This is the expected comment from Canada (column http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/meskimowifeswap.html ) about Eskimo vs Inuit. Though I have nothing personally against the word “Eskimo”, their language is normally called Inuktituk in Canada, not Inupik. Is this the same language? If so, why do they have 2 names?
It appears that “Inuktituk” is a more inclusive term, including Yapik, whilst “Inupik” refers more strictly to the Inuit language. Since all Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, this distinction is probably not a matter of importance there.
Hey this may be of interest, it’s from The University Of Alaska: I personally think that people have a right to define themselves, if the Canadian Inuit want to be called “Inuit” then their wishes should be respected, same with the “Eskimos” of Alaska and Siberia. Furthermore this distiction should be clarified among people when writing or speaking about either group. Unless you don’t give a damn and think it’s ok to lable a particular group of people with any name you or popular culture chooses. (phew! That was a mouthful…I’m tired now…I think I’ll goto bed)
Inuit or Eskimo: Which names to use?
by Lawrence Kaplan
Although the name “Eskimo” is commonly used in Alaska to refer to all Inuit and Yupik people of the world, this name is considered derogatory in many other places because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean “eater of raw meat.” Linguists now believe that “Eskimo” is derived from an Ojibwa word meaning “to net snowshoes.” However, the people of Canada and Greenland prefer other names. “Inuit,” meaning “people,” is used in most of Canada, and the language is called “Inuktitut” in eastern Canada although other local designations are used also. The Inuit people of Greenland refer to themselves as “Greenlanders” or “Kalaallit” in their language, which they call “Greenlandic” or “Kalaallisut.” Most Alaskans continue to accept the name “Eskimo,” particularly because “Inuit” refers only to the Inupiat of northern Alaska, the Inuit of Canada, and the Kalaallit of Greenland, and is not a word in the Yupik languages of Alaska and Siberia.
I heard this tale a few years ago from a guy I was dating at the time, but though I remained somewhat skeptical, he gave another “explanation” of the reasons behind the practice.
What I had heard was that the Eskimo population was so low that there was considerable inbreeding amongst the families and therefore men would happily offer their wives to strangers in an effort to broaden their gene pool.
I’m going to take Bibliophage’s report at face value and assume this is not the case, and I’m certain Eskimos (collectively) would likely find this version of events offensive.
But having not been in middle school boys’ locker rooms, I hadn’t heard of such stories until adulthood. My curiosity is whether this is a common explanation for the rumors, left out given the flack Cec got for his column on Eskimo words for snow. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010202.html) Has anyone else heard of this explanation?
Many traditional Eskimo men did let certain other men sleep with their wives under certain conditions, but not nearly as often or as freely as the stories would have it. I haven’t heard the inbreeding explanation before, but it doesn’t seem likely. There were taboos forbidding marriage and sex between close relatives (either by blood or by marriage). If a young person couldn’t find an unrelated person to marry in their own village, they would generally have little trouble finding one in another village.
The commonest explanation I came across for the relative freedom in extra-marital relations is male infertility. An infertile man who lets his wife sleep with other men would have a greater chance of having children, which was high priority (especially sons). Biological paternity was not a concern; the child of the wife was considered to be the child of the husband regardless. After trying to conceive for a while and failing, a man would be more likely to let his wife sleep with another man, often the angekok (shaman). This could be an effective strategy about half the time (when it was the male who was infertile).
But I don’t count male infertility as a particularly compelling explanation for the widespread practice of spouse-exchange, since couples who had no trouble conceiving on their own often entered into such relationships. I count the forming and strengthening of friendship and economic bonds as the primary purpose, with sexual variety an important additional benefit.