Imagine a brand “Printers Scandinavia”. By itself it would be perfectly neutral, right? Of course “Printers Lousy Scandinavia” or “Printers Great Power of Scandinavia” would carry some connotation. But just the name?

The #ASF (Apache Software Foundation) is, to most people familiar with it, a good institution with a noble cause. At worst, it would be a neutral organisation, in moral terms. How can the association between the name of a group of people (marginalised or not) and a good entity be bad in itself?

Lastly, and by the same (flimsy) logic, 500+ million native #Spanish speakers would like to have a word with any entitled English speaker who pontificates on the word “apache” being used as a disrespectful cultural appropriation: you guys stole the word from our language in the first place. We could be offended too, or withdraw our approval for you to use it. Just use your own word!

/s

To recap: a group of people in what is now known as North America (the Apache) use, to refer to themselves in the language of one of their colonisers (English), a loanword from the language of another of their colonisers (Spanish), which is an approximate transliteration of the word that a rival group of people (the Zuñi) used to mean “enemy”, sometimes referring to them (the Apache).

I don’t know where the Zuñi got their word for “enemy” from in the first place, and whether in turn it was a disrespectful appropriation (yes, it was).

So: some Apache are angry that a benign non-profit is calling itself “enemy” using a word that moved from Zuñi to Spanish and from Spanish to English, and assert that they and only they can be “enemy”.

@tripu I can see your point. I am sure there was no evil intent (probably respect even) in the naming of the non-profit. However, it is a US-based organization being asked by a group not just discriminated against by the US but the targets of centuries-long genocide of an inconceivable scale [1]. That the Apache foundation uses a feather as their icon really points to the fact that their name is related to the Indigenous people. Change and respect can go together
1. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/world/european-colonization-climate-change-trnd/index.html

@amyvdh

Those details are important for sure.

Still, I don’t understand where’s the harm in just using a word.

Also, if the majority of reasonable observers (you and I included) “are sure [sic] there was no evil intent (probably respect even)”, and the #ASF itself has repeatedly mentioned “reverence and appreciation” as their motive, and in fact there’s no trace (afaik) of mockery or disdain (in fact, the colourful feather looks beautiful to me)… shouldn’t we all be saying to those Apache who are complaining:

“Don’t be silly. This is a non-issue, and you know it. You have no reasonable grounds to claim offence. That does not ‘erase’ you. Nobody can ‘appropriate’ a culture or a word. Don’t exaggerate and damage a good non-profit. Surely you have more pressing issues. Please move on and grow up.”

?

We can respect marginalised groups, acknowledge their predicament and try to help them, and at the same time criticise them when they are wrong.

@tripu What if we didn't consider it as strictly "offense" but as heritage or identity? It isn't hurt feelings, but "we don't want x to co-opt our identity (and brand with its personal associations) for their business". Apache isn't just a neutral word like "chair". It's as if a company branded itself "Judaism" (using a Star of David) or "Dalit". Who are we, as non-indigenous people, to declare "No, your culture doesn't matter. We can use anything of yours we want"?

@amyvdh @tripu What really bothers me with all of this is that they only attack the words and never the underlying problems.

This is nice, especially politically, as one can make oneself seen to be progressive and impress the balcony. It's only about words, so there are no real enemies or dangers. (other than some idiotic remarks like mine)

But changing real life discrimination is a lot harder than riding the roller coaster by pseudo-criticizing one of the most well known brands in IT.

@rigo @tripu Who is the "they" here ("they only attack")? Surely there are annoying people amongst progressives (hands up for that myself sometimes). But this instance the "they" is actual Apache tribes people who are trying to address long standing systemic problems one example of which is addressing how their heritage is used in branding etc.

@amyvdh
@tripu do you think the Hoover-family should do the same? If the US society would address real material discrimination of the Apache people, nobody would actually bother to have Apache being also!! associated with software.
Those two aspects just to mention how political those word games are. But the real benefit of the game will not go to the discriminated.

@rigo
The Hoover family - who made an immense fortune from vacuum cleaners? Who used their own name as their brand? If so, part of the difference is the name Apache has not become genericized as a product - but is primarily a term for a nuanced and complex group of peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache#Difficulties_in_naming

@amyvdh

I appreciate those ideas, Amy! Some thoughts about the words you suggest to replace “offence”:

“Culture” (the making of meaning, iirc from my Cultural Studies MA): culture is immaterial, infinitely reproducible, and owned by nobody. In my view, nobody owns or has special rights over culture of any kind. Cultures thrive when people are eager to use and rework their items, and nobody has to ask permission to do so.

You know how someone effectively “declare[s] ‘no, your culture doesn’t matter’”? Ignoring that culture and not using its artefacts — not the opposite! The Apache culture became one tiny bit bigger and healthier when a non-profit chose to name itself after it.

“Identity” (“the distinguishing character or personality of an individual”). I honestly don’t know how someone or something can hurt or diminish my identity or the identity of a group I belong to. We alone create our identity. If someone imitated the way you speak, the dishes you cook, or the books you pay attention to… First of all, I think you could be flattered (isn’t it worse to be ignored?). Second, you could argue that you identity would be a bit diluted, since you would be a bit less distinguishable — but that would be so only because your character or personality had become better appreciated and more popular among other people (again, that sounds positive). Third, if having a strong identity were important to you, you could always change your character or personality to move away from what is mainstream or trendy.

I always struggle to understand how the “identity” of groups of people can be “erased” or “denied”.

“Heritage”: we use it to refer to two very different types of things: stuff that is physical and scarce (property), and cultural items (tradition, folklore). We all agree that property can be unjustly appropriated. But since the #ASF clearly has not “stolen” anything physical or scarce from the Apache, by “heritage” here we mean the latter class of things. But then again, culture, memes, tradition… all that can be copied infinitely without causing damage to anyone. Those things aren’t owned by anybody.

I think I bite the bullet: yes, “we can use anything of yours we want”.

I honestly don’t know what you could “use” from “my” culture(s) that would offend me or affect me negatively. In fact, in most situations I can imagine, I would see normal usage (as opposed to mockery) as a sign of appreciation.

(Yes, we have some special, narrow types of “culture” and “identity” that can be owned, and that property is protected by the law: patents, brands, trademarks, copyright, etc. But none of that applies here, right?)

@tripu I think the end point here is if you agree with the thinking: "we can use anything of yours we want" re: Apaches or any other marginalized group, then defining words like culture does not really matter. If you put your feelings, the things you (or the Foundation) wants to use above the Apache people's request about its name, it's use (or abuse), history, etc.I think there's no convincing you that what they say matters so I'll end here

@amyvdh

Definitely, we see things very differently! 🙂

I interpret “of yours” in this context differently. My demonym, my sexual orientation, my religion… those things are “mine” only in the same way the street where I live is “my street”: I say “mine” to indicate attachment or preference — but everybody else is free to use it too, and I can’t claim any special rights over it.

Culture matters to me as well. But I want cultures to grow and combine as people see best. I want all cultures to be available to everyone. That to me is the truly progressive, enlightened approach. (Almost?) every restriction seems arbitrary or conservative to me.

wrt feelings: in political and moral matters, I think we should leave feelings out of the public conversation whenever possible. Feelings muddle reason. When feelings clash, there’s little room for compromise or for rational argumentation: it’s either the strongest side wins, or eternal conflict. There’s a reason legal codes strive to be objective and to define transgressions accurately, instead of appealing to feelings and other subjective factors.

No need to keep on arguing if you don’t feel like it, of course. I want to put my thoughts in writing — for my future self, if nothing else :)

@tripu We are coming from this from very different points of view.

I understand "removing feelings from political matters" is a age-old attitude of those in power. But to me it's one which neatly maintains unequal status quos. It prioritizes the advantage of those who already benefit from an inequality, conquest or power dynamic (whether colonialism, wealth or power inequality, racism, etc.) by dismissing complaints or advocacy for change ("feelings") to make them neither heard or valued

@tripu "Works for me!" is certainly a common attitude. But the unsaid part of that in politics etc is '.. and I don't care if it works for others".

Maintaining a status quo is a very efficient way to keep things comfortable for the group benefiting. However, it's not how society changes or progresses. I think that you would advocate for progress abstractly. I just invite you to investigate where that feels uncomfortable to you and if it's about others having new rights, why that bothers you

@amyvdh

OK, I’ll think about that!

Right now, I don’t see that I feel personally uncomfortable or threatened by any of this. It may be a blind spot.

Of course, to the extent that some rights are a zero-sum game, I have something to lose when public attitude or the law change to favour any of my outgroups, even if it’s a small push at the margin. But then, that’s true for everyone.

(Many rights and advances seem purely good for everyone; I’m sure we would be eye to eye about those.)

@amyvdh

I don’t understand that, Amy. Since when are feelings “progressive” and reason “conservative”?

Is there any evidence that social progress happened more often in History when society gave more weight to the feelings and emotions of minorities, thinkers or philanthropists — as opposed to paying more attention to better rational arguments from their part?

@tripu I think that's too simplistic. Minority points of views are not just feelings - they are rational arguments based in history. Thinking without focus on humanity or ethics is not inherently better or higher than thinking which takes that into account.

@bonifartius But those whimsical campaigns are also affecting large companies, universities, product names, etc, right?

@tripu not to this degree though, companies usually have enough money to just buy their way out. do some diversity hires for a diversity team and have them do whatever they like in their little enclosed zone.

volunteer projects are destroyed by this shit. imagine if the FSF really just had kicked out RMS and gave in to all demands. they’d be like the FSFE now, a total woke club who usurped the good name of FSF.

@bonifartius

Agreed. Large companies have many more resources to weather (fake) controversies.

OTOH, the general public doesn’t know or understand or care about “slave databases”, “master branches” or “Apache Foundation” remotely as much as they are familiar with Patagonia, Iceland, Amazon, etc, so the mobs there are much bigger and more vociferous.

@bonifartius

(I used to be active in the ASF, incl board member in 2020)

IF this was the only thing that "they" are coming after at the ASF, then it could easily be resolved. I vaguely recall that a name change came up ~20 years ago, and it was not far off to happen.

BUT, the SJW/woke religion is infiltrating the core of the ASF (and others), taking away the core values, replacing them with DIE ideology, claiming that ASF isn't diverse and inclusive.

@tripu

@bonifartius

I fought it for a long time, but eventually realized it is a losing battle and I didn't have the energy to hold the grounds. I have completely renounced my affiliations with the ASF, and the team their have done their best to scrub my name (as I have requested).

Once the Chinese stop their enthusiasm about ASF and no quality contributions decline, ASF will whither and die. Activist don't write code, but want the credits for it...

@tripu

@niclas
i can completely understand that. it's sad for apache though. i think that meritocracy got replaced with wokeness will lead to the demise of most free software.

hell, even corporate backed things like go (i know you don't like it ;) are getting objectively worse at a rapid pace: a project designed by old unix folks with simplicity & correctness in mind now has a butt ugly unusable "modern" documentation pages and a cache server for the the module system - which was designed to be decentralized and correct - is running ddos attacks against code hosters because they run complete git clones all the time. all over the time of like two-three years.

i skim the pages of projects i think about using to look for virtue signalling. the amount of wokeness is inversely proportional to code quality. maybe i should just stop using computers

@tripu

@inference @tripu We do have a tendency to pick the worst sounding names for our terminology though.

@avarowell

(It’s curious how you deleted one very important word when quoting my post.)

If anything should be considered “disrespectful or offensive” to some group of people as long as “some members of that group have said so”, then we’re screwed.

@tripu Curious? Naaah. I just missed it out mate. Put the word back in place if you like and I’ll still stand by it.

@avarowell

Be prepared then to readily admit that a word you use or an idea you espouse is disrespectful or offensive any time some members of a group say so, and (since I presume you don’t want to disrespect or offend people) to stop using that word or discard that idea. I wish you luck.

@tripu 😂

@avarowell @tripu Is it, though?

To take an extreme example, one will sometimes encounter people who are gay/lesbian people who insist "homosexuality is a choice". Do we immediately accept that as the collective opinion of all gay/lesbian people, or do we ask if it's representative of the majority?

@hughster @tripu My dudes, it’s just a brand name. Besides, I recon the only people qualified to debate this ain’t here to do so. It’ll all play out as it will.

@avarowell @tripu Nice dodge!

@avarowell

“It’s just a brand name.”

Precisely. Why all the fuss?

“The only people qualified to debate this ain’t here to do so.”

Linguists? Historians? Psychologists? Lawyers?

/cc @hughster

@dusnm

Someone naming their company or product “Serbia” is either making up a backronym (neutral meaning) or displaying at least some level of knowledge and/or appreciation for Serbia the country (positive meaning).

How could one possibly “separate [a country] from [its] cultural identity and traditions” by simply using the name of the country to designate a non-profit organisation based in the other side of the world?

How in Earth would “Serbia Vacuum Cleaners Corp.”, headquartered in Vietnam, hurt Serbian people in any meaningful way?

@tripu Emotions are a funny thing, they're not rational. It feels wrong because it does. "Serbia Vacuum Cleaners Corp." sounds appalling to me precisely because it has nothing to do with its namesake, Serbia the country, the people and the Serbian ethnic identity. It's also highly unlikely to be accidental, adding insult to injury.

@tripu Knowing nothing about the culture, making stereotypical caricatures and imposing romantic (or otherwise) expectations onto it is where I draw the line between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation.

@dusnm

I think that criterion is impossible to match in practice.

My challenge to you: if I knew you just a little bit, I bet I could make a long list of “cultural items” that have their origin in groups/cultures/countries/languages that are foreign to you, and that you “use” without “knowing [anything] about [them]”, “making stereotypical caricatures”, or “imposing […] expectations”.

We all do, all the time. It’s OK.

@tripu We all do to a certain extent, I agree. This is a very fine line, incredibly undefined and hard to do so. I however reject the premise that just because something is messy and difficult to traverse we shouldn't even try.

@dusnm

It’s not messy or difficult. It’s impossible and damaging. You would have to strip your mother tongue of many loanwords. Your culinary palette would be impoverished. The items of fashion, art, music, etc you consume will shrink. Memes, nuance, humour, etc would suffer immensely.

@tripu I agree that cultural exchange is a good thing. We love it around here, we take pride in people wanting to know more about our culture.

I disagree, however, that the Washington Redskins changing their name had such a dramatic effect as you described here.

This is a prime example of the thing you just denounced as impossible.

@dusnm

Of course that one sports team changing their name is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

What I say is impossible is to broadly apply those stringent criteria to always avoid “cultural appropriation” and offence towards groups or individuals. To never use cultural items when we “[know] nothing about the culture, [make] stereotypical caricatures” or impose “expectations onto it”.