Hacker News Reader

Comment by stavros | Hacker News Reader

It was a woman, actually. Your point is valid, I just don't like how "white man" has become a slur.

I think the quote is from a white man called Gordon Price.

Full quote to assist you.

"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."

"White man" can be used in that form when the white man appears to be telling a different culture what they can or cannot do or be.

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 fully balanced system of mathematical perfection as if this were a reasonable way to go about things.

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.

“White man” is not racist, it is a self-describing short term for Eurocentric supremacy and a quote from Kipling. As such it is not replaceable by Black/Red etc. Everyone can use it in such context as a metaphor, not as a racial reference.

Edit: previously my message included some poor choice of words, which I will keep here for history and an example of accidental bias: “White men are absolutely allowed to use it as a slur towards other white men.”

>>White men are absolutely allowed to use it as a slur towards other white men.

What kind of nonsense is that, the mental gymnastics to not call it what it simply is - racism - is just unbelivable.

Feel free to suggest another term for a person of European origin and Eurocentric education who is lecturing indigenous people on how to live. Modern discourse isn’t about physical characteristics at all, even it does have roots in old racial theory. It’s certain views, it’s identity and culture. If someone behaves like in Kipling’s poem, he is the white man, not because of his race, but because of his actions.

I'm not debating the original point - I'm commenting on the clearly quoted section which says what white men are allowed to call other white men.

Like, it really doesn't ring any bells of "something is not right here" when you read it?

Haha, now I got you and apologize for inaccurate choice of words. Those bells didn’t ring, as I’m not American and not native speaker. Of course, everyone can use it.

I disagree. It's an ad hominem point. Comments should focus on ideas. Race based commentary like this is a discredit to one's own argument and character.

You could take the word fuck out of the original comment and it would still have the clear reasoning that Gordon Price as a white person should not be telling an indigenous group that what they want to do is not the "Indigenous way".

White person should not define "Indigenous way".

How else can we misinterpret this argument?

>White person should not define "Indigenous way"

Any person, white, black, asian, whatever, can however assess whether this development is in line with the indigenous tradition or something that might distort or endanger it.

Or do you think the same discussion doensn't happen within the indigenous community as well?

Why is tradition relevant here? The indigenous community is a present day community, not a historical preservation society.

I disagree that we're all equal when it comes to defining what is and isn't "indigenous way."

Most outsiders lack the understanding of what indigenous way of life entails beyond stereotypes, and are therefor poor judges. Besides, indigenous culture has been distorted and endangered by oppresssion, the least we can do as outsiders is let them reclaim and rebuilt their traditions how they want it.

"indigenous tradition or something that might distort or endanger"

Are certain groups not allowed to change? Why use the word distort or endanger?

We aren't talking about the discussions inside the community. We are talking about people outside the community applying judgements to their decisions and actions.

>Are certain groups not allowed to change?

Did I say that?

>Why use the word distort or endanger?

Because obviously some change can be distorting and/or endagering some things?

The fact that an individual or group is allowed to change doesn't mean each particular change is always for the better.

>We are talking about people outside the community applying judgements to their decisions and actions.

Yes, so? Do you think groups should only get judgements to their decisions and actions from within themselves?

Race: Famously irrelevant to the whole tribal lands/indigenous rights topic

It's irrelevant to "does this follow indigenous tradition or violate it" point, which is the point discussed in the subthread - not tribal lands/indigenous rights.

Why would Indigenous people have to follow tradition? I believe it is racist (or sexist) to say that a group of people cannot do something because that is not something they've done in the past.

For Mr Gordon Price to imply that a group should not do something because it has not been done before is him trying to deny their agency.

No one said they do. The article provides no background or context from which one could conclude an implication that "a group should not do something because it has not been done before." He didn't say that. The article attempts very poorly to imply that meaning. You've created a dummy to punch and you're punching it. Unfortunately this is all too common. It's called a straw man fallacy.

>Why would Indigenous people have to follow tradition?

They don't "have to". But they can break with it in a nice way or in a bad way.

Same way a culture can change their tradition in a respectful way or to replace it with McDonalds and Starbucks for example.

This is not confined to "indigenous people". The same critique can and does apply to any group.

The correct slur to use here is Honky.

I wouldn’t call it a slur. To the extent it’s an effective insult, it’s due to centuries of behavior by white men. If someone uses “white man” to call out certain behavior, it might be worth their target considering why they got called out. Maybe sometimes it’s unfair to the white man to be called out, but often it isn’t. For folks who find it troublesome or disturbing to not receive the benefit of the doubt about their intentions as a white man, consider how much benefit of the doubt is given in everyday contexts to pretty much any individual who is not a white man.

Aren't you worried about the consequences of supporting generalizations over a group from the actions of their members? I learned at an early age that that's not OK, but it seems to be changing again, as long as the target is in a specific group.

I wouldn’t call it a slur. To the extent it’s an effective insult, it’s due to centuries of behavior by black men. If someone uses “black man” to call out certain behavior, it might be worth their target considering why they got called out. Maybe sometimes it’s unfair to the black man to be called out, but often it isn’t. For folks who find it troublesome or disturbing to not receive the benefit of the doubt about their intentions as a black man, consider how much benefit of the doubt is given in everyday contexts to pretty much any individual who is not a black man.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com