<> and DeprecationWarning

[Gerrit Holl]

Hi,

the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

Is there a reason that it doesn't trigger a DeprecationWarning?

$ python2.2 -Wall -c "print 0 <> 0"
0
$ python2.3 -Wall -c "print 0 <> 0"
False

Or is the only reason that is has never been implemented?
IANACS, but this doesn't seem very complicated to implement to me...

yours,
Gerrit.

--
196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
--
Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:
http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/
Kom in verzet tegen dit kabinet:
http://www.sp.nl/

[Joost Kremers]

Floyd Davidson wrote:

to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original
inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in
their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or
'person'.
The singular is "inuk".

you may not believe me, but i actually knew that. just a typo... ;-)
It means a great deal more than just
"man" or "person". (It means something on the nature of
"genuine man", as being a human with a human spirit, as opposed
to a human which is actually an animal temporarily masquerading
as a human for a short time. The derivation has to do with an
"original owner" concept relating to ones spirit.)
interesting. i wasn't aware of the cultural implications of the word...

the word 'eskimo' was a pejorative term used by (non-inuit) peoples living
further to the south on the american continent, and has the meaning 'eater
of raw meat'. because of this origin, it is disfavoured.

That has always been a nice sounding reason for the derogatory
use of the term Eskimo by Canadians (blame it on Indians!);
however, it isn't true.

like i said, it was "to the best of my knowledge"... i never heard of any
other etymology. thanks for setting this straight.
Whatever, in Canada all Eskimo people are in fact Inuit, and it
is considered impolite to call them anything else. By the same
token, the *only* word in the English language which properly
describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does
not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,
and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik.
i have never before heard the word 'eskimo' be used to refer to people in
siberia.
It should also be noted that Alaska's Eskimo people are
virtually all rather fond of the term "Eskimo".

so noted... i'll keep it in mind.

--
Joost Kremers
since when is vi an editor? a discussion on vi belongs in
comp.tools.unusable or something... ;-)

[Michele Simionato]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <me***@gnosis.cx> wrote in message news:<ma*************************************@pyth on.org>...

Barry Warsaw <ba***@python.org> wrote previously:
|I'm confident there's no way <> can be officially deprecated

Heck, we true believers should be more ambitious: Deprecate the
heretical '!=' pseudo-assignment!

Hurrah!!!
BTW, I am back ;)
Michele

[Floyd Davidson]

"Andrew Dalke" <ad****@mindspring.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson:

The term "Native American" is a coined word that the US Federal
government came up with to reference *all* indigenous people in
the US and its territories. Hence it includes American Indians,
Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, American
Somoans and probably somebody I've forgotten to name.
When did the phrase come into use? I'm thinking about the

In relatively recent times. For some reason the date 1948
sticks in my mind, but that may be off by a few years either
direction.

indigenous to Alaska was to use the term Native. Hence, they
adopted the phrase "American Indian and Alaska Native peoples".

You'll find that phrase has been widely adopted by the US
Federal government when it refers specifically to that group of
people, as opposed to the wider significance of the term Native
American.

Interesting. One of the local radio shows is "Native American
Calling". It's a talk show, and people from Alaska call in.
They also include news from around the US and Canada.
I'll be on the lookout now to see if/when they say "Alaska
Native peoples"

You'll hear lots of Alaskans! And they will almost all use
the term "Native" with regularity. When they want to
distinguish Alaskans from everyone else, it will be "Alaska
Natives" or "Alaska Native people".
There's also the low-grade complaints because some people
use the term "Indian Country" while others don't like that term.
That one is a real problem, because there is the common
vernacular and there is the legal term too. And if you want
bitter fights, get involved in the legalities of just what is or
is not legally "Indian Country". The courts, and in particular
the US Supreme Court, want to reduce the application of that
term because with it comes sovereignty that they would like to
diminish.

Indian Law is a maze of tricks and word games, all designed to
remove ownership of whatever it is that Native people have that
non-Native people want. And "Indian Country" is right in the
middle of that.

What you'll notice is that most people who like the term "Indian
Country" also use it as a stick to poke non-Native legal
philosophy in the side. However, here in Alaska the courts have
found ways to deny either that fact of Indian Country or the
effect. First they say that only Native Allotments are Indian
Country, and then they say yes they are, but tribes have no
governing authority over them individually, and therefore cannot
exercise sovereignty on them. Translate that to: The State of
Alaska government is good enough for me and it will damned well
be good enough for you, even if it does *nothing* for you.
Speaking of naming ethnicities, I've heard about Americans
applying the "African-American" to black people in the UK. :)

Heh heh, there are more upsetting things than that.

My children are Yup'ik Eskimo (Central Alaskan Yupik), and grew
up in a Yup'ik village. They think of "white" people in terms
of culture more than skin color, and use the traditional Yupik
word to name it: Kass'ak (gu-suk). (It was originally derived
from the Russian word, Kaz'ak, which became Cossack in English.
Technically it means "stranger", but commonly is used to mean
"white man".)

So in the late 1970's we moved to live near Eielson AFB in the
Fairbanks area. My children were pre-teens / early teens, and
went to schools on base, and I worked on base. So they dropped
by my work location after school if they needed a ride home
later than the bus run. That lead to an interesting experience
for some of the young black GI's.

When the subject of race relations came up (keep in mind that I
was just old enough to be the father of these young men, so we
our relationship is pretty much father/son rather than
co-workers and/or friends) I couldn't resist telling a couple of
them that, welllll... my kids just figured they were "Kass'aks
with black colored skin".

Can imagine their shock when they said, "What's that mean?", and
I said with a grin, "White man! Because to them you are just
another White Man!". A totally new concept to a young black
fellow... but a very good experience to have because it is *all*
relative.

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

[Floyd Davidson]

an***@vredegoor.doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) wrote:

Would you also rather say American Texan, because Texan American would
mean an American that is naturalized from the foreign country of
Texas?

Don't ask Alaskans that question... you might not agree with their
answers... ;-)

Of course, we aren't necessarily too keen on calling ourselves just
American, either.

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

[Floyd Davidson]

Joost Kremers <jo**********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original
inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in
their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or
'person'.

The singular is "inuk".

you may not believe me, but i actually knew that. just a typo... ;-)

I figured it was a typo. It would be hard to spot though, for
anyone that doesn't have a particular interest in that
terminology. (Everyone has trouble with Inupiaq and Inupiat
too.)

It means a great deal more than just
"man" or "person". (It means something on the nature of
"genuine man", as being a human with a human spirit, as opposed
to a human which is actually an animal temporarily masquerading
as a human for a short time. The derivation has to do with an
"original owner" concept relating to ones spirit.)

interesting. i wasn't aware of the cultural implications of the word...

Yupik and Inuit are the "same" word in the two branches of the
Eskimo language. They derive from the Proto-Eskimo word "Inuy"
(Which actually is two different words, one with a funny looking
'n' and a funny looking 'y', the other with a normal 'n' and
only the 'y' looks odd. But I can't reproduce that, and don't
know how to say it phonetically. In the following quote there
are also different variations of 'a', 'r', 'e', and 'y'. I've
highlighted words with variations on the character set that
cannot be displayed.)

PE Proto-Eskimo (2000 years ago)
AAY Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik (south central Alaska)
CAY Central Alaskan Yupik (Yup'ik, western Alaska)
NSY Naukan Siberian Yupik (East Cape on Chukchi Pen.)
CSY Central Siberian Yupik (St. Lawrence Is. and Chukotka)
Sir Sirnikski (Chukotka) (Siriniki Chukotka, extinct)
SPI Seward Peninusla Inuit (Seward Peninsula and Bering St.)
NAI Northern Alaska Inuit (Kotzebue to Canada)
WCI Western Canadian Inuit (Alaska to Hudson Bay)
ECI Eastern Canadian Inuit (Canada east of Hudson Bay)
GRI Greenlandic Inuit (Greenland, all dialects)

"PE /inuy/ or *inuy* 'human being' [for Inu forms inuk, etc.,
compare /innar-/ and /inaluk/, and for Yup yuk, etc., compare
/ina(va)-/ and /inay-/; in possessed form (yua, /inyua/, etc.)
this base, the orginal Eskimo ethononym, is everywhere
attested also in the senses 'resident spirit', 'core of
boil' and 'chick in egg'; cf. also perhaps Aleut /inisxi-X/
'owner', ... ]
...
AAY suk 'person, owner'
CAY yuk ... 'person, owner'
NSY yuk 'person, male person'
CSY yu(u)k ... 'person, male person'
Sir yux 'person'
SPI inuk 'person, master, owner' ...
NAI /inyuk/ 'person, owner' [and /inyunyuk- 'form a being (egg)' ...
WCI inuk 'person, owner'
ECI inuk 'person, owner' [as verb = 'form (chick in egg)' and
innu(k)- 'get inhabitants, appropriate']
GRI inuk ... 'perons, owner' ... 'get a boil, form (chick in egg)']"

from "Comparative Eskimo Dictionary With Aleut Cognates", 1994,
by Fortescue, Jacobson, and Kaplan.

Note the similarity in all Inuit forms except NAI (and there was
much clipped out that relates to other uses of the term in NAI).
That is really interesting given that we are talking a 1000-2000
year old language that stretches from the Bering Straits all the
way to Greenland!

Yupik dialects are each distinct though, from Alutiiq in south
central Alaska to Siberia, each shows at least some small
variation, which is probably simply because those people have
been in place for probably 6-8,000 years.

That has always been a nice sounding reason for the derogatory
use of the term Eskimo by Canadians (blame it on Indians!);
however, it isn't true.

like i said, it was "to the best of my knowledge"... i never heard of any
other etymology. thanks for setting this straight.

The old claims that it means "eaters of raw meat" or something
like that are slowly being replaced in literature by studied
etymologies. But the original was popular just because it is
catchy and easy to remember! Of course, it also says a lot more
about our culture than it does about Eskimos, because quite
frankly no Eskimo would be insulted by the idea that they eat
raw meat (Two days ago I was given a package of raw bowhead whale
blubber, fresh from a whale... which is ready to eat form!) Of
course, Englishmen probably think/thought Norwegians and Swedes
were horrible for eating raw meat too...

describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does
not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,
and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik.

i have never before heard the word 'eskimo' be used to refer to people in
siberia.

There aren't very many of them, and they are all relatively
close to the the Eastern tip of Siberia. They are all Yupik,
though the dialects they speak can't be understood by Alaskan
Yupik speakers on the mainland. Saint Lawerence Island is only
36 miles from the coast of Siberia, and they move back and forth
between the Island and the mainland traditionally. (The
Soviet's stopped that, but it is now at least possible again.)

It should also be noted that Alaska's Eskimo people are
virtually all rather fond of the term "Eskimo".

so noted... i'll keep it in mind.

Wanna see an Alaska Native get steamed? Tell an Aleut he's
actually an Eskimo; tell an Indian he's an Eskimo; tell an
Eskimo he's an Inuit. "Native", however, is a safe term that
any of them will be happy to hear.

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

[Skip Montanaro]

Skip Montanaro wrote:

"Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Floyd> The problem with the above is that there is no way to fill in the
Floyd> blank and be correct! The terms are reversed...

I don't think so. My intent was to answer the question, "What's the current
politically correct term to use in place of 'Eskimo'?" I believe the above
SAT-style question captures the correct relationship. "Native American" is
p.c., "American Indian" (or simply "Indian") is not. "Eskimo" is apparently
also not p.c.

Floyd> Whatever, in Canada all Eskimo people are in fact Inuit, and it
Floyd> is considered impolite to call them anything else. By the same
Floyd> token, the *only* word in the English language which properly
Floyd> describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does
Floyd> not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,
Floyd> and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik. Moreover, in Alaska the
Floyd> Inupiat people, who are the same as the Canadian Inuit people,
Floyd> simply do *not* like to be called Inuit! (They use the word
Floyd> Inupiat.)

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like there's no one best term.

Skip

[Geoff Gerrietts]

Quoting Anton Vredegoor (an***@vredegoor.doge.nl):

Erik Max Francis <ma*@alcyone.com> wrote:

I'm still not sure what you're objecting to in the bigger issue. [...]

Since you cut away the problem my post was about in your first reply
to my post it's not a surprise you are now having difficulties seeing
the bigger issue, which IMO was about solving this analogy problem.

I think there's a misunderstanding growing here. If I can summarize
what I've discovered by reading this interesting but grossly off-topic
thread, I will. Maybe someone else who's been reading the whole thing
can summarize.
"Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

This analogy puzzle tries to use "Native American" as an example of a
more politically sensitive term replacing an older, less politically
sensitive term (in this case, "American Indian"). There are several
problems with this formulation, though. There's also a problem with
the term we're being asked to fill in a value against: "Eskimo" can be
meant in a couple different ways, one correct and one incorrect.

The relationship between "Native American" and "American Indian" is
not clear-cut. A great deal of political sentiment is tied up in both
terms. While most Americans, particularly those who are accustomed to
making an effort at political sensitivity, tend to regard "Native
American" as a politically sensitive replacement for "American
Indian", this is not entirely true.

For many people who would be labelled "Native American", this is not
an acceptable formulation. Probably for the same reasons, they would
object to my use of the word "indigenous" in preceding paragraphs.
Also, according to the precise definition of the term "Native
American", this term may well represent a superset of what was
previously intended by "American Indian" -- in particular, there's
some concern that native Phillipinos might be included in "Native
Americans", but are definitely not included in "American Indians".

Further, it appears that "Eskimo" is not as clearly understood as we
thought it was. Some portion of our audience believes Eskimo to be a
pejorative term. Some portion of our audience regards Eskimo as a
tribal name.

Where the original question tried to sort out "What term has replaced
Eskimo in the same way Native American has replaced American Indian?"
But it appears that Native American hasn't really replaced American
Indian in the simple way we thought it had. Meanwhile, for some prior
usages of "Eskimo", that term is still correct: it identifies a
specific cultural/ethnic/tribal group. In other ways, there doesn't
appear to be a real equivalent. While "all descendents of indigineous
peoples" seem to have some kind of collective identity, it does not
appear that "all descendents of indigineous peoples that lived north
of the Arctic" do.

--G.

--
Geoff Gerrietts <geoff at gerrietts net>
"I have read your book and much like it." --Moses Hadas

[Geoff Gerrietts]

Quoting Geoff Gerrietts (ge***@gerrietts.net):

Further, it appears that "Eskimo" is not as clearly understood as we
thought it was. Some portion of our audience believes Eskimo to be a
pejorative term. Some portion of our audience regards Eskimo as a
tribal name.

Where the original question tried to sort out "What term has replaced
Eskimo in the same way Native American has replaced American Indian?"
But it appears that Native American hasn't really replaced American
Indian in the simple way we thought it had. Meanwhile, for some prior
usages of "Eskimo", that term is still correct: it identifies a
specific cultural/ethnic/tribal group. In other ways, there doesn't
appear to be a real equivalent. While "all descendents of indigineous
peoples" seem to have some kind of collective identity, it does not
appear that "all descendents of indigineous peoples that lived north
of the Arctic" do.

Up to this point I think I was doing okay. I should have kept going
down the thread, missed a few key posts. :)

But it looks like Eskimo is still more complicated than my initial
readings suggested. I don't think I can adequately express how it is
"correctly used", but I think it's pretty safe to say that a
substantial percentage of prior usage intended it to apply more
broadly than it actually does.

--G.

--
Geoff Gerrietts "Punctuality is the virtue of the bored."
<geoff at gerrietts net> --Evelyn Waugh

[David Mertz]

|Floyd Davidson:
|> The term "Native American" is a coined word that the US Federal
|> government came up with to reference *all* indigenous people in
|> the US and its territories. Hence it includes American Indians,
|> Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians

"Andrew Dalke" <ad****@mindspring.com> wrote previously:
|When did the phrase come into use?
|also suprised about Puerto Rico in that list.

I've never heard/read Native American used as widely as Floyd suggests.
Only applying to the native peoples of the Americas.

In the case of Puerto Rico, Columbus was thoroughly exterminationist;
and likewise the rest of the Spanish conquistidor's in the Carribean
after him. So the ENTIRE native population (Boricuas Indians) of Puerto
Rico were slaughtered outright, or died of disease. And similarly in
most of the Western Carribean.

Yours, Lulu...

--
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies
of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the
underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual
property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.

[Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]

|Floyd Davidson:
|> The term "Native American" is a coined word that the US Federal
|> government came up with to reference *all* indigenous people in
|> the US and its territories. Hence it includes American Indians,
|> Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians

"Andrew Dalke" <ad****@mindspring.com> wrote previously:
|When did the phrase come into use?
|also suprised about Puerto Rico in that list.

I've never heard/read Native American used as widely as Floyd suggests.
Only applying to the native peoples of the Americas.

In the case of Puerto Rico, Columbus was thoroughly exterminationist;
and likewise the rest of the Spanish conquistidor's in the Carribean
after him. So the ENTIRE native population (Boricuas Indians) of Puerto
Rico were slaughtered outright, or died of disease. And similarly in
most of the Western Carribean.

Yours, Lulu...

--
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies
of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the
underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual
property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.

[Andrew Dalke]

Floyd Davidson:

Of course, we aren't necessarily too keen on calling ourselves just
American, either.

And others living in the Americas are Americas too. (Went to
one talk where the speaker wanted "Americans" to call themselves
"United Statens")

And some English don't like thinking of themselves as European.

And being raised in the US South (losing side of the Civil War)
means it feels strange being called a Yank (Yankees being
the victors) -- even though I was raised by a Michigander and
a Canadian so don't have strong southern heritage.

And being raised in Miami I was used to the term "Hispanic",
which is apparently frowned upon because it's another made-up
term, and the proper one (at least for some Hispanic people)
is Chicano. Except that it needs the feminine "-a" ending
when talking about a woman despite English not working that
way.

And ... and... I'm trying to figure out how to get back to
Python. I assume some Python people like being called
Pythonistas and others don't, but that's not really a general
term used outside c.l.py.

Andrew
da***@dalkescientific.com

[Floyd Davidson]

Skip Montanaro <sk**@pobox.com> wrote:

>> Skip Montanaro wrote:
>>> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Floyd> The problem with the above is that there is no way to fill in the
Floyd> blank and be correct! The terms are reversed...

I don't think so. My intent was to answer the question, "What's the current
politically correct term to use in place of 'Eskimo'?" I believe the above
SAT-style question captures the correct relationship. "Native American" is
p.c., "American Indian" (or simply "Indian") is not. "Eskimo" is apparently
also not p.c.

I've never heard that "American Indian" is not pc, nor that "Native
American" was ever meant to be a direct replacement for it.

Obviously some people mistakenly believe that "Eskimo" is not pc,
and just as mistakenly think the "Inuit" is a direct replacement.
Floyd> Whatever, in Canada all Eskimo people are in fact Inuit, and it
Floyd> is considered impolite to call them anything else. By the same
Floyd> token, the *only* word in the English language which properly
Floyd> describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does
Floyd> not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,
Floyd> and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik. Moreover, in Alaska the
Floyd> Inupiat people, who are the same as the Canadian Inuit people,
Floyd> simply do *not* like to be called Inuit! (They use the word
Floyd> Inupiat.)

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like there's no one best term.

Each of those terms have different meanings though, and when
used in the proper context, they are *all* precisely correct!

Of course, that is all very easy for someone like me (living
very much in an environment where all of those terms are used
with regularity), and not so easy for someone who only
occasionally has need to sort them out.

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

[Peter Hansen]

Floyd Davidson wrote:

Skip Montanaro <sk**@pobox.com> wrote:

>> Skip Montanaro wrote:
>>> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Floyd> The problem with the above is that there is no way to fill in the
Floyd> blank and be correct! The terms are reversed...

I don't think so. My intent was to answer the question, "What's the current
politically correct term to use in place of 'Eskimo'?" I believe the above
SAT-style question captures the correct relationship. "Native American" is
p.c., "American Indian" (or simply "Indian") is not. "Eskimo" is apparently
also not p.c.

I've never heard that "American Indian" is not pc, nor that "Native
American" was ever meant to be a direct replacement for it.

Obviously some people mistakenly believe that "Eskimo" is not pc,
and just as mistakenly think the "Inuit" is a direct replacement.

I think you've inadvertently expanded the scope of those beliefs.

In fact it was limited to "Eskimo is not PC for the _Inuit_". I
don't think anyone has really disproved this, unless someone
claiming to represent the Inuit's communal interest in the matter
posted while I wasn't looking.

But clearly there is also misunderstanding of which peoples call
themselves Inuit.

-Peter

[Floyd Davidson]

Geoff Gerrietts <ge***@gerrietts.net> wrote:

Where the original question tried to sort out "What term has replaced
Eskimo in the same way Native American has replaced American Indian?"
But it appears that Native American hasn't really replaced American
Indian in the simple way we thought it had. Meanwhile, for some prior
usages of "Eskimo", that term is still correct: it identifies a
specific cultural/ethnic/tribal group.
You were doing great until this last paragraph. Eskimo does not
refer to any tribe or tribal group. It refers to a language
group, a cultural/ethnic group or to a genetic group. But there
are literally hundreds of unique tribes within the cultural
group known as Eskimos. For that matter, and this may come as a
surprise to some, the term tribe isn't necessarily the best
description of Eskimo governance, and "nation" might be a much
better term. There is little doubt that before Europeans
brought diseases to Northwestern Alaska there were what can only
be described as a very well delineated group of Eskimo Nations
there (Earnest S. Birch Jr. has published detailed studies).
By the time anyone was interested in learning what Eskimos were,
they had been decimated, and tribal relationships were just
about all that was left.

One might speculate that the same was/is true of American Indian
governance. We can certainly say for example that the Iroquois
and several other Confederations that were very functional well
into the 1800's met the "nation" criteria too.

Some of them were exceedingly sophisticated governments, and
most of them were very sophisticated social cultures too.
They've been portrayed as "savage" and "primitive" to make it
easier to justify taking what they owned away from them. But
the simple fact is that in many ways they were far more advanced
in 1500 than the average European society was at that time.
In other ways, there doesn't
appear to be a real equivalent. While "all descendents of indigineous
peoples" seem to have some kind of collective identity, it does not
appear that "all descendents of indigineous peoples that lived north
of the Arctic" do.

There is more to that than you can probably imagine!

Rest assured that almost *anything* you hear about Eskimos on
the Internet is false. That is equally true of almost any
anthropology book published prior to about 1970. The problem is
that all of these sources have a lot of just really good
information, but it takes an expert to wade through what is
presented to throw out the garbage.

You've all heard, for example, that the "Eskimos have xxxx words
for snow" business is not true.

How about...

Eskimos (and or all other Native Americans) had no concept of
private property or land ownership.

FACT: The penalty for trespass on private property for
the purpose of illegal use was death.

Eskimos had no form of governance.

FACT: The Europeans who visited Eskimos were unable to
comprehend that government does not necessarily
involve noise and violence. It also does not
necessarily exclude women. There is not a single
description of Eskimo governance prior to 1965 in
any anthropology text I've ever heard of. But in
the late 60's the Yupiit Nation decided they had
to write it down, because their children were being
taught in Western schools and not learning it. As
of about 1975 there isn't a single anthropology text
that I know of which still claims they had no form
of governance! 1741 to 1970 is a long time to miss
a very simple fact like that...

Eskimo men offer their wives to visitors.

FACT: In a matrilineal society where the woman owns the
house, it most certainly would not be possible for
a man to offer what he doesn't own and has no
authority over. Consider the plight of a poor lady,
though, who finds a stranger somewhat interesting
but also finds that he's too dumb to talk to a woman.
So she just orders the nearest man, "Tell that tall
dumb one that he's staying in my igloo."

Eskimos put old people out on the ice.

FACT: In a society with an oral history, that is the same
as burning the books in your library. Insane.
The older an elder is, the more precious and more
protected they are.

Eskimos and Indians killed each other on sight.

FACT: In several places there have traditionally been Indian
and Eskimo villages on opposite sides of a river within
1/2 a mile of each other!

I could go on for an hour at least, and worse yet I could
probably write two or three pages of commentary on each of these
things.

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

[Floyd Davidson]

Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

I've never heard that "American Indian" is not pc, nor that "Native
American" was ever meant to be a direct replacement for it.

Obviously some people mistakenly believe that "Eskimo" is not pc,
and just as mistakenly think the "Inuit" is a direct replacement.
I think you've inadvertently expanded the scope of those beliefs.

I've tried to provide some education on what they actually do
mean.
In fact it was limited to "Eskimo is not PC for the _Inuit_". I
don't think anyone has really disproved this, unless someone
claiming to represent the Inuit's communal interest in the matter
posted while I wasn't looking.
You do realize that most of my neighbors speak Inuit? I'm not
suggesting that I read it somewhere in a newspaper or a book,
I'm talking about real live Inuit people. Not to mention a lot
of Eskimos who are not Inuit (e.g., all of my children and
grandchildren).

Like I said, it is mistaken to believe the term Eskimo is
not pc, or that there is even a valid replacement for it
in the English language.
But clearly there is also misunderstanding of which peoples call
themselves Inuit.

That is what I was trying to clear up. Just who is Inuit, and
who isn't. And who wants to be called Inuit, and who doesn't.
And why. (You might want to browse my web page. The URL is
in my sig.)

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

[Peter Hansen]

Floyd Davidson wrote:

Like I said, it is mistaken to believe the term Eskimo is
not pc,

I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying
unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere
on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as
"Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,
as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

-Peter

[Geoff Gerrietts]

Quoting Peter Hansen (pe***@engcorp.com):

I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying
unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere
on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as
"Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,
as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

No. He's saying that there are Eskimo, and there are Inuit. The two
have some overlap but not a lot.

Eskimo is not a pejorative. Calling a person who considers himself
Eskimo an Inuit would be like calling a German person French.
Sometimes you're going to get away with it, and sometimes you're going
to get a fight.

The same is true in reverse. Both terms are acceptable, when applied
to the right people.

--G.

--
Geoff Gerrietts <geoff at gerrietts dot net>
"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments
when he was merely stupid." --Heinrich Heine

[Floyd Davidson]

Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

Like I said, it is mistaken to believe the term Eskimo is
not pc,

I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying
unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere
on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as
"Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,
as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

OK, so you don't understand what "pc" means.

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

[Floyd Davidson]

Geoff Gerrietts <ge***@gerrietts.net> wrote:

Quoting Peter Hansen (pe***@engcorp.com):

I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying
unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere
on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as
"Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,
as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.
No. He's saying that there are Eskimo, and there are Inuit. The two
have some overlap but not a lot.

All Inuit are Eskimos, but not all Eskimos are Inuit.
Eskimo is not a pejorative. Calling a person who considers himself
Eskimo an Inuit would be like calling a German person French.
How about like saying that we must never use the word
"European", because some Brits really do like to be called
British and some French really do like to be called French, and
therefore we should call Italians and Germans English, so as not
to offend the Hungarians by the use of the word European.

If that sounds like a twisted maze of foolishness... it is!
Sometimes you're going to get away with it, and sometimes you're going
to get a fight.

The same is true in reverse. Both terms are acceptable, when applied
to the right people.

You know one of the odd things about Canadians and this word "Eskimo",
is that Canadian Inuit people don't seem to mind Alaskans using that
word, whether to describe Alaska Eskimo or to describe Canadian Eskimos.

They don't mind, because we use the word as it is meant to be used.

What they find offensive is not the word, but the *way* that white
Canadians use it. And *that* is what definitely is not pc.

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

[Donn Cave]

Quoth Floyd Davidson <fl***@barrow.com>:
....
| I could go on for an hour at least, and worse yet I could
| probably write two or three pages of commentary on each of these
| things.

Technically that would have to be off topic, but it's bound to be
more interesting than the Lisp vs. Python troll wars that we seem
to like so much these days. Thanks for the education!

Donn Cave, do**@drizzle.com

[Floyd Davidson]

"Donn Cave" <do**@drizzle.com> wrote:

Quoth Floyd Davidson <fl***@barrow.com>:
...
| I could go on for an hour at least, and worse yet I could
| probably write two or three pages of commentary on each of these
| things.

Technically that would have to be off topic, but it's bound to be
more interesting than the Lisp vs. Python troll wars that we seem
to like so much these days. Thanks for the education!

Donn Cave, do**@drizzle.com

I should thank the other participants. I've gotten several
emails, and *all* of them have been very pleasant.

Is there something about Python?

I've got a book on it here somewhere, maybe I should try
learning it as a therapy for high blood pressure? ;-)

(The trouble is, I really should spend more time learning eLisp,
because I'm a dyed in the wool XEmacs user with some very large
init files that are painful to maintain...)

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

[Peter Hansen]

Floyd Davidson wrote:

Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

Like I said, it is mistaken to believe the term Eskimo is
not pc,

I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying
unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere
on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as
"Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,
as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

OK, so you don't understand what "pc" means.

In this newsgroup, it should surely mean personal computer. :-)

All I'm trying to clear up is whether you are saying that the
effectively institutionalized advice (in Canada) not to use the
term "Eskimo" for the Inuit is deprecated (to try to tie this
in a minor way back to the thread).

I don't care if other groups call themselves Eskimo. All I
care about is whether we've been fed a load of crap for all
these years and should ignore any advice implying that the
Inuit do not like to be called Eskimo.

-Peter

[Floyd Davidson]

Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

I don't care if other groups call themselves Eskimo. All I
care about is whether we've been fed a load of crap for all
these years and should ignore any advice implying that the
Inuit do not like to be called Eskimo.

You cannot lump all Inuit people and get just one answer.

Inuit people in Alaska use the term Eskimo all the time.

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.

Note that in Canada and Greenland, *all* Eskimos are Inuit,
hence there is little need to use that term to describe those
people.

I would also caution that the implication of the first sentence
in the quoted paragraph above is that there is some great
difference between Inuit and "other groups [who] call themselves
Eskimo". The most obvious characteristic they have, is that
they are exceedingly similar. The Inuit branch separated from
the Proto-Eskimo branch about 2000 years ago, and hence are a
"newer" form than is the Yupik branch. The Aleuts separated
probably 4000 years ago, and have evolved to something
specifically non-Eskimo.

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

[Peter Hansen]

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.
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.

-Peter

[Floyd Davidson]

Peter Hansen <pe***@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.

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.

What title would you suggest for these works:

"Comparative Eskimo Dictionary With Aleut Cognates"
Fortescue, Jacobson, and Kaplan

"Eskimo Essays"
Ann Fienup-Riordan

"Eskimo Warfare"
"Eskimo Kinsmen: Changing Family Relationships in Northwest Alaska"
"Traditional Eskimo Societies in Northwest Alaska"
"The Eskimos"
Ernest S. Burch, Jr.

"The Eskimos of North Alaska"
Norman A. Chance

"Alaskan Eskimo Education"
John Collier

"Yup'ik Eskimo Dictionary"
Steven A. Jacobson

"Bashful No Longer: An Alaskan Eskimo Ethnohistory"
Wendell Oswalt

Moreover, who is going to tell Oscar Kawagley that he can't
shouldn't use the word Eskimo:

"Yupiaq Eskimo Education"
Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley

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

[Peter Hansen]

Floyd Davidson wrote:

Peter Hansen <pe***@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

[Donn Cave]

Quoth Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com>:
....
| 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.

That wasn't too clear, actually, and may account for some of
the confusion over your point. I guess the rest might be due
to a misperception about the degree to which you actually had
a point, vs. just commenting on your own circumstances.

Donn Cave, do**@drizzle.com

[Floyd Davidson]

Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

Peter Hansen <pe***@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.

I can only respond to what you actually do say. I've never been
able to read your mind, or anyone else's. You did *not* said a
word about restricting your comments to Canada and Canadian
users. When you address me about Eskimos, after I've made it
clear as a bell from word one that I'm talking about Eskimos
from Greenland to Siberia, it is absurd to suggest that I would
know you are a Canadian or that I would know you are limiting
your comments to the usage by Canadians.

However, it is also true that the point doesn't change even
then. Would you like me to find a list of appropriate uses of
the term Eskimo by Canadians?

The difference is just that in Canada you have a less frequent
need for that term than we do in Alaska. But you still have
occasion to use it.

>> 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

The inverse is also true. In Canada, all Inuit are Eskimos.
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

Sounds like you have an ego problem, not one of how to express
it. I am _not_ sorry to have abused you with the facts though.

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