A friend of mine wants to know…
Why do eskimo’s wear the dead skin of an animal with the fur on the outside. Surely having the fur on the inside would be a lot warmer then having dead skin. And having the dead skin on the outside would act as a water shield.
Any ideas?
For the same reason that polar bears and wolves wear their fur on the outside…
The warming properties of the fur come from the fact that it traps warm air as it is leaving the body, providing a source of insulation. If you wear the fur inside-out, you not only expose a smooth surface to the elements, which will transfer heat to the environment much easier than the fur (and thus not keep you as warm) you put the fur in contact with your skin, where it will collect sweat, get wet, and lose most of it’s air-trapping, heat-insulating properties. SO while fur is softer when against the skin, it is decidedly warmer when placed on the outside of the cloting.
Actually, for the really cold weather, they wear a doubled outfit over a lighter “undersuit” (sort of like the old union suit). On the doubled clothing, one set has the fur facing inward toward the undersuit and the other has the fur facing outward to limit the amount of wind passing over them to draw off the heat.
I do not know whether this style is universal to the entire North, or is limited to a few specific regions.
Okay, I was going to post an Esquimeaux question. May as well do it here.
We all know that “Nanook of the North” (ironically) starved to death on a hunt. (Okay, if we don’t all know, Nanook of the North was a documentary made in the 20s.)
What happened to his family? Since he was probably the world’s most well-known Inuit, are there any artifacts? What happened to his kayak, for example?
Why didn’t the camera crew give him some sandwiches?
Nanook died several years after the film was made.
Nanook of the North was on my local PBS station last night. An intertitle in the film said that he starved to death while hunting two years after the film was released. That would make it circa 1924, IIRC.
Also, IIRC, Robert Flaherty was making the movie by himself. I don’t know whether he had any extra food to share.
Aside: This thread turned into a discussion where some said the term “eskimo” is politically incorrect (and I disagreed).
I am very much alive thank you very much.
Eskimo is OUT
Inuit is IN
I was talking about Nanook of the North. You’re Nanook of the North Shore!
From Greenland/Kalaalit Nunaat through Nunavit, Inuit is the preferred term by those people.
In the far west, particularly in the Aleutians and up along the coast of Alaska, the word Eskimo tends to be preferred over Inuit.
I am not sure if anyone has taken a vote in Northwest Territories.
In our haste to be PC, a number of people have continued to make the mistake that there is only one arctic people and that the loudest spokesman in one region gets to set the names for all the different peoples who live there.
Even using both Eskimo and Inuit creates a problem for some of the smaller groups who do not identify themselves as members of one of the larger groups (whatever anthropologists may claim about their heritage).
In this household of Washington DC the preferred term is eskimo.
that’s not funny.
Are you quoting a post that was pulled?
What’s the point of your post?
it was supposed to be a ‘south’ joke with a pre-emptive response for those it was sure to offend.
it was related to the ‘inuit/eskimo’ portion of the discussion.
i guess you had to be there…
Most times I defend PC types from charges of over-sensitivity. Other times, I don’t bother.
Sua