[c. 1,500 words] [End]

Lexical and Political Correctness

"Eskimo" vs. "Inuit"

A Presentation by the Expansionist Party of the United States ("XP")
295 Smith Street
Newark, NJ  07106-2517
(973) 416-6151

Is the term "Eskimo" insulting? Is "Inuit" always correct for "Eskimoan" people, wheresoever situate? The answer to both questions is NO.

The dictionary citations below show that "Eskimo" is the lexically correct term for all the peoples of Eskimoan origin; "Inuit" is preferred for bad reasons in Canada and Greenland; but "Eskimo" is the only correct term in Alaska and Siberia.

"In·u·it also In·nu·it (ny-t)

"n. pl. Inuit or In·u·its also Innuit or In·nu·its

"A member of a group of Eskimoan peoples inhabiting the Arctic from northern Alaska eastward to eastern Greenland, particularly those of Canada.

"The family of languages spoken by the Inuit.

"Any of the languages spoken by the Inuit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"[Inuit, pl. of inuk, human being, Eskimo.]

"Usage Note: The preferred term for the native peoples of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland is now Inuit, and the use of Eskimo in referring to these peoples is often considered offensive, especially in Canada. Inuit, the plural of the Inuit word inuk, “human being,” is less exact in referring to the peoples of northern Alaska, who speak dialects of the closely related Inupiaq language, and it is inappropriate when used in reference to speakers of Yupik, the Eskimoan language branch of western Alaska and the Siberian Arctic. See Usage Note at Eskimo."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"inuit n : a member of a people inhabiting the Arctic (N Canada or Greenland or Alaska or E Siberia); the Algonquians called them Eskimo ('eaters of raw flesh') but they call themselves the Inuit ('the people') [syn: Eskimo, Esquimau, Inuit]"

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

---

"Es·ki·mo (sk-m)

"n. pl. Eskimo or Es·ki·mos

"A group of peoples inhabiting the Arctic coastal regions of North America and parts of Greenland and northeast Siberia.

"A member of any of these peoples. See Usage Note at Native American.

"Any of the languages of the Eskimo peoples.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"[French Esquimaux, possibly from Spanish esquimao, esquimal, from Montagnais ayashkimew, Micmac.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Eski·moan adj.

"Usage Note: Eskimo has come under strong attack in recent years for its supposed offensiveness, and many Americans today either avoid this term or feel uneasy using it. It is widely known that Inuit, a term of ethnic pride, offers an acceptable alternative, but it is less well understood that Inuit cannot substitute for Eskimo in all cases, being restricted in usage to the Inuit-speaking peoples of Arctic Canada and parts of Greenland. In Alaska and Arctic Siberia, where Inuit is not spoken, the comparable terms are Inupiaq and Yupik, neither of which has gained as wide a currency in English as Inuit. While use of these terms is often preferable when speaking of the appropriate linguistic group, none of them can be used of the Eskimoan peoples as a whole; the only inclusive term remains Eskimo. The claim that Eskimo is offensive is based primarily on a popular but disputed etymology tracing its origin to an Abenaki word meaning “eaters of raw meat.” Though modern linguists speculate that the term actually derives from a Montagnais word referring to the manner of lacing a snowshoe, the matter remains undecided, and meanwhile many English speakers have learned to perceive Eskimo as a derogatory term invented by unfriendly outsiders in scornful reference to their neighbors' unsophisticated eating habits. See Usage Note at Inuit."

Source:  dictionary.com

---

"The word Eskimo is not an Eskimo word. It means "eaters of raw meat" and was used by the Algonquin Indians of eastern Canada for these hardy neighbors who wore animal-skin clothing and were adept hunters. The name became commonly employed by European explorers and now is generally used, even by Eskimo. Their own term for themselves is Inuit (the Yupik variant is Yuit), which means the "real people."

Source:  1995 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia

A PBS television show for children focused one episode on Alaskan Eskimos, and a little Eskimo girl narrated scenes of her daily life. Throughout, she used the term "Eskimo", never "Inuit" nor "Inupiaq" nor "Yupik" nor "Yuit". It would seem Alaskans are proud, where Canadians and Greenlanders are ashamed.

If Eskimos in Canada and Greenland are offended by being called "Eskimos", non-Eskimos have reason to be offended by "Inuit" calling themselves "the people" as an exclusive term! What are the rest of us, chiggers? Irrational offense cuts both ways.

If Canadian Eskimos wish to see as offensive the fact that thru much of the history of their people in their daily existence thru much of the year they did eat their food raw, that is their problem. Why are they not proud of being able to survive on a diet of raw fish and marine mammals? Japanese eat raw fish and don't hide their faces in shame at that fact. Now a lot of non-Japanese have taken up eating sushi and sashimi, with no shame whatsoever (and perhaps even some snobbish, "in crowd" pride). Why would Eskimos be ashamed of eating fish raw?

The fact is that (a) it is very inadvisable to build a fire of any significant size inside an igloo (a small house built from snow and ice), (b) igloos are real structures, which were really used by Eskimos, not fictitious inventions by fertile and hostile outside imaginations, that have been used, at least on the hunt, away from home, for millennia; and (c) there is precious little in the way of firewood or other combustibles with which to create fires in much of the arctic thru most of the year, if ever. So yes, Eskimos have indeed eaten much of their food raw for millennia. They were able to survive in the harshest conditions, and should be proud of that. Indeed, if they were truly proud of their ethnicity, they would brag that they survived on raw food while other peoples, all over the world, were so delicate that they had to cook theirs.

Eskimos gave the world the kayak and parka ("anorak" in Britain; "parka" is actually an Aleut term, from the Indian peoples of the Aleutian Islands of western Alaska, while "anorak" is Inuit, from Greenland). The snowshoe, a hugely useful invention, came to us from Eskimos and North American Indians of the far north. The dogsled is another Eskimo innovation, by which people and cargo could be transported by animal power in places where caribous could not survive, for lack of forage. And Eskimo carvings, especially in soapstone, are famous round the world for their elegance and subtlety. That is quite a lot to come into world culture from a people who today number only about 100,000, which may well be as many as there have ever been!

XP does not indulge "political correctness" in tampering with language. We don't use euphemisms for anything, but speak to facts. Euphemisms are used when there is something wrong with the standard term, and there is nothing wrong with "Eskimo" nor "black" nor "Amerind" nor "Indian" nor "Oriental" nor "Hispanic" nor any of a host of other words that are assailed by some special interest group or other every year. Nor do we have any intention of changing the words we use every few years to accommodate the most recent "approved" word.

Moreover, "Inuit" as plural and its singular, "Inuk", depart bizarrely from the rules of English as to pluralization, and there is absolutely no reason for speakers of English to have to learn Eskimo usage to refer to Eskimos in English. Nor should we use "Eskimo" as both singular and plural, but follow the ordinary rule that plural is formed by adding S or ES to the singular.

The real problem with euphemisms is that people feel that there is something wrong not with the TERM but with the people BEHIND the term, and that is condescending. Since there's nothing wrong with Eskimos, there's nothing wrong with CALLING them "Eskimos".

Conversely, if people continue to perceive the people behind a term as bad or inferior, any word applied to them will in time come to be seen as negative, and a new term will have to be brought forward -- which in turn will become "tainted" by shame.

Eskimos have nothing to be ashamed of, least of all their name, and non-Eskimos who do not intend offense should not be intimidated into using un-English euphemisms.

(This is the end of this area.) [Return to the top of this page.] [Go to "Redrawing the Map of Canada" page.] [Go to "Private Action for Canadian-U.S. Union".] [Go to "Statehood for Quebec".] [Go to "Winning the United States to Quebec Separatism".] [Go to the XP home page.] [Go to the indexes of all areas XP addresses.]

visits since September 17, 2005