re: the 9 'Eskimo' words for snow...

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

This was a wonderful answer, 9 words for snow. I am always happy to see people learning new languages, even if it is only a few words. One comment though, Cecil: the proper term is ‘Inuit’.

I am Canadian and, although I am not of Inuit descent, I am somewhat insulted on their behalf by the use of ‘Eskimo’ in this column. As I was taught in grade 2, ‘Eskimo’ translates to ‘eater of raw meat’, while ‘Inuit’ translates to ‘the people’. Referring to an Inuit as an ‘Eskimo’ is similar to referring to Sitting Bull as a ‘savage’ or calling Jacques Cartier a ‘frog’. It’s not that it’s un-PC (that is never an issue as far as I’m concerned), it’s just uneducated.

(btw, did you know Canada has a new province? It’s called ‘Nunavut’)

Your faithful reader
[Edited by CKDextHavn on 07-15-2000 at 09:46 AM]

2

No we don’t.

We have a new TERRITORY.

Nunavut was split off of the Northwest Territorries in April of this year.

3

Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.

The column can also be found on pages 297-298 of Cecil Adams’ book “The Straight Dope”.

4

As far as the term “Eskimo” being used, maybe that has something to do with the time period at which the column was written? The first Straight Dope column was written (to the best of my knowledge) in 1973. When was the term Inuit recognized as the correct term to be used?

5

Probably not.
I have read that the “old” story of what “Eskimo” is probably not correct (“eater of raw meat”), and that after further review, seems to be more related to a term meaning “snow shoe people.” “Eskimo” is not any Inuit word; it’s the term ascribed to them by some other eighboring tribe (Ojibway, whose name derives from their own footwear).

This sort of confusion is common with American Indian words, since many languages did not have anything written.

6

Except that the book has the unbowdlerized version.

7

from the online encarta encyclopedia:

In 1977 the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, held in Barrow, Alaska, officially adopted Inuit as the replacement for the term "Eskimo."

8

This is plain silly. Eskimo is not in any way derogatory. If they want to call themselves Inuit in their language that’s fine. The English word for me remains Eskimo which is not and never has been derogatory. The Chinese do not call themselves Chinese, the Germans do not call themselves German, the Spanish do not call themselves Spanish… are we going to change all those termes as well?

9

sailor, I think the argument many native americans from the northern regions of the continent have, is that the name “Eskimo” was chosen by other people and not by them, and if they perfer the term Inuit, why not use it? Disregarding their expressed wish shows a lack of respect.

10

There’s a good explanation of usage at the Alaska Native Language Center.

They give the likely meaning of Eskimo as “to net snowshoes” which doesn’t seem so much pejorative as just plain odd. And the indication is that those who aren’t Inuit don’t use the term, but since it’s commonly thought to be offensive in Canada, and it’s more correctly applied there, Inuit it is.

So it’s not really outright offensive, like the Lakota being called “Sioux” (likely meaning either ‘little foreigners’ (as a diminutive) or ‘rattlesnake’. Or rattlesnake is named after the people).

I don’t think there’s necessarily any reason to throw the word out just because it comes from someone else. There’s no big push for Germans to change the name used by those around them. Being in the middle of Europe, they had lots of peoples bordering them and are called by the nearest tribe to the neighbors north and west, and some form of ‘nemet’ - “doesn’t have” [the language] used in Slavic languages. The story I’ve heard for “Germany” itself is that it’s from Tacitus’ description of them as seeming nearly the brothers of the Gauls.)

11

And to think I thought it was because of their litigiousness.:smiley:

12

Since Canada is a bilingual country, it’s only fair to point out that the French word is Esquimeaux.

13

Well, I just don’t see how it is any different from all the other cases in which the English language calls some group or place by a name they did not chose themselves. I cannot see how that shows “lack of respect”.

Most words in a language have suffered an evolution that has changed their meaningfrom the original but that does not make them wrong. Names for peoples and places are no different.

They can call themselves whatever they want but they cannot define other languages. The chinese can call Americans whatever they want in their language and we have no say because it is their language and not ours. Do you really feel it shows “lack of respect”?

Note also that the word Eskimo is also used in French, Spanish and other languages. Should they also change?

We say Germany and Germans when it is clear they do not call themselves that. The Italians call them “tedescos” and the Spanish “Alemanes”. None of them use Deutch and I cannot see why this would connote any lack of respect.

My guess is in English, most words used for peoples and nationalities are different than what those peoples call themselves. Why suddenly with the Eskimos this is not acceptable? I still don’t get it. To me it reeks of the silliness of PC.

14

sailor, there are several differences between the cases you are mentioning and the cases of the Eskimos.

Eskimo is not any more an “english” word than Inuit is. Secondly, Germans have not asked us english speakers to change the english word. In any case, the word “german” is not perceived to have any negative connotations by germans. But if you wrote a newspaper article and instead of the word “germans” said “the krauts” or “the huns” I’m sure many people would be offended and complain to the editor. Also the word german has been used for much longer than the word Eskimo. Finally Germans have not been subjected to the forced relocation and massacres that the native american populations were subject to in the past 150 years. Understandably there is a resentment amongst native americans about having had a name chosen “for them” when they already had their own language and a way to refer to themselves.

To give you an example, if I meet someone called James, and I decide to call him Jimbo even though he tells me he doesn’t like the name Jimbo, I would be rude and inconsiderate.

Another, probably more appropriate example: There is a lake on the french/swiss border (near the city of Geneva) called Lac Léman. For some reasons americans have decidedto call it Lake of Geneva and designate it as such on maps. When you use the word Lake of Geneva to a swiss or French person they often resent it and think it shows ignorance on your part. I personally feel the same way.

15

Arnold, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

>>Eskimo is not any more an “english” word than Inuit is.

I disagree. Up until now, the English word was “eskimo”. If enough people feel the way you do and start using inuit then that will become the English name for them. But Eskimo is a correct English word AFAIK.

>>the word “german” is not perceived to have any negative connotations

Neither does the word eskimo. I have never heard eskimo used with even a hint of negative connotation.

>> Finally Germans have not been subjected to the forced relocation and massacres that the native american populations were subject to in the past 150 years

I fail to see how that has any bearing on the issue but to try to follow this I will say the French and the Germans have been fighting each other for longer than that and have done worse things to each other and yet they have never demanded they change the names by which they refer to each other.

My encyclopedia mentions Lake of Geneva and Lake Leman both as correct.

The French call it Alsace and the Germans Elsass (or something like that). People there speak both languages and use both names depending on the language. Which one is “correct”?

If a language has developed a name for a people or place, I see nothing wrong with using it. We call those people eskimo like we call the people from China “Chinese”. They both have reasons to dislike us but that does not mean we should stop speaking English and start speaking their language.

I would also point out that most American geographical names of Spanish and Indian origin are miswritten and or mispronounced. Should we correct that too?

Most historical figures have had their names anglicized. Columbus, Magellan… should we abolish that and call them by what they called themselves? Where should we draw the line?

Anyway, all this is a matter of opinion and you and I, obviously, differ. The problem I have is that I find it silly, all this PC playing with words. Lately it seems the PC crowd prefer “pet guardian” to “pet owner” and I even heard a lady refer to her dog as a “canine-american”. At least inuit does not sound as silly as african-american.

As you can see I am politically incorrect (and maybe in other ways too).

Having said that, I will try to please everybody by calling them whatever they like to be called. Just let me know what title you prefer :slight_smile:

16

Look. I’ve been known to use the term “Inuit.” Like many Anglo-Americans with intellectual pretensions, I tend to feel, when talking about history, geography, etc., that I’m being more accurate if I use “the” word used “people who are/were really there.” But given these two names for a people, I think “Eskimo” is better.
“Inuit” is a real word in their language. It translates, roughly, as “the (only) human beings.” To the traditional Inuit conception, the rest of us (Ojibway, Lakota, American, Canadian, Japanese, everybody) is an alien, a “Not-One-of-Us.” That’s insulting, folks! I think describing people by their footwear is a lot better than that!
*Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried: *

Well, yeah, that’s often true. But the nations whose members feel that way are largely ignorant savage tribes who think the world revolves around them. I would love for them to deal as equals with the rest of humanity in the wider world; but to do so, they’re going to have to shake their accustomed worldview. Anyway, you hypocrite, who came up with “Native American”? Few Eskimo/“Inuit” would want call themselves that. :stuck_out_tongue:

I should hope so. Germans aren’t Huns. The Huns were a mighty people of western Asia/eastern Europe. The Germans are a pathetic agglomeration of insignificant peoples who speak dialects mostly similar to Dutch. If you called Hungarians Huns, you’d be okay. But to call Germans Huns is erroneous, and arguably insulting to the Huns.

Forced relocation? Massacres? The Esquimeaux? Hmmm… maybe a little, but you’ll have to back this one up. In any case, you’re lumping them in with entirely different nations! To the “Inuit” the Mohawk, Modoc, Cherokee, and all the massacred nations of temperate North America are no more part of them (the Inuit) than the Germans or the Magyars!

Sometimes rudeness is appropriate.

17

Arnold Winkelried: Eskimo is not any more an “english” word than Inuit is.
sailor: I disagree. … But Eskimo is a correct English word AFAIK.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate® Dictionary lists Inuit as dating from 1765. I stand by my statement that Eskimo and Inuit have “equal” status as far as being valid english words.

Arnold Winkelried: the word “german” is not perceived to have any negative connotations
sailor: Neither does the word eskimo. I have never heard eskimo used with even a hint of negative connotation.

I meant «the word “german” is not perceived to have any negative connotations by the germans». Obviously some of the people being called Eskimos perceive it to have a negative connotation since they are promoting the term Inuit instead.

Arnold Winkelried: Finally Germans have not been subjected to the forced relocation and massacres that the native american populations were subject to in the past 150 years
sailor: I fail to see how that has any bearing on the issue

Just that it would be an additional reason for native americans to resent a name assigned to them by the white “invaders.” Though of course my terms were probably exaggerated (see my disclaimer below.)

sailor: My encyclopedia mentions Lake of Geneva and Lake Leman both as correct.
My Rand McNally mini-atlas lists only Lake of Geneva. In any case, this is not really a big deal for swiss or french, they only find it irritating. Why did Americans (or perhaps the english, I don’t know the origin of the name) find it necessary to make up their own? What’s wrong with the french name? If a sizable majority of latino immigrants started calling the city of Newport Beach (California) “Playa de Nuevo Acapulco” and if the city were labelled that way on mexican maps, I can guarantee you that there would be many offended people amongst the local caucasian population.

sailor: Arnold, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I disagree! Or did I mean I agree? :confused:
high-five in any case.

sailor: Having said that, I will try to please everybody by calling them whatever they like to be called. Just let me know what title you prefer.
Mr. Winkelried will do fine. Once you admit that I’m right and you’re wrong then you can switch to Arnold. :smiley:
to the next challenge!
foolsguinea: “Inuit” is a real word in their language. It translates, roughly, as “the (only) human beings.” To the traditional Inuit conception, the rest of us (Ojibway, Lakota, American, Canadian, Japanese, everybody) is an alien, a “Not-One-of-Us.” That’s insulting, folks!
Instead of being insulting, it seems an accurate description to me. In any case, I don’t feel insulted. If a majority of non-Inuit think that the word is insulting to them, however, then they should feel free to start a campaign for the general acceptance of an alternate term.

foolsguinea: But the nations whose members feel that way are largely ignorant savage tribes who think the world revolves around them.
Are you talking about the Native Americans or the Western Europeans? :wink:

foolsguinea: Germans aren’t Huns.
The online dictionary listed above, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate® Dictionary, lists german as one of the definitions of hun, so following the rule I’ve seen mentioned above (not by you), I should feel free to use it to describe germans, since it’s a good english word! (to be fair, the dictionary also mentions that using “huns” for “germans” is “usually disparaging”).

foolsguinea: Forced relocation? Massacres? The Esquimeaux?
I agree with you that my words were ill-chosen. I personally am not familiar with any events in the less-populated northern parts of the continent that would match the bloody events in the American frontier wars. But then I’ve read less about the settlement in Canada than I have about the colonization of the territory now known as the USA.

18

I just heard from the Pope (he often consults with me in order to preserve his infallibility) and I took the opportunity to ask him how he felt on this issue. He told me he hates it when Americans call him John Paul which is a bad translation of the original (Giovanni Pappini) just based on some flimsy excuse about separation of church and state. So I guess he’s on your side on this. Just make sure you never call him John Paul again. He hates it! Other than that he sends his blessings to the teeming millions.

19

Good one sailor! :smiley:
I usually call him Jean-Paul, but I’ll be more careful in the future.
Salut, marin!

20

Arnold, you’re missing my point. The term “Inuit” is implicitly racist. Its definition in the “Inuit” language is “those of our species”–it connotes a belief that all non-Eskimos are not human.
This is not unique to the Eskimos. A similar belief is quite explicitly held by the Hopi, incidentally. Do you see why this offends me? I don’t mind calling a German a Deutscher–but nobody is going to force me to call his people the Herrenvolk.

Also–speaking of Germans–I am quite aware of the practice of calling Germans “Huns” as insulting term during the World Wars. I was making a joke, while pointing out why I find this silly.