blockading the rail line should be treated exactly the same as blockading the 401. Which, let’s get real, would have been cleared way faster than the rail blockades. But really we’re changing the topic. My point is that the protest is mis-targeted: it is factually incorrect to characterize the Wet'suwet'en situation as Canadian society at large imposing its will on the Wet'suwet'en in a continuation of the colonial project; there is an agreement with the duly elected band councils of the affected bands. They might be wrong to support the project, but support it they do, and I think it’s pretty questionable for royalty to attempt to veto that decision.

[danbrotherston]

I would say that the right to choose how you are governed is a universal right. We have no right to impose governance on indigenous people, even if that governance is democratic. God knows, our democracy is flawed enough.

That’s fair. I just sometimes see claims that the Chinese, say, can’t take democracy or have a innate disposition that lends itself to authoritarian governments. While cultural attitudes may well affect how easy it is for democracy to take root and flourish, I don’t believe there is any such thing as a culture whose members are really better off being ruled by a self-selected cabal. I’m not sure what it would take to convince me that the unelected leaders are the legitimate leaders of the Wet'suwet'en over the elected council. I do agree that there is a problem if their government structure is imposed by the Indian Act (is it still called that?); but surely in the modern context they would be able to change it, even if an extra step of getting an amendment passed would be needed.

That being said, this is a very strange argument. BLM protest in Kitchener, we didn't object and say that they should be protesting at a police station. When there were protests in support of the protests in Colombia this weekend, I didn't suggest that those people should be going to Colombia.

BLM didn’t shut down any transportation routes. I actually drove right through the protest (that sounds wrong: to be clear, I stayed on the road, driving with due caution and a lower speed given the extreme levels of pedestrian traffic, and I didn’t hit anybody) and they didn’t even block the streets in the area.

Protests are protests...we shouldn't be telling people how to do it, at best, you might suggest that certain protests are more effective than others...but again, the very fact that we are talking about it now pretty conclusively proves that false in this case.

I’m not telling people how to protest; but what I do believe is that blockading the rail line should be treated exactly the same as blockading the 401. Which, let’s get real, would have been cleared way faster than the rail blockades. But really we’re changing the topic. My point is that the protest is mis-targeted: it is factually incorrect to characterize the Wet'suwet'en situation as Canadian society at large imposing its will on the Wet'suwet'en in a continuation of the colonial project; there is an agreement with the duly elected band councils of the affected bands. They might be wrong to support the project, but support it they do, and I think it’s pretty questionable for royalty to attempt to veto that decision.

I'm not sure that "in a modern context" really carries much weight given that we can't get them safe drinking water. The historical harms have not been righted, that's what the whole conclusion of the TRC.

Lol...the BLM protest absolutely did block roads...I have video of it if you want, they went right past my window...there were tens of thousands of people on Charles St. and Joseph St.....nobody was driving through, hell for that matter, they blocked the LRT for a time.

While I think you are right, blocking the 401 would be cleared much faster, I don't think it's actually the same. More people and frankly, more freight tonnage would be affected by blocking the 401 than one rail line--at least anywhere near here, maybe near Quebec it would be similar.

I don't really think telling someone their protest is mis-targeted is different from telling them they are protesting wrong. Again, the point of protest is to change people's minds, ultimately, we are the ones with power, and getting our attention and changing our minds is the point, their protest has been effective in getting attention. I guarantee you we wouldn't be talking about it if they had protested as you suggest.

As for imposing our will, I don't really understand the history of their various governments, but given our history, I really really don't think we should be insisting that the government we chose to negotiate with has to be the valid government--regardless of how we feel about "royalty".

[ijmorlan]

I'm not sure that "in a modern context" really carries much weight given that we can't get them safe drinking water. The historical harms have not been righted, that's what the whole conclusion of the TRC.

I just mean that if the Wet'suwet'en asked for the required changes to the relevant Canadian legislation to allow them to change their government, I’m pretty sure their request would be granted. I think a strong argument can be made that they shouldn’t have to ask, but the point is that as far as I know they’re not forced to stay with their current governing rules.

Whereas if they had made the same request in the ’50s I assume they would have been dismissed entirely.

Lol...the BLM protest absolutely did block roads...I have video of it if you want, they went right past my window...there were tens of thousands of people on Charles St. and Joseph St.....nobody was driving through, hell for that matter, they blocked the LRT for a time.

I wonder if I went through before or after that happened? Anyway, they didn’t block roads for days at a time, and didn’t block major transportation routes at all (OK, except for the LRT, briefly).

While I think you are right, blocking the 401 would be cleared much faster, I don't think it's actually the same. More people and frankly, more freight tonnage would be affected by blocking the 401 than one rail line--at least anywhere near here, maybe near Quebec it would be similar.

Don’t count on it. A single freight train can have over 100 cars carrying goods that would take closer to 200 trucks to carry. A single track can carry more traffic than an entire expressway while just sitting there quietly most of the time. I don’t know the actual numbers but I believe the blockaded freight line was the double-track main line. This is not some backwater passenger line that is maintained as a government project.

I don't really think telling someone their protest is mis-targeted is different from telling them they are protesting wrong. Again, the point of protest is to change people's minds, ultimately, we are the ones with power, and getting our attention and changing our minds is the point, their protest has been effective in getting attention. I guarantee you we wouldn't be talking about it if they had protested as you suggest.

As for imposing our will, I don't really understand the history of their various governments, but given our history, I really really don't think we should be insisting that the government we chose to negotiate with has to be the valid government--regardless of how we feel about "royalty".

Well, again, the project has been democratically approved by the Wet'suwet'en. So complaining on grounds of injustice towards Indigenous people as a whole that the project is unacceptable simply makes no sense. What am I to make of a protest that makes no sense? Maybe the hereditary chiefs should stand for office and change both the decision and the governing system when they win.

If the protests were strictly on environmental grounds then they would have a better point. Although even there, for how long is it OK for the protests to continue? No society can continue to operate if every or even any interest group, no matter how well-intentioned, is allowed to veto the continued operation of the economy indefinitely. Remember, it’s not really the big bad railway companies that need the trains to roll: it’s everybody who depends on our modern economy, which is everybody.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not sure that "in a modern context" really carries much weight given that we can't get them safe drinking water. The historical harms have not been righted, that's what the whole conclusion of the TRC.

I just mean that if the Wet'suwet'en asked for the required changes to the relevant Canadian legislation to allow them to change their government, I’m pretty sure their request would be granted. I think a strong argument can be made that they shouldn’t have to ask, but the point is that as far as I know they’re not forced to stay with their current governing rules.

Whereas if they had made the same request in the ’50s I assume they would have been dismissed entirely.

Lol...the BLM protest absolutely did block roads...I have video of it if you want, they went right past my window...there were tens of thousands of people on Charles St. and Joseph St.....nobody was driving through, hell for that matter, they blocked the LRT for a time.

I wonder if I went through before or after that happened? Anyway, they didn’t block roads for days at a time, and didn’t block major transportation routes at all (OK, except for the LRT, briefly).

While I think you are right, blocking the 401 would be cleared much faster, I don't think it's actually the same. More people and frankly, more freight tonnage would be affected by blocking the 401 than one rail line--at least anywhere near here, maybe near Quebec it would be similar.

Don’t count on it. A single freight train can have over 100 cars carrying goods that would take closer to 200 trucks to carry. A single track can carry more traffic than an entire expressway while just sitting there quietly most of the time. I don’t know the actual numbers but I believe the blockaded freight line was the double-track main line. This is not some backwater passenger line that is maintained as a government project.

I don't really think telling someone their protest is mis-targeted is different from telling them they are protesting wrong. Again, the point of protest is to change people's minds, ultimately, we are the ones with power, and getting our attention and changing our minds is the point, their protest has been effective in getting attention. I guarantee you we wouldn't be talking about it if they had protested as you suggest.

As for imposing our will, I don't really understand the history of their various governments, but given our history, I really really don't think we should be insisting that the government we chose to negotiate with has to be the valid government--regardless of how we feel about "royalty".

Well, again, the project has been democratically approved by the Wet'suwet'en. So complaining on grounds of injustice towards Indigenous people as a whole that the project is unacceptable simply makes no sense. What am I to make of a protest that makes no sense? Maybe the hereditary chiefs should stand for office and change both the decision and the governing system when they win.

If the protests were strictly on environmental grounds then they would have a better point. Although even there, for how long is it OK for the protests to continue? No society can continue to operate if every or even any interest group, no matter how well-intentioned, is allowed to veto the continued operation of the economy indefinitely. Remember, it’s not really the big bad railway companies that need the trains to roll: it’s everybody who depends on our modern economy, which is everybody.

Perhaps it would, but this is where I think anti-racism and just "not racist" differ. Yes, the current policies are not explicitly racist, but they exist in a context where we have enforced our power structures on them. Yes, they could change their government now, if they chose, but only if they were able to mobilize and organize, an ability that we actively took from them for many years. It may recover on their own, but continuing to rely on those structures that we created in the past, isn't neutral, just because we aren't actively enforcing them now. Again, I don't know anything about the actual wishes or governance of the nations involved, but given our history, I pretty much assume we are not in the right now.

And that's assuming our policies now are actually neutral now is in itself a stretch...we have continued to break treaties and have failed to invest in infrastructure like water, right up to today.


Yes, fair, this isn't exactly the same, but I think it still qualifies to the point. Not you, but someone after you, is not the decision maker here, but they were impacted by the protest.


As for the 401, yes, trains carry a lot, but the 401 is massive, AADT on the busiest sections are close to half a million. Even taking conservative estimates and accounting for trucks being a minority on the highway, you are still looking at hundreds of trains a day to match that. I don't think even our mainline rail lines will hit that frequency, but I could be wrong.  Mind you, that highway gets block on the daily, so we're kind of accustomed to that kind of problem. Of course, instead of resignation over the inevitability of traffic violence, people would probably respond differently to a protest blocking it.