Talk:Inuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Alaska, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Alaska-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] How far off till this article is ready to become featured?

I spend my life on wikipedia but have never edited anything therefore im a n00b so dont scream abuse if you please. Just that the language tone, style and thouroughness of this article was impressive to say the least, not to mention the productive tone of discussion. I learned more than i thought i could. How much further does it need to go? Andrew Seymour 05:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inuit and peace

The Inuit are sometimes cited as an example of a peaceful society, as in this example: Inuit. This article includes the following about conflict: "Nearly all Inuit cultures have oral traditions of raids by Indians and fellow Inuit, and of taking vengeance on them in return. Although these tales are generally regarded not as accurate historical accounts but as self-serving myths — violence against outsiders as justified revenge — it does make clear that there was a history of hostile contact between Inuit and other cultures. In Alaska, the Inuit became accomplished raiders through constant feuding. Given the narrow margins of survival, the advantages of supplementing one's hunt by stealing from one's neighbours seem obvious. Even within an Inuit band, breaching traditional justice and wronging another Inuit was routinely punished by murderous vengeance, as the story of Atanarjuat shows." The citation of Atanarjuat is to a movie based on an oral tradition (which could be a cautionary tale, rather than evidence of "constant feuding" and "routine" "murderous vengeance.") Is the current discussion a violation of NPOV? In any case, the discussion of conflict in Inuit society could use some better sourcing.

Your peacers cite exactly one source: Jean L. Briggs, and I don't think if they've read her very closely. Try Rachel Attituq Qitsualik for an alternative perspective on the same anthopoligical data. --Diderot 20:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we going to act?

I agree with Diderot and 142.103.243.155. Greenlanders and Eastern Canadian Eskimos can be referred to as Inuit without any second thoughts. Western Canadian Eskimos can generally be referred to the same way, but it's not entirely true. When one gets into Yupik and Iñupiaq territory, however, the term is no longer applicable under any standard.

Having Eskimo redirect to Inuit is a fallacy, as is the usage of Inuit-Aleut languages instead of Eskimo-Aleut languages. We should reorganize this article and move some information so that Eskimo refers to all the circumpolar peoples that traditionally speak Eskimo-Aleut languages, while Inuit refers only to those Eskimos whose traditional homeland lies in Eastern Canada and Greenland. A thorough explanation of the controversy surrounding the issue, as well as the continued academic use of Eskimo as a more general term and Inuit as a specific term, should be on *both* pages.

Political correctness is good, but there is such a thing as being too politically correct: with the best intentions, people found most occurances of "eskimo" in Wikipedia articles and replaced them with "Inuit". No doubt an Eastern Canadian Eskimo would probably have found their usage offensive, but the usage of the term "Inuit" for both possible meanings is ambiguous and thus should not be common practice; in addition many non-Inuit Eskimos are offended by the usage of the term "Inuit" to describe them, as they are most certainly *not* Inuit.

In addition, Inuktitut is not the language of the Eskimos, it is the language of the Inuit. Each group of Eskimos has their own language (Yupik, Inupiaq, Aleut, Siberian Yupik, Western Canadian Inuktitut [aka Inuvialuktun], Yuit, Eastern Canadian Inuktitut, sometimes Greenlandic Inuit), each distinct from the others.

The time has come to reach a mutual decision on this point rather than continued procrastination! -- Ifoolyou 00:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much to the contributors who refactored this article properly, and who resolved my ignorance as expressed in the old comments below. - Montréalais 06:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

The convention is generally to exclude the Aleuts and Yupik from the label "Inuit." The word means "people" or "human" in Inuktitut, and the Aleuts and Yupiks don't speak Inuktitut anymore than Spanyards speak Romanian. Inuit does cover the people who live north of the tree line from the east coast of Greenland to where the Yupik communities start in Alaska. "Eskimo" is a discouraged word - although not for very good reasons IMHO - and sometimes does include Aleuts and Yupiks.

-- Diderot

[edit] "Inuit" vs. "Eskimo"

The Eskimos of Alaska are also called "Inuit," or so I thought, and I thought the natives of Greenland are too. I don't know how these people are related to the natives of northern Siberia. --LMS, who is from Alaska but who is not Inuit

As far as I can gather, they are called Inuit, and belong to the subgroup Yupik. Inuit is the broadest term. - montréalais
Inuit is not the broadest term. It is the term which refers to one particular people, and most of the Yupik strongly object to being called Inuit, though they don't mind Eskimo. Inuit explicitly does not include the Yupik-- it's like using Chinese to describe all East Asians because the collective term "Oriental" is found offensive by some. Linguists continue to use Eskimo to cover both groups, cf. http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/yupik_inuit.html . Eskimo is the only broadest term to describe both. However, since the Inuit themselves object to the term, it's problematic. -- User:142.103.243.155

I have moved the material from Eskimo here and redirected it. I also added some material that was in the Esperanto ("Inuko") article. - montréalais

[edit] "Native Peoples", "First Peoples", or "Aboriginal Peoples"

I have seen "Native" used most often in the phrase "Native-newcomer relation" in Canadian history books (where "newcomer" refers to Europeans). And I've seen some Inuit-F.N.-Métis joined publications where they self-refer as "Aboriginal". But I have never heard of "First Peoples" (only "First Nations"), but apparently there are over 2,000 Googles] for it. Many are government webpages, so it must be solidly used. --Menchi 03:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Geronticide?

The Inuit practice geronticide, according to many cultural anthropology textbooks. I would love to see this incorporated in the article, because it is a fascinating and perverse idea to many in contemporary industrialized societies. The handling of this, specifically the view that it is normal or expected, reveals a lot about the harshness of their environment.

Google reveals much information on this topic, but not being well-versed in anthropology, I'd be afraid to add it.

The Inuit practiced geronticide. The past tense is important here. The ease and speed with which they abandonned it attests to how much it was a matter of necessity when they did practice it, not deeply ingrained cultural values. It was also not a universal practice - there were groups that found the notion profoundly immoral well before the missionaries showed up. Necessity was a key factor wherever it took place. Even among the Inuit who did use this practice, killing an elderly family member without the justification of severe necessity - not merely the existence of a burden - constituted murder. This point needs to be emphasized.
They cared about their old people too, but they didn't always have the means to support community members who would never be able to contribute to the real economy. The practice ended more or less with the arrival of the missionaries and, not too much later, the government. Even before that, it was something practiced largely under conditions of severe resource shortages - usually bad hunting years - and more often than not with the consent of the elderly victims. Those who knew they were a severe burden on their families often chose suicide in some form rather than remaining a burden. Infanticide was also practiced under severe conditions, as it has been in every human society. Infanticide was also more commonplace than geronticide - which has also generally been true of all human societes.
In general, the Inuit had respected elders as de facto commmunity leaders. Theirs was not a Logan's Run sort of society.
I have no objection to saying something like this in the article, but don't do the "they abandonned their elderly on ice floes" thing. That's a myth. The practice was a lot less cruel than that as I understand it. Most of the time, it was a form of assisted suicide rather than an imposed death sentence. Abandonment was far more often used for infanticide than geronticide. And, geronticide was far from expected. People did not go through their lives knowing that they would end up abandoned on the ice.
--Diderot 11:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

___________

The above post is true, it was the Elder's choice to leave the camp, no one made the person and it was a difficult thing for the entire camp. The Elder would leave the camp to fend on their own and would only do this if they had to; during a time of hardship and hunger. The Elder knew he/she had lived a long life and believed it was his/her duty to let younger people survive. (an Inuk)

[edit] Delete paragraph on race?

I wonder if others share my opinion that the paragraph that talks about race should be deleted. Race is a concept that has been discredited by scientists. Use of racial classifications perpetuate racism and usually serve no beneficial purpose. Thus, I would delete the paragraph. Thoughts?

--Vitamin D 00:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This statement is a complete lie. You probably never been to college if you demonstrate such ignorance and illiteracy on natural sciences. If you think biology and anthropology is "racism", then you're an imbecil the size of the catholic church inquisitions who despised science because it affected their beliefs. Take your socialism\communism utopias - and lies - somehwere else, preferably outside the encyclopaedic environment - Your scientific ignorance is mindboggling. Race - and anthropology - is MOST definitely THE proper science to qualify humans in race and genetic wealth, the same way several biologic sciences classify animals by genetic wealth. Ignorance of genetic wealth, races, species and sub-species IS ignorance, illiteracy - period.
I agree. It was with some hesitation that I left it in the last time I added a lot of text. It was originally much more racialist in content, so I added the bit about racial catergorisation being a contested kind of category. I have no objection to pulling it out. BUT... I think it may be appropriate to say in some way that Inuit are not like other Native Americans in a way that is different than the way that Indians are not all like each other. In the past, racial categorisation was the terminology in which this was stated. We might simply report that they object to being classified as First Nations. --Diderot 18:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that the concept of race has been discredited. In it's simplest form, race is basically synonymous with the biological concept of subspecies and refers to a population of individuals that generally share more of their genes with each other than with individuals from other populations of the same species. This results in some average phenotypic differences between populations. If distinguishing Siberian tigers from Bengal tigers is valid, than distinguishing human populations with distinct phenotypic differences is valid in the same way. The existence of racism does not depend on whether anthropologists acknowledge the term or not, so denying the concept serves no purpose and simply sacrifices scientific integrity. Having said that, I would argue that broad and antiquated categorisations of race such as mongoloid, caucasian, etc. are misleading, simplistic and unnecessarily restrictive. I would also point out that race/subspecies, like species itself, is not an immutable unit, making associations between culture (also not immutable) and race problematic.137.222.60.87 14:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subgroups

I have been led to understand that there were numerous groups that were/are Inuit, but with variations of culture and language, e.g. the Ihalmiut, N of Nueltin L., the Kinetuamiut along the Innuit Ku, the Dhaeomiut along the Coastal Barrens, and the Kiktoriaktormiut N of Dubawnt L? Can this be confirmed or expanded on in a subhead?137.150.21.134 17:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Traditional Inuit society was somewhat weakly organised on scales larger that a few families who shared a winter camp. There were vague conceptions of larger cultural and linguistic groupings among the Inuit, but those identities were somewhat fungible. A lot of early anthropologists of the Inuit read into Inuit labels the kinds of identities they expected to see. Modern Inuit identify themselves somewhat more vaguely - along modern political and geographic lines - most importantly by village - and to some extent along lines that correspond more or less to the dialect lines described at Inuktitut. I don't think any kind of comprehensive list of traditional Inuit groupings exists, or even if one could, I doubt that it would mean a whole lot. Still, some of the subgroupings from Inuktitut should be taken over to here and described. We ought to mention that Inuinnait means the same thing as Copper Eskimo, that the Uumarmiut live in the Mackenzie delta... labels that still have a modern meaning ought to be discussed. --Diderot 18:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with Inuit cuisine

I have created a Native American cuisine and I could use some help. Also what would the Inuit be refered to when talking about Greenland? Native Greenlandic cuisine or Greenlandic cuisine with a native section? I would think that there would be far more history about the natives than any Europeans and than I realize that native people may be great cooks but oral history keeping sucks for posterity. I can't wait to do Icelandic Cuisine, lol. --Rakista 02:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Greenlandic Inuit is a fairly common way of referring to aboriginal Greenlanders. As for Inuit cuisine... frozen raw seal meat sliced thin, caribou meat and seaweed flavoured with whale fat, fish raw and fried in whale fat... traditional Inuit cuisine is a lot like the famous Monty Python Spam sketch. You can eat meat, or you can get meat with a side of meat, or meat, meat, meat, seaweed and meat. And, if you don't like seaweed, you can substitute meat. Modern Inuit cuisine is a bit more balanced, with servings of Kraft dinner and canned beans accompanying the plentiful meat. --Diderot 09:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Carnivores, I love it a vegan white boy trying to chronicle a race of hardy whalers, fishers and people who actually fought polar bears with spears not guns. I'm sure it will be accurate, lol. Yeah, I am going systematically through and adding native cuisines for all the continents and nations from origins to the present day. After I do all the extant tribes of the earth I am going to do the historical ones like Cuisine of the Ancient Pueblo Peoples. [Hawaiian Native Cusisine for an example], or for something that might be out of my league like Ainu cuisine, which I just started. Thankfully it looks like the Inuit have a lot more English material there is a serious dearth of good Ainu material that I can understand. Revealing the serious dietary conflicts in modern sedentary living versus the active livliehoods of the past is a poignant topic I want to underline throughout the world's natives cuisine. --Rakista 18:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I should add: for some example recipes, go to Inuit food@Everything2.com. The recipes look more or less right to me. Meat, in meat sauce, and if you're lucky, a paste made from the half-digested contents of a caribou's stomach. Mm-mm, good! --Diderot 09:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Will do, I guess I can prepare these for my meat eating friends. --Rakista 18:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to modern day or traditional? Traditional would be (mammals) seal, walrus, caribou, muskox, polar bear (not the liver too much vitamin e), moose (southern Inuit especially around Kugluktuk), rabbits, whales and in times of starvation foxes MIGHT have been eaten. Most large birds such as swans, geese, owls, ptarmigan and ducks and their eggs. However I don't recall anyone eating owls eggs nor do owls seem to be a commonly eaten item. Not ravens and gulls as they are scavengers (but the gulls eggs are eaten) and smaller birds like terns, etc. Most fish but I do remember many years ago when someone caught a flat fish in a net it was thrown back. Some plants and berries are also edible. A quote on preparation by Joe Otokiak taken from "The Nunavut Handbook": "It was eaten raw, frozen, dried, boiled to make broth, and aged while sitting in caches and in the animals own fat." Caribou blood was added to the meat to form a broth that gives a feeling of warmth. Rancid seal flippers - that is seal flippers allowed to age in seal blubber while buried in sand during the summer until the fur falls off. I almost forgot the warble flies (I think that's what they are) larva that is found when you skin a caribou (never tried that).

As to what tastes good well pretty much all of them but I must admit that the seal flipper and muktuk were a once only try. Fried seal liver is probably my favourite but the raw liver is hard to eat. There would of course be regional differences in what was eaten as not all the animals would be found. As an example where I live it's not common to get walrus or bear.

The first changes to traditional cuisine would have been the addition of salt, soya sauce and dried soup. Frozen caribou is often dipped in soya sauce. Meat is still boiled but often with the addition of a dried soup mix for flavour and fish chowder is prepared exactly the same way as it would be in the south.

Today it's possible to get southern type foods made from traditional meats such as caribou or muskox burghers. Even the local Northern and Co-op stores in the Canadian Arctic will sell these types of things. CambridgeBayWeather 04:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

As above I am going to write enough until I can get a layout that is comfortable and that can readily be added to as more information is researched by me or others. I am currently experimenting with divying them up in ingredients and dishes topped with a cursory history. If there is anything really novel I usually add it at the end, like fast foods / restaurants / and such. Dealing with canabilism that some tribes engaged in is going to be a touchy topic I betcha, lol. I will pry need a boiler plate that tells of the last time things that are considered archaic in this age were known to be engaged in.
The cuisine articles are a hodge podge of layouts and it is hard to navigate them and understand how cuisines fuse, morph and branch off eachother which is the primary knowledge I wish to add to wikipedia. I would like to go about merely adding links, but seeing as no articles exist in the first place for many cuisines I am going to be busy for a long time. Just something else online like web comics to waste my time in graduate school I suppose.
I will be coming back after school and taking the knowledge you so kindly imparted and codifying it up. --Rakista 18:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

How dose your government work?

David switzer User:12.217.26.60
Teh government in Nunavut is democratically elected like any regular government. It is however consensus based rather than party based. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Question

what is nattik

It's a seal. Also please use Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous for that sort of question. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism(?)

Someone copy and pasted the same section over and over again throughout the article. No content was added since then, so I reverted the article to the previous edit. DMAJohnson 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I originally wrote that section - I didn't notice that it had been removed. I think it makes sense for it to be in this article. It's not copyvio or anything like that - it was originally written for this article. --Diderot 08:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It hadn't been removed; there were about seven copies of it pasted throughout the article. DMAJohnson 18:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Alaska?

I'm not certain this article belongs in Project Alaska, as the term Inuit is usually reserved for people in Greenland and Canada. Should this be removed? Deirdre 20:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter. The first sentence mentions Alaska and the woman in the picture is from Alaska. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 January 2006.
I agree that Inuit and Eskimo can and are largely used interchangeably in many contexts with no offense intended or perceived. Let's not overcomplicate things or get lost in that whole maze of semantic technicalities. Many Canadians and some Greenlanders and Danes will instinctively attempt to steer clear of that nasty imperialist E-word, but mostly communication floats along smoothly with either term. Apart from the ethnic sensitivities in the United States (and possibly Russia?) the main problems with Inuit are the formations of plurals and genitives and what not. =J //Big Adamsky 12:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If the Project Alaska tag encourages editors to help with the Inuit article then it's only a good thing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inuk

Children television program "Inuk" from Canada is something that depicts Inuits. But Inuits them selves may not see them selves this way. Information is need on this programme and it's nature.

Should this be placed as something in the main artical?

ste kokoti nejvetsi chapete to ??????????????dmntii zasrany

[edit] Filmography

The previous section hints at this; but shows and media featuring Inuit culture should maybe have a section here, ranging from The White Dawn and Atanarjuat to the Inuk show above, as well as the old Ookpik comic strip and toy. A list of Inuit word-borrowings into English (starting with anorak and mukluk and going from there) should also maybe be here; or somewhere anywaySkookum1 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stashing Partial edit by OceanFlynn

[edit] Analysis

(Edit temporarily interrupted by the real world) There is a large emerging body of literature provided by Inuit themselves that can now be used to enhance understanding of Inuit belief systems prior to contact. Aupilaarjuk, Mariano, Tulimaaq Aupilaarjuk, Lucassie Nutaraaluk, Rose Iqallijuq, Johanasi Ujarak, Isidore Ijituuq, and Michel Kupaaq. 1998. "Cosmology and Shamanism." in Interviewing Inuit Elders, edited by B. S. d'Anglure. Iqaluit, NU: Nunavut Arctic College.In Canada's North Inuit have largely adopted Christianity. Through careful analysis of Inuktitut language precise accounts of the complex role of the Angakkut both historically and currently are now better understood. The Inuit traditionally practiced a form of shamanism based basically on animist principles. Angakkut, (also spelled Angakuq', angakok) is one of a number of terms in Inuktitut used to describe men or women in the community who had special powers. Works of Inuit art depict the spread of Christianity in Canada's north and the subversion of the role of the Angakuq. Reverend Peck in Pangnirtung, Baffin Island was influential in encouraging the women of the region to perform a ritual sacrifice of an amautiq for Taleelayo, the sea goddess whose existence was inextricably linked with that of the

--Oceanflynn 23:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

References:

Arnakak, Jaypetee. 2000. "What is Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit?" in Nunatsiak News. Iqaluit, NU [1]

Aupilaarjuk, Mariano, Tulimaaq Aupilaarjuk, Lucassie Nutaraaluk, Rose Iqallijuq, Johanasi Ujarak, Isidore Ijituuq, and Michel Kupaaq. 1998. "Cosmology and Shamanism." in Interviewing Inuit Elders, edited by B. S. d'Anglure. Iqaluit, NU: Nunavut Arctic College.

Iqallijuq, Rose and Johanasi Ujarak. 1998. "The Private and Public Performances of the Angakkut: Discoveries of starvation and cannibalism through ilimmaqturniq." Pp. 159-162 in Cosmology and Shamanism: Interviewing Inuit Elders, edited by B. S. d'Anglure. Iqaluit, NU: Nunavut Arctic College.

Rideout, Denise. 2001a. "Inuit filmmaker, elder win aboriginal achievement awards." in Nunatsiaq News. http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/nunavut010228/nvt10202_13.html

—. 2001b. "Nunavut’s Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit group gets started." in Nunatsiak News. Iqaluit, NU. http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/nunavut010228/nvt10202_08.html


Teevee, Jamasie. 1973. "Taleelayo and Friends." Cape Dorset

Ungalaq, Natar. 1985. "Sedna with a Hair Brush." Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada

[edit] Merge with Eskimo

A couple of days ago I posted a comment in Talk:Eskimo suggesting to merge the Eskimo article with this article. It seems to be me that both articles are about the same topic; all Inuit groups (tribes(?)). Which in my opinion is only confusing. For example, the Inuit articles says that Eskimos are a subset of Inuits, while the Eskimo articles says that Inuit is a subset of Eskimo. Also, the Eskimo article does not have very much content.Labongo 15:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true that now there are not many contributed materials on Wikipedia about non-Inuit Eskimo groups. This fact may justify merging. But in future, this temporary fact may change, because there are more hundred pages of verifyable materials on the Eskimo goups living in Eastern Russia: Sireniki, Naukan, Ungazik groups. These are the (1) Yupik branch and (2) the Sirenik branch of Eskimo languages, and (3) Inuit is the third branch. And Eskimo with Aleut make together the Eskimo-Aleut languages family. The levels of these names can be representated by a tree visually and are based on linguistical comparisons detailed here. In the future, many new contributed materials can come to Wikipedia (for illustration: Sirenik language, a linguistic description, but there are also many ethnographic materials from verifyable sources) about non-Inuit Eskimo groups. If all these non-Inuit Eskimo contributions would be inserted into (or linked to) the Inuit article, then it could make confusion in some rare cases. I think the highly debated name Eskimo is necessary for exact classification. Physis 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I am no expert on the field, so could you clarify for me what the hierarchy of the different groups is? The nice tree [2] you provided does not mention Inuit (is it the root of the tree?). After reading the two articles my understanding is that both assume that they are at the root of the tree. The Inuit article states that; "Inuit [...] is a general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic coasts of Siberia, Alaska, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Quebec, Labrador, and Greenland (see Eskimo)" . While the Eskimo article states that: "Eskimos, or Esquimaux, are terms used to refer to people who inhabit the circumpolar region [...]. There are two main groups of Eskimos: the Inuit [...] and the Yupik [...]". So my motivation for the merge is to avoid having two "root" articles. If one is actually a subgroup of the other, then I don't support my own suggestion.Labongo 07:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that what we have here is a group of well meaning people who are trying to write a single article about the inhabitants of the circumpolar region without realising that the term "Inuit" is not the term used by them all. Over the last 30 years of so the people who live in the Central/Eastern Arctic of Canada have done an excellent job of explaining to the world that they do not like the term "Eskimo" and would prefer to be called "Inuit". In fact they have done such an good job that many people believe that all circumpolar people are called Inuit, speak Inuktitut and use Inuktitut syllabics (other people use the Latin alphabet and speak an Inuit language).
On the other hand the people who live in the Central/Western Arctic of Canada prefer the term Inuvialuit (real people", still use the word "Eskimo" and prefer not to be called "Inuit". In the Inuvialuktun and Inuinnaqtun languages the word Inuit means "people", that is any persons, no matter where they are from or their background.
As to what the people in Alaska call themselves I see that Inupiat says they are Inuit but I do wonder about that. Yupik on the other hand says "They are Eskimo and are related to the Inuit." Based on what I have read and heard, I think the people in Alaska would prefer Eskimo over Inuit and their own names over Eskimo.
As you can see I have left out the people of Greenland and that is because although they are related I don't have any knowledge of what they call themselves. I would suggest that everybody look at the talk pages of both this article and the Eskimo article and see some of the other comments on this subject. There is a similar one to mine above called "Are we going to act?". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Labongo,
Excuse me for the tree, which I mentioned, did not contain Inuit (just a specific group of them). A better tree can be seen at Ethnologue report for Eskimo-Aleut. There is also a better distribution map than that I had provided before, for it may give a better overview.
Also I found now that the Inuit article suggests, that term Eskimo may be regarded as more restrictive than Inuit. Maybe the possible confusion can be ameliorated by mentioning at that place in the text something like “The term Eskimo is also used in some linguistical or ethnographical works to denote the bigger branch of Eskimo-Aleut languages (the other one being Aleut), in this usage, Inuit (together with Yupik, and maybe also Sirenik), are subbranches of Eskimo” (sorry for my bad English).
Unfortunatelly, neither I am an expert on this area. I began to learn Sirenik language and the language of Siberian Yupik, but my knowledge on Eskimo-Aleut people, culture and languages is no more than beginning level.
Thank You for Your reply, and best wishes,
Physis 13:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Physis, thank you for the clarification. Based on the language hierarchy (also shown in Eskimo-Aleut_languages), Inuit is a subgroup of Eskimo. Hence the articles should not be merged, but the Inuit article needs to be changed to reflect this.Labongo 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Labongo,
Thank You for Your reply. I have added to Inuit#Eskimo:
The term “Eskimo” is also used in some linguistical or ethnographical works
to denote the bigger branch of Eskimo-Aleut languages (the other one being Aleut).
In this usage, Inuit (together with Yupik, and maybe also Sirenik), are subbranches of Eskimo.
See details in articles Eskimo and Eskimo-Aleut languages.
and I extended the leader text of the cited article Eskimo with a short summary on classification, and references.
Best wishes,
Physis 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge - it's highy time that offensive Eskimo page was dealt with. After the merge, the Eskimo page can be replaced with a pointer to this page, the disambiguation page, and whatever little relevent information should be on that page, than this page. 66.46.158.227 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As explained above I oppose my own suggestion, since I was explained that Eskimo consists of the two groups Inuit and Yupik. The Eskimo article states that Inuit's find the term offensive. Note that I have limited knowledge about the difference between Inuit and Yupik, so I do not know whether they consider themselves to be one people (and hence whether the Eskimo article is needed at all).Labongo 11:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, 66.46.158.227, the Yup'ik people find using the term "Inuit" to refer to them as offensive. Unfortunately, you can't avoid offending people. It's no good saying "Well, Oriental is offensive, so let's just call all East Asians 'Chinese.'".

[edit] Inuit and bathing

My father used to know an Inuit who immigrated to sweden told him that in inuit tradition they only shower three times in their life time. The first time is when they are born, the second time when they got married and the third time before their death. Can anybody clarify if this is true?

Han 2006 16 November.

No, it's not true. --Diderot 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who put this in?

"...The inuit race also has a longrunning steriotype of drinking mouthwash, in addition to contracting hepatitus and clubbing seals." (Spelling and grammar errors in original.) 68.82.9.59 02:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inuit

The inuit's are very amazing people to live in the freezing weather and live in huge ice cubes practicley. They're an igloo doesn't have to be made of ice. "Igloo" is simply an inuit word for house. I am trying to collect information on these remarkable people and if you have any comments please edit this article thank you.

[edit] Altaic peoples?

The names of these native peoples/tribes sound similar to the names of Turkic people's of central Asia and the Russian Federation.

Their names,features and geographic locations make them all the more likely to have a common ancestry to the Altaic peoples. I know the Altaic defination is still disputed among lunguists and anthropologist,but if any sources can point to any linguistic or genetic similarity to the Turkic peoples,then it will help to draw a common connection (and not culture or traditions mind you) among altaic people's even though the defination is still a bit unclear.Nadirali نادرالی

Nonsensical speculations. Please note that Wikipedia does not accept original research; see also Pseudoscientific language comparison.--AAikio 09:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/u/Talk%7EInuit_44b2.html"