Colonial aesthetics and Ralph Lauren

December 20th, 2014 by LB

Ralph Lauren native appropriation adavertising

In a direct line from my earlier post on the heritage hipster style as a settler colonial aesthetic, here is another exhibit in the colonial museum of fashion: Ralph Lauren using genocide-era vintage photographs of native men in western dress as part of its recent marketing campaign.

Not surprisingly this campaign has not gone down well.

Ralph Lauren ad - colonial american dream

RalphLaurenShermanAlexie
Sherman Alexie

Ralph Lauren Frank Wain

Ralph Lauren campaign - genocide Screen Shot 2014-12-20 at 10.25.25 AM

There was an instant and unanimous reaction to these images. A #BoycottRalphLauren hashtag quickly appeared followed by several articles denouncing the ads, and very soon the company removed the entire campaign from its website and the next day issued an apology. The apology showed little awareness of what the company had actually done, especially given it has been attacked for this appropriation and whitewashing many times before. However the fact that the apology came so quickly demonstrated that using this kind of ideological imagery increasingly brings immediate consequences.

These two articles, written within days of the campaign’s release, are key reading:

Assimilation Aesthetic By Ruth Hopkins (@_Ruth Hopkins )
Dear Ralph Lauren, Our Ancestors Are Not Your Props!  by Dr. Adrienne Keene (@NativeApprops)

There is nothing that I, as another whitey mcwhitington, can usefully add to what everyone is saying here, other than to point out that this appropriation of images of native North Americans is possibly one flip side or companion aesthetic to phenomena like the romanticized white male lumberjack we are seeing take over our cities and general sartorial landscape. Once you start looking for it, the revival of colonial-era aesthetics is everywhere, even if it appears in deceptively diverse forms. Those forms seem to be interlocking parts of a larger mainstream hankering for a specific mythology of national origins.

As Frank Wain wrote above, “This week in colonial propaganda masquerading as history, we have Ralph Lauren with the genocide aesthetic.”

As for why a multiform colonial fantasy is reappearing now, I would suggest that it is an unconscious means of whitewashing a previous era of historical colonialism in order to legitimize the recent economic colonizations underway in of our cities and on the land. In short, it subtly (or not so subtly, depending on where you stand) legitimates the current economic order—with all its asymmetric racial and economic and other privileges and inequalities, and with all its gentrification, fracking and other land-appropriating exploits—as national destiny. As Gregg Deal wrote above, “the perpetuation of old stereotypes protects the #american dream.” By keeping such founding dreams alive, by whitewashing our colonial origins, we allay our anxieties about past and present instabilities and iniquities.

In Canada, meanwhile, the romanticization of our lumberjack past both helps perpetuate the ridiculous myth of a heroic founding white Canada and helps elevate aggressive resource extraction on aboriginal and/or common lands to the status of destiny or religion. But we must ask: where in the lumberjack myth are the First Nations who had occupied and used those woods and never approved their destruction?

(Perhaps these are shorthand notes for what needs to be a  longer essay, as I realize there are steps skipped in the arguments above in the interest of brevity.)

More tweets on the Ralph Lauren fiasco:

Ursula K. LeGuin: “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.”

November 29th, 2014 by LB

National Book Award
Reprinted from Parker Higgins of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who transcribed Le Guin’s speech:

Ursula K. Le Guin was honored at the National Book Awards tonight and gave a fantastic speech about the dangers to literature and how they can be stopped. As far as I know it’s not available online yet (update: the video is now online), so I’ve transcribed it from the livestream below. The parts in parentheses were ad-libbed directly to the audience, and the Neil thanked is Neil Gaiman, who presented her with the award.

Thank you Neil, and to the givers of this beautiful reward, my thanks from the heart. My family, my agent, editors, know that my being here is their doing as well as mine, and that the beautiful reward is theirs as much as mine. And I rejoice at accepting it for, and sharing it with, all the writers who were excluded from literature for so long, my fellow authors of fantasy and science fiction—writers of the imagination, who for the last 50 years watched the beautiful rewards go to the so-called realists.

I think hard times are coming when we will be wanting the voices of writers who can see alternatives to how we live now and can see through our fear-stricken society and its obsessive technologies to other ways of being, and even imagine some real grounds for hope. We will need writers who can remember freedom. Poets, visionaries—the realists of a larger reality.

Right now, I think we need writers who know the difference between the production of a market commodity and the practice of an art. Developing written material to suit sales strategies in order to maximize corporate profit and advertising revenue is not quite the same thing as responsible book publishing or authorship. (Thank you, brave applauders.)

Yet I see sales departments given control over editorial; I see my own publishers in a silly panic of ignorance and greed, charging public libraries for an ebook six or seven times more than they charge customers. We just saw a profiteer try to punish a publisher for disobedience and writers threatened by corporate fatwa, and I see a lot of us, the producers who write the books, and make the books, accepting this. Letting commodity profiteers sell us like deodorant, and tell us what to publish and what to write. (Well, I love you too, darling.)

Books, you know, they’re not just commodities. The profit motive often is in conflict with the aims of art. We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art—the art of words.

I have had a long career and a good one. In good company. Now here, at the end of it, I really don’t want to watch American literature get sold down the river. We who live by writing and publishing want—and should demand—our fair share of the proceeds. But the name of our beautiful reward is not profit. Its name is freedom.

Thank you.

Settler & pioneer “heritage hipster” styles in the age of Idle No More, Chinatown gentrification, &c.

October 14th, 2014 by LB
via Vancouver Sun
Men in British Columbia, 1859, one in a newly discovered collection of early photographs of white settlers and First Nations in B.C. © Vancouver Sun

I am probably as bored of casual hipster-slagging as you are. In fact I may be as fed up with hipster-bashing as I am with the hipster phenomenon itself—in all its varieties. I think what bores me about most critiques of hipsters, though, is not that they predictably fixate on the easy target of a repetitive fashion, but that they are almost always superficial and ahistorical. Annoyance at the tribal codes of hipsters is too often itself just tribal. Either that or it never surpasses “if you’re going to look like a logger, best learn how to use a chainsaw,” not that I don’t have a lot of sympathy with that sentiment. But virtually no one seems to be talking about the fact that certain hipster aesthetics have some pretty troubling historical antecedents which, when juxtaposed with current realities, seem more disturbing with every passing day. In particular, I’m bothered by the fact that here in my own place and time, haunted as it is by its colonial past, I’m seeing men adopt a late 19thC white male, pioneer aesthetic. In short: WTF.

Why are political-historical critiques of this ubiquitous style so absent? Maybe it stems from the fact that if you even tentatively point out problems with hipster codes in a casual conversation, people get really exercised about it. Even some of those employed in cultural studies or related fields will disavow that retro aesthetic references actually mean anything, pop up for any real reason, or have any significant connection to any particular history. Try it. You will likely face defensive, condescending, eye-rolling reactions like “that was then, this is now,” or “anything goes these days,” or “but you don’t realize meaning is fluid!” or  just because I’m wearing a haircut widely called the Nazi Youth doesn’t mean it has anything to do with Hitler; Hitler is dead and so on. If you propose that aesthetics aren’t purely random—if you suggest that aesthetics are in fact the thin end of the wedge of politics—you quickly find yourself in an unpopular minority in the room. I’m serious; try it.

Road to unpopularity or not, I want to talk about how jarring the “heritage hipster” phenomenon feels now that it has become the face of such things as the wave of gentrification hitting Chinatown and neighbouring areas of old Vancouver.

As anyone who has watched the satirical TV sketch show Portlandia knows, the “heritage hipster” style harks back to late 19thC white male North America. Portlandia has it as “the Dream of the 1890s” (see video below). The style’s historical referents are actually a little all over the place, being an amalgam of merchant or pioneer styles from 1850 to 1910, perhaps with some Depression-era 1930s and a little 1940s-50s overlaid on top. However the 1890s (that lesser known decade of catastrophic economic depression) seems to be its magnetic centre.

It’s interesting to note that the era 1850-1930 coincides with one of the largest waves of white European immigration to North America, largely facilitated by the advent of the steamship and availability of more affordable fares while also driven by increasing agricultural unemployment in Europe due to mechanization. In Canada this period was known as the second wave. It was also marked by increasing agitation in Canada against immigration from other parts of the world.

I have wanted to make an observation about the heritage hipster style for at least seven or eight years, but I kept thinking it had to be on its way out—why not just let it quietly fade away along with its homemade pickles, pies, striped canvas aprons, taxidermy and saloon decor involving rusty antique handsaws. Even two years ago I thought I’d missed the boat and that it was too late for even a post-mortem. Now however I see that news of the heritage hipster’s death was premature.

heritage hipster in a gentleman's club chair

heritage hipster

hipsters 1890s

hipster sea captain
Curre
nt fashion collection by Pull & Bear

What I think about when I see you wear this stuff in my neighbourhood

I live in a diverse and historically conflicted part of Vancouver, right at the confluence of Chinatown and an area known as the Downtown Eastside (DTES). It is the oldest part of Vancouver and one of the poorest postal codes in the country. Because it is close to downtown, condo tower developers have recently set their sights on it in what can only be called a land rush, one that our developer-captured City Hall has done nothing to decelerate. In Vancouver’s infamous climate of rampant real estate speculation, this neighbourhood is now experiencing skyrocketing rents, renoviction and demolition which are quickly driving out the neighbourhood’s traditional inhabitants: Chinese and other elders, the urban poor, many First Nations people, low-income workers and the homeless.

Coincidentally—or not—much of this neighbourhood dates precisely from the 1890s. Chinatown was founded in the mid 1880s but only really grew to a noticeable size and population in the following decade. The same is more or less true for the whole Downtown Eastside, since Vancouver was officially founded there in 1886. The Uchida/Ming Sun building on Powell Street, one of Vancouver’s 18 oldest buildings and one we’ve been trying to save for housing, dates from 1889. It was a crucially important building in Nihonmachi (or Japantown) until it was confiscated by the government during the WWII internment of Japanese-Canadians. What I’m getting at is that workers of many different origins lived around these parts, all working in the colonial resource sector including at the Hastings Mill or in the service sector that grew up around it. In short, this neighbourhood was not solely populated by white guys with waxed moustachios who looked as if they’d just exited a barbershop quartet.

In Chinatown, the 1890s and early 1900s were marked by constant conflict with a city government that habitually imposed on it repressive and racist laws: curfews, bans of traditional BBQ (a restaurant and social mainstay), and other regulations that were clearly targeted at a specific cultural group. (And I’m not even getting into the issue of the oppressive federal Head Tax here.) Tensions ran high and anti-Chinese racism, only legitimated by all the racialized regulations, carried with it the threat of intimidation and violence. Finally on September 7, 1907, “members of the white Asiatic Exclusion League marched to Chinatown where they beat up dozens of Chinese, wrecked stores and smashed windows. Order was not restored for several days.” (Read more at Simon Fraser University’s “Vancouver Chinatown 1886-2011.”) That’s what it was like in Chinatown around the turn of the last century.

And the history of Chinatown is only one element here. Vancouver was in the 1890s a new colonial city only several decades old. It was built on land taken not long before from the Coast Salish people—Musqueam, Tseil-Waututh and Squamish—without even so much as a treaty. Today Vancouver still sits on this unceded aboriginal territory. More broadly speaking, Vancouver’s settlement in the late 19th C was part of a systematic Canadian process of clearing the West for the railway and settlement, driving First Nations from their land and way of life using forced removals, deliberate starvation, residential schools and other tactics that are relatively well-known. The photo at the top of this post, the one showing bearded white men in BC in 1859, was taken smack in the middle of this era, as was the photo below (both via Vancouver Sun).

Early BC photos, First Nations man, white man

To be fair, while some of this racist local history is known, many of its most glaring elements are not. When writers Ali Kazimi and Henry Yu gave some historical background at the launch of Kazimi’s book Undesirables (about Vancouver’s Komagata Maru incident of 1914), even an informed local audience was visibly surprised. I question why it is not fully understood that this was an era of overt white supremacism appearing in all levels of government, from local Vancouver city politics to the provincial capital to Prime Ministers John A. Macdonald and William Lyon Mackenzie King. Still, enough is known about Vancouver’s racist history that anyone who lives and works in this neighbourhood, and who doesn’t at least vaguely sense these histories, would seem to be indulging in some degree of studied oblivion.

Now that this heritage hipster aesthetic has clearly entered the mainstream, I think it is fair to start asking a few questions. Even if you could, for yourself, surgically remove the settler aesthetics of that time from their origins, how can you guarantee that others will deem your efforts a success? What fantasy 1890s are you in, exactly? More importantly, what identity are you asserting? Do you care that your getup might have uncomfortable associations for local descendants of our undeniably brutal colonial history? Or that you might be (inadvertently or not) helping to whitewash, mythologize and perpetuate consent for the undemocratic, toxic, resource extraction-based, profoundly colonial economic structure we still live under in Canada in general and BC in particular?

Vancouver, racist policy, 1906

white supremacist quote, William Lyon Mackenzie King
Top, B.C. MP R.G. MacPherson’s remarks about Punjabi immigrants to the province. 1906. Above, future Prime Minister Mackenzie King’s dream of a white Canada, from a 1908 report.

Settlers redux

Before the recent wave of gentrification in Chinatown, the few non-Chinese shopowners in Chinatown made at least some attempt to fit in and honour local history and aesthetics. There weren’t that many of them and they did a good job of bringing some activity to the area in a way that seemed creatively sensitive to context.

But a couple of years ago as buildings in Chinatown and the DTES emptied out in advance of condo developments, and as shopfronts become available either as placeholders or as deliberate window-dressing for future condo locations, hipster joints full of antlers and beards began to appear overnight. There was zero visible attempt to work with the local historic context. Shops with ampersanded anglo names (Jones & Smith? Smith & Wesson? Bear & Buck? I can’t remember) arrived and so did restaurants with turn of the last century butcher shop aesthetics and lots of generic settler/pioneer decor that looked more Brooklyn or Manitoba than Vancouver. Meanwhile, at the very same time, resistance to the social and architectural destruction of Chinatown was growing. (See David Wong on loss of Chinatown culture in La Source.)* I am not suggesting that incoming merchants should have adopted a twee Chinois appropriation aesthetic and everything would have been fine. I am just pointing out that to many of us local residents, all this dressing and decorating like a white 1890s settler in Chinatown, while also giving convenient cover to the incoming condo developers, looked pretty effing audacious.

IdleNoMore1

Idle No More - solidarity

Idle No More - sovereignty

To return to the unceded aboriginal territory issue, during the past few years we have seen in BC and across the country a marked resurgence of actions by First Nations, notably against resource development on traditional lands. Idle No More, a movement initiated by First Nations activist women in December 2012, was a clear sign of a FN population increasingly organized and lawyered against a colonial system which, like the Indian Act of 1876, clearly still persists.

In fact 2014 was a year of reckoning and “reconciliation” not just for First Nations but also in three key non-white communities in Vancouver and B.C. While there has been discussion within all these communities of the problems with ideas of “recognition” and “reconciliation” because those concepts remain embedded in a colonial discourse, the point is that we are currently seeing a racist and colonial history (past as well as recent) brought to the fore. So in addition to the ongoing First Nations Truth and Reconciliation Commission over issues including residential schools as well as a key Supreme Court win for BC First Nation with the Tsilhqot’in victory, this year also saw the 100th year anniversary of Vancouver’s Komagata Maru episode, which included a federal apology; there was a City of Vancouver apology for the WWII internment of Japanese Canadians; and a BC apology to Chinese Canadians for the 1885 Head Tax. All these well-publicized processes—you’d have to be living under a rock to have missed all of them—are concurrent with the accelerated luxury condo development in neighbourhoods associated with these communities. And now into that complicated matrix blithely walks a neatly-coiffed Paul Bunyan.

It is the confluence of all these things in 2014 that has suddenly made the 1890s white male hipster aesthetic so flat-out intolerable. In light of both the history of Chinatown and the DTES and what’s happening here now, the sheer obliviousness of this mode of self expression and boutique chic seems staggering. Context is everything, and in this context, the heritage hipster aesthetic actually looks worse than oblivious: disingenuous at best, aggressive at worst. Its whitewashing nostalgia obscures our own history here, and I don’t need to point out what happens when we don’t know our history. And the defense that it’s ironic doesn’t wash. I don’t detect any real irony in it, but if irony is the intent, who are they performing that irony for, exactly? Each other?

As an aside, I would also add that even without the racial and colonial issues, I’d have a problem with this style for reasons involving its disingenuousness around gender and class. Why does no one talk about this style’s near–100% male adoption? I’ve asked many friends about this and none of them can think of a true female equivalent. Indeed, how could women (white, let alone non-white) adopt an 1890’s style in the same casual way? Somehow I don’t feel like wearing long dresses and not having the vote. For that matter, the heritage hipster is only one of many traditionally masculine styles that are currently being dusted off with way too much enthusiasm and all of which seem nostalgic for some old school, white masculinity or other. Secondly I haven’t dealt with the fact that the heritage hipster is a largely working class style affected by white boys who grew up middle class. This spree of class tourism isn’t justified by the fact that even though their upbringings were middle class their futures may not be. The “slumming” issue has its own complicated history, one I can’t deal with here but that has been well-covered elsewhere. I’ll just ask this: if you are a disenfranchised millennial or Gen Y man, is there no other means of signalling that you are DIY and libertarian than these retrogressive and worker-alibi trappings? But I digress.

chinatown restaurant - gentrification by antler

There are always exceptions that prove the rule, so I should point out that not all critiques of hipsterism are depoliticized. See Bill Deresiewicz’s excellent Generation Sell, which identifies entrepreneurialism as the affect-free heart of the hipster ethic, and I also liked A Complete Guide to ‘Hipster Racism’ from Jezebel in 2012. Here’s an interesting observation from its comment stream:

“What no one seems to talk about are the racial politics of hipster culture, which is odd since the early hipsters were engaged in a dialogue with amongst other things BeBop and therefore black culture, just as the Skins in the 60’s were addressing ska and Blue Beat and the Punks in the 70’s were influenced by reggae. Hipsterdom today seems like an unapologetic return to unmediated, sartorial proletarian whiteness. Troubling.”

So.

Are our historical aesthetic references innocent or not? It seems to me that fashion is a language or at the very least a mode of cultural expression, and that people make aesthetic choices because consciously or not they chime with their aspirations, fantasies and values. Maybe some would find this juxtaposition of 1890s heritage hipster aesthetic with actual on-the-ground 1890s local history somewhat tenuous. Maybe they think I’m oversensitized to these things having taken too many university history courses. But I just don’t buy it. I just don’t see how  it’s possible to avoid making the connection between this aesthetic and the realities of its not-so-distant origins. Its implications just seem very, very stark. For the sake of argument, though, let’s entertain the idea that culture consists of items that spin meaninglessly in a blender and can be conveniently unmoored from history. In that case, how is one style chosen over any other? Are our choices purely random? Is is just that we like shiny—or plaid—things? Is it merely an accident that people have retained this aesthetic for eight straight years (highly unusual in fashion), and in this place? I find it impossible to believe that this is not a deeply meaningful code, and a code designed to assert a particular type of entitlement (I use that term in the general sense as well as pertaining to land use). If dressing in the style of a white pioneer from the late 19thC means nothing, why defend it so vigorously when challenged, year after year? Methinks the men in suspenders doth protest too much. In short, this is one of the few instances when I agree with the otherwise idiotic New Age maxim that “everything happens for a reason.”

“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” Farcical as the costume design may be, given the fact that we’re talking about gentrification and land grabs and rapidly widening inequality, farce may be giving way to a second tragedy.

____________________________________________________________________

Please see another post that functions as Part II of this argument: Colonial Aesthetics and Ralph Lauren.

____________________________________________________________________

For your reading pleasure, or not, here is a plethora of links on heritage hipsters and related topics (list will be periodically updated):

The Great Heritage-Hipster Clusterfuck of 2009/10/11 (… it didn’t end in 2011 – Ed.)
The Rise of the Lumbersexual
How Straight World Stole ‘Gay’: The Last Gasp of the ‘Lumbersexual’
Out of the Woods, Here He Comes: The Lumbersexual (Guardian)
Safe Space for Capital
Vancouver people dress poorly, by IHateVan
Why do people hate hipsters?
Piss Off You Hipster Git
Will Self: The awful cult of the talentless hipster has taken over
Will Self, keep your cardigan on. Blanket disdain for hipsters is so tired
Is it OK to Hate HipstersBeware of cupcake fascism
The pernicious realities of artwashing
The Heritage Hipster Matrix 2010
The racially fraught history of the American beard
Vancouver Lexicon: The Lumberjoke
Hipster Business Name Generator
Charting the rise of Generation Yawn
I Spent a Night at the Urban Cowboy, Williamsburg’s Hip, New Western-Themed Bed and Breakfast

Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native
Stephen Harper and the Myth of the Crooked Indian
The Colonial Aesthetic and Ralph Lauren
The problem isn’t aboriginals as Stephen Harper suggests. It’s us: Siddiqui 

“In other words, he looked entirely typical of the kind of 21st-century hipster conformist who has adopted a wild-man-of-the-woods look even though he works in marketing and only leaves the city to attend music festivals.” (Guardian)
Review of the taxidermy cuisine in Chinatown

I strongly recommend watching this video of a panel of short talks for the launch of Glen Coulthard’s book Red Skin White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Excellent introduction to First Nations issues, strategies for undoing persistent colonial structures, and a political approach to the land (which also addresses such problems as urban gentrification and land use).

Also see So NOW: On Normcore  for a good discussion of where critique is now & the question of “post-criticality.” Much of that article will stand as a challenge to some of my own arguments and method above.

Acknowledgements: I chatted about this idea for many months with many friends, all of whom were fantastically helpful, but in particular thanks to Elee Kralji-Gardiner, Lisa Prentice, and Riaz Behra.

McCabe and Mrs. Miller, 1971, Robert Altman. Shot in Vancouver in 1970, set in 1899

*Re Gentrification: Before my discussion is derailed by the sidestep argument that it’s really artists who are responsible for gentrification, and why blame a few hipsters, let me say this. First, neither is the prime mover of gentrification here. The culprit would be the pairing of Vision Vancouver, the current ruling party in Vancouver, and its developer donors who now effectively own City Hall. But as for the hipsters and artists and the cover they give to developers: while some art galleries have moved into the area, in my view it’s not so easy to say they’re agents of gentrification in the way the posh hipster restaurants are. Centre A and Gallery 221A are part of the Chinese community and have furthermore been highlighting and even opposing rampant luxury development in Chinatown. Last week I went to the best community meeting I’ve ever attended at Centre A, in which diverse members of the community were brought together to talk about how to stop a tower slated to tower over Sun Yat Sen Gardens. And that’s only a tiny part of the community building activities that these art centres have been involved in. While it’s always impossible to avoid artwashing entirely, I see the role of these centres as somewhat distinct from the new restaurant and real estate entrepreneurs.

 

heritage hipster fashion matrix
Via AskAndyAboutClothes

UPDATE: This Guardian article on the “Lumbersexual” theorizes that the lumberjack look is straight white guys borrowing a gay bear style. It also argues that the style is ironic. I think those are two separate issues. I don’t buy that this gear is truly ironic (except in an unintended sense), but I think she’s probably right about the influence of the gay bear look. But the thing is, this is still a form of hypermasculinity regardless of the sexual orientation of the wearer or how over-coiffed the rendition. And the gay bear reference just sits like an extra layer on top of the style’s whitewashing of the settler era, rather than contradicting it. Anyway, I think the article is somewhat guilty of the type of light, de-historicized analysis I reference in my essay. There’s also this similar piece in The Daily Beast PS: Given the gay fashion connection I’m quite amazed that a English writer would fail to mention the Monty Python lumberjack sketch:

“I never wanted to do this job in the first place!
I… I wanted to be…
A LUMBERJACK!
Leaping from tree to tree!
As they float down the mighty rivers of
British Columbia!
I cut down trees, I eat my lunch,
I go to the lava-try.
On Wednesdays I go shoppin’
And have buttered scones for tea.

— Monty Python

Online terrorist threats against women – Anita Sarkeesian in Utah

October 13th, 2014 by LB

Utah email terrorist threat against Anita Sarkeesian

For the record, and because it’s an artefact of our times, here’s a screenshot of the terrorist email threat against feminist activist Anita Sarkeesian in Utah. As Skepchick pointed out, we do need to call this what it is: terrorism.

(Click twice on the image to zoom in on the email, or see it at Skepchick here.)

The “Non-Partisan” Association, Vancouver’s zombie political party

August 13th, 2014 by LB

NPA Vancouver

This post is for Vancouverites who are either new to the city or who are urban or civic politics nerds but may not be acquainted with the early historical roots of the local civic political party known—somewhat hilariously—as the Non Partisan Association (NPA). In power for many years, the NPA was recently all-but eliminated by a new developer-funded party, Vision Vancouver. However, lately the NPA seems to be attempting a zombie return from the dead, so a review of its history seems useful.

Some excerpts from the 1967 Vancouver Sun article above (read it here (jpg)]:

“It was the success of the CCF—now NDP [now COPE]—at the local level in the civic elections of 1936 which was a second major factor in the organization of the NPA [the first was the move from a ward system to an at-large system in 1936]… [I]ts purpose was to keep CCF-socialist politics out [of city hall]… Unquestionably the NPA has been the “party” of the west side of the city, and has helped to maintain the split of east-side west-side which has been of fundamental importance in the politics of Vancouver for nearly 50 years. Because NPA candidates have dominated the civic boards for 30 years, west-side interests have made policy for the city for 30 years…. It was the fear of the policies and legislation which east side, “socialistic” representatives would bring to city council and civic boards, and of more importance the concern with the political power which civic office would bring them, which prompted the organization of the NPA…”

… & so on. It’s fascinating reading, revealing a party that is the furthest thing from non-partisan. Even when it pulls in candidates from across the city, it represents a particular establishment and political stripe.

By raising this party’s past I am not suggesting that a political party cannot drift from its original purpose. I’m suggesting that this one hasn’t. I would also say that it is usually difficult for an institution to alter its very DNA, and when political DNA does change, historically it has been infinitely more common to see a drift from left to right (via a co-optation by business interests) than to see a drift in the other direction. Certainly it seems very unlikely that a party this genetically close to west side and business establishment interests will be truly interested in, for example, the open government and “transparency” issue it has now mounted on its campaign like a parade float mascot.

While the NPA’s activities may have been more benign during certain periods—say, the administration of Mayor Philip Owen in the 1990s—it is worth taking a look at the most recent NPA regime of Mayor Sam Sullivan. Sullivan’s euphemistic “ecodensity” program turbo-charged the tower development bonanza that is laying waste to this city’s affordability and built heritage, and that Vision Vancouver has even further accelerated but just under a different name.

Which takes me to my next point, that the incumbent faux-green party Vision Vancouver is no alternative to the NPA. Vision Vancouver and the NPA have a great deal in common, not least their identical corporate real estate funders. While Vision is backed by an NDP element, its  ties to the construction industry’s unions have only rendered it more friendly to rampant luxury developers and property speculators. This is all shorthand for a much more complicated situation that I’m not going to footnote or otherwise elaborate on here. Much ink has been spilled on this topic, and better ink than this.

Tactically speaking I believe the best we can hope for in the November 2014 civic election is a minority civic government. We then at least have a small chance of getting some traction. I will be supporting a number of candidates (TBA) including the three Green council candidates Adriane Carr, Pete Fry and Cleta Brown, and Keith Higgins and Gayle Gavin of COPE (with Meena Wong for Mayor). These parties do not take developer donations. In the second-most unaffordable city in the world relative to median income, a distinction Vancouver has won the past three years in a row, we need to try something else.

Vancouver did many things right in the 70s. Most of the things it is now rightly famous for were the work of more progressive administrations, not of the most recent developer-funded administrations. We need to return to a progressive civic politics. Bike lanes and faux-transparency do not a progressive housing agenda make.

The intention of this post, hastily written in the news doldrums of pre-election summertime, is merely to provide a little interesting reading on the topic of the NPA’s ancient history. Maybe this is also a bid for some consciousness of civic history in this famously amnesiac town.

Here is a link to a 5 MB jpg of the news story above. Feel free to download.

Alternatively take a look at this useful 1976 grad thesis on the origins of the NPA (PDF).

 

Oh Vancouver just stop

August 13th, 2014 by LB

ScanBCmanpursewhiteBMW

Yes, the official ScanBC Twitter account which monitors the electronic communications of BC’s emergency services has reported that Vancouver Police are on scene with a male robbed of his gold chain and his purse and Seymour St  & W Hastings St. Suspect fled in white BMW

This almost reads as a form of time travel in which the new Vancouver reality is overlaid upon the old. Or as William Gibson once said, the future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed.

May the epoch of jerks in white BMW be short-lived; may we survive long enough to see its fiery demise.