<> and DeprecationWarning

A

Andrew Dalke

Floyd Davidson:
Of course, we aren't necessarily too keen on calling ourselves just
American, either.

And others living in the Americas are Americas too. (Went to
one talk where the speaker wanted "Americans" to call themselves
"United Statens")

And some English don't like thinking of themselves as European.

And being raised in the US South (losing side of the Civil War)
means it feels strange being called a Yank (Yankees being
the victors) -- even though I was raised by a Michigander and
a Canadian so don't have strong southern heritage.

And being raised in Miami I was used to the term "Hispanic",
which is apparently frowned upon because it's another made-up
term, and the proper one (at least for some Hispanic people)
is Chicano. Except that it needs the feminine "-a" ending
when talking about a woman despite English not working that
way.

And ... and... I'm trying to figure out how to get back to
Python. I assume some Python people like being called
Pythonistas and others don't, but that's not really a general
term used outside c.l.py.

Andrew
(e-mail address removed)
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Skip Montanaro said:
Floyd> The problem with the above is that there is no way to fill in the
Floyd> blank and be correct! The terms are reversed...

I don't think so. My intent was to answer the question, "What's the current
politically correct term to use in place of 'Eskimo'?" I believe the above
SAT-style question captures the correct relationship. "Native American" is
p.c., "American Indian" (or simply "Indian") is not. "Eskimo" is apparently
also not p.c.

I've never heard that "American Indian" is not pc, nor that "Native
American" was ever meant to be a direct replacement for it.

Obviously some people mistakenly believe that "Eskimo" is not pc,
and just as mistakenly think the "Inuit" is a direct replacement.
Floyd> Whatever, in Canada all Eskimo people are in fact Inuit, and it
Floyd> is considered impolite to call them anything else. By the same
Floyd> token, the *only* word in the English language which properly
Floyd> describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does
Floyd> not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,
Floyd> and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik. Moreover, in Alaska the
Floyd> Inupiat people, who are the same as the Canadian Inuit people,
Floyd> simply do *not* like to be called Inuit! (They use the word
Floyd> Inupiat.)

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like there's no one best term.

Each of those terms have different meanings though, and when
used in the proper context, they are *all* precisely correct!

Of course, that is all very easy for someone like me (living
very much in an environment where all of those terms are used
with regularity), and not so easy for someone who only
occasionally has need to sort them out.
 
P

Peter Hansen

Floyd said:
I've never heard that "American Indian" is not pc, nor that "Native
American" was ever meant to be a direct replacement for it.

Obviously some people mistakenly believe that "Eskimo" is not pc,
and just as mistakenly think the "Inuit" is a direct replacement.

I think you've inadvertently expanded the scope of those beliefs.

In fact it was limited to "Eskimo is not PC for the _Inuit_". I
don't think anyone has really disproved this, unless someone
claiming to represent the Inuit's communal interest in the matter
posted while I wasn't looking.

But clearly there is also misunderstanding of which peoples call
themselves Inuit.

-Peter
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Geoff Gerrietts said:
Where the original question tried to sort out "What term has replaced
Eskimo in the same way Native American has replaced American Indian?"
But it appears that Native American hasn't really replaced American
Indian in the simple way we thought it had. Meanwhile, for some prior
usages of "Eskimo", that term is still correct: it identifies a
specific cultural/ethnic/tribal group.

You were doing great until this last paragraph. Eskimo does not
refer to any tribe or tribal group. It refers to a language
group, a cultural/ethnic group or to a genetic group. But there
are literally hundreds of unique tribes within the cultural
group known as Eskimos. For that matter, and this may come as a
surprise to some, the term tribe isn't necessarily the best
description of Eskimo governance, and "nation" might be a much
better term. There is little doubt that before Europeans
brought diseases to Northwestern Alaska there were what can only
be described as a very well delineated group of Eskimo Nations
there (Earnest S. Birch Jr. has published detailed studies).
By the time anyone was interested in learning what Eskimos were,
they had been decimated, and tribal relationships were just
about all that was left.

One might speculate that the same was/is true of American Indian
governance. We can certainly say for example that the Iroquois
and several other Confederations that were very functional well
into the 1800's met the "nation" criteria too.

Some of them were exceedingly sophisticated governments, and
most of them were very sophisticated social cultures too.
They've been portrayed as "savage" and "primitive" to make it
easier to justify taking what they owned away from them. But
the simple fact is that in many ways they were far more advanced
in 1500 than the average European society was at that time.
In other ways, there doesn't
appear to be a real equivalent. While "all descendents of indigineous
peoples" seem to have some kind of collective identity, it does not
appear that "all descendents of indigineous peoples that lived north
of the Arctic" do.

There is more to that than you can probably imagine!

Rest assured that almost *anything* you hear about Eskimos on
the Internet is false. That is equally true of almost any
anthropology book published prior to about 1970. The problem is
that all of these sources have a lot of just really good
information, but it takes an expert to wade through what is
presented to throw out the garbage.

You've all heard, for example, that the "Eskimos have xxxx words
for snow" business is not true.

How about...

Eskimos (and or all other Native Americans) had no concept of
private property or land ownership.

FACT: The penalty for trespass on private property for
the purpose of illegal use was death.

Eskimos had no form of governance.

FACT: The Europeans who visited Eskimos were unable to
comprehend that government does not necessarily
involve noise and violence. It also does not
necessarily exclude women. There is not a single
description of Eskimo governance prior to 1965 in
any anthropology text I've ever heard of. But in
the late 60's the Yupiit Nation decided they had
to write it down, because their children were being
taught in Western schools and not learning it. As
of about 1975 there isn't a single anthropology text
that I know of which still claims they had no form
of governance! 1741 to 1970 is a long time to miss
a very simple fact like that...

Eskimo men offer their wives to visitors.

FACT: In a matrilineal society where the woman owns the
house, it most certainly would not be possible for
a man to offer what he doesn't own and has no
authority over. Consider the plight of a poor lady,
though, who finds a stranger somewhat interesting
but also finds that he's too dumb to talk to a woman.
So she just orders the nearest man, "Tell that tall
dumb one that he's staying in my igloo."

Eskimos put old people out on the ice.

FACT: In a society with an oral history, that is the same
as burning the books in your library. Insane.
The older an elder is, the more precious and more
protected they are.

Eskimos and Indians killed each other on sight.

FACT: In several places there have traditionally been Indian
and Eskimo villages on opposite sides of a river within
1/2 a mile of each other!

I could go on for an hour at least, and worse yet I could
probably write two or three pages of commentary on each of these
things.
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Peter Hansen said:
I think you've inadvertently expanded the scope of those beliefs.

I've tried to provide some education on what they actually do
mean.
In fact it was limited to "Eskimo is not PC for the _Inuit_". I
don't think anyone has really disproved this, unless someone
claiming to represent the Inuit's communal interest in the matter
posted while I wasn't looking.

You do realize that most of my neighbors speak Inuit? I'm not
suggesting that I read it somewhere in a newspaper or a book,
I'm talking about real live Inuit people. Not to mention a lot
of Eskimos who are not Inuit (e.g., all of my children and
grandchildren).

Like I said, it is mistaken to believe the term Eskimo is
not pc, or that there is even a valid replacement for it
in the English language.
But clearly there is also misunderstanding of which peoples call
themselves Inuit.

That is what I was trying to clear up. Just who is Inuit, and
who isn't. And who wants to be called Inuit, and who doesn't.
And why. (You might want to browse my web page. The URL is
in my sig.)
 
P

Peter Hansen

Floyd said:
Like I said, it is mistaken to believe the term Eskimo is
not pc,

I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying
unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere
on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as
"Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,
as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

-Peter
 
G

Geoff Gerrietts

Quoting Peter Hansen ([email protected]):
I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying
unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere
on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as
"Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,
as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

No. He's saying that there are Eskimo, and there are Inuit. The two
have some overlap but not a lot.

Eskimo is not a pejorative. Calling a person who considers himself
Eskimo an Inuit would be like calling a German person French.
Sometimes you're going to get away with it, and sometimes you're going
to get a fight.

The same is true in reverse. Both terms are acceptable, when applied
to the right people.

--G.
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Peter Hansen said:
I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying
unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere
on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as
"Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,
as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

OK, so you don't understand what "pc" means.
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Geoff Gerrietts said:
Quoting Peter Hansen ([email protected]):

No. He's saying that there are Eskimo, and there are Inuit. The two
have some overlap but not a lot.

All Inuit are Eskimos, but not all Eskimos are Inuit.
Eskimo is not a pejorative. Calling a person who considers himself
Eskimo an Inuit would be like calling a German person French.

How about like saying that we must never use the word
"European", because some Brits really do like to be called
British and some French really do like to be called French, and
therefore we should call Italians and Germans English, so as not
to offend the Hungarians by the use of the word European.

If that sounds like a twisted maze of foolishness... it is!
Sometimes you're going to get away with it, and sometimes you're going
to get a fight.

The same is true in reverse. Both terms are acceptable, when applied
to the right people.

You know one of the odd things about Canadians and this word "Eskimo",
is that Canadian Inuit people don't seem to mind Alaskans using that
word, whether to describe Alaska Eskimo or to describe Canadian Eskimos.

They don't mind, because we use the word as it is meant to be used.

What they find offensive is not the word, but the *way* that white
Canadians use it. And *that* is what definitely is not pc.
 
D

Donn Cave

Quoth Floyd Davidson <[email protected]>:
....
| I could go on for an hour at least, and worse yet I could
| probably write two or three pages of commentary on each of these
| things.

Technically that would have to be off topic, but it's bound to be
more interesting than the Lisp vs. Python troll wars that we seem
to like so much these days. Thanks for the education!

Donn Cave, (e-mail address removed)
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Donn Cave said:
Quoth Floyd Davidson <[email protected]>:
...
| I could go on for an hour at least, and worse yet I could
| probably write two or three pages of commentary on each of these
| things.

Technically that would have to be off topic, but it's bound to be
more interesting than the Lisp vs. Python troll wars that we seem
to like so much these days. Thanks for the education!

Donn Cave, (e-mail address removed)

I should thank the other participants. I've gotten several
emails, and *all* of them have been very pleasant.

Is there something about Python?

I've got a book on it here somewhere, maybe I should try
learning it as a therapy for high blood pressure? ;-)

(The trouble is, I really should spend more time learning eLisp,
because I'm a dyed in the wool XEmacs user with some very large
init files that are painful to maintain...)
 
P

Peter Hansen

Floyd said:
OK, so you don't understand what "pc" means.

In this newsgroup, it should surely mean personal computer. :)

All I'm trying to clear up is whether you are saying that the
effectively institutionalized advice (in Canada) not to use the
term "Eskimo" for the Inuit is deprecated (to try to tie this
in a minor way back to the thread).

I don't care if other groups call themselves Eskimo. All I
care about is whether we've been fed a load of crap for all
these years and should ignore any advice implying that the
Inuit do not like to be called Eskimo.

-Peter
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Peter Hansen said:
Floyd Davidson wrote:

I don't care if other groups call themselves Eskimo. All I
care about is whether we've been fed a load of crap for all
these years and should ignore any advice implying that the
Inuit do not like to be called Eskimo.

You cannot lump all Inuit people and get just one answer.

Inuit people in Alaska use the term Eskimo all the time.

In Canada and Greenland Inuit people will not appreciate the
term "Eskimo" as a specific term for them when used by locals.
That is particularly true of Canadians. They do not seem to
mind the general (correct) use of the term by others who do not
have any intent to insult them.

Note that in Canada and Greenland, *all* Eskimos are Inuit,
hence there is little need to use that term to describe those
people.

I would also caution that the implication of the first sentence
in the quoted paragraph above is that there is some great
difference between Inuit and "other groups [who] call themselves
Eskimo". The most obvious characteristic they have, is that
they are exceedingly similar. The Inuit branch separated from
the Proto-Eskimo branch about 2000 years ago, and hence are a
"newer" form than is the Yupik branch. The Aleuts separated
probably 4000 years ago, and have evolved to something
specifically non-Eskimo.
 
P

Peter Hansen

Floyd said:
In Canada and Greenland Inuit people will not appreciate the
term "Eskimo" as a specific term for them when used by locals.
That is particularly true of Canadians. They do not seem to
mind the general (correct) use of the term by others who do not
have any intent to insult them.

Okay, thanks for taking the time to clarify, Floyd!

The impression I get then is that because some people (although
I think more so in the distant past than in recent years?)
might hold ill will towards their northern neighbours, the
rest of us with nothing against them might as well avoid the
term Eskimo entirely, to minimize the risk of someone making false
assumptions about us and how we feel about them.
Note that in Canada and Greenland, *all* Eskimos are Inuit,
hence there is little need to use that term to describe those
people.

Probably where the institutionalized advice comes from in the first
place. If all Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, and all Inuit can be
called Eskimos (but only by those who don't have intent to insult
them, apparently :), then it's best to avoid the whole issue and
just use the term Inuit.

-Peter
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Peter Hansen said:
Okay, thanks for taking the time to clarify, Floyd!

The impression I get then is that because some people (although
I think more so in the distant past than in recent years?)
might hold ill will towards their northern neighbours, the
rest of us with nothing against them might as well avoid the
term Eskimo entirely, to minimize the risk of someone making false
assumptions about us and how we feel about them.

That doesn't follow, logically, from the facts. No other word
in the English language can be used in place of the term
"Eskimo", and therefore if you want to correctly refer to the
group of people known as Eskimos, you have no choice but to use
that term.
Probably where the institutionalized advice comes from in the first
place. If all Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, and all Inuit can be
called Eskimos (but only by those who don't have intent to insult
them, apparently :), then it's best to avoid the whole issue and
just use the term Inuit.

But you *cannot* correctly call all Eskimos Inuit.

What title would you suggest for these works:

"Comparative Eskimo Dictionary With Aleut Cognates"
Fortescue, Jacobson, and Kaplan

"Eskimo Essays"
Ann Fienup-Riordan

"Eskimo Warfare"
"Eskimo Kinsmen: Changing Family Relationships in Northwest Alaska"
"Traditional Eskimo Societies in Northwest Alaska"
"The Eskimos"
Ernest S. Burch, Jr.

"The Eskimos of North Alaska"
Norman A. Chance

"Alaskan Eskimo Education"
John Collier

"Yup'ik Eskimo Dictionary"
Steven A. Jacobson

"Bashful No Longer: An Alaskan Eskimo Ethnohistory"
Wendell Oswalt

Moreover, who is going to tell Oscar Kawagley that he can't
shouldn't use the word Eskimo:

"Yupiaq Eskimo Education"
Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley
 
P

Peter Hansen

Floyd said:
That doesn't follow, logically, from the facts. No other word
in the English language can be used in place of the term
"Eskimo", and therefore if you want to correctly refer to the
group of people known as Eskimos, you have no choice but to use
that term.

Hmm... I was unclear. I meant to refer only to the Inuit
living in Canada above. If it wasn't clear in the past, I'm
in Canada and all comments I've made apply only to the situation
in Canada.
But you *cannot* correctly call all Eskimos Inuit.

Certainly not, as you've made clear. You've also made it clear
that "in Canada ..., all Eskimos are Inuit", and once again I
point out that my only interest in this matter is in relation
to the situation in Canada, and the (what I called) institutionalized
advisory not to use the term Eskimo in relation to them.

In light of this clarification, I think my comments do follow
logically from the facts as you've described them. I can't
tell whether the fact you keep confusing what I say results
from my poor way of expressing myself, or perhaps from your
certain knowledge that you know more than anyone living (or
at least anyone else present here) about this stuff, and that
therefore any comment from others containing the words Eskimo
or Inuit must surely therefore contain factual errors. I hope
it's just the former, and if so I apologize again. And I don't
intend to post here again, as I think I've understood you quite
well, even if it's not clear to you that I have.

Cheers,
-Peter
 
D

Donn Cave

Quoth Peter Hansen <[email protected]>:
....
| Hmm... I was unclear. I meant to refer only to the Inuit
| living in Canada above. If it wasn't clear in the past, I'm
| in Canada and all comments I've made apply only to the situation
| in Canada.

That wasn't too clear, actually, and may account for some of
the confusion over your point. I guess the rest might be due
to a misperception about the degree to which you actually had
a point, vs. just commenting on your own circumstances.

Donn Cave, (e-mail address removed)
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Peter Hansen said:
Hmm... I was unclear. I meant to refer only to the Inuit
living in Canada above. If it wasn't clear in the past, I'm
in Canada and all comments I've made apply only to the situation
in Canada.

I can only respond to what you actually do say. I've never been
able to read your mind, or anyone else's. You did *not* said a
word about restricting your comments to Canada and Canadian
users. When you address me about Eskimos, after I've made it
clear as a bell from word one that I'm talking about Eskimos
from Greenland to Siberia, it is absurd to suggest that I would
know you are a Canadian or that I would know you are limiting
your comments to the usage by Canadians.

However, it is also true that the point doesn't change even
then. Would you like me to find a list of appropriate uses of
the term Eskimo by Canadians?

The difference is just that in Canada you have a less frequent
need for that term than we do in Alaska. But you still have
occasion to use it.
Certainly not, as you've made clear. You've also made it clear
that "in Canada ..., all Eskimos are Inuit", and once again I

The inverse is also true. In Canada, all Inuit are Eskimos.
point out that my only interest in this matter is in relation
to the situation in Canada, and the (what I called) institutionalized
advisory not to use the term Eskimo in relation to them.

In light of this clarification, I think my comments do follow
logically from the facts as you've described them. I can't
tell whether the fact you keep confusing what I say results
from my poor way of expressing myself, or perhaps from your
certain knowledge that you know more than anyone living (or
at least anyone else present here) about this stuff, and that
therefore any comment from others containing the words Eskimo
or Inuit must surely therefore contain factual errors. I hope
it's just the former, and if so I apologize again. And I don't
intend to post here again, as I think I've understood you quite
well, even if it's not clear to you that I have.

Cheers,
-Peter

Sounds like you have an ego problem, not one of how to express
it. I am _not_ sorry to have abused you with the facts though.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,774
Messages
2,569,598
Members
45,150
Latest member
MakersCBDReviews
Top