General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours

[ijmorlan]

Here’s an alternate scenario: suppose I regularly get accosted by people when I go to downtown Cambridge. Eventually I start telling people “I’m not going to downtown Cambridge because I don’t want some Black guy to accost me”. Is that appropriate?

Now obviously, in this scenario, there is a good chance that I’m actually a racist or at least somewhat racist who notices when a Black guy accosts me but doesn’t notice when somebody else accosts me (or at least, doesn’t notice their skin colour). But it is also possible, and certainly true in some times and places, that all or most of the people doing the accosting really are Black. Even in this situation, though, is it really helpful for me to include the word “Black” in what I say? Presumably I would also stop going to downtown Cambridge if I was getting accosted entirely by white guys. So what is important is that I’m being accosted by people when I go there.

At the same time, I think it is reasonable to ask certain demographic questions about the NIMBYs. Are they recent immigrants who don’t want the next batch of immigrants to move in next to them? Or are they the descendants of 18th century immigrants? Or something else? Of course it sounds like they are likely the 2nd of those options. But insisting on characterizing them by race feels like it’s tarring everybody else with the criticism.

No it's not appropriate because of one reason: documentary evidence.

As you say, your perception of who is accosting you may very well be biased and as such is only an anecdote rather than reliable data.  While visible minorities are over represented in the homeless population, the majority of them are still white people so for you to say “I’m not going to downtown Cambridge because I don’t want some Black guy to accost me” is evidence of that bias and an example of racism because your perception is not based upon reality.

However, all we have to do is look at the photos of the NIMBYs in the papers, look at the the videos of the NIMBYs as they make their delegations to council, we can see whom the news reports go an interview for "local flavour". Overwhelmingly, these people are older and white. Noting that is simply noting an actual fact, and it is important that it get noted in the broader context of systemic racism in out society.

We can only fix it if we note it and admit that it is there.

I think you might be missing my point. I start by saying that in Cambridge, the people accosting me probably (mostly) aren’t Black, so it would clearly be racist to act as if they all are. But then I suggest that in another scenario where the people accosting me actually are Black, it would still be inappropriate to focus on the race of the people involved. So are you saying that if I come back from Philadelphia it would be totally A-OK for me to say, “I’m not going back there again — got accosted by too many Black guys”?

Note: this is still totally hypothetical; I haven’t been to Cambridge in months, nor to Philadephia in many years, and I have no idea how often one would be accosted in different neighbourhoods of those cities, nor do I actually know anything about the racial makeup of the difficult people in those places. I just picked Philadelphia because I’m pretty sure there are enough Black people living there that one can probably find a neighbourhood where the troublesome people are mostly Black, simply because most of all the people are Black.

[jamincan]

Do we have any actual evidence (ie. not anecdotes and personal impressions) that being white has anything to do with being a NIMBY? I suspect if you look at the data, that any well-off and, critically, well-established person, regardless of race, is more likely to be a NIMBY.

What exactly is describing the NIMBYs as white in this particular case supposed to communicate? I can think of two possibilities:
- that being white and being NIMBY are somehow inherently interlinked. We know that's not true, because there are NIMBYs who are not white.
- that opposition to these towers has a racial component to it (ie. the NIMBYs want to preserve the whiteness of their community). This seems absurd on the face of it, but it seems a sufficiently inflammatory allegation to require pretty strong evidence.

The reality is that NIMBYs can have a lot of motivations. The general link in all cases is an opposition to change, but that might be rooted in racism, in classism, or even in a desire to preserve a community they love - moving a large number of people into a community is inevitably going to bring other changes, and if you're happy with the community the way it is, opposition is not unreasonable.

If I can offer up an alternative profile of a NIMBY, it is someone who is well-established and well-connected to their community. If you don't care about your community, there's no motivation to preserve or protect it. Secondly, they are more than likely well-off. It is difficult for less-well-off people to be politically engaged. That demographic will skew to being white in Canada, but it's definitely not their exclusive domain. Critically, I don't think understanding opposition in terms of race as opposed to class, or more generously, the desire to preserve a community, adds anything useful to understanding the situation (outside of very specific cases) and instead seems like a rather disgraceful way to imply that the people opposed to the development are racist.

I'd actually guess most of the people opposed to this development in Cambridge aren't NIMBYs at all (the implication of NIMBY is that it belongs elsewhere), and simply just like their neighbourhood the way it is, or don't want to have busier streets on their drive to work, or some other run-of-the-mill opposition to development.

[Bjays93]

Do we have any actual evidence (ie. not anecdotes and personal impressions) that being white has anything to do with being a NIMBY? I suspect if you look at the data, that any well-off and, critically, well-established person, regardless of race, is more likely to be a NIMBY.

What exactly is describing the NIMBYs as white in this particular case supposed to communicate? I can think of two possibilities:
- that being white and being NIMBY are somehow inherently interlinked. We know that's not true, because there are NIMBYs who are not white.
- that opposition to these towers has a racial component to it (ie. the NIMBYs want to preserve the whiteness of their community). This seems absurd on the face of it, but it seems a sufficiently inflammatory allegation to require pretty strong evidence.

The reality is that NIMBYs can have a lot of motivations. The general link in all cases is an opposition to change, but that might be rooted in racism, in classism, or even in a desire to preserve a community they love - moving a large number of people into a community is inevitably going to bring other changes, and if you're happy with the community the way it is, opposition is not unreasonable.

If I can offer up an alternative profile of a NIMBY, it is someone who is well-established and well-connected to their community. If you don't care about your community, there's no motivation to preserve or protect it. Secondly, they are more than likely well-off. It is difficult for less-well-off people to be politically engaged. That demographic will skew to being white in Canada, but it's definitely not their exclusive domain. Critically, I don't think understanding opposition in terms of race as opposed to class, or more generously, the desire to preserve a community, adds anything useful to understanding the situation (outside of very specific cases) and instead seems like a rather disgraceful way to imply that the people opposed to the development are racist.

I'd actually guess most of the people opposed to this development in Cambridge aren't NIMBYs at all (the implication of NIMBY is that it belongs elsewhere), and simply just like their neighbourhood the way it is, or don't want to have busier streets on their drive to work, or some other run-of-the-mill opposition to development.

Thank you for a well thought out level headed response. You articulated perfectly what I was more or less trying to say but did a really poor job at.

[robdrimmie]

- that opposition to these towers has a racial component to it (ie. the NIMBYs want to preserve the whiteness of their community). This seems absurd on the face of it, but it seems a sufficiently inflammatory allegation to require pretty strong evidence.

Do you genuinely think that assuming that a community of exclusively or nearly exclusively white landowners might be racist is absurd? In a country still controlled by the people who colonized it and not the traditional land guardians?

[ijmorlan]

Do you genuinely think that assuming that a community of exclusively or nearly exclusively white landowners might be racist is absurd? In a country still controlled by the people who colonized it and not the traditional land guardians?

Just for the record, I did not colonize this country, nor did I participate in its colonization. I was born here and have just as much right to be here as anybody else. More than that, few if any people who colonized this country are still alive. We all have to learn to live together; that doesn’t mean we can totally ignore the legacy of colonialism, but the idea that descendants of Europeans have some sort of inherited guilt is ridiculous, and more importantly, unhelpful.

That being said, I think jamincan overstated the case: it’s important not to jump to the conclusion that opposition must be racist, but it’s not absurd to consider that it might be.

[danbrotherston]

Do you genuinely think that assuming that a community of exclusively or nearly exclusively white landowners might be racist is absurd? In a country still controlled by the people who colonized it and not the traditional land guardians?

Just for the record, I did not colonize this country, nor did I participate in its colonization. I was born here and have just as much right to be here as anybody else. More than that, few if any people who colonized this country are still alive. We all have to learn to live together; that doesn’t mean we can totally ignore the legacy of colonialism, but the idea that descendants of Europeans have some sort of inherited guilt is ridiculous, and more importantly, unhelpful.

That being said, I think jamincan overstated the case: it’s important not to jump to the conclusion that opposition must be racist, but it’s not absurd to consider that it might be.

The decendents of colonizers have every right to be here yes, and no, should not feel guilty for being here.

However, the decendents of colonizers absolutely have benefitted from the colonial history of the country, and is on us to use that privilege to help correct those historical wrongs. Individuals absolutely SHOULD feel guilty for THEIR actions if their actions continue the legacy of harm and colonialism by doing things like using their colonial derived privilege to advocate against housing for other groups.

We cannot live together until account for the past harms, and everyone gets an equal opportunity.

[jamincan]

- that opposition to these towers has a racial component to it (ie. the NIMBYs want to preserve the whiteness of their community). This seems absurd on the face of it, but it seems a sufficiently inflammatory allegation to require pretty strong evidence.

Do you genuinely think that assuming that a community of exclusively or nearly exclusively white landowners might be racist is absurd? In a country still controlled by the people who colonized it and not the traditional land guardians?

I think they might well be racist, it just seems absurd to me to believe that a project like this would somehow lead to the community becoming more racially diverse rather than less. On reflection, I'm not really sure how it might change (which might be reason enough to oppose it for some people).

[robdrimmie]

I take the points mention above, and offer an edit: "In a country still largely controlled by the mores of the society that colonized it."

In no way did I suggest that any of us do not have the right to be here, though if that's what you think #landback is you may benefit from some research.

[danbrotherston]

Do you genuinely think that assuming that a community of exclusively or nearly exclusively white landowners might be racist is absurd? In a country still controlled by the people who colonized it and not the traditional land guardians?

I think they might well be racist, it just seems absurd to me to believe that a project like this would somehow lead to the community becoming more racially diverse rather than less. On reflection, I'm not really sure how it might change (which might be reason enough to oppose it for some people).

Racist, classist, even just single people vs. families etc. the problem is that people are very good at deluding themselves into believing they are good. This is why it's always "I support affordable housing BUT"....

Most NIMBYs would never even admit to themselves that they oppose people different from them, they have fully convinced themselves that it's about building form.

But not only is the effect racist, but for many, maybe not all, the underlying unconscious motivation is also actually racist...that is WHY they want this.

[ac3r]

Yikes, I definitely opened a can of worms with my comment...

To clarify, by "racist white people" I meant the types that not only object to new developments because they're new, but because you often hear their rhetoric in online communities about how there are too many dark people coming (students), that Canada is for Canada, that it'll be nothing but rich Asians and Indian people buying these units up. I've heard such prejudice in real life community meetings too when I've had to go to them to defend new projects I've been involved in. While it's not always overt, it sometimes is.

There is also a strong historical aspect to this too, proof of which you can easily find thanks to a library, DuckDuckGo, or Google if you're a masochist. There is a long, long history of white people objecting to new developments in cities because they are worried about who might move in. This is one thing that contributed to white flight. Its why they made highways and railroads basically act as walls between the different classes (racial, economic). Hell, this country exists because it was white people that came here and tried to exterminate us Indigenous people. Even still, many think the job needs to be finished. There is racism in all aspects of our society, which is why we call it systemic racism and that's why over the last few years, there has been a strong fight to oppose it...we know it's still deeply embedded in everything from our education systems to policing to city planning to community groups (NIMBYs). It would be naïve to think that it doesn't also exist in those, where predominantly white people hear of new developments and start to worry (but granted, most don't bring up racial issues then).

Now, are all NIMBYs in Cambridge white? Surely not, but the majority of them are. Look up news paper articles, news clips, visit their webpages, visit their social media groups, watch them talk in community consultation meetings about new developments. Most are white. Is there a racial aspect to it? Hard to say for sure, but I'm sure it occurs at times.

[ac3r]

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.

[MacBerry]

It's pretty darn accurate, though, when you consider what demographic that 99% of NIMBYs and ant-LRT people fall into. White baby Boomers tend to be the biggest bloc that actively complains to their municipal councillors about proposed policies that would make both our urban cores and suburban neighbourhoods better places for a wider variety of people.

So can we make comments like that about other subject matter and identified groups ?  no we cant... I am surprised at your lack of cultural competence.

" So can we make comments like that about other subject matter and identified groups ?  no we cant... I am surprised at your lack of cultural competence." 

Yet you judge and do the same thing you as you accuse someone else of. "Cultural incompetence". 

[ijmorlan]

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.

Yes, this is reasonable, and I appreciate you taking the time to say it.

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.

Just about every place on earth has these things in its past, or in some cases present.

Re: the land, almost every piece of land on earth has been stolen at some point in the past. That doesn’t mean my title isn’t valid.

Re: the Haldimand tract, I would appreciate any pointers you might have to resources on this. My understanding of the history is that it was first stolen (or at least claimed) by white people working for the King of Great Britain (edit: I just looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldimand_Proclamation and apparently it was bought from the Mississaugas of the Credit; but then there is some messy stuff about just what was bought and granted); then later “given” (OK, if purchased, then actually given, not “given”) to the Haudenosaunee. Then later I’m a bit unclear; how did it get lost? Somewhere I read something about a court battle in which the Haudenosaunee (or at least their agent) argued they should be able to sell the land and the government argued they couldn’t. But then apparently the German Company bought Waterloo Township from Joseph Brant acting on behalf of the Haudenosaunee. Was that a coerced sale, or maybe Brant was a crook who took the money and ran? (Note: not an accusation; I really don’t understand what happened; I’m just saying that the basic facts as available to me make it look like the land was purchased, not stolen)

So I actually do want to know more about that. But on another level, I don’t care what the history is; my title is valid, period. To argue otherwise is to argue that substantially the entire planet should be enveloped in litigation without foreseeable end. This is also why I am unalterably opposed to payments to descendants of slaves for their ancestors’ enslavement; it would be a mess and would not fix the problems we have today. What we need is just (in the sense of “justice”, not “only”) solutions to our present problems, not revenge or punishment or even compensation for actions committed by long-dead people against other long-dead people.

[tomh009]

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.

Just about every place on earth has these things in its past, or in some cases present.

Re: the land, almost every piece of land on earth has been stolen at some point in the past. That doesn’t mean my title isn’t valid.

That's right. Look at a place such as Poland, for example, which has been conquered dozens of times in its history. Who does it belong to? Who are the rightful owners? And why?

After WW2, the victorious allies wanted to put an end to these centuries of war and grudges over who should own or control any given territory, and essentially everyone in Europe has accepted that "the music has stopped" and there will be no more border changes.

Re: the Haldimand tract, I would appreciate any pointers you might have to resources on this. My understanding of the history is that it was first stolen (or at least claimed) by white people working for the King of Great Britain (edit: I just looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldimand_Proclamation and apparently it was bought from the Mississaugas of the Credit; but then there is some messy stuff about just what was bought and granted); then later “given” (OK, if purchased, then actually given, not “given”) to the Haudenosaunee. Then later I’m a bit unclear; how did it get lost? Somewhere I read something about a court battle in which the Haudenosaunee (or at least their agent) argued they should be able to sell the land and the government argued they couldn’t. But then apparently the German Company bought Waterloo Township from Joseph Brant acting on behalf of the Haudenosaunee. Was that a coerced sale, or maybe Brant was a crook who took the money and ran? (Note: not an accusation; I really don’t understand what happened; I’m just saying that the basic facts as available to me make it look like the land was purchased, not stolen)

Joseph Brant was an Iroquois war leader (though not a hereditary chief, as I understand it) and had negotiated a land grant with the British in 1775 un exchange for Iroquois support in the war. This is what was finally resolved by the Haldimand Proclamation.

Brant subsequently sold large parts of this grant; a significant part was sold to Richard Beasley, who in turn sold a chunk of it to the German Company. And this where the Waterloo Region is today. How this worked within the governance of the Iroquois Confederation at the time is something that I have never seen a description of, but I have not seen any disputes as to the legality of those sales.

[kalis0490]

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.

Good video explaining the history:

Phil Monture, A Global Solution for the Six Nations of the Grand River, - YouTube