On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 02:46:07 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

Having invoked Goddard you should read
http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifeskimo.shtml

"In the 1970s in Canada the name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo
in governmental and scientific publication and the mass media,
largely in response to demands from Eskimo political
associations.

Which contradicts *everything* you've been claiming about usage
of the term Inuit. I notice you are not against a little creative
editing either... you left off the last part of that text.

"The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska,
in 1977 officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all
Eskimos, regardless of their local usages [...]."

'Creative editing' yourself. I at least quoted a coherent body of text
and did not make a selective quote from elsewhere.

On top of that you have completely changed what I was saying by
entirely separating the first part of my argument from the second part
commencing with 'But'.

Note it does *not* say "all Eskimo descended from Thule
culture", but *all* Eskimos, period. That includes (for those
scientific publications) their ancestors too.

What scientific purposes? That was a political conference.

Of course, while I can find a lot of references which say that
the 1977 ICC passed such a resolution, I can't find that it ever
actually happened!

http://www.ebenhopson.com/icc/ICCBooklet.html

Read through the resolutions actually passed in that first
ICC, and you won't find it. It *is* clear that they agreed
to use that term for the purposes of that conference though.

And, in fact that is exactly what they did. This is from the
_Charter_ adopted for the ICC. It is not a resolution, it is
not and was never meant to apply to anything other than the
documents produced by the ICC, principally the Charter itself!

But it does provide a good example of how things become distorted
by others looking to grind an axe.

ARTICLE 1 - DEFINITIONS

6. "Inuit" means indigenous members of the Inuit homeland
recognized by Inuit as being members of their people and
shall include the Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit,
Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik
(Russia).

7. "Inuit homeland" means those arctic and sub-arctic areas
where, presently or traditionally, Inuit have Aboriginal
rights and interests.

http://www.inuit.org/textonly.asp?lang=eng&num=209

Whatever, not that paragraph 7 basically includes *all*
traditionally Eskimo cultures. Hence it clear includes Dorset
and Arctic Small Tools Tradition cultures...

But that was a political conference with, as you have pointed out, no
great direct impact.


Aah --- here is where I continued from my opening remark

But then, in the context of Mailhot, you should read
http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Innu.htm

What has that link go to do with anything? Did you actually
read it? Or are you so confused that you don't realize they are
talking about an Indian tribe, not Eskimos.

It is merely the place from which you should follow the link ...

and follow the link to
http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Inuit.htm which says

"Inuit (singular, Inuk; also, generally vulgarly, Eskimo) is a
general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous
peoples of the Arctic who descended from the Thule. The
Inuit Circumpolar Conference defines its constitutency to
include Canadian Inuit and Inuvialuit, Greenland's Kalaallit
people, Alaska's Inupiat and Yupik people, and Russian Yupik".

The first link cites a politically derived definition (who was it

If you mean the first link to the www.almudo.com site, it does
not cite *any* definition of Inuit. When are you going to learn
to read. If you are talking about the one above that and think
it is unique in citing a "politically derived definition", you
are still wrong.

It was the first link in my article when I wrote it. But you have
generated such a cloud of words that the simple thread of my argument
is obscured.

cited Godwin's law?) of inuit and the second confines itself to
"culturally similar indigenous peoples of the Arctic who descended
from the Thule".

So? *All* existing Eskimo cultures today *are* in fact
descended directly from the Thule people. They are also
descended from the predecessors of the Thule people. That would
be the Dorset. And they are all descended from the Arctic Small
Tools tradition culture too, which preceded the Dorset culture.
We are talking a continuous line of descent, not a new migration
from Asia or the Pacific Island or from where ever. One line of
people, though it does have multiple branches.

Its all one great mish-mash according to you.

All of those people have traditionally been called "Eskimo", and
what the Canadians and Greenlanders wanted to stop was the
common use of that term because of the racist undertone it had
taken on in Canada and to a lesser degree in Greenland.

In fact the site you are quoting is not correct (and is also in
no way authoritative either, so you aren't making points by
quoting it) in what it says. And you are adding to the
inaccuracy. And, you are also trying to relate the cite you
give to the authoritative sources that I mentioned. But of
course none of the text at that site comes from either Goddard
or Mailhot.

You are turning this into an argument from authority.

You do understand that when someone says that I am a direct
descendant of my father, that does not mean I am not also a
descendant of my grandfathers, and my great-grandfathers???
That is the argument you are making. It is logically flawed.

Nor does it mean that you are a descendednt of you great-grandfather's
neighbours.

Now what was it we were arguing about? How did I define Inuit in the
very first place? It was in terms of people descended from the Thule.

And then you claimed that it does *not* apply to their
ancestors. You are wrong.

I have always been talking about inuit in Greenland.


You know, this is a lot of argument from you just to support the
*clearly* false notion that nobody was building wood framed
kayaqs on Greenland 4000 years ago. The claim that there was no
wood is false.

The claim that I have been arguing that is nonsense.

The claim that there were no Inuit is false.

Not if you use the term in strict sense and confine your discussion to
Greenland.

The claim that they used only whale bone is false. The claim
that they would have no use for a wood plane is just as false.
The claim that no Norseman would think of trading his trusty
plane is not just false, it's so damned funny as to be insane.

Not as insane as a carpenter who would deliberately trade away his
carefully crafted tools with no immediate prospect of replacing them.

You, Seppo, and Inger... what a group!




Eric Stevens