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.
@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
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
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.
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
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
@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
I think we are converging, actually :)
Splitting my answer for brevity and to facilitate threads:
> _“If you dismiss emotions or personal experience how can you be making fully informed decisions about human well-being and cultural issues?”_
Emotions are instinctive and subjective, almost by definition. They exist solely for evolutionary reasons. They aren't designed to disentangle complex ethical issues with fairness. They are designed to keep us alive and breed, above anything else. They are very useful heuristics in day-to-day life, but we can't base morals or politics on them.
Our “personal experience” can't be but a sliver of what happens in the world. If I were to rely on “personal experience” I couldn't have an opinion on almost anything. For most important subjects, I am not a member of that group, I don't have that problem, I'm not in that tax bracket, I didn't commit that crime, I don't use that product — and no-one or almost no-one I know does. Also, we all live in bubbles, so our “personal experience” is hugely biased and not at all representative of what is statistically true out there.
That's why we have maths, statistics, surveys, simulations, logic, rationality, biology, psychology, sociology, the scientific method, peer review, philosophy, thought experiments, natural experiments in History. I trust all that much more to “make fully informed decisions about human well-being”.
> _“Nationalism. That's not an issue of emotions but one of learned or accepted bias.”_
That right there is _your_ bias, you see? Nationalism may seem like a bias for you. But a nationalist would counter that it is _your_ globalist or nihilistic bias what blinds _you_ to the necessity and the virtues of nationalism.
And again: when I read/hear from/about nationalists, racists, people who oppose abortion under any circumstances, homophobes, religious fanatics… I see _a lot of emotion_ in them. They seem genuinely outraged, concerned, worried, disgusted.
Either we value _all_ feelings and emotions and give them weight in the political discussion, or we dismiss _all_ emotions. But you can't have it both ways. You can't use the feelings of the Apache or any other group as your “exhibit A”, and at the same time dismiss the feelings of a Nationalist or some other group as mere “bias”.
@amyvdh
> _“People who are anti-nationalist, progressive etc are just as passionate about their beliefs.”_
Exactly.
So we have very passionate people experiencing very specific and strong emotions on _both sides_ of every issue.
But it can't be that emotions so diametrically opposed are both well calibrated, useful, constructive.
Therefore, emotions can't be trusted.
So: we have to confront objective data, reasons and arguments.