The associations with the name are neutral or beneficial to the software foundation, but is not a chosen association of the actual people who are apaches. They have their own culture and ideas of themselves, and this isn't part of it.
It's not easy to explain because there really isn't an analog if you've never been part of an exploited or erased group in some way. You just have to put yourself in their shoes I guess. What would it be like to be part of a culture that was very nearly successfully genocided, and is now treated as a mythologized part of the past that people are free to use as inspiration for their names and logos. Meanwhile you still exist, have your own traditions, history, names for yourself, religion maybe. It's not some deeply sophisticated academic argument it's just a shitty way to treat people and we should try not to do it.
As a member of a people who were attempted to be genocided (I am Jewish), I like when people adopt pieces of my culture.
Please, by all means, spread matzoh ball soup as far and as wide as you can. It's delicious. Use the name `maccabee` as the name of your new software that is resilient and strong.
Then you can make that statement when it comes up? It's not necessary that all groups come to identical conclusions or approaches here, because all groups have their own history and traditions and relationships to other groups.
I don't really think it has a material impact in how people view my culture. I understand that they've incorporated some of the core tenants and mixed them with their own, but the existence of it doesn't bother me, and I don't think you can really appropriate ideas.
So the issue is many people are okay… but you may always come across ”orthodox/y” which isn’t. Does the minority opinion get to rain in the parade for everyone?
When "the minority" is a specific cultural group choosing to be known by a certain name, and "everyone" is an economic entity with no associations to that group? Yes.
So cultural group has a majority which is okay and a minority within the group which isn’t, then you have a smaller group where a majority of the group are not okay but a minority is and both the small group and larger group are in turn members of an umbrella group, by what reason does the small group get to decide for the larger group what is and isn’t okay?
English is a language like most languages that does not have a policing academy prescribing usage. People/speakers are allowed to use words as they see fit and use them in new and innovative ways.
It's not easy to explain because there really isn't an analog if you've never been part of an exploited or erased group in some way. You just have to put yourself in their shoes I guess. What would it be like to be part of a culture that was very nearly successfully genocided, and is now treated as a mythologized part of the past that people are free to use as inspiration for their names and logos. Meanwhile you still exist, have your own traditions, history, names for yourself, religion maybe. It's not some deeply sophisticated academic argument it's just a shitty way to treat people and we should try not to do it.