3 ms·
Further, to be pedantic, it seems needless to call them the Arctic Inuit as they only live in the Arctic.
by cf100clunk 5y ago
Further, to be pedantic, it seems needless to call them the Arctic Inuit as they only live in the Arctic.
- mrfusion 5y agoSo far …
- loufe 5y agoPedantically that's incorrect. Some Inuit communities live far below the arctic circle, which technically makes them non-arctic Inuit.
- qiskit 5y agoThen it should only be Inuit since I'm assuming the Inuit outside of the arctic also have these ancient genes. The title makes it seem like only the inuit who live in the arctic have these genes. But I doubt that's the case.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoSince we're being pedantic, it should be pointed out that they are not all "Inuit" by any means. Inuit is primarily a term used in Canada. In Alaska, besides the Native American tribes ("Indians") that also live in some of the same areas, there are Inupiat, Yupik, and Aleut. The Inupiat are fairly closely related in culture and language to the Canadian Inuit, but the Yupik and Aleut are considerably further apart in terms of language. Calling a Yupik an "Inuit" is sort of like calling an Italian "French" just because they both speak a Romance language. They tend to not like that very much. :-)
- astrange 5y ago> In Alaska, besides the Native American tribes ("Indians") A twist on this is that even though Native American sounds more correct (doesn't imply being from India, is longer and bureaucratic), they'd actually rather be called Indians. It helps to claim it's short for Indigenous.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoFor that matter, I know Inupiat and Yupik who live in Los Angeles. :-)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- eloff 5y agoI think it's useful for people who are unfamiliar with who the Inuit are.