On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:55:59 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

What an absurd thing to say. You have admitted that you are
well aware that for many people (and particularly those in
Greenland) the terms "Inuit" and "Eskimo" are interchangeable,
with the former preferred.

Complete and utter nonsense on your part. I'm arguing for precision in
the use of these terms and you claim I'm all for a woolly-thinking
blur.

You are arguing that we should play word games with other
people's statements. I am saying that we need to read it for
what they *meant* *to* *say*, and not pretend that there are no
variations in word meaning.

That is particularly true if you want to discuss Greenland,
where the accepted term is in fact "Inuit", not "Eskimo".

Which is why I have never used the term 'eskimo'. I'm also aware that
the inuit are assigned to a particular period in Greenland history and
that before them were the people known as 'dorset'.

The quote that I referenced was this:

II. Origins of Sea Kayaking
A. Greenland
1. No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, from before the time the first Europeans
came (1600-1700s). Some archaeological evidence
indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old.

http://students.washington.edu/~ukc/...902-1notes.pdf

I *am* saying, clearly, that Eskimo people existed on Greenland
4000 years ago and were using wood to make kayaks. (And that
using the word Inuit to describe them is all of common, useful,
and acceptable.)

... and totally innapropriate in a sci. newsgroup. It might be OK in
your local bar or while discussing things at the bus stop.

This *is* a local bar, and not one with the best of clientele
either. Aim your conceited nose a bit closer to the ground.

Incidentally, if you want to set standards for cites, you will
also have to follow them. Here's one that you used, which is
unsuitable using any standard, simply because it is *wrong*:

http://teacher.scholastic.com/resear...ic/history.htm

"Between A.D. 900--1300, a wave of people from Alaska displaced the
Dorset peoples. These newcomers, known as the Thule culture,
migrated along the Arctic coast, through the High Arctic islands

There is of course no evidence at all of any "wave of people
from Alaska displacing Dorset peoples". There is evidence that
a *dramatic* change in the culture of existing people took
place... It appears to have been a migration of technology, not
people. You should be more careful about choosing who and what
you quote.

Good. I take your point. I'm glad I woke you up. :-)

I don't know anything much about it but I would question whether the
new culture was just a modification of the old or whether it
supplanted it at all levels. If it was just a modification, it could
be as you say, just a migration of technology. If it was more than
that I would suggest that it was a physical migration of people
bringing their new technology and culture with them.

Mind you, you are quoting from 'Fundamentals of Sea Kayak Design
Seminar - Notes, May 29, 2002 University of Washington Kayak Club'.
This is hardly an authoritative source about the history of the inuit.

It was quoted as an authoritative source on kayaks. It is.

Agreed. But not on the history of the inuit.

If you want to be asinine and argue that we are writing
technical documents here (which we are *not*) and therefore
should make the technical distinction between Eskimos in general
and Inuit Eskimos in specific, you can go right ahead.

Thank you. I would go right ahead anyway. If you can't bring yourself
to use accurate terminology you should take yourself elswhere. You
certainly shouldn't take issue with anyone who wants to point out your
error, especially when they did not do it in malice.

The terminology that I used through out this thread was
specifically selected, and is technically quite correct. You
are proving it. As noted, I switched back and forth between the
two terms *intentionally* (and more than once even noted the
difference) just to provide a basis to refute some jerk that
comes along and claims one or the other of those terms means
something other than what it was being used to mean.

There is no question that they *can* be used differently. That
is not the point. The point is that when we mix discussions of
Greenland, Canada and Alaska there *is* going to be the
interchangeable use of those terms, and anyone who wants to
differentiate them has to do so specifically.

Which I did when I took issue with the original reference to inuit in
Greenland 4000 years ago.

And your previous claim that "Youv'e [sic] also been
interchanging the words Canada, Alaska, and Siberia for
Greenland" is more nonsense. Perhaps you actually can't tell
when I'm switching between them, but I doubt that is the case.

That was a direct quote from you.

You are just playing word games and being obstinate simply
because you have to face the fact that I've been *precisely*
correct in this discussion all along, and it is pretty much
obvious to everyone who has read it.

Then why are you spending so much time objecting to me pointing out
that there were NO inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago?

Look at the direction it has taken! Poor Seppo was reduced to
changing words in hopes to confuse issues. And now we have Eric
too, equally unable to make reasonable statements about the
topic of discussion, so he also tries to pick a fight over
terminology.

I wasn't picking a fight. Mind you, I'm not surprised that one should
emerge.

Just like Seppo choosing pictures of wood frames that are within
walking distance of where I sit, you've taken a flying leap off
a cliff too. It is fairly well known that I am about the most
pedantic poster on Usenet when it comes to correct usage of the
terms Inuit and Eskimo.

Your halo seems to have slipped. :-)


Which continues to have nothing to do with what I think originally was
Seppo's claim that inuit had been building kayak in Greenland for 4000
years. No matter who made that claim, its nonsense.

Only if you have some very poor communications skills, speak
English as second language, or have your head where the sun
don't shine.

But lets go look at quotes... like one from *you*, where you
started this nonsense:

"Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the
inuit for 4000 years but certainly not in Greenland. The
inuit arrived in the north of Greenland about the same time
the Viking were arriving in the south, ..."

There were Eskimos 4000 years ago, but *none* of them were Inuit.

Thank you. That was my point. Why has it taken so long for you to
acknowledge it?

Eskimos as a specific branch of Eskimos. Clearly then, if the first
sentence is correct, "inuit" references /Eskimos/ 4000 years ago.

Just as clearly you are confused in the second sentence, because
there were Eskimos in Greenland 4000 years ago.

But I said nothing about 'eskimos'. My remark only addressed 'inuit'.


(Or do we reverse the order, where we would have to determine
you were confused in the first sentence and didn't realize the
Inuit branch didn't exist 4000 years ago anywhere.)

The fact is, you were just greatly confused to begin with, and
now you are pulling a Seppo The Word Weasel act to get out of it.


Haw! :-)



Eric Stevens