5 ms·
In all seriousness, I wonder how long it will be until "First Nations" and "Inuit" become derogatory. I didn't even know "Native American" was bad, to be hones
by ravenstine 5y ago
In all seriousness, I wonder how long it will be until "First Nations" and "Inuit" become derogatory. I didn't even know "Native American" was bad, to be honest.
- AlotOfReading 5y agoThere are already people who consider terms like "Inuit" homogenizing and insulting. There are thousands of indigenous groups in the Americas and every person in them can have their own preferences and opinions. There isn't a singular term to refer to the totality of their identities any more than there is for "Eurasians".
- coldtea 5y ago>There are thousands of indigenous groups in the Americas and every person in them can have their own preferences and opinions. Well, the same is the case with Europeans, Asians, and so on, so? We have smaller identities, and larger group identities, it's not belonging or being categorized in one precludes the smaller more unique identity...
- HWR_14 5y agoLogically, being characterized at one level doesn't prevent categorization into finer or coarser levels. In reality, there is a finite amount of information that can be conveyed, and the level of characterization is often whatever you lead with. There are important trade offs to be made with fitting in with a larger group vs being characterized as the mixture of traits of said larger group.
- AlotOfReading 5y agoIt's not a higher level label, they simply don't consider themselves Inuit in the same way Canadians generally don't consider themselves "American".
- Dylan16807 5y agoThe problem there is that "American" has two meanings. Not that it's homogenizing. Does "Inuit" have two meanings?
- detaro 5y agoIt's more like if you took American to just mean "people of the USA". So it's more like "Canadians don't consider themselves part of the people of the USA". Inuit refers to a specific subgroup of people which have it as a word in their language. Many of those not in it, if you apply the label to them, they view it as if you insisted Canadians were part of the US people because "they live in the roughly same area and live kind of similarly". Part of it is the word Eskimo. Not popular and falling out of fashion, people look for a replacement, and grabbed what a large subgroup of the people called that calls itself. And thus mislabeling those that are not in that subgroup. To stretch the analogy again, lets assume for some reason "North American" has become a word to avoid, so lets just call all North Americans what the people from the USA call themselves to be more considerate. And the Canadians aren't happy with that.
- Zababa 5y agoLots of people living in Europe don't consider themselves europeans.
- coldtea 5y agoThat's not much a problem, usually a characterization is for use by others, you don't necessarily have to agree. Germans don't consider themselves living in "Germany" either. Or, names like "Balkans" are not necessarily preferable by those there, but that's life.
- detaro 5y agoIt's more as if you decided to call Austrians "Germans" too because you can't be bothered to make the distinction.
- 5y ago
- runarberg 5y agoI have never heard anyone taking offense to the word Inuit. It simply means "people" in Kalaallisut.
- AlotOfReading 5y agoGreenland is quite far from places like Utqiagvik and Chukotka, where indigenous locals speak entirely different languages. Is it any surprise some people wouldn't want to be labeled that way? I'll admit "inuit" is pretty widely accepted nowadays, but it's not universally so. The relevant ANLC page gives a good summary of the situation: https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php
- orthoxerox 5y agoEurasians sounds like a neat way to group people who are given a handicap when they apply to Harvard.
- boomboomsubban 5y agoNative American is giving them the name of an Italian man who helped colonize them, it's not difficult to see why that's a poor name choice.