This opinion strikes me as a bit tribalistic. I want to unpack the term "woke bullies."
Are the people who wrote the letter to the Apache Foundation really "bullies?" Are they the same people who launched the harassment campaign against your advertisers? Or are they merely exercising their freedom to petition? Surely you recognize a difference, no?
I am also curious how you define the term "woke." Does it describe anyone who wants to humanize people in groups that have been historically underrepresented? If so, would you use the word "woke" to describe the ADL, StopAntisemitism, or the Simon Wiesenthal Center? Was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "woke" ?
As for the renaming campaign, I am ambivalent about it, because I prefer to keep our discourse policy-oriented rather than symbol-oriented. But while you're having the debate, I would be curious how you'd respond to the arguments made in this Knowing Better video: https://youtu.be/A5P6vJs1jmY?t=8172
I recommend watching the entire video, because it gives a lot of interesting historical context, but it is very lengthy. I timestamped the argument about mascots, which is that there's been some undertones of prejudice and dehumanization that are associated with them. Do you feel the same way about sports mascots as you do about Apache's mascot, or are they categorically different?
First, I will say that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was not woke. Wokeism is an emerging religion within (at least) American society. Wokeism has a state of grace that is associated with both being a member of the faith and with being in an "oppressed" minority. Wokeism has a belief in gendered souls that can be observed by the stated belief that an individual can born in the wrong body. This same faith also has its priestly class which is largely constituted of professors, scientists, journalists, and first responders and this priestly class is tiered. Being of the priestly class is still subservient to the state of grace. At any moment, this state of grace can be lost and the individual can be subject to excommunication known as canceling. Even one's status as an oppressed minority is dependent upon the state of grace which requires belief. As a result, even if the Apache foundation were to capitulate, they'd never be free of assault unless they adopted the faith in full and also made absolutely certain that someone who'd achieved the state of grace made all decisions large and small.
Second, adopting a name or branding due to the appreciation of a group is a good thing in my opinion. The campaign to eliminate the use of cultural or ethnic groups in names and branding will serve only to further erase/marginalize them from society rather than spreading admiration of those selfsame groups. I would note that I consider this very different from cultural appropriation or cultural exploitation. Appropriation implies that one is adopting for oneself what is not endogenous, and the use of a name or image doesn't imply that one were trying to adopt the culture itself. If I were to create a software project called "Constantinople" this doesn't imply that I am attempting to take Eastern Roman culture for myself, but rather that I am admiring the beauty, strength, and power of this former imperial capitol. No one would object to this both because the empire no longer exists and because it was an empire of Greek Romans and not of Africans, Asians, Hispanics, or indigenous peoples; in other words, this would not violate the beliefs of the Woke Faith despite it being the exact same admiration of a group that is not my own.
This opinion strikes me as a bit tribalistic. I want to unpack the term "woke bullies."
Are the people who wrote the letter to the Apache Foundation really "bullies?" Are they the same people who launched the harassment campaign against your advertisers? Or are they merely exercising their freedom to petition? Surely you recognize a difference, no?
I am also curious how you define the term "woke." Does it describe anyone who wants to humanize people in groups that have been historically underrepresented? If so, would you use the word "woke" to describe the ADL, StopAntisemitism, or the Simon Wiesenthal Center? Was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "woke" ?
As for the renaming campaign, I am ambivalent about it, because I prefer to keep our discourse policy-oriented rather than symbol-oriented. But while you're having the debate, I would be curious how you'd respond to the arguments made in this Knowing Better video: https://youtu.be/A5P6vJs1jmY?t=8172
I recommend watching the entire video, because it gives a lot of interesting historical context, but it is very lengthy. I timestamped the argument about mascots, which is that there's been some undertones of prejudice and dehumanization that are associated with them. Do you feel the same way about sports mascots as you do about Apache's mascot, or are they categorically different?
First, I will say that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was not woke. Wokeism is an emerging religion within (at least) American society. Wokeism has a state of grace that is associated with both being a member of the faith and with being in an "oppressed" minority. Wokeism has a belief in gendered souls that can be observed by the stated belief that an individual can born in the wrong body. This same faith also has its priestly class which is largely constituted of professors, scientists, journalists, and first responders and this priestly class is tiered. Being of the priestly class is still subservient to the state of grace. At any moment, this state of grace can be lost and the individual can be subject to excommunication known as canceling. Even one's status as an oppressed minority is dependent upon the state of grace which requires belief. As a result, even if the Apache foundation were to capitulate, they'd never be free of assault unless they adopted the faith in full and also made absolutely certain that someone who'd achieved the state of grace made all decisions large and small.
Second, adopting a name or branding due to the appreciation of a group is a good thing in my opinion. The campaign to eliminate the use of cultural or ethnic groups in names and branding will serve only to further erase/marginalize them from society rather than spreading admiration of those selfsame groups. I would note that I consider this very different from cultural appropriation or cultural exploitation. Appropriation implies that one is adopting for oneself what is not endogenous, and the use of a name or image doesn't imply that one were trying to adopt the culture itself. If I were to create a software project called "Constantinople" this doesn't imply that I am attempting to take Eastern Roman culture for myself, but rather that I am admiring the beauty, strength, and power of this former imperial capitol. No one would object to this both because the empire no longer exists and because it was an empire of Greek Romans and not of Africans, Asians, Hispanics, or indigenous peoples; in other words, this would not violate the beliefs of the Woke Faith despite it being the exact same admiration of a group that is not my own.