That's an interesting, well sourced article, I'm glad I've read it. I honestly didn't know that the full-size straw-airplanes were fakes from a movie. They're the face of this metaphor.
That said, the article would have been a lot better without moralizing about harmful colonialism, or claiming that this metaphor is supposedly an insult.
The purpose of this metaphor was never to gain historical insights, or to teach a lesson about colonialism, or to judge the Polynesian natives from 80 years ago, it's to teach a lesson about modern practices of software development (or science I guess). It's a fable.
You can replace the Polynesians in the fable with anyone else, and the payload of the fable does not change. Because the payload of it has nothing to do with the Polynesians. I personally didn't remember that this metaphor was specifically about Polynesians and the war supplies. I remembered it being about some abstract tribes, possibly Africans and humanitarian aid supplies. Did someone explain it to me the wrong way, or was it me who assumed wrong from the fake photos? I dunno. It does not matter. I wasn't relying on this fable for anything other than a software development lesson. It was not a covert tool to justify colonialism, or to assert intellectual superiority over some historical tribes on the other side of the globe.
It's definitely good to know the historical truth – as I said, I genuinely do appreciate all the exposition in this article. But, if you package that together with the moralizing, it comes off as yet more culture war BS that I am so sick of.
The difference in motivation is very important. If you write with the primary goal to expose historical inaccuracies – that's great. Then I can trust you. But if you write with the primary goal to stop people from using offensive (in your view) metaphors, then the historical inaccuracies are just a convenient tool, a talking point, for you to achieve your real goal. Because if this metaphor was actually historically true, you would probably still find it offensive. And so if that's your goal, then I can't trust you to provide historical accuracy. I will suspect you of presenting selective evidence, and other tricks to further your goal. That is why your moralizing detracts from the article.
Welp, unfortunately it's too late to fix my comment.
I didn't mix them up on purpose, and I won't pretend to be an expert on the taxonomy of the various Pacific Islander ethnicities.
Yes, the article does mention Melanesians by name. So what. It mentions other important things and people by name that I don't remember either. So what. Those exact names and identities are not important, neither to my point, nor to the point the article is making.
I think it is strongly indicative that your underlying bias so colored your reading of the article that you made a very basic factual error. I would encourage you to read it again with a more open mind.
It wasn't any more "rude" than repeatedly throwing vague insults and insinuations at me without providing the real reason. But I don't see you caring about that. We both know why. Because "rudeness" is not your real concern, your real concern is the same as the other culture warrior, and you're avoiding stating it directly for the same reasons – it's entirely unfounded and indefensible. So instead you go with vague nastyness that you think could be mistaken for something profound and is therefore above criticism (it can't, and it isn't).
If by any chance that is not what you meant to come off as, you may want to reconsider low-effort passive aggressive one liners as your communication medium.
On the contrary, I'd say it proves their point. They don't know or care whether it's about Polynesians or Melanesians (and I don't think you care either - would you have considered their comment fine if they'd named the correct group of people?). It doesn't matter.
You’re dead wrong, I do care. It does matter. I disagree with the comment but I would not have responded this way if it hadn’t made such a blatant factual error. If we’re going to make assumptions about the internal mental state of other commenters, would you have said the same thing if he misidentified, say, Germans for French? I don’t think you would have.
> would you have said the same thing if he misidentified, say, Germans for French?
In a context like this? Yes. I struggle to think of a phrase that bears the same relation to France or Germany, but can't think I'd care more. (I think I heard once that the "let them eat cake" princess was actually in Spain rather than France? But no-one cares)
That said, the article would have been a lot better without moralizing about harmful colonialism, or claiming that this metaphor is supposedly an insult.
The purpose of this metaphor was never to gain historical insights, or to teach a lesson about colonialism, or to judge the Polynesian natives from 80 years ago, it's to teach a lesson about modern practices of software development (or science I guess). It's a fable.
You can replace the Polynesians in the fable with anyone else, and the payload of the fable does not change. Because the payload of it has nothing to do with the Polynesians. I personally didn't remember that this metaphor was specifically about Polynesians and the war supplies. I remembered it being about some abstract tribes, possibly Africans and humanitarian aid supplies. Did someone explain it to me the wrong way, or was it me who assumed wrong from the fake photos? I dunno. It does not matter. I wasn't relying on this fable for anything other than a software development lesson. It was not a covert tool to justify colonialism, or to assert intellectual superiority over some historical tribes on the other side of the globe.
It's definitely good to know the historical truth – as I said, I genuinely do appreciate all the exposition in this article. But, if you package that together with the moralizing, it comes off as yet more culture war BS that I am so sick of.
The difference in motivation is very important. If you write with the primary goal to expose historical inaccuracies – that's great. Then I can trust you. But if you write with the primary goal to stop people from using offensive (in your view) metaphors, then the historical inaccuracies are just a convenient tool, a talking point, for you to achieve your real goal. Because if this metaphor was actually historically true, you would probably still find it offensive. And so if that's your goal, then I can't trust you to provide historical accuracy. I will suspect you of presenting selective evidence, and other tricks to further your goal. That is why your moralizing detracts from the article.