As a courtesy to those list members interested in this (off) topic, I
copied the relevant portions of this link below my signature below.
It is an interesting argument, but ( because I read incessantly) I can
say with some confidence that Inuit is the term preferred by the
persons themselves. Moreover, by way of rebuttal, there is a
growing international trend to call peoples and places by the names
used by those peoples themselves. Thus, for example, "Bombay" is now
Mumbay.
I think this is a sensible trend, and that there is no need for each
language to have its own name for common places. Germany, for
example, should be Deutschland in all languages, Sweden Svensk, Japan
Nippon, and so on.
This is off topic so I will stop; if anyone wishes to use the term
Eskimo, it is no ice off my igloo. It does, however, go against the
sensibilities of many well-informed writers, and against a growing
international trend in language usage.
Cheers,
JBB
A point that is raised often enough in debates about the ESV to need
putting to rest is that it is insulting to indigenous Arctic
and Sub-Arctic peoples to call them Eskimos. This notion
seems to rest--insofar as it can be said to rest on any
clearly expressed reasons--on the facts or supposed facts
that, first, the peoples concerned do not call themselves by
that name, and second, the name is a Cree Indian word meaning 'eater
of raw meat,' or 'eater of fish,' or even 'eater of rotten
fish,' and hence an insult.
The response to the first point is that while the Eskimos do not, in
their own language, call themselves by that name, that is
because Eskimo is an English word, and they are speaking a
different language. The Eskimos, more tolerant than their
self-appointed champions, not only do not require
English-speakers to use Eskimo names, but often call
themselves Eskimos when speaking English. The principle that one must
call each people by the name they call themselves in their own
language is in effect the claim that there must be no
English-language name for any foreign group. The right
principle is that stated by C. S. Lewis when rebuked for
using 'Scotch' to describe those Britons who live north of
the Tweed; he simply pointed out that he was talking English, not
Scots.
The response to the second is that no insult is intended, nor felt
by the Eskimos, when they are called Eskimo (a term whose origin
is unclear, but which there is no reason to regard as
derogatory--see the discussion by Damas in the Introduction
to the volume cited in the reference list under Woodbury).
And how, one wonders, do the politically correct explain
their rejection of a term coined by the Cree, another indigenous
people--is that not insulting to the Cree? And is it not insulting
to the Eskimos to assume that a bunch of Cheechakos can
detect insult where the Eskimos themselves cannot, and to
assume that the Eskimos must be protected as if they were
children or mentally deficient? Hard is the path of the
politically correct--and may it remain so.
On Wednesday, Nov 17, 2004, at 02:14 Asia/Tokyo, Paul Holloway wrote:
Think that's a myth.
http://rules-of-the-game.com/lin003-snow-words.htm
Paul H
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan B. Britten
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:52 AM
Subject: CS>Inuit
Note to all: these people wish to be called Inuit and consider the
term "Eskimo" derogatory.
On Tuesday, Nov 16, 2004, at 12:30 Asia/Tokyo, bbanever wrote:
Marshall,
The eskimos are eating mostly raw, organically produced
meat/blubber and living in very cold climates. This necessitates a
higher metabolic rate for increased body heat which is produced by
those foods.
