elgar_mail <e...@b...pl> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:44:12 +0000 (UTC), Pyzol wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit
>
>A spójrz stronę obok:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo
>
>"There are two main groups of Eskimo: the Inuit of northern Alaska, Canada
>and Greenland and the Yupik of western Alaska and the Russian Far East."
>
>Owszem:
>"Many _Canadian_ Inuit consider the name "Eskimo" to be derogatory."

Actually what Inuit people object to the is the derogatory use
of the word, not the word itself. Many non-Eskimo Canadians
have come to believe it is derogatory in itself, and while that
is not really true, the appropriate concern is indeed very nice.

>Jednak:
>"The term "eskimo" is still used in Alaska to refer to the state's Arctic
>peoples in general, whether or not they are Eskimos culturally or
>linguistically. For example, while the Yupik people prefer to be called
>"Yup'ik", they do not generally object to being called "Eskimo", but they
>resent being called "Inuit". "

There are two problems with the above. First, "Eskimo" is
*never* used to reference non-Eskimo Arctic people. Or at least
not by anyone who knows what they are saying. (And using it
that way would be considered a mark of extreme ignorance.)
Eskimo is restricted to Inuit and Yupik people.

Note also that "Yup'ik" references one particular group of Yupik
people. The Central Alaskan Yupik people are referred to as
Yup'ik, as is their dialect. (The apostophe indicates a "double
stop", which is the way "Yupik" is pronounced anyway, so it is
merely a more precise way of spelling "Yupik": pronounced
"youp-pik", with emphasis on the first syllable.) Other Yupik
people, for example, are the Cupik, the Alutiiq, and the Siberian
Yupik.

>Oraz:
>"Among many non-Eskimos, the word "Eskimo" is falling out of use to refer
>to the Eskimo peoples in favor of the term "Inuit", which leads to much
>_confusion_ as to the relationship between the Inuit and the Yup'ik. Much
>of the impetus behind this change probably traces to the books of Farley
>Mowat, particularly People of the Deer and The Desperate People. However,
>in Canada at least, a belief in the pejorative etymology of the word was a
>major factor."

Mowat, of course, wrote novels that were disguised as "research
papers", and many people believed it was non-fiction. In fact
Mowat knew little about Eskimos and none of the "experiences"
related in the books were true. They were totally generated in
the imagination of Mowat, who had never met an Eskimo...

It should be noted that Mowat writes *very* good stories!
Regardless of how little he actually knew about either Eskimos
or wolves, his books did have exactly the impact he intended,
and have to be considered a major success as not just commercial
publications, but also for the social engineering that he
accomplished. For example, most of what Mowat claimed about
wolves was simply not true, yet as a result of what he wrote,
today we do know a great deal about wolves that we didn't know
in the 1950's when he first started publishing.

There is a fascinating story behind that. A teenager read
Mowat's "People of the Deer" in the mid-50's, thinking it was
the true story of a field biologist. He was so taken with the
whole idea that he was inspired to complete a PhD in 1962 as a
field biologist, studying wolves of course! It is ironic that
his thesis, "The ecology of the timber wolf (Canis lupus
Linnaeus) in Isle Royale National Park", was published the year
before Mowat published "Never Cry Wolf". Of course L. David
Mech went on to publish "The Wolf" (1970), which more than
corrects Mowat's distortions (such as the notion that wolves can
live on a diet of mice).

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) f...@b...com