Is there a generalized term for use in formal writing (i.e., not hyper-sensitive but very aware of formalities) for Pygmies?
I know that not all Eskimos are Inuit (or is that white swans?), but I don’t think one would say that an Inuit is a type of Eskimo–I’m looking to see if there is a more generalized term than an individual people’s tribe.
When I was working on an exhibition once, a reviewer suggested we refer to them as “short-statured hunter-gatherers.” I kid you not.
I have never heard of that as a standard, though.
I made the mistake of calling Eskimos in Alaska, Inuit. They set me straight and said they didn’t mind the title Eskimo. They said calling them Inuit is like calling all white people Germans
I believe that pygmy is the generic term. The main sub-groups are the Mbenga, the Mbuti and the Twa. There are individual tribes within these groups.
Take a look at the Wikipedia entry:
Although some people consider the word “Pygmy” insulting, there is no other generic term for all of these groups of people. The individual groups have many names. They speak many languages.
All Eskimos are not Inuit, at least not here. “Eskimo” is preferred because it includes the Yup’ik people.
From Wiki:
Right – I recognized that not all Eskimos were Inuit, and I saw the Wiki article but thought to come to a better source (i.e., here). I find it odd/counterintuitive that there’s a group term that may cause offense to those people, but no general generic term has come up in its place. I don’t think getting specific down to a specific group will cut it, as there were multiple groups participating in the subject of the sentence.
I guess a big part of this is my assumption that Pygmy is possibly offensive, in that it’s Greek origins suggest a colonialist/Western background and it also carries something of a pejorative connotation (i.e., short people).
Each tribe/ethnic group has a name and generally prefers to be called that (though “pygmy” isn’t considered horribly offensive and some will self-identify as “pygmy”) In Southern Cameroon they called themselves the Baka people.
The problem is that “pygmy” has garnered another connotation as an adjective meaning small in an abnormal way. But if they don’t mind, that’s their business.
Well, we could make that a little easier by using the acronym: SSHGs. Pronounced “shugs” (“u” as in sugar). 
Keep in mind that whatever you do, someone will get offended. Ignore them and move on.
Here’s an example of where the preferred term is racist, but because it’s one group of Africans being racist towards another it’s Officially OK:
Calling them the ǃKung is apparently right out. (No that isn’t an exclamation point. It’s Latin Letter Retroflex Click. I bet you didn’t even know there was a Latin letter for that phoneme.)
If I’m not mistaken, calling them “!Kung” would be the same sort of solecism as calling an Alaskan Eskimo at random Inuit. That is, the !Kung are one fairly large group of Khoi-San people, but not the only one to who the generic “Bushman” has been used.
For the record, I personally don’t see what would be offensive about a clear distancing of oneself from the pejorative/racist aspects of a term: “…the Mbenga, the Batwa, and the other groups historically called (sometimes insultingly) ‘Pygmies.’” In a phrasing like this, you’ve implied strongly that (a) you’re aware of the offensive connotations of the term, and (b) you are using it as the historical appelation of a group without a common collective without negative connotations, not in its insulting usage."
I’ll ask Mr Dibble in particular if he’d find the following statement at all offensive: “Groups with Khoikhoin ancestry include the Nama, the Damara (both theoretically of unmixed ancestry), the so-called ‘Rehoboth Bastards,’ the Griquas, and the ‘Cape Coloured’ (not a euphemism for Black/Bantu), all of which were in the past termed ‘Hottentots,’ a term today considered deeply offensive by most Khoikhoin and Khoi-descended people.” (I suspect there may be a factual error or two in that; it was composed spur-of-the-moment as a test vehicle for “how to properly state historical use of a pejorative.”
That’s so well-qualified you’d have to be uber-offenderati to take umbrage at it. Me, I’m offenderati-lite and I don’t take offense at all.
I don’t get it. Who decided that “Eskimo” was perjorative, and why? And is it only perjorative to call Arctic peoples outside of the US “Eskimo,” while it’s OK within the US? 
It is one of those kinds of names bestowed by a neighbor culture that has a negative connotation – the UL says “raw meat eater” but I don’t know if that’s accurate.
“Eskimo” is a generic term including a large number of related ethnolinguistic groups, in three major groupings, of which the Inuit is the largest. In Greenland and Arctic Canada, all “Eskimos” belong to one of the Inuit cultures, and the term “Inuit” is preferred. In Alaska, all three groups are represented, and out of necessity, the term Eskimo is accepted as the generic, since any random “esquimorph” native is as likely to be a Yupik as an Inuit, and there is no accepted term other than Eskimo tat cover\s all three groups. If you’ve ever seen discussions of the varying preferences for “Native American” vs. “American Indian” vs. “Amerind” vs. “First Peoples”, the situation is fairly analagous.
While ‘Eskimo’ is acceptable here, we (they) generally group all tribes, Eskimo and Indian, under the heading of ‘Alaska Native’, which seems to be preferred by most.
I understand that in some places, white people are referred to as “Anglos.”
I don’t think you hear that much anymore. I believe it was common in the Southwest. And of course you have the Amish calling the rest of us “the English”, although that probably refers more to language than ethnicity-- ie, the English speakers vs Pennsylvania Dutch speakers.
That was pretty much the usage on the Navajo reservation in the 70’s. “Anglo” was used to distinguish English-speaking whites from Spanish-speaking Mexicans and Indians.
Yes, they called themselves “indians”, not “Native Americans”.
In Hawai’i, people of European ancestry are commonly referred to as Haoles, which can be an ethnic identifier, or a racist slur, depending. There was a case a year or so ago in which two local guys beat up two haole tourists, calling them "fcking haoles" as they did so. The local guys claimed that it wasn’t a racist term, since they were beating them up not because they WERE in fact haoles, but rather that they were ACTING like fcking haoles.
In New Zealand, European ancestored peoples are called Pākehā, or, I suppose f*cking Pākehā, as appropriate.