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.
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.”
What kind of nonsense is that, the mental gymnastics to not call it what it simply is - racism - is just unbelivable.
Like, it really doesn't ring any bells of "something is not right here" when you read it?
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.
Laws do impose parity so in fact it's not just some online rhetorical device.
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.
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.
White person should not define "Indigenous way".
How else can we misinterpret this argument?
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?
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.
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?
I disagree that we're all equal when it comes to defining what is and isn't "indigenous way."