Amazon HQ2 thread

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Nooooo!

this is an outrage!

that crust is gonna get so fucking soggy.

Don't worry, it's from Lou's. With a greasy enough butter crust it will stay crispy for decades!

Originally Posted by 10023

Not to go off topic, but “First Nations” is such a silly euphemism.

It's safe to say that when it comes to the phrase "First Nations", 10023 is having nunavut!

Originally Posted by 10023

“Indians” is obviously erroneous but at least reflects an interesting historical misunderstanding.

“Native Americans” is essentially correct (at least if “native” is understood to mean extant for thousands rather than hundreds of years).

“First Nations” is based on a fallacious definition of nationhood, and the people and cultures that it refers to would not have understood themselves as such before modern times. Nationhood is basically an 18th century European construct. They were the first human societies in what is now Canada, but not really nations.

I much prefer the following:

Indian; feathers not dot

and

Indian; dot not feathers

In order to avoid confusion.

[ue]

^ Which just causes confusion over the word 'Indian', which is an outdated colonialist term based on European ignorance of the 15th and 16th centuries.

[ue]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The word "First Nations" was a bit of a fad for a while as Canadian English tried to settle on what to call the first people who lived on this continent, after "Indian" became unacceptable. Increasingly, we're settling on the term "Indigenous Canadian", sort of like how Americans seem to be pretty settled on the term "Native American".

Right, but Indigenous is the umbrella term replacing Aboriginal (which replaced Indian). First Nations is a branch of Indigenous, along with Metis and Inuit.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Doady

"Nation" refers to cultural boundaries. "State" refers to political boundaries. "First Nations" is correct.

"Native Americans" cannot be correct, unless Canadians can be "Americans" also, and "America" is the continent and not just one country.

America is the continent. In fact it’s two of them, the Americas.

Note that this is not me taking up the Latin American argument that citizens of the United States shouldn’t call themselves “Americans”, because that refers to everyone from Alaska to Chile. Language is not software code and its meaning is based on our accepted understanding of it; so “American” can mean “US person” while “Native American” can mean the peoples extant in the Americas prior to European arrival and colonization.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Actually, they perfectly match one of the definitions of nation. They weren't modern nation states, but that isn't the only definition - or even the first definition.

Nonsense.

Not only did they not have the common language, breadth of economic linkages, etc or civil society that this requires, but they didn’t have the concept. Nationhood is an invented societal construct, which became popular in the 18th and probably dates no earlier than the 16th century. The people of Elizabethan England considered themselves a nation; the citizens of Charlemagne’s empire, Rome or Athens did not.

To call the early peoples of North America “nations” is to further impose European norms and structure on a non-European culture and society. I understand that modern tribal leaders in Canada might have embraced it, but that only shows that they don’t understand the term or know history.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by 10023

Nonsense.

Not only did they not have the common language, breadth of economic linkages, etc or civil society that this requires, but they didn’t have the concept. Nationhood is an invented societal construct, which became popular in the 18th and probably dates no earlier than the 16th century. The people of Elizabethan England considered themselves a nation; the citizens of Charlemagne’s empire, Rome or Athens did not.

To call the early peoples of North America “nations” is to further impose European norms and structure on a non-European culture and society. I understand that modern tribal leaders in Canada might have embraced it, but that only shows that they don’t understand the term or know history.

We're off-topic.

But you're wrong.

See definition:

Black's Law Dictionary defines a nation as:

A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.[1]

Further, note the timeline dating back to 1142, pre-Columbus, for the existence of the '5-Nations' group of Aboriginals (later 6, after 1722).

Read the details of their societal organization and how it fits the definition quite neatly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

Now that we're all clear on that...........

Can we pretty please get back on topic?

Thanks all!

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 10023

Nonsense.

Not only did they not have the common language, breadth of economic linkages, etc or civil society that this requires, but they didn’t have the concept. Nationhood is an invented societal construct, which became popular in the 18th and probably dates no earlier than the 16th century. The people of Elizabethan England considered themselves a nation; the citizens of Charlemagne’s empire, Rome or Athens did not.

To call the early peoples of North America “nations” is to further impose European norms and structure on a non-European culture and society. I understand that modern tribal leaders in Canada might have embraced it, but that only shows that they don’t understand the term or know history.

I think they called themselves "nations". At least the Iroquois did and that term is associated with them all over New York.

[Don't Be That Guy]

A poster over in the Pittsburgh forums had in intersting observation about Atlanta's chances of landing HQ2. Is Amazon willing to set up shop in a state that is rolling back LGBT adoption and foster care rights. And, more importantly to their bottom line, what good are promises of a tax credits and government handouts if the Lt. Governor can just willy-nilly threaten to revoke them because a company doesn't support right-wing organizations?

Maybe Amazon really doesn't care about that stuff, and maybe Georgia lawmakers don't care if Amazon picks them. But the optics are just bad.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Don't Be That Guy

A poster over in the Pittsburgh forums had in intersting observation about Atlanta's chances of landing HQ2. Is Amazon really willing to set up shop in a state that a state that is rolling back LGBT adoption and foster rights. And, more importantly, to their bottom line, what good are promises of a tax credits and government handouts if the Lt. Governor can just willy-nilly threaten to revoke them because a company doesn't support right-wing organizations?

Maybe Amazon really doesn't care about that stuff, and maybe Georgia lawmakers don't care if Amazon picks them. But the optics are just bad.

I think you're right, I bet Georgia just lost it with the NRA BS.

[Steely Dan]

jesus, how fucking stupid are georgia republicans?

i thought the whole "new south" mantra was about putting business ahead of politics.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

jesus, how fucking stupid are georgia republicans?

If you ever played the peg game at Cracker Barrel.....

Ignoramus!!

[10023]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

We're off-topic.

But you're wrong.

See definition:

Black's Law Dictionary defines a nation as:

A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.[1]

Further, note the timeline dating back to 1142, pre-Columbus, for the existence of the '5-Nations' group of Aboriginals (later 6, after 1722).

Read the details of their societal organization and how it fits the definition quite neatly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

Now that we're all clear on that...........

Can we pretty please get back on topic?

Thanks all!

But native groups in Canada did not meet that definition. Some but certainly not all of it. That’s my whole point. A tribe is not a nation (and conversely, neither is an empire; the Inca weren’t a nation either).

[10023]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

jesus, how fucking stupid are georgia republicans?

i thought the whole "new south" mantra was about putting business ahead of politics.

Let’s hope so.

Speaking of, wouldn’t a boycott of Disney World be a decent tool to bring Florida pols to their senses?

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

jesus, how fucking stupid are georgia republicans?

i thought the whole "new south" mantra was about putting business ahead of politics.

"New South" has more than one meaning.

The modern (read:relevant) usage of the word is to simply describe the economic prosperity that region has experienced in comparison to the economic decline in the Rust Belt.

The other meaning was simply about the south partnering with northern capitalists to accelerate the speed of their economic redevelopment after the abolishment of slavery.

It had nothing to do with "putting business ahead of politics."

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by 10023

Let’s hope so.

Speaking of, wouldn’t a boycott of Disney World be a decent tool to bring Florida pols to their senses?

Disney World is such a rip of it's unbelievable. It's sad that so many families think they need to take their kids there as some sort of life necessity. The place is horrible and so expensive.

I'm still pissed that we took the kids there.

[skyscraper]

Apparently Thursday March 1 is the deadline for the shortlist final submissions.
https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...-for-info.html
According to this article, Amazon will be making their decision this summer.
So 6 more months of rumor mongering, tea leaf reading, and hand wringing.

[C.]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Canada:

Current Amazon HQ's: 0

Future Amazon HQ's: 0

United States:

Current Amazon HQ's: 1

Future Amazon HQ's: 2

/Thread


Also can we get back to the topic at hand which is Amazon's plans to build HQ2 on a giant floating deep dish pizza in Lake Michigan?

lol

[10023]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Disney World is such a rip of it's unbelievable. It's sad that so many families think they need to take their kids there as some sort of life necessity. The place is horrible and so expensive.

I'm still pissed that we took the kids there.

I’m telling any kids I have that they’re not going to Disney World for the same reason I’m not having a bachelor party in Vegas (well, one of the reasons). It’s a cheesy ripoff for people with an extremely narrow set of life experiences and interests.

[Shawn]

It looks like Boston is either getting a pretty sweet consolation prize, or Amazon is pre-ramping up for a Boston HQ2:

Originally Posted by The Boston Globe

Amazon set to bring at least 2,000 more jobs to the Seaport . . . Amazon is poised to lease a massive new office space in the Seaport District and hire at least 2,000 employees in the city over the next few years . . . According to documents filed with the city, Amazon is in negotiations to rent a building in the planned Seaport Square project, with an option to lease a second space to accommodate additional growth. Construction on the first building, by developer WS Development, could start this summer . . . Together, the two buildings would position the company to add 4,000 jobs in Boston over the next several years in the heart of the booming Seaport District, most of them in technology-related areas such as robotics, cloud computing, and voice-activated systems.

Full article here

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That doesn't mean much as parking is determined by bedrooms and not the number of units in a building. Rentals in Chicago may be more studios and one bedrooms while condos are 2 to 3 bedrooms. I will repeat my question. Are you saying a high end 3 bedroom condo with have more parking than a high end 3 bedroom rental?

Originally Posted by 10023

I’m telling any kids I have that they’re not going to Disney World for the same reason I’m not having a bachelor party in Vegas (well, one of the reasons). It’s a cheesy ripoff for people with an extremely narrow set of life experiences and interests.

Ha! I also have a lifetime ban on Vegas. Never been and never will go.