The name “Apache” was chosen out of reverence and appreciation for the people and tribes who refer to themselves as “Apache”
Which is problematic for several reasons. First off, from what I understand (and correct me if I’m wrong), but the name comes from the fact that the Apache web server started as “a patchy version” of the original httpd. So to claim that the name was some reverential move is condescending at best and backpedaling at worst.
Having grown up in a predominantly native community in Canada, the Apache project name has always seemed really awkward and weird to me. Same with when someone mentions Apache helicopters. The area where I was from didn’t historically have an Apache population, but i’m pretty sure people there would be pretty upset to have something that identifies them used in any way to represent something that has nothing to do with them, and that they have no say in.
It’s no different from country names, like you can’t go out and register a company called “Canada” or “America” and sell grapefruit. You’d get sued and charged into the ground. Likewise, if you look at a sports team, like the Senators, if you use the name Senators and co-opt imagery from the team, rework the icon a bit that represents that team, the Senators team are probably going to be upset.
It’s also well worth noting that a lot of aboriginal peoples have lost a lot of their culture, language, traditions, and heritage through repeated attempts at assimilation by the church, state, and education systems. If you’d lost almost everything that made you you, you’d be pretty protective of some of the last things you have left like the name of your people.
It is a conversation worth having. If the indigenous peoples who have long used the name “Apache” object to this use (or misuse) of their name, then it seems reasonable that the foundation would choose to find a new name, out of actual human respect. At the same time, the topic itself is worthy of a respectful conversation, and we can learn from it. The blog linked here is one such voice. Does that voice well-represent the position of many or most of the Apache tribes?
You could, instead of disagreeing outright, ask questions about parts of the argument you don’t understand. Your opinions aren’t set in stone, are they? How much time have you really put into thinking about this issue, or ones like it?
I understand it completely, I don’t need you to explain it to me, I don’t need to put more time into thinking about it. I don’t disagree with it because you haven’t quite educated me enough, I just disagree with it. The idea that we have to abandon use of all words that come from certain languages unless we happen to be of a particular ancestry or colour or any such racist garbage is both abhorrent and patently ridiculous.
We can’t discuss it, because any differing opinions will instantly blow out into culture war.
I mean, every other post on this article kind of proves you wrong here. There are plenty of things to discuss. You can talk about the history behind the name; or the way that these concerns are raised; or who is responsible for raising the concerns; or the technical challenges of a large scale rename.
Tbh the call has been a long time coming.
The ASF says:
Which is problematic for several reasons. First off, from what I understand (and correct me if I’m wrong), but the name comes from the fact that the Apache web server started as “a patchy version” of the original httpd. So to claim that the name was some reverential move is condescending at best and backpedaling at worst.
According to Brian Behlendorf who suggested the name, that wasn’t originally the intention and it was only interpreted as a pun by others later.
I stand corrected, though this is also somewhat problematic:
Seems like someone who is (I presume) from outside that culture is making some generalizations about that culture.
Having grown up in a predominantly native community in Canada, the Apache project name has always seemed really awkward and weird to me. Same with when someone mentions Apache helicopters. The area where I was from didn’t historically have an Apache population, but i’m pretty sure people there would be pretty upset to have something that identifies them used in any way to represent something that has nothing to do with them, and that they have no say in.
It’s no different from country names, like you can’t go out and register a company called “Canada” or “America” and sell grapefruit. You’d get sued and charged into the ground. Likewise, if you look at a sports team, like the Senators, if you use the name Senators and co-opt imagery from the team, rework the icon a bit that represents that team, the Senators team are probably going to be upset.
It’s also well worth noting that a lot of aboriginal peoples have lost a lot of their culture, language, traditions, and heritage through repeated attempts at assimilation by the church, state, and education systems. If you’d lost almost everything that made you you, you’d be pretty protective of some of the last things you have left like the name of your people.
It is a conversation worth having. If the indigenous peoples who have long used the name “Apache” object to this use (or misuse) of their name, then it seems reasonable that the foundation would choose to find a new name, out of actual human respect. At the same time, the topic itself is worthy of a respectful conversation, and we can learn from it. The blog linked here is one such voice. Does that voice well-represent the position of many or most of the Apache tribes?
What’s the point of this post? We can’t discuss it, because any differing opinions will instantly blow out into culture war.
You could, instead of disagreeing outright, ask questions about parts of the argument you don’t understand. Your opinions aren’t set in stone, are they? How much time have you really put into thinking about this issue, or ones like it?
I understand it completely, I don’t need you to explain it to me, I don’t need to put more time into thinking about it. I don’t disagree with it because you haven’t quite educated me enough, I just disagree with it. The idea that we have to abandon use of all words that come from certain languages unless we happen to be of a particular ancestry or colour or any such racist garbage is both abhorrent and patently ridiculous.
Aight, you understand it completely.
That isn’t an argument made in the appeal. Specific reasons were given. Did you read it? Or just the headline?
I mean, every other post on this article kind of proves you wrong here. There are plenty of things to discuss. You can talk about the history behind the name; or the way that these concerns are raised; or who is responsible for raising the concerns; or the technical challenges of a large scale rename.