It depends which sub-group you are talking about, and whether you are
referring to current or former relationships.
The Jicarilla Apache in New Mexico actively refer to themselves as a
Nation, as do the Yavapai-Apache Nation, the San Carlos Apache Nation
and the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. Many other tribes do not use the
term Nation, or are not referred to as a Nation by state or federal
authorities (though they, themselves, may use the term).
Some of this has resulted from being "downgraded" through the erosion of
US treaty promises over the years, so the term is both nebulous and
emotionally charged. For instance, some (US) historians use the term
Nation only to refer to pre-forced removal Apache Nations. Legally,
however, the terms nation, tribe, community, Rancheria and band have
been used interchangeably in Indian treaties and statutes.[1]
The fact that the term "Apache" applies to multiple subgroups of
different sizes will make it difficult for us to get buy-in from all of
them, and makes it unclear whether or not it makes sense to try.
The fact also appears to be that we evolved from "a patchy server" to
"Apache", and then co-opted the feather logo and colour scheme as our
own, without asking and getting clear permission from even a subset
first. That's a choice we have to live with today.
On a more positive note, the San Carlos Apache Chamber of Commerce
displays our logo and a link to our website on their website:
http://www.sancarlosapache.com/Apache_Chamber_of_Commerce.htm
I wouldn't call this outright endorsement, but I'd say it's at least a
sign that there is no animosity. Let's not pick the scab off of this wound.
-Joan "far too many Native American books on the shelf" Touzet
[1]: Pevar, Stephen L. The Rights of Indians and Tribes. Fourth ed.
Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012.
On 2019-05-13 10:41, Matt Sicker wrote:
> According to Wikipedia, Apache are made up of several tribes. It doesn’t
> sound like an individual tribe, so “nation” sort of makes sense, though I’m
> not familiar with their specific terminology.
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:11, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 5/13/19 12:11 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>> "subscribe"
>>>
>>> This comes up for me pretty much every time I explain my work/life to
>>> someone who has not yet heard of the ASF (if they don't mention it, that
>> is
>>> sort of worse). Reading Mark's comment I had the same question as Rich. I
>>> would very much like to know the answer and the details.
>>
>> I'm intrigued that it comes up every time (it almost never does, for me)
>> and also that you think that it's bad when it doesn't (Why?).
>>
>> If this is something you consider important, I'd encourage you to take
>> the references posted by Mark and run with them. Do the research. Ask
>> Brian. See what you can find out.
>>
>>>>>>> On 5/10/19 4:22 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>>> In the private archives I found:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - A reference that at OSCON 09 a member of the Apache Nation politely
>>>>>> mentioned that they should be referred to as the Apache Nation and
>>>>>> not a tribe.
>>
>> Which is the opposite of the terminology used on their official website,
>> https://mescaleroapachetribe.com/
>>
>> The word "tribe" is one that I avoid, because people do feel that it has
>> negative connotations. However, consistently over the years, I've seen
>> that the people who are offended by it are, for the most part, not the
>> people being referred to.
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com
>> http://rcbowen.com/
>> @rbowen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: diversity-unsubscr...@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: diversity-h...@apache.org
>>
>> --
> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: diversity-unsubscr...@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: diversity-h...@apache.org
