Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
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'.
Then you are not using the correct terminology Eric. You are
the one who insisted that *I* should be using technically
correct terminology, and here you admit that *you* don't! What
a hoot!
The Thule Eskimo people were *not* Inuit. Or, at least if you
want to distinguish the Dorset Eskimo people as not being Inuit,
you'll have to be consistent and do the same for the Thule
culture.
The Thule people are the ancestors of "Modern Inuit" culture,
but they are *not* the identical people.
Hence, using your logic (if we could call it that), the Norse
colonists met perhaps Dorset people and perhaps Thule people,
and *you* can go to Greenland today and meet Inuit people.
Using sane logic, however, it *is* appropriate to reference
*any* of those people as either Inuit or as Eskimo.
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. :-)
You are admitting that you have, as others have pointed out, set
standards that you cannot and do not follow. It seems that the
one who needs to wake up, is Eric.
I don't know anything much about it but I would question whether the
Then cease making silly pompous statements in response to
someone who does.
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.
There is no physical evidence sufficient to demonstrate any
"wave of people". There is likewise no physical evidence to
demonstrate that there was no wave of people! So everyone uses
the common example of how Europeans typically changed their
cultu through violence marked by waves of people.
However in this case there is very good reason to reject that
model. There is a great deal of evidence that Thule and Dorset
cultures existed in the same areas at the same times. Adjacent
villages in various areas used different technologies and
co-existed for hundreds of years. That does suggest a number of
things. That they spoke the same language, had the same
religious beliefs and shared many other culture traits. It also
suggests that they almost certainly intermixed genetically, and
were probably a single genetic pool.
In fact, it appears to there would have been less distinction
between them than there was at the point when European contact
first occurred between Yupik and Inupiat cultures, and between
coastal and riverine and inland cultures of either Yupik or
Inupiat stock.
It also appears that the direct cause for the technological
changes that took place, not just from Dorset to Thule, but for
virtually all recognized changes beginning with the migration of
Small Tools Tradition people into Alaska and eventually all the
way to Greenland, are climate based. Every time there was a
major warming or cooling trend in the climate over a period of
500 or so years, the Eskimo people (and their ancestors) very
quickly adapted by developing a new and more appropriate
technology to deal with their environment.
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.
And as an authoritative source on kayaks, it *clearly* said
that there are authoritative sources on the history of Inuit
people which say there is evidence of Inuit kayaks going back
4000 years in Greenland.
Get your head out where the sun shines. It is a *fine* cite!
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.
I'm sorry, I don't seem to have made myself clear. I meant to
say that if *you* want to make a statement and make it distinct
that by "inuit" you mean the modern branch of Eskimo culture
known as Inuit, *you* will necessarily have to specifically note
that as your meaning. Otherwise you will be mis-understood.
Taking issue with someone who is using the terms otherwise is
*not* the same. It is just being asinine.
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.
No, that is a direct quote from *you*:
Message-ID:
Please do not claim I generated the nonsense you post.
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?
Because that is a word game. You can't argue facts (you don't
seem to have any), you can't argue theories (which you don't
understand, you can't argue the point (without missing it).
Instead you want to pretend that it is incorrect to refer to
Dorset people as Inuit.
You are wrong. What else is there to say?
Your halo seems to have slipped. :-)
I'll agree that compared to you and Seppo I might appear to
have a halo. Seems like you would make just about anyone
seem to have one...
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?
And I could equally say, and still be equally correct, that there
absolutely were Inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago.
Now quite playing word games...
But I said nothing about 'eskimos'. My remark only addressed 'inuit'.
When you speak of Greenland, there is no difference... comprende?
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! :-)
Yeah, I think it's pretty funny too!
By the way, interesting that you can respond to a "go left"
command for a mule. Did your mother train you with Gee and Haw?
(And *you* thought word games would be fun... ;-)
--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)