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”](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity)). 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](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heritage): 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.

@amyvdh @tripu my criticism is that it is attacking mainstream terms instead of the discrimination. Renaming the Apache foundation will not remove any discrimination against the minority. It will just serve as a legitimization that something was done and that the minority should happily shut up now. This type of dispute is very US specific and I already apologize if I have offended Amy :) It is hardly understandable from the other side of the pond.

@amyvdh

I agree. Expecting feelings from victims and reason from those in power (or vice versa) is simplistic. That was my point.

I was answering to this:

> _"‘Removing feelings from political matters’ is a age-old attitude […] which neatly maintains unequal status quos. It prioritizes the advantage of those who already benefit […] by dismissing complaints or advocacy for change (‘feelings’) to make them neither heard or valued.”_

You are saying that “removing feelings from political matters” benefits “those in power”, or at least that on average it tends to benefit “those in power” more.

But I think that “removing feelings from political matters” benefits… _those who have better rational arguments_. And that is a good thing. Sometimes a club of millionaires has the best argument, sometimes a prosecuted minority has the best argument.

I discount the value of feelings as valid currency in public debates _for all participants_ (not just minorities).

And I'm sure you do, too:

Nationalists lamenting the arrival of immigrants, nativists longing for the “pure blood” of their race, people against abortion who weep when they think of a 6-week fetus that won't be born, people who experience profound disgust at the idea of two men getting married… those are feelings, very specific and strong feelings. Why don't we (you and I) give credence to those strong emotions? Because their arguments are flawed.

@tripu I do not discount the value of feelings in debates nor in making policy. I discredit the false idea of placing "rational" (thinking which ignores human aspects) arguments above those based on lived experience or strong feelings.

I think I will leave this discussion here as I don't think we're getting anywhere useful for further understanding

@amyvdh @tripu I found it useful. Because it is tricky. I did not like the basic use case (Apache can be a car, a foundation and peoples, it is phonetic and we can distinguish between things having the same phonetics). But I liked the exchange of arguments around identity. And identity and feelings are closely linked. That's where the real discussion began.

@amyvdh

I will just say that there is nothing in #rationality that “ignores human aspects”. “lived experience” or “feelings”. That's a false antagonism you are drawing there, Amy.

My claim is that reason and evidence are the best tools we have for dialogue and progress, and that the scientific method and rational argumentation are useful even to discuss human well-being and cultural issues.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationality

https://www.britannica.com/topic/rationality

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

@tripu but if you dismiss emotions or personal experience how can you be making fully informed decisions about human well-being and cultural issues? Not all emotions are irrational.

Earlier you mentioned nationalism. That's not an issue of emotions but one of learned or accepted bias. People who are anti-nationalist, progressive etc are just as passionate about their beliefs. Nationalism, racism, anti-semitism, colonialism are unethical beliefs but not unethical because they involve feelings

@amyvdh

I think we are converging, actually :)

Splitting my answer for brevity and to facilitate threads: