tripu @tripu@qoto.org

@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.

@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.

@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.

@dusnm

I think we couldn’t disagree more 😆

“I wouldn’t persuade them. I have no reason to.”

Then why communicate at all? Why raise this particular issue? Just to vent a personal feeling that we know is not going to sway anyone or affect the world in any way? Why did you share your take on this?

“The very basis of morality is emotional, we don’t want people doing immoral things because they scratch our emotional itch in a negative way.”

I’d say we don’t want people to do immoral things because we have reasons to think those things are bad. Sometimes our emotional itch is triggered by the wrong stimuli (and vice versa: it overlooks reprehensible acts).

“It was perfectly rational what Josef Mengele did. It was however, horrifically immoral.”

You do realise that emotion works at least as badly here, right? As in: “to many people, it felt perfectly good what [pick your monster here] did. It was however, horrifically immoral.”

We use reason to tame and bend our instincts in a purposeful manner. That leads to more progress overall than trying to do the opposite.

@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.

@dusnm

“Emotions are a funny thing, they’re not rational.”

Precisely. That’s the crux of this. I think that everyone should strive to be rational in moral and political matters like these. Our instincts, biases and tastes lead us to unnecessary conflict.

“It feels wrong because it does.”

Apparently it does not feel wrong to some people. How would you persuade them, if not appealing to reason and rational arguments?

@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.

@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.

@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?

@vmbrasseur https://qoto.org/@tripu/109667132113605372

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

@anthropoid@101010.pl

I was thinking of Amazon, but Iceland is an even better example.

I love “cultural appreciation”.

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”.

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).

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).

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

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?

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?