Talk:Eskimo/Archive 1

I noticed that the section "Eskimo" and alternative terms contained the word "Inuinnait" which I hadn't seen before but suspect that it's a variation on ";Inuinnaq". A quick google of Inuinnait and Inuinnaq would seem to indicate this. But this term only covers the "Copper Eskimo/Inuit" group and leaves out the people who live in west of Ulukhaktok/Kugluktuk/Cambridge Bay. I think that rather than use several words the general "Inuvialuit" is better. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I would theorize that "Inuinnaq" the singular & adjectival form of the word, & "Inuinnait" is the plural & collective form — based on usage for Inupiaq/Inupiat. Per the Alaska Native Language Center's page on the Inupiaq language:

The name "Inupiaq," meaning "real or genuine person" (inuk "person" plus -piaq "real, genuine"), is often spelled "Iñupiaq," particularly in the northern dialects. It can refer to a person of this group ("He is an Inupiaq") and can also be used as an adjective ("She is an Inupiaq woman"). The plural form of the noun is "Inupiat," referring to the people collectively ("the Inupiat of the North Slope").

--Yksin 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Either way though the words should not be used. Iniut and Inuvialuit are political groupings that cover all the Eskimo people in Canada. If you use Inuinnait then other terms such as "Siglit", "Caribou Inuit", "Uummarmiut", Netsilik and so on to cover all the groups. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see why all the political groupings of Inuit within Canada shouldn't be mentioned in the article, perhaps as a list. But I will leave that up to editors more knowledgeable about the Inuit within Canada than I am. (My area of knowledge is Alaska.) --Yksin 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I realised about 10 minutes after I wrote it, that it wasn't quite what I ment. It should be that the one sentence in the section should have just the two terms. And yes there needs to be a complete listing of grouping names. By the way the "Siglit", "Caribou Inuit", "Uummarmiut", "Netsilik" names aren't political they are the names that people from the particular area use to self-identify. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just two terms in that sentence, with a list later: yes, that makes a great deal of sense to me. Personally, I think that each group should also have its own article, detailing not only culture but also history. Which is more-or-less the approach I'm taking with the various Yupik peoples -- I was shocked to discover a few weeks ago that there was no article for the Central Alaskan Yup'ik, which is the largest Alaska Native group with quite a large literature, so I've started building one (named Yup'ik because it's the only Yupik group that uses the apostrophe). I'm increasingly disturbed by the lack of historical information or info about contemporary members of the various Inuit & Yupik groups -- as if their only importance is as quaint cultures of the past -- when for most of them, there is a pretty vigorous present as well. --Yksin 07:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, I noticed that missing article listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/GeneralxHotlist and I agree that it is among the most significant missing articles on the English Wikipedia. My survey of the various articles relating to the Inuit, etc did not turn up much that could be pulled in to make a stub. Does anybody have the knowledge or resources to make a decent stub that is accurate and contains all the basics to introduce the topic? We do at least have Inu-Yupiaq, but not many other cultural overviews. - Taxman ^Talk 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE! This section was removed from the article. It seems to be original research. Substantial cleanup is required if it is to be included in the article.Labongo 15:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Eskimo groups comprise a huge area stretching from Eastern Siberia through Alaska and Northern Canada (including Labrador Peninsula) to Greenland.

There is a certain relatedness in the cultures of the Eskimo groups^{[1][2][3][4][5]} together with diversity, far from homogeneity.^[6]

Let us see some examples from shamanism among Eskimo peoples. The Russian linguist Меновщиков, an expert of Siberian Yupik and Sireniki languages (while admitting that he is not a specialist in ethnology^[7]) witnesses, that the shamanistic seances of those Siberian Yupik and Sireniki groups he has seen have many similarities to those of Greenland Inuit groups described by Nansen,^[8] although a large distance separates Siberia and Greenland. Similar remarks apply for comparisons of Asiatic with North American Eskimo shamanisms.^[9] Also the usage of a specific shaman's language is documented among several Eskimo groups, used mostly for talking to spirits.^[10][11] Also the Ungazigmit (belonging to Siberian Yupiks) had a special allegoric usage of some expressions.^[12]

Similar remarks apply for aspects of the belief system not directly linked to shamanism:

• Rasmussen mentions that he compared 52 Padlermiut myths to Greenland ones, and he observed relatedness in 30 of them.^[4]
• tattooing^[13]
• accepting the killed game as a dear guest visiting the hunter^[14]
• usage of amulets^[15]
• lack of totem animals^[16][17]

Now let us see some examples illustrating the diversity:

This article needs to be totally rewritten. It is poorly organized, and if structured properly it might be possible to add a great deal of interesting information in a manner that is useful and appealing.

If the changes that are about to appear cause this to pop up on your radar... please bear with me because it will take time. It won't all happen in an instant, and in the interim some of it might look odd.

Hence I would really appreciate suggestions and help being posted to the discussion, as opposed to major editing of the work in progress.

 Floyd davidson 01:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! that you are willing to do the work. The information that I thinks is missing from the article are the differences and similarities between the different Inuit and Yupik groups. Good luck.Labongo 09:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I can try to add at least something on that, though it is really really difficult because it requires generalizing as to what each of them are. The biggest actual difference is just language, and otherwise there is more variation within each culture than there is between them. Heh, I'll see if I can come up with a picture of Yupik drummers, who strike the drum on the top, to compare that with a picture of Inupiat drummers striking the bottom. Except in the Bering Straits area, where some Yupik do it the Inupiat way and some Inupiat do it the Yupik way! That would be a great demo of the difference/similarity! Floyd davidson 03:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: their diet,

I want to understand HOW the Eskimoes of the permanently-iced in areas of the farest points north, get their vitamin C? --Hunter10039 20:18, 8 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for moving your question to the bottom Hunter; that's the convention though.

First, none of them lived permanently on the ice. They were very mobile (which is often claimed to be "nomadic", but that is not true either). I'm not all that familiar with how people in central Canada lived, and that is where there were ice igloos, and where people spent the most time out on the icepack. Here in northern Alaska there were no ice igloos, people spent a month or so at the longest on the ice, and that was within a few miles of a permanent settlement. The diet here would have continued to consist of significant amounts of plants (for example, berries that contain vitamin C), as well as fresh meat eaten with minimal processing, which also contains vitamin C.

Incidentally, in Barrow that hasn't changed much in most ways. Every spring whaling crews pitch camps on the ice and whole families spend weeks there. Of course today if the want a pizza for dinner, it can easily be done with a snowmachine...  :-) Regardless, time in a whaling camp on the ice is quality time.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Like the eskimos in Alaska, the Inuit of northern Canada were nomadic. Igloos were temporary structures. Most moved to summer camps and lived in tents. However, berries to not appear to be the primary source of Vitamin C. They apparently got all the vitamins they needed from eating raw meat. Here's a source for that. I'm going to add that to the article. Sunray (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a misconception that the north is permently ice/snow covered. In the Victoria Island (Canada) area the snow would be melted by the end of June and not fully return until the start of October. Ice would be usually gone by July/August and back again in October. However, be aware that there I'm talking about an island just smaller than Great Britain but that has only two communities with a total population of under 2,000.

If you look at Vitamin C#Natural and artificial dietary sources it gives you some idea of how much vitamin C is available in meat.

Next if you look at table 1 in Vitamin C in the Diet of Inuit Hunters From Holman, Northwest Territories (now Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories you can see what traditional foods contained in the way of vitamin c. Vitamin C in Inuit traditional food and women's diets also has some other foods not covered by Tom Smith's study. Look at the amount in fish eggs for example. While it appears probable that the amount of vitamin C consumed was not as high as is shown at Vitamin C#Daily requirements it was enough to prevent scurvy.

There is probably more information available if you google it, such as vitamin C seal liver or something like that.

Couple of other things for Floyd Davidson. I suspect that there is more vegetation available in Barrow. We only get berries available here for a few weeks at the most and there are only a few plants eaten here but in general there are lots of plants about and there are sources that indicate that there was a larger intake of plants in other areas. I also get the impression that the people of Alaska (Barrow area anyway) moved around less than the people in parts of Canada's north.

Second, I wonder if there is a correlation between what people consider a delicacy and the amount of vitamin c? I'm thinking more of the elders than the youth though. Most elders would consider seal liver better than seal meat and fish eggs better than fish. On the other hand it could just be the scarcity of them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the technical term "nomadic" does not describe any Eskimo culture. For example, following a herd of caribou would make a culture nomadic. But spending spring in a whaling camp on the ice, early summer in a caribou hunting camp in the mountain passes, and fall in a fish camp on a river... do not make a people nomadic.  :-)

Second, "Cecil Adams" is not a reliable source. He quotes Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who is also not a reliable source. Both are extremely interesting though! But they don't do science. They do entertainment based on science. The entertainment part is essential, not the science.

People on the North Slope were very mobile. And all across the Arctic, the tundra is relatively similar in being a lush growth of vegitable matter. Barrow, being farther north than most of the places where Eskimo culture existed has less variety of plant life than most other places. Of course both Canada and Greenland have areas where Eskimo cultures survived, even as long as 4000 years ago, that are even farther north than Barrow is. I would expect those locations to have fewer plants too. But they 1) still have plants and 2) do not represent the vast majority of Eskimo cultures historically.

Delicacy is probably something that relates to what people eat as children. 30 years ago my wife used to sparingly feed raw whitefish eggs to the kids... pretty much as "candy". She ate, but did not feed the kids, the fermented fish heads that I made. Today, my middle aged children all think fish eggs are a delicacy, and won't eat fermented fish, which their mother would still die for! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floyd Davidson (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In Canada and many other areas, Eskimo is extremely derogatory. It means eaters of raw meat (I believe in one of the Cree languages), and who wants to be called that? The term Inuit is generally more acceptable. Government employees in Canada have gotten into huge trouble just for saying eskimo when visiting the north. --216.106.109.111 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no derogation in the name itself. There is no problem with being called "eaters of raw meat" unless you have a problem with eating raw meat (which many people do not have). In that case, it is your own point of view problem, not the name's problem. Compare it with the "Adolf" in Adolf Hitler, meaning "Wolf", which, in his parents' view, is probably a brave and heroic creature that they want their son to be, while for other people a wolf is a ruthless and dangerous animal, like Maugrim. Things are offensive only when we take them as offensive, and most of the times this is our own point of view (You can well say that the term "Americans" is offensive because "Amerigo" is actually an Italian person, or that "Chinese" is offensive because it originates in the Qin dynasty where the people were virtually all of Han ethnicity, or that "Indonesia" is offensive because it means "Indian islands"). Eskimo is an established and commonly used term and for that reason we use it in Wikipedia. Aran|heru|nar 13:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the term is derogatory, I support the suggestion in the section above to merge this article with Inuit. I have three problems with this article: (i) Iniut and Eskimo seems both to refer to the same ethnic groups (or tribes), (ii) the Inuit articles says that Eskimos are a subset of Inuits, while the Eskimo articles says that Inuit is a subset of Eskimo, (iii) the Eskimo article is more a stub than an article. In other words, having to articles is just confusing.Labongo 13:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started a thread for discussing the merge in Talk:Inuit#Merge_with_Eskimo. I suggest that the merge discussion continue there.Labongo 09:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I work directly with Innu communities of Northern Quebec, also known as Nunavik.

I am somewhat horrified that the word 'Eskimo' is used to describe the Inuit, in this day and age.

The word 'eskimo' was long abolished by the Canadian government when referring to its Inuit peoples.

'Eskimo' is a Cree word. It means 'eaters of raw meat'. Calling an Inuit an Eskimo, just as calling different First Nations 'tribes', is EXTREMELY insulting. I don't see why there's even any debate in here on usage of the word. Certainly the name should be mentioned, but only to say that it is no longer acceptable :to use it when referring to the Inuit.

How archaic.

My reply to this is also at Talk:Inuit#Merge_with_Eskimo. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me after reading these many pages that it's only a part of the native community and the canadian population who views this term as derogatory. I believe most people in Europe, for example, don't even know it's derogatory, and have absolutely no intentions of offending anyone. (Similarly, many Hungarians still use the word 'neger' without any offending meaning, though the version 'nigger' would be very rude for africans).

But my point is this: following the logic, I ask to abolish the use of such phrases as "white" and "black" people. How stupid is it - has anyone seen a white or black skinned man? I've never. I'm offended if I'm called white. (Though light brownish pink would sound funny :) Not to mention the term "caucasoid", which is outdated and has nothing to do with reality. I find it actually rascist when I travel to some countries and I have to write my "race" into the immigration papers. I was taught in schools that mankind is one race. (It was very ridiculous seeing a 100% Indian looking guy in Singapore with his ID telling "race:Irish" just because of his father being half Irish).

While does noone take word up against these issues? There are far more "white/caucasoid" and "black" people being wrongly termed.

Hoemaco 06:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you talk to someone in for example Hungary it probably does not matter if you call the Inuit for Eskimo. However, if you were to have a meeting with some Inuits you would want to know that you should not call them Eskimos. In addition, I believe Wikipedia should be extremely politically correct with regard to naming indigenous/native people, since the number of contributors to these articles is very low or non-existing, such that the last thing we want to do is to offend someone who could be a valuable contributor. Unfortunately, as you can read in this article, the issue regarding the usage of the terms Eskimo and Inuit seems impossible to solve without offending someone.Labongo 09:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as the World Eskimo Indian Olympics is still called the World ESKIMO Indian Olympics, I don't think there is a case to be made for the term "eskimo" being universally derogatory.Andy Christ (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I being from a heavily eskimo populated area in Alaska and myself being of eskimo descent, as well as my children find pride in being referred to as eskimo, and have never heard of any eskimo here in Alaska being offended by being labeled as eskimos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.115.103 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall off hand from an anthropology book I read years ago on the artic peoples it stated only 40% refer to themselves as Inuit and the rest by other names.

Bill (Feb 18, 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.128.230 (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

U r correct Eskimo is like saying Negro, or red indian. I just dont understand how do they bath in that cold place b4 modern times?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, eskimo is not by any means to the Alaskan people a derogatory term in any way. We don't decide to go by inuit, there are more types of eskimo, other than inuit. In order for someone to judge something it might help if they have the information about the subject, and in this case from the people that they are referring to. In order to understand I will explain, you can say that I am an American, but that doesn't define me all the way. I am also an Alaskan. And further more each thing can be further defined. To say that inuit is just another word for eskimo, as opposed to a type of eskimo would be assanine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.115.103 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Inupiat, Yup'ik, and Cup'ik peoples refer to themselves as, I am Inupiaq Eskimo, I am Yup'ik Eskimo, and I am Cup'ik Eskimo. Translation of Inupiaq, Yup'ik and Cup'ik is Real People. These three groups identify themselves separately from Unangan (Aleut), Alutiiq, Indians (Athabaskan and Tlingit) and Kassaq (Russians and Europeans). Unangan and Alutiiq people do not affiliate themselves as being Eskimo. Alaskan Eskimos do not affiliate themselves as being Inuit. This is supported in the literature. παράδοξος 05:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The debate over the perceived offensiveness of the term Eskimo will no doubt continue, but here's the facts as best I know them:

1. Eskimo is considered to be highly offensive in Canada and Greenland, where the term Inuit is preferred.
2. However, Inuit is not a satisfactory collective term for all people formerly referred to as "Eskimos" because Yupik people are not Inuit. They are Yupik. Though closely related to the Inuit, they are ethnically and culturally distinct, and their languages (four of them, in fact) are linguistically distinct from the Inuit languages.
3. Eskimo is not considered offensive in Alaska, either by Yupik or Inupiaq (Inuit) people.
4. However, because Eskimo is considered to be offensive and pejorative in Canada and Greenland, therefore Eskimo is not a satisfactory collective term acceptable to everyone.

Conclusion: neither Inuit nor Eskimo is an adequate term covering, in one word, all Inuit and Yupik peoples. There is no satisfactory collective term that is acceptable to all parties. Until such a term magically appears, the solution is to include discussion of this problem in an NPOV way in both articles. I have just completed some editing which I hope brings them out further, without being offensive to anyone. I don't imagine my edits are the last that will be done. --Yksin 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

changes are skillfully incorporated -- well done! alaska is a small town, aye. παράδοξος 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Yksin 23:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

However there is one term that not only is accurate, but also politically correct. I being of eskimo descent and living in Alaska in a heavily eskimo populated area, well when in doubt as for Alaskan eskimos are concerned. Should you be in Alaska and are unsure of what to call a certain individual we also go by Native American's. Also it never hurts to ask what they prefer to be called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.115.103 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the intro somewhat in order to foreground the fact that the term refers to several ethno-linguistic groups and because the term "circumpolar region" seems (to me) to imply a continuous area that entirely surrounds the pole, whereas there is a big break between Greenland and the Bering Strait. I'm actually little confused about what the term means, since I have also heard "circumpolar people" be roughly synonymous with "Arctic people". Anyways, hopefully the intro now is a little more clear. Oh, and I erased the last discussion comment that began: "jcb sfvgdcqbhdbwc...." as I do not recognize it as belonging to any known Arctic dialect :). Best, Eliezg (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the change has already been reverted . Perhaps some discussion is in order? I feel the other version was clearer. The intro should probably be expanded anyway as per te recommendations in Wikipedia:Lead section. Eliezg (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How about:

Eskimo or esquimaux is term that refers to several closely related groups of indigenous peoples who traditionally inhabit Arctic and sub-Arctic regions in eastern Siberia, parts of Alaska and Canada, and all of Greenland.

There is no reason to link to "people" when "indigenous peoples" better explains what the article is about. Also Circumpolar is a disambiguation page and should be removed. And I've just done that.

Thanks. I think that's quite a good version (my edit has a link to "indigenous people" and eliminated "circumpolar" entirely by the way), but I hesitate to make the changes myself since the person who made the reversion feels the current version is "more correct". - Eliezg (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, "esquimaux" is plural. It would have to be: "Eskimo or esquimau is a term ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliezg (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Having looked over this article, it covers languages, etymology and nomenclature excellently - almost all the subheading and references are on these topics (in fact, it has more detail than the Eskimo-Aleut languages article!) - but it has virtually no discussion of culture (folklore, religion, art, music), social/family structures, relationship to natural environment (hunting and gathering), history of dispersal, current social, political and economic status, etc. Granted, "Eskimo" is a blanket terms that covers many groups that can be looked up individually, but there are certainly many common features which could be discussed meaningfully about "Eskimos" as a whole.
On a somewhat separate note, I don't know if this is the best place to bring it up, but I have felt for a while that there ought to be an even broader scaled article on Circumpolar Indigenous Peoples or Arctic Peoples, since there is a fascinating story of continuum, convergence and interaction, including many commonalities (and interesting contrasts) due to the severe environmental constraints. I am not myself an anthropologist (rather a marine mammal ecologist), but perhaps someone qualified would be interested. Where would be an appropriate place to make such a request? Regards, Eliezg (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you are looking for in your first paragraph is at Inuit. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Inuit is quite an excellent and detailed article, as are several of the other sub-articles, such as Siberian Yupik. It is always tricky to know what is important to put in an article that basically covers a bunch of well-described sub-groups (this comes up in biology all the time!) Nonetheless, it doesn't seem like this article does a very good job of giving a real overview of "Eskimo" (I still always feel the need to put that word in quotes!) At the very least the intro should be expanded to clarify that it generally refers to Yupik and Inuit, and maybe sometimes to all people that speak languages classified within the Eskimo-Aleut family. Also, a labelled global distribution map and more illustrations in general would be welcome, no? Eliezg (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This article and seem to disagree over which is the most commonly accepted derivation. This article says "Mailhot ... published a definitive study" while the other describes the snowshoe theory as the "most commonly accepted today". Does anyone know which is correct? Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Currently, there are four sources for this. The first two do not state that fact and the last two are not reliable sources (one is a Wikitravel page and the other a hotel website). Whynot77 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot find a source that says the term "Eskimo" is acceptable in Greenland! Indeed, that can be easily found for Alaska, where it is indeed in common use.

Before your revision there were two cites for references indicating that "Eskimo" is considered pejorative in Greenland. One is a dictionary of the English language (suggesting a Danish dictionary, as you did in one comment, is illogical), and the other is a statement specifically about the topic of term usage written by the head of the Alaska Native Language Center at the Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks, Larry Kaplan (who studies Eskimo languages). They both say the term Eskimo is considered insulting by some, and specifically state that as the reason "Inuit" is prefered usage in Greenland.

I placed those cites immediately at the word Greenland (rather than at the end of the sentence for one and at the end of the paragraph for the other). I also added cites for two observations from European travel logs reporting observations that it is not considered appropriate to use the term Eskimo in Greenland.

I see that I missed one cite (now added), with the reference to "Historical Dictionary of the Inuit" by Pamela R. Stern, which states it even more explicitly that Kaplan did.

The simple FACT is that the term is not generally accepted in Greenland. You can find that out by talking to people from Greenland, or by talking to people who have been there. They use the term "Inuit" almost universally (except where it cannot be technically justified, such as in academic papers that refer to all types of Eskimos rather than to just Inuit people, culture, or language).

The evidence is overwhelming, and there is no evidence otherwise.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss the sources one by one. Each of these sources was introduced by you to justify the assertion that Eskimo is considered pejorative in Greenland. Whynot77 (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this has come up in Talk before but I haven't seen what I believe to be an adequate response. The reasoning given in the article for maintaining the term "Eskimo" to encompass the Inuit, Inupiat, and Yupik peoples of Alaska is that another term encompassing those three ethnicities has not arisen to replace it. What the article doesn't even allude to, and what remains unanswered in Talk, is why there is a need to have any term to encompass those three ethnic groups, but not Aleut, Eyak, or Tlingit. Maybe there is a reason of which I'm unaware, but the article doesn't say so. That up until now there has been a word that, for unspecified reasons, has been used to lump these three groups together isn't an explanation.

What has been mentioned in Talk is the use in common of Inuit languages, but language isn't ethnicity. No one lumps together for sociological or anthropological purposes the people who speak Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Galician, Aragonese, Leonese, Asturian, French, Provencal, Occitan, Walloon, Picard, Italian, Monegasque, Romanian, Sardinian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Romansch, Romanian, Ladino, Judeo-French, etc. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "Eskimo" applies to a readily identifiable culture, language and gene pool. They have a common point of origination. Your example of Aleut, Eyak and Tlingit is a good counter example, because they do not share a common point of origination, each having arrived where they are today via totally independant evolution. (Certainly at some point there is a common ancestor, but we don't know who or what that ancestor was in the case of Aleut, Eyak and Tlingit, but we do know with the Eskimo-Aleut group.)

Aleut is more interesting than the others, because it is cognate with the Eskimo group (as opposed to having a relationship to either Eyak or Tlingit). Aleut became distinct from Eskimo about 4000 years ago. Note that Inuit became distinct about 1500-2000 years ago. Aleut, as opposed to Inuit, evolved to become significantly distinct from Proto-Eskimo; hence Aleut is not considered part of the Eskimo group, but Yupik and Inuit are because of the vastly similar culture and language associations.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, I'd be happy to see the article to explain the gene-pool and common origin-based rationale for the grouping, to explain why anyone wants to group them. As I mentioned, I don't consider language a legitimate basis. Another illustration is English. There isn't any motivation to lump together all the world's English-speaking peoples, as disparate as they are, into a single quasi-ethnic group! —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All of that is explained in the first two paragraphs of the article, with more detail than I provided above.

I can't agree with you about language; it's certainly distinct from the way English has been adopted around the world, but the fact that Eskimo languages are spoken only by Eskimo people makes study of the language just as useful as studying any other aspect of their anthropology.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the discussion already existing in the article. I was focusing on later parts of the article and somehow didn't realize that I hadn't read the whole thing. Sorry about that. But my comment about language stands, and I think my examples made it pretty obvious: if peoples aren't biologically related, then speaking the same or related languages of family X doesn't make them related peoples and it doesn't call for them to be classified as an X people. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But all groups that speak Eskimo languages are very clearly related genetically. That means studying variations of the languages, and comparing to other cultural variations, is an extremely useful tool for mapping the evolution of the cultures involved. I just don't see where you have a point in regard to Eskimo languages.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

There is one problem that I have with this article: the word eskimo is used in different regions by speakers of different languages who are part of completely different cultures. Perhaps it is time to drop the argument about whether it is or is not offensive, seeing as how the culture I grew up in uses it all the time. Sure, other cultures may not like it, but lets respect each others language and that the use of a certain word by one group may not be in the attempt to offend those of the other group. Respect each other's differences!

74.61.133.173 (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Marie S., Sitka, Alaska

IT IS ESKIMO WITHOUT QUESTION :

I lived amongst the Canadian Eskimos for 25 years, and many were good friends. I use the name Eskimo because it is a proper English word, part of our accepted vocabulary, going back centuries. It has never had any derogatory meaning and is in fact a term almost invariably used with the highest respect as is evident in the many books written about these arctic people. It is also evident in the naming of British ships in the whaling trade which used names only out of great respect - the Intrepid, the Resolute, the Endeavour and the Esquimaux. The use of the self-appellation, Inuit, initiated by Canadian anthropologists, reveals political correctness run amok at its very worst. One only needs to think about the absurdity of it for a moment. Imagine us English-speaking people, telling the Eskimos that we find the term Qallunaaq or Kabloonak derogatory - as it is supposed to be - and that from now on we want to be called People, or if singular Person. Thus their language would be interspersed with English terms : Imina people oqaqtuq. Takuvunga atousiq person. As with the usual wrong use of Inuit ( people) and Inuk ( person) in our politically-correct world, the Inuktitut language would have to incorporate our rules for singular and plural. In the English language, they are without doubt, the wonderful Eskimos, as they have been for centuries.

Future generations, if we survive that long, will look back at this time of political correctness by what was known as the "Boomers" and wonder how they could have sewed so much confusion, and wasted so much time in esoteric discussion in the people's encyclopedia. Sometimes its so embarrassing to be a Boomer !

Onerheim (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Imina Aqvik Oqaqtuq 10 Jan 2009

Do Eskimos/Inuit still live in Igloos?BaconBoy914 (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not as semi-permanent dwellings. A igloo might be constructed during a hunting trip but it's more likely that they would use a tent. Also not all Eskimos/Inuit used igloos. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Igloo was simply a word they used to describe a house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.115.103 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

"No universal replacement term for Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people, is accepted across the geographical area inhabited by the Inuit and Yupik peoples."

The matter is complicated by the fact that the word Eskimo is considered racist and unacceptable in Canada in Greenland.

What umbrella terms are currently used?

International: "In 1977 the Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska, officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all circompolar native peoples." "Its charter defines Inuit for use within the ICC as including "the Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik (Russia)."

United States: "In Alaska, Eskimo is in common usage, and is the preferred term when speaking collectively of all Inupiat and Yupik people, or of all Inuit and Yupik people of the world."

Idea for rewrite

The term Eskimo has too many different and incompatible meanings. So why not just empty out this page and make it a disambiguation. Move all the content under different articles.

See my idea at User:Sonjaaa/Eskimo.

Since both Eskimo and Inuit are used by international groups as the preferred umbrella term, we could use something like Eskimo and Inuit peoples as the main article about the peoples. Move all the discussions about pejorative meanings of Eskimo to Eskimo (pejorative) (and merge Origin of the name Eskimo into that article).

--Sonjaaa (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sonjaaa,

Did You think originally of "Eskimo/Inuit peoples"? Was the fear from the restrictedness of "slash" character that made You choose "Eskimo and Inuit peoples" instead? If so, the fear is no more real, because there is a modification in this question. Slash is already allowed in article titles. For example: OS/2. Slash is restricted only in namespaces "Talk", "User" and "User talk", because it is reserved for subpages. In article namespaces, slash is allowed (as a consequence, sub-pages are forbidden now in article name-space).

Best wishes,

Physis (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

One more technical remark: there is no need to empty the page, Your proposal can be done technically by "pure" renaming, with keeping all contents intact. Technically, it suffices to rename Eskimo to "Eskimo/Inuit", The renaming has a side-effect: it does not annihilate the title "Eskimo" entirely, as it leaves behind an automatic redirect page "Eskimo" that redirects to "Eskimo/Inuit" automatically. As this is redirection proceeds always automatically, the redirect page cannot be modified itself in a straightforward way. Still, there is a trick to do it (navigating redirects). With this trick, the redirect page Eskimo can be modified to the disambiguation page You mentioned.

These were only mere technical remarks, "machinery" details. I cannot judge Your proposal as an expert in the topic.

Best wishes

Physis (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote to William Qamukaq, who works in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit at the Igloolik Research Centre in Nunavut. He explains:

Inuit generally don't use Eskimo in text or conversations. It's considered derogatory and archaic when it's used by non-Inuit, just as the "N" word is considered derogatory.

Inuit in Siberia often refer to themselves as Yupik or Chukchi. Alaskan Inuit often call themselves Inupiat. Western Arctic people call themselves Inuvialuit, and in the east Inuit. And Greenlandic Inuit referred to themselves as Inughuit. Now most of us have always called ourselves Inuit or Inuk.

William

--Sonjaaa (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought of some ways for settling this problem, but all of them would require reliable sources to fulfil them.

Explicit instantiation

As far as I know, Circumpolar Conference decided for "Inuit" to be the general term for these peoples (i.e, for the major branch of Eskimo-Aleut family). The problem is that, as far as I know, they did not decide at the same time for a substitute of the name for the Inuit branch. A solution seems to be straightforward: "Inuit proper". A similar solution is used in the case of Marind languages: both the branch and a specific instance of it are called "Marind", the latter is distinguished as "Marind proper".

Reclassification

As far as I know, Inuit is not a "parallel" branch "next to" Yupik. As far as I know, Yupik languages are very diverse (even among themselves), much more diverse than Inuit ones (among themselves). Moreover, as far as I could grasp, originally, Inuit grew out of Yupiks. Thus, I thought, a reclassification would solve the problem: "Yupik" for the comprehensive term, which would be divided to sub-branches, one of them would be "Inuit".

Reconstruction

Moreover, maybe the Proto-Eskimo word for "person" could be inferred, that would be an acceptable term for comprehensive usage. This way seems logically nice, but still, it rises several new questions: What root to use? "Person"? Or "human being"? Shall we choose from the vernacular or the shamanic language? IPA: [*inguɣ]? IPA: [*taʁu]?

All solutions needs approval of notable experts or other authoritative resources, and also the consent of the concerned ones themselves, till then, these were only thoughts.

Anyway, in Wikipedia these cannot be applied yet, because Wikipedia excludes original research, till it is not established/published/accepted.

Physis (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For the end, I write a solution that does not need consulting experts or seeking for resources, thus, it does not amount to original research. Still, I do not like this latter solution.

Ostensive term: "Inuit, Yupik peoples" (instead of "Eskimo").

I have two dislikes for this solution:

Essentialism of science

This usage is ostensive. I doubt that the usage of ostensive terms can be justified in science. I think, in this sense, science is inherently an essentialist enterprise. Eskimos form the major branch of Eskimo-Aleut language family. Thus this a meaningful concept, not an empty one, and I conjecture that this can be justified by comparative linguistical investigations. An ostensive usage seems for me discarding the essence.

Update problems

The exact classification of Sireniki Eskimo language has not been settled yet. Some experts classify it as belonging to Yupik, others regard it as a standalone third branch alongside with Inuit and Yupik. If the question gets settled, then ostensive terms vary accordingly ("Inuit, Yupik peoples" should be updated for "Inuit, Yupik, Sireniki"). The example is only heuristic, because Sireniki Eskimo language went extinct in 1997, thus this example has no more a practical relevance. Still, it may illustrate a problem.

Physis (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The primary reason that Eskimo is considered derogatory is the arguable perception that it means "eaters of raw meat".

Is it really the primary reason why the term Eskimo has become derogatory? Or is this just the argument that non-Inuit use to say they can keep using a term that is considered racist in many areas?

"Arguable perception" are really loaded words. Why not simply "belief"? To me, "arguable" implies "You guys are technically wrong and illogical for feeling offended by this term that was used in derogatory contexts against you, because our etymological science can prove the term is technically not derogatory in its origins."

--Sonjaaa (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if somebody could show that the number of derogatory uses in any way approaches the number of postive uses of the word it might help settle things one way or the other. I've never heard or seen the word used in a negative way, only in terms of admiration or praise for these people. I've certainly read a lot of people saying that they've been told that it's derogatory. "Nigger" was clearly used and intended as an insult in many, many cases and even when not it was at least condescending and attached to negative attitudes. As far as I can see the only people using "Eskimo" negatively are a few anthropologists who don't understand how language, and in particular naming, works. 213.78.235.176 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

link to a book digitized by google about the spiritual significane footwear hasMatsuiny2004 (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=_BAMV8335NkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=alaska+eskimo+footwear

this is currently in the article: "There are two main groups referred to as Eskimo: Fruit and Vegetable. A third group, Dairy, is related." Hmm. Thousandrobots (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Origin of the name Eskimo be merged into Eskimo

For the discussion, see Talk:Eskimo#mergefrom Origin of the name Eskimo

70.29.208.69 (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to have "Eskimo" as the top tier article for arctic aboriginal peoples. As alluded in the article, the term is considered extremely offensive and is widely considered an ethnic slur in Canada. The article should take on a similar form to nigger in recognizing its Etymology, history and use in popular culture. The term "Eskimo" is even listed in the ethnic slur article as being a pejorative term.

A more inclusive term needs to be found because Eskimo is NOT considered acceptable or appropriate and it must be changed, ASAP. Any suggestions for name changes? --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions:

• Inuit
• disambiguate as suggested by User:Sonjaaa

I made a slight adjustment to User:Sonjaaa/Eskimo and if necessary that should be used. Inuvialuit and Kalaallit should be a subgroup of Inuit. Inuit covers people in Greenland and Canada while those people in Russia and the US may not like being called Inuit. One other problem is that not all people in Canada that were covered by the word Eksimo want to be called Inuit. It's hard to find sources but as a general rule, Inuit is the prefered term for the Eastern Arctic and some people in the Central Arctic. In the western Central Arctic the correct term is Inuinnaq (real people) as the word inuit or inuk (always with a small i) simply means human and is not restricted to one particular ethnic group. For the Western Arctic the term is Inuvialuit though Inuinnaq would also cover some of the the people as well. However, in parts of the Central Arctic and in the Western Arctic the word Eskimo is still, to some extent, in current usage as a self-desgination but not as much as before. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont really see it as being as an ethnic slur. Reading the post by CambridgeBayWeather, i think it should stay the way it is. Norum (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who aparently believes that "American" is an ethnicity, your expertise in this field is probably not something that will carry a lot of weight. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I grew up (in Britain) thinking of the Eskimoes as a magnificent people with extraordinarily highly developed hunting skills and it is a mystery to me why the word should be regarded as pejorative. Isn't this really a local problem with attitudes to Eskimoes in some parts of Canada? The term Eskimo has certainly never been used pejoratively in my hearing and to compare it to 'nigger' seems just silly. The information in these discussions and articles suggests that it refers either to snowshoes or to the eating of meat or fish raw; as I understand it this is indeed normal Eskimo practice in an environment where cooking is very difficult so it is not clear to my why the term would be more offensive than 'wearers of fur' or 'kayak builders' would be. As a matter of fact if the meaning of Inuit is indeed 'real people' then it might be thought highly pejorative to the rest of us. Is it not reasonable to allow each language to have it's own name for other places and peoples? A strange practice has developed over recent years of selecting certain English words for this treatment; Peking suddenly became Beijing and Bushmen became San but no-one has asked me to call Munich Muenchen or Germany Deutschland and I am perfectly happy for the French to call my capital city Londres between themselves. The time to use the name favoured by the local people is surely when speaking their language with them. Erwfaethlon (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Canadian political correctness should infringe upon the article. In the US state of Alaska, many people proudly refer to themselves as Eskimos. And for the record, not all Eskimos are Inuit. In Canada they may be, but in Eastern Russia they are all Yupik, and in Alaska, an Eskimo can be either Yupik or Inuit, and believe me, a Yupik would be very offended at being labeled an Inuit. Keep the term Eskimo, and don't allow one nation's stance to imperially dicate Wikipedia terminology. 98.221.131.77 (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "eskimo" is not used by the United States Census Bureau nor Canada Statistics nor do I believe that it is in current use by any modern ethnologists or anthropologists. The use (or rather lack of use) by the reliable sources and experts in the field carries more weight than Wikipedia editors claiming that they or someone else is not offended by the term. We follow the lead of reliable sources and the reliable sources are not using "Eskimo". -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The US Census Bureau lumps all the indigenous people of Alaska (Eskimo, Aleut, Amerindian) into one collective category called "Alaska Native," so this is a poor example. Canadian political correctness outlaws the term Eskimo, so a Canadian source is also meaningless. I also fail to see how the fact that you don't "believe" ethnologists or anthropologists use the term somehow makes it invalid and sacrilege for Wikipedia. Even if non-Eskimo academics avoid the term, what about the Eskimo people themselves? See this site for info on an organization of the said people that uses the name Eskimo. 98.221.131.77 (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

98.221.131.77, you might want to cool it with the over the top remarks. You are saying that "Canadian political correctness" dictates you can't use the word Eskimo, ignoring the fact that some people in the Western Arctic still call themselves that, the multiple uses still current in Canada (see Eskimo (disambiguation) and search) and that there has little complaint about the Edmonton Eskimos and Abitibi Eskimos. Eskimo is still used in Canada and I hear it every day. You say that even though the majority of people living in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland find the word Eskimo offensive it's just "political correctness" and thus "...a Canadian source is also meaningless." and therefore should be ignored but that the Yupik people being offended by Inuit is OK and not "political correctness" and a Yupik source is OK. That is called double standard. You say "...don't allow one nation's stance to imperially dictate Wikipedia terminology." but that's not really happening. Instead you have editors giving their opinions. You have some people here saying that Eskimo is not offensive but that ignores the fact that many people do find the word offensive as do the Yupik find that being called Inuit offensive. One thing that has been ignored is that the Inuit Circumpolar Council which represents 150,000 people from all four Arctic countries uses Inuit and is agreed to by the Alaskan branch.

TheRedPenOfDoom, there are multiple current uses of the word Eskimo in academic circles. Eskimo-Aleut languages, Paleo-Eskimo and Early Paleoeskimo are three that come to mind and a search for Paleo-Eskimo shows a lot more. A search of Google scholar for Eskimo also shows some recent works using the word.

I think as there is no one single word agreed on by all people, be they Inuit, Eskimo or not, the two articles, Eskimo and Inuit should remain separate. As long as this article has a good explanation as to why some native people find the word offensive and neither claims to be an all inclusive word for them, then it shouldn't be a problem. I looked over this talk page and the archive, what a waste of time going over the same thing again and again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize you felt my views were "over the top." Yes, some may find the term "Eskimo" offensive, whereas others may resent being called "Inuit" ; I was just trying to point out that 'Inuit' isn't necessarily a viable alternative for 'Eskimo,' and questioning why there was even a need for an alternative in the first place. When I said Canadian political correctness "outlaws" the term Eskimo, I didn't mean it literally. What I meant is that there are a lot of editors on here stating matter-of-factly that Eskimo is ALWAYS a derogatory term to ALL Eskimo people, and that ALL Eskimo people must now be called Inuit. Most of these editors are non-Eskimo EASTERN Canadians, who are taught this erroneous belief.

Also, I was not setting a double standard myself, but pointing to the double standard being set by some editors here. They were saying "We must take into account the feelings of Inuit who are offended by the term Eskimo," while totally ignoring the sentiments of non-Inuit Eskimo (as well as some Inuit Eskimo) not offended by the term.

98.221.131.77 (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I misunderstood you. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, the use of "Eskimo" in academic circles is limited to very specific anthropolocial jargon terms, and not in the general way that it is being used in this article. The article should probably be re-titled something like "Indigenous peoples of the polar region" which would be a term that more accurately describes all of the people/cultures covered. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this seems to be my week to misunderstand people. I'm not sure that your suggested title would work. It's not something that is used by anybody else so would fail the MOS. Also not all people that use the term Inuit are to be found in the polar region as some live in Nunavik and others in Nunatsiavut. Another thing is the term would also include non-Eskimo/Inuit people such as the Gwich’in and maybe others. Too bad we can't copy this. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 10:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)