[OT] Inuit? Eskimo?

[Peter Hansen]

Floyd Davidson wrote:
> 
> Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
> >Floyd Davidson wrote:
> >>
> >> In Canada and Greenland Inuit people will not appreciate the
> >> term "Eskimo" as a specific term for them when used by locals.
> >> That is particularly true of Canadians.  They do not seem to
> >> mind the general (correct) use of the term by others who do not
> >> have any intent to insult them.
> >
> >Okay, thanks for taking the time to clarify, Floyd!
> >
> >The impression I get then is that because some people (although
> >I think more so in the distant past than in recent years?)
> >might hold ill will towards their northern neighbours, the
> >rest of us with nothing against them might as well avoid the
> >term Eskimo entirely, to minimize the risk of someone making false
> >assumptions about us and how we feel about them.
> 
> That doesn't follow, logically, from the facts.  No other word
> in the English language can be used in place of the term
> "Eskimo", and therefore if you want to correctly refer to the
> group of people known as Eskimos, you have no choice but to use
> that term.

Hmm... I was unclear.  I meant to refer only to the Inuit
living in Canada above.  If it wasn't clear in the past, I'm
in Canada and all comments I've made apply only to the situation
in Canada.

> >> Note that in Canada and Greenland, *all* Eskimos are Inuit,
> >> hence there is little need to use that term to describe those
> >> people.
> >
> >Probably where the institutionalized advice comes from in the first
> >place.  If all Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, and all Inuit can be
> >called Eskimos (but only by those who don't have intent to insult
> >them, apparently :-), then it's best to avoid the whole issue and
> >just use the term Inuit.
> 
> But you *cannot* correctly call all Eskimos Inuit.

Certainly not, as you've made clear.  You've also made it clear
that "in Canada ..., all Eskimos are Inuit", and once again I
point out that my only interest in this matter is in relation
to the situation in Canada, and the (what I called) institutionalized
advisory not to use the term Eskimo in relation to them.

In light of this clarification, I think my comments do follow
logically from the facts as you've described them.  I can't
tell whether the fact you keep confusing what I say results
from my poor way of expressing myself, or perhaps from your
certain knowledge that you know more than anyone living (or
at least anyone else present here) about this stuff, and that
therefore any comment from others containing the words Eskimo
or Inuit must surely therefore contain factual errors.  I hope
it's just the former, and if so I apologize again.  And I don't
intend to post here again, as I think I've understood you quite
well, even if it's not clear to you that I have.

Cheers,
-Peter