"Native American" and variations thereof (2)

[Lynne Murphy]

--On Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:45 am +0800 Laurence Horn
<laurence.horn at YALE.EDU> wrote:

> in James Landau's earlier P.S.--
>
>> P.S. I do not know why the people called "Eskimo" in the United States
>> are known as "Inuit" in Canada.
>
> --I've been "corrected" on at least one occasion in the U.S. when I
> used the (presumably non-approved) "Eskimo".  Maybe the Canadians are
> just in the vanguard here.I'm not sure whether the objection to
> "Eskimo" is that it's too broad in its application or that it's too
> closely associated with tales of blubber-eating, nose-rubbing,
> wife-sharing and the like.

To quote from Rosalie Maggio's _Talking about people_:

"in 1977 at the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in Barrow, Alaska, the term
'Inuit' ('the people') was officially adopted as a preferred designation
for collectively referring to the group of peoples of nothern Canada,
Greenland, Alaska, and eastern Siberia known as Eskimos.  'Eskimo' has long
been considered (perhaps incorrectly) to come from a term meaning 'raw meat
eaters.'  Some Inuit, but not all, would rather it not be used.  [Info on
Aleuts and Athabaskans deleted.]  Inuk (or Innuk) is the singular of Inuit
(or Innuit).  In Alaska, 'Natives' and 'Alaska natives' are the accepted
terms for the Inuit, Aleuts, and Athabaskans, when referring to the areas
indigenous peoples in the aggregate."

Note that the OED on-line prefers the spelling "Innuit".  Not sure if this
is a UK preference or general historical spelling.

'Inuit' is used on the argument that 'it's what the people call
themselves', but, like many other ethnonyms, in that people's native
language 'Inuit', it just means 'people'.  It's likely that they didn't
have a name for themselves before European explorers interrupted them.
(You only need a name for yourself if you have someone to contrast yourself
to and the realization that you are as much an aberration as they are.  I
discuss this a bit in my article on 'Race' in the new Routledge
International Encyclopedia of Women.  (At least I assume it's there--I
haven't seen the volume in the flesh yet.)  One can imagine how such
'people'-designating ethnonyms have come to be.  Initially, outside groups
gave the group whatever name they pleased.  E.g., "Hottentot".  Then it was
decided, either within the group or by well-meaning advocates for the group
that the foreign name is inappropriate.  So, one needs a new name, but the
language doesn't offer a clear one, but what it does offer is a distinction
between unmarked 'people' and marked 'others/foreigners'.  The unmarked
term becomes a marked term referring specifically to the group.
("Hottentot" --> "Khoi" = 'people, men').

Lynne




M Lynne Murphy
Lecturer in Linguistics
School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

phone +44-(0)1273-678844
fax   +44-(0)1273-671320