Honest question: how exactly is just using the name of a group of people (marginalised or not), without any epithets or modifiers, disrespectful or offensive? (“because some members of that group have said so” isn't valid).
How can one know, by looking at the name _alone_, whether the name is homage or mockery, admiration or contempt?
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
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"?
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?)
