Jump to content

Talk:Eskimo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noserider (talk | contribs) at 01:01, 19 July 2009 (→"Eskimo" doesn't mean eaters of raw meat?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

possible vandalism?

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)[reply]

"Eskimo" doesn't mean eaters of raw meat?

The article says that the belief that the word Eskimo is an Indian word, meaning "eaters of raw meat", is incorrect. It says so without citing a source. Well, I was taught that it meant "eaters of raw fisht", not "eaters of raw meat". I think the article should back up this assertion. -- Geo Swan 10:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article did cite one source before. I added some more info and added two references at the bottom, but didn't cite them in the article itself. Sorry about that; I've added it now [Oh wait. I didn't notice the 2005 date; that comment was written a year ago. Oops]. Ives Goddard, who has suggested this new etymology, is one of the most respected and eminent Algonquianists today. I should also note that the American Heritage Dictionary also agrees with this etymology: [1]. --Whimemsz 01:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Saulteaux do call the the Inuit as "Eshkimeg", which would be "raw-fish" (from ashki-"raw", experiencing the subordinate clause initial vowel change of a to e, plus the combining form of the word "fish": =meg). However, in other areas speaking Ojibwe instead say "Eshkimo" to mean "eats somebody raw" (same eshki- as before, but with =mo, "eats someone"). Fr. Baraga, however, attributes the word instead to Cree:

ESQUIMAUX, (Cree), comes from: aski, raw, and, mewew, to eat some body, whence: askimowew, he eates him raw, or, better, askimow, he eates raw.

CJLippert 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'eskimo' is actually a condescending term, it's better to used the word inuit

is eskimo condescending?? source?? How about Chukchi? Is that condescending? Thats what Russians call them isn't it? Noserider (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source, from Ingo Hessel, former Coordinator of the Canadian Inuit Art Information Centre of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs for the Government of Canada.
"It is usually speculated that the term 'Eskimo' is a pejorative Algonquian phrase meaning 'eaters of raw flesh.' However, it may simply be Algonquian for "people who live up the coast' (McGhee 2004:104). In any case, most Eskimos of Canada now call themselves Inuit ("the people"–singular "Inuk"); that name is generally used in Canada and Greenland and is rapidly gaining international acceptance.
Hessel, Ingo. Arctic Spirit: Inuit Art from the Albrecht Collection at the Heard. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 2006: x. ISBN 978-1-55365-189-5.
I'm surprised to see this article exist, since the name Eskimo is usually regarded as offensive, and there are Inuit, Yupik, Aleut, and Eskimo-Aleut languages articles. There is nothing in this article that isn't covered by those articles. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

---

The problem exists because you have a few different groups of people who fall under the group "Eskimo," and there is no other word that could be used in place of Eskimo to collectively refer to all of these groups. I corrected ur title it said eaters of raw meant in the beginning.

The article should be called something along the lines of “Arctic natives”. The word “Eskimo” is considered by many people outside of the United States to be racist slang; it seems ridiculous to have the article on this page. -Arctic.gnome 16:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One reason for placing the article under this name is the naming convention that articles are placed under the most common name. I suspect that "Eskimo" is the most common term used for this specific grouping (including both Inuit and Yupik but not Aleut). But see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it. Even if the article stays at Eskimo, however, that needn't stop one from using other phrases like "Arctic native" in the body of the article! But if you change anything, be sure to use a phrase that means the right thing; in the case of "Arctic native", that seems to me to wrongly include Aleuts --although for some parts of the article, that might not really matter. --Toby Bartels 06:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Arctic native" is ambiguous. The Sami people are Arctic natives; you could even argue that Finns, Norwegians, and Swedes are too. The article should stay at "Eskimo" as long as that term continues to be used. --Saforrest 19:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "Arctic native" is ambiguous or not, "Eskimo" is overwhelmingly considered an offensive term in many areas. And as for the assertion that we should continue to refer to people based on whatever word others call them, this is lunacy. By this logic, god only knows what we should call all first nations people in Canada, or African-Americans. --207.47.143.4 01:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with considering the term "Eskimo" to be offensive is that nobody actually seems to use it offensively, and that there are large areas where it is not used offensively at all. The English-speaking world outside of Canada does not see it as an offensive term except as informed by Canadians. If Canadian people wish to see this as an insult that is their prerogative, but it is unfair for them to enforce their opinions on all the other groups who do accept this term. The same battle has been fought with words like "history" and "woman", and in these sorts of cases it is simply not tenable to claim that words are offensive when nobody uses them in an offensive manner.
Furthermore, the term "Eskimo" is widely accepted in both linguistics and anthropology as an appropriate ethnonym for the ethnic groups including the Inuit, Inupiat, Yup'ik, Yuit, Cupig, and Sugpiaq/Alutiiq. This is by social scientists who are today acutely aware of cultural sensitivities, and who go out of their way to avoid offending indigenous peoples of any sort. The term "Inuit" is too restrictive, it only applies to the groups in Canada and Greenland who speak Inuit languages, and to noone else. The Inupiat do speak an Inuit language but are themselves uncomfortable with the label "Inuit" because they feel it applies in both English and in Inupiaq to people living east of the Mackenzie River delta. All the peoples listed who live in Alaska and Russia accept the term "Eskimo" as an appropriate term for all of these groups, and none of them accept the term "Inuit" except as an exonym for the Canadian and Greenland peoples.
Despite acceptance by the other Eskimo peoples, the overwhelming use of this term in scientific literature is a very strong argument in favor of Wikipedia using the term. The article has fairly addressed the issue, and if you feel there is something that needs to be added to this then feel free to make those additions. But it is inappropriate for the article to be renamed and thus go against both scientific practice as well as the opinions of the non-Inuit Eskimo peoples.
Also please note that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. This means that if you want to see a different term established which fairly describes all of these groups, then you need to establish this in the rest of the world first, then come back to Wikipedia to change it. Wikipedia is not a place for activism in any form, be it linguistic or otherwise.
— Jéioosh 12:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In Turkish the word "Eski" means old. Can there be any relation with Turkic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.10.59 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I've heard it as Eskimo derives from an Athabascan word (we got it through French contacts with them) that means something along the lines of "snowshoe maker." 138.192.86.254 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Eshkimeg", which would be "raw-fish" and Eskimwew "Eskimo" "eaters of raw meat" both are still racist word. we aint 'Eskimo' and We are 'INUIT' Canadian and Greenlandic Inuit preferred 'Inuit'

I dont like the word 'Eskimo' that's rude word....Well im Inuk If you call the black people 'N word' same thing 'Eskimo' both racist word...

'Eski means old' As in Inuktitut say 'Utuqqaq' means old/elder people' or Ikkii means brrr! cold! (Haqqalikitaaq (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Term Eskimo is extremely derogatory

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Inuit/Eskimo

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).[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Eskimo as self-description of Alaskan Eskimos

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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


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)[reply]

Intro wording

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)[reply]

I see the change has already been reverted [2]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Additional Comments

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)[reply]

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

Origins of the word Eskimo

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)[reply]

Is Eskimo considered pejorative in Greenland?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Source no. 1: American Heritage Dictionary

That's this link: [3]. The dictionary talks about the perceived offensiveness of the word Eskimo in the minds of Americans, and mentions that the word Inuit is applicable to Greenlanders. Please say what sentence(s) in this source support your assertion. Whynot77 (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary is inaccurate. It says the word Eskimo has come under attack "for its supposed offensiveness", and does NOT indict where. It says that Americans avoid the term because of that supposed offensiveness. It goes on to say that "Inuit" as a replacement term is approprate in Canada and Greenland. Clearly the implication is that the term "Eskimo" is considered offensive in Canada and Greenland, and that is why Inuit is used.
Regardless, are you going to argue that Larry Kaplan is unaware? Are you going to argue the same for Pamela Stern?
I can't cite personal communications with Adrian Redmond (from Demark, who has produce documenary films both in Alaska and Greenland), but we had a very interesting discussion about the terminology a few years back while he was filming here in Barrow.
What you are missing is that we KNOW what the situation in Greenland actually is, and the only question is what it takes to provide adequate documentation on Wikipedia.
You are highly encouraged to find a single authoritative source which claims "Eskimo" is not generally acceptable and notconsidered pejorative in Greenland.
Floyd Davidson (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is not on me to disprove your assertions. The question at the moment is whether these sources say what you say they say. If they don't, then they should no longer be used to support this assertion regarding Greenlanders.
I don't want to deal with all your sources at once, so let's just deal with this one for now. You removed the "failed verification" tag I placed on this source. Certainly that only has to do with this source, not any others.
The dictionary says this:
  1. Some people in the U.S. suppose the word is offensive.
  2. Inuit is an appropriate term to describe Greenlanders and Canadians.
I do not agree that it can be inferred from that that Greenlanders find the word offensive. The reason it mentions that Inuit is appropriate for Canada and Greenland is to emphasize that it is not appropriate in describing some Americans and Russians. That has more to do with the limitations of the word Inuit than with the places Eskimo might be considered offensive. So it is not clear at all that the implication is what you say it is. Whynot77 (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It starts with this sentence: "Eskimo has come under strong attack in recent years for its supposed offensiveness, and many Americans today either avoid this term or feel uneasy using it." That does not say where the "strong attack" originated geographically. It then says that attack is the reason that Americans avoid the term (a point which is of no concern to us).
The next sentence says "It is widely known that Inuit, a term of ethnic pride, offers an acceptable alternative, but it is less well understood that Inuit cannot substitute for Eskimo in all cases, being restricted in usage to the Inuit-speaking peoples of Arctic Canada and parts of Greenland." That does say the restriction is because it is only appropriate to those areas, but it clearly implies that Eskimo is insulting to people of those areas, otherwise there would be no need to use the term Inuit in place of Eskimo. For example, there are Inuit people in Alaska, yet even though the "inappropriate" restriction does not apply to them any more than it does to the Inuit of Greenland, it is a fact that the term "Inuit" is rarely ever used to reference Inuit people in Alaska and the term Eskimo commonly is. The difference is simply that the Inuit people in Alaska do not find the term Eskimo insulting, while the Inuit people in Greenland do.
Deny it all you want, but I have to ask if you have ever talked to an Inuit from Greenland about it, or for that matter to anyone who has ever even been to Greenland?
There is no contradictory evidence, and you are saying that Kaplan and Stern are incorrect.
It was well documented before your change and it is now so overwhelmingly well documented that it is absurd to argue the point. Please note that attacking the weakest of the several references is not valid, because all it does is lend support to the strongest reference. Until you can discredit Lawrence Kaplan and Pamela Stern, don't even bother discussing the supporting documentation.
Floyd Davidson (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deny it all you want, but I have to ask if you have ever talked to an Inuit from Greenland about it, or for that matter to anyone who has ever even been to Greenland?
Note that such appeal to personal knowledge is original research. Reliable third-party published sourcing is all that counts here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What counts most of all here is ACCURATE information. And no I did NOT cite personal knowledge or original research.
But I AM saying that people who do not have a full awareness of the topic will have a very very VERY difficult time sorting "facts" from the Internet in any attempt to determine what is or is not accurate. People who have no exposure to Eskimo people, culture and language simply are not able to make such determinations, not through any fault of theirs, but simply because more inaccurate information is available than accurate information, and it is ONLY personal knowledge that makes sorting it out possible.
The point is that someone who clearly does know what they are looking at has indeed sorted it out, and has provided FIVE accurate cites from reliable sources to support what the article says.
Floyd Davidson (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What counts most of all here is ACCURATE information
What counts most of all here, as always wth Wikipedia, is verifiability. The point of citation is that an intelligent lay reader should be able to look at sources to verify what an article says, and that those sources are intrinsically reliable by Wikipedia criteria (e.g. articles from peer-reviewed journals and/or authors with established reputation). That doesn't preclude personal knowledge being useful in the selection process, but it should be possible to tell without that knowledge that the sources are reliable and representative.
The system doesn't work by someone using personal knowledge to decide what's true, then citing whatever sources back up that truth, regardless of their intrinsic reliability - which is what appears to have happened here. The Kaplan and Stern refs are fine, but Wikitravel isn't reliable (hence my removing it) and the Ostgrönland-Hilfe website text is neither credited nor peer-reviewed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has accurate information, there are verifiable sources that are reliable. AND NO CONFLICTING EVIDENCE EXISTS. Attempts to remove that information are the original research that you ascribe to the existing article. Backwards... Floyd Davidson (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouting doesn't make it more true. And don't misrepresent the situation: original research is defined as asserting a novel theory on a topic. It is not novel, merely straightforard application of policy, to apply Wikipedia's standards for reliability of sources. A Wiki that anyone can edit isn't remotely a reliable source. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not satisfied with Floyd Davidson's arguments regarding this source, so I've added a dispute tag to the source as it pertains to Greenland. That doesn't mean I'm right that it's not in the source, it means that there is disagreement about it, and so far no consensus on it. It should only be removed once there is a consensus as to whether that source allows one to conclude that the word Eskimo is considered pejorative in Greenland. Whynot77 (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to the substance of his argument, it might very well be, judging solely from this reference, that Eskimo was perceived as offensive by some Canadians, and that that is why the word came under attack. Naturally, since Canada is an English-speaking country, things said there might well be echoed in the U.S. For the dictionary, it then becomes pointless to dive into the details of who considers it offensive and who doesn't. Whynot77 (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. The AHD has an associated entry that doesn't require us to go into convolutions of inference, and directly and unambiguously supports the statement. We use that one. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute tag removed unilaterally

Floyd Davidson, you've removed the dispute tag I placed on the source, without any consensus to do so. Whynot77 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple answer to this. The American Heritage Dictionary entry for Eskimo doesn't say where it's pejorative. However, its entry for Inuit explictly does say Canada and Greenland. So we just change the reference where appropriate, which I've done. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more appropriate to say this: Use of the word Eskimo in reference to the native peoples of Greenland and the Canadian Arctic is often considered offensive, especially in Canada. This is what the dictionary says. I think basically, it means that it's especially Canadians who get offended when Greenlanders or Canadians are referred to that way. The sources I've seen so far aren't particularly convincing that the people in Greenland feel that way themselves, which makes sense since they have had no contact with the Cree, etc. Do you agree that this formulation more accurately reflects the (acceptable) sources than what is in the article currently? (It says: In Canada and Greenland the term Eskimo is widely held to be pejorative.) Whynot77 (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Note: I will not be contributing for the next several weeks, but I still consider this matter open. Whynot77 (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source no. 2: Ostgrönland-Hilfe website

This website [4] does not seem to me to be a reliable source, as Gordonofcartoon points out above. It appears to be the website of some hotel, as best I can tell. Whynot77 (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-checking [5] [6]: it's a tourist and expedition hotel run in association with a charitable job creation project. There are various German press accounts here that might provide evidence of authority. But I don't take it as automatic that a commercial or even charitable site is a reliable source, even about itself. Different matter if reliable third-party sources report its statements. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reasoning

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]


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[reply]

Igloo's?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

POV

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Make Eskimo a disambiguation about the word's meanings

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Response from the Igloolik Research Centre

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)[reply]

Just thoughts

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)[reply]

Is science essentialist to exclude ostensive definitions?

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)[reply]

eskimo footwear

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

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

mergefrom Origin of the name Eskimo

It has been proposed that Origin of the name Eskimo be merged into Eskimo. The proposal was put forward at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of the name Eskimo.

70.29.208.69 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

please voice your opinion on the matter here

Discussion

this area is for other discussions
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eskimo&oldid=302865789"