Condo sign taken down
There’s various items this weekend about a condo name or sign that caused a stir and has been taken down. The name of the project is Osha, based on the name Hochelaga, claimed to be “un dérivé des termes Osha et Aga, «qui auraient été donnés par les autochtones à Jacques Cartier et à son équipage à leur arrivée» and it claims to be a “remarquable habitat.”
The developers used an engraving of Jacques Cartier meeting the natives that’s been often reproduced, and their website cited Billy Two Rivers, who has said he was never consulted. Citing a Mohawk for the etymology is also dubious because “Hochelaga” was presumably a name Cartier heard from the Iroquoians, who spoke a different language.
The condo project website now says “We are sensitive to the questions raised by some people regarding our recent advertising campaign. The purpose of the latter is not to offend anyone, we will change to remove certain historical references.”
Query: If you want some free publicity for your product these days, is it worth taking a chance on doing something disrespectful of the native community, then getting free PR before apologizing?
Blork 18:33 on 2019-01-26 Permalink
A generation ago, white people were criticized for ignoring history. Now white people are criticized if they reference history.
While the reference to Billy Two Rivers is iffy — or is it? Isn’t it just a statement that BTR said something? I’m not sure it’s a problem since he is a public figure.
Otherwise, I’m not really sure what the problem is. It’s a development in Hochelaga. Hochelaga has that history. The Mohawk/Iroquois mixup is regrettable, but I doubt that’s behind much of the complaints. Basically this sounds like another case of oversensitivity — primarily by white people with a saviour complex or a strong need for virtue signalling.
While I think it’s appropriate to complain if there is a legitimate complaint, there’s a downside to complaining every time you feel offended. If people blow up every time there is a first nations reference the result will be nobody ever mentioning first nations, which basically means the erasing of history.
Ian 11:34 on 2019-01-27 Permalink
I was ferrying children home from a sleepover in HoMa and I saw 2 billboards with that ad still up yesterday, one on Viau, one on Notre-Dame east.Maybe they had to take one specific billboard down but there are others still up.
JP 12:01 on 2019-01-27 Permalink
I don’t think this is about white people being criticized if they reference history.
I think it’s more white people (those are your words) or rather condo developers being criticized for referencing “history”/the native peoples who lived on this land in ADVERTISING a condo development. The irony of which is that this can only happen because in the 500 years or so since Cartier’s arrival, they have pretty much been pushed off the island or have disappeared.
I think it’s in poor taste to use this “history” in advertising/promoting a condo development. It’s not like these native groups still exist anywhere close to the neighborhood and, if they don’t exist, why don’t they? Maybe the condo developers want to show that condo development is not completely unlike colony development.
I don’t know that this is an oversensitivity. For what it’s worth, I’m not white or native, and I have absolutely no idea who lodged the complaint, but this is my take on it. I’m not even opposed to condos or their development. If I could afford one, I would even look into it. I do, however, feel that the advertising is distasteful.
Blork 14:38 on 2019-01-27 Permalink
Disclaimer: I want to state that I’m not trolling and I don’t even have a firm position on this. I’m just trying to understand it.
The problem (for me at least) is that *the problem* isn’t very well articulated. And this is frustrating because I see more and more of this — people jumping on bandwagons of complaint about this or that yet they are unable to clearly articulate what they are complaining about or to offer good alternatives.
In this case, imagine if the condo promotions only showed Jacques Cartier standing there with a big grin, with no mention of the Iroquois or any other first nations; would that be OK? I doubt it. Then the complaints would be about “white washing” or otherwise ignoring native history.
So what’s the solution? They definitely could have been a bit more sensitive in how the history is presented. But this brings us back to my concluding thought on my original post, which is if you need to be so hypersensitive and to walk on eggshells every time you make a reference to native history, the results will be that people will basically say “fuck that” and will stop referencing native history at all, because it’s too much trouble.
It would be one thing if the “problem” in this case were very clear and well understood. But it’s not. Whatever the issue here is, it seems worthy of a bit of a “tut-tut” and maybe a small correction, but that’s about it. It seems like we’ve lost the ability to make a big thing out of a big thing and a small thing out of a small thing. I feel like there are mobs of spring-loaded people all over the place just waiting to pounce at the slightest little problem and to treat it like it’s the end of the world. WTF?
Mark Côté 16:57 on 2019-01-27 Permalink
Can we agree that there are certain subjects that are more sensitive than others? The effects of colonization continue to this day. The sensitivity to this amongst a growing part of the white population is pretty new, arguably one or two generations. Google around for the treatment of First Nations people, for the (lack of) support for their communities, for the persistent ignorance of not just their culture but also what has been done to them. When it comes to advertising in particular, I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect some care and respect.
Blork 18:29 on 2019-01-28 Permalink
@Mark Côté: I don’t think there’s any serious disagreement that first nations people have been treated badly over the centuries. And I certainly don’t have any problem putting time, attention, and resources into the various reconciliation efforts, and clean water initiatives, etc. Those are all concrete issues with concrete positive solutions.
But what’s this? People getting angry because you mention that a place has some native history? WTF is that? Maybe, arguably, it’s in bad taste to invoke that for a real estate development, but FFS it’s really no big deal. It’s just a reference to the area’s history. I’m pretty sure what’s REALLY happening is the neighbourhood’s anti-gentrification people are just grasping at anything they can use to discredit the project.
I’ll gladly take a different position if someone can clearly articulate what exactly is the problem. Saying natives have been treated badly is not the issue *here* because this has nothing to do with the treatment of natives. It’s not a native reserve was expropriated to build the condos. It’s not like sacred land is being used to build the condos. This is like in the US where some white people are so afraid of invoking slavery that they never ever mention black people. How does that help?
One interesting tidbit: the contentious image of Jacques Cartier and his entourage greeting the Iroquois has been photoshopped; in the original image, Cartier has a cross dangling from his outstretched hand. In the Osha condo promos the cross is missing.