One could also look at it from a non-white, non-western colonial settler perspective to make a bit more sense of ideal land use to see it from a perspective that differs from what is thought of as the norm.
We all understand that modern Canada only exists only because European (primarily white) people came here to attempt to commit a total racial, linguistic and cultural genocide of the existing Indigenous people to rape and exploit the land and people, a practice which still continues to perpetuate to this day. Those Indigenous people had spent the last few thousands of years living and dying on these lands. But, when settlers came and decided to try and exterminate them and develop new trading posts, settlements and ultimately cities; a dominion and nation...they almost never paid any respect to the lands those people have lived on.
Indigenous communities have, regrettably and fortunately, actually adapted to the evolution of human civilization. We have accepted that, yes, the places we left our ancestors (both tangible, physical remains and metaphysical) have been flooded, dredged, bulldozed, blown up, dig up, mined, bombed and so on in order to facilitate western civilization's occupation of this part of the Earth. To this day, it still requires an archaeological survey to build in many places across this country because what looks like a vast, empty field of trees and grass that may be suitable for a subdivision, has traces of Indigenous history - including human remains - still there. Of course, even when remains are found they are rarely respected...developments still go ahead, but even Indigenous communities can concede that yeah, it's best to put that land to use even if it is all stolen.
Can it not be argued that the vast cemeteries of colonizers and their later generations serve absolutely zero purpose to anyone at this point? If it has been acceptable to bulldoze the archaeological remains of Indigenous people to create our existing farm fields, industrial parks, cities, suburbs, highways, railroads etc (and Indigenous people mostly support such development...for all the whining you hear in the media about Indigenous resistance to this or that, most do actually want development because it benefits everyone), why should it be that hard of a pill to swallow for the contemporary settler class to consider removing a few aces of cemetery if it means providing more efficient urban land use whether that be park space, agricultural lands, housing, industry or anything else that provides a greater net benefit to society?
We all understand that modern Canada only exists only because European (primarily white) people came here to attempt to commit a total racial, linguistic and cultural genocide of the existing Indigenous people to rape and exploit the land and people, a practice which still continues to perpetuate to this day. Those Indigenous people had spent the last few thousands of years living and dying on these lands. But, when settlers came and decided to try and exterminate them and develop new trading posts, settlements and ultimately cities; a dominion and nation...they almost never paid any respect to the lands those people have lived on.
Indigenous communities have, regrettably and fortunately, actually adapted to the evolution of human civilization. We have accepted that, yes, the places we left our ancestors (both tangible, physical remains and metaphysical) have been flooded, dredged, bulldozed, blown up, dig up, mined, bombed and so on in order to facilitate western civilization's occupation of this part of the Earth. To this day, it still requires an archaeological survey to build in many places across this country because what looks like a vast, empty field of trees and grass that may be suitable for a subdivision, has traces of Indigenous history - including human remains - still there. Of course, even when remains are found they are rarely respected...developments still go ahead, but even Indigenous communities can concede that yeah, it's best to put that land to use even if it is all stolen.
Can it not be argued that the vast cemeteries of colonizers and their later generations serve absolutely zero purpose to anyone at this point? If it has been acceptable to bulldoze the archaeological remains of Indigenous people to create our existing farm fields, industrial parks, cities, suburbs, highways, railroads etc (and Indigenous people mostly support such development...for all the whining you hear in the media about Indigenous resistance to this or that, most do actually want development because it benefits everyone), why should it be that hard of a pill to swallow for the contemporary settler class to consider removing a few aces of cemetery if it means providing more efficient urban land use whether that be park space, agricultural lands, housing, industry or anything else that provides a greater net benefit to society?