Tags: deprecated, deprecationwarning, inequality, loooooong, ltgt, operator, programming, python, time, trigger

<> and DeprecationWarning

On Programmer » Python

114,508 words with 77 Comments; publish: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:02:00 GMT; (200185.55, « »)

Hi,

the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

Is there a reason that it doesn't trigger a DeprecationWarning?

$ python2.2 -Wall -c "print 0 <> 0"

0

$ python2.3 -Wall -c "print 0 <> 0"

False

Or is the only reason that is has never been implemented?

IANACS, but this doesn't seem very complicated to implement to me...

yours,

Gerrit.

--

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.

-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law

--

Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:

http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/

Kom in verzet tegen dit kabinet:

http://www.sp.nl/

All Comments

Leave a comment...

  • 77 Comments
    • Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisa(a):

      > the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

      Who said that?

      --

      [ Wojtek Walczak - gminick (at) underground.org.pl ]

      [ <http://gminick.linuxsecurity.pl/> ]

      [ "...rozmaite zwroty, matowe od patyny dawnosci." ]

      #1; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:03:00 GMT
    • Gerrit Holl wrote in article

      <mailman.242.1066645130.2192.python-list.python.todaysummary.com.python.org>:

      > Hi,

      > the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

      Deprecated where? Possibly it is kept for backwards compatability, but it

      still works fine in Python 2.3:

      >>> 1==1

      True

      >>> 1!=1

      False

      >>> 1<>1

      False

      >>> 1<>2

      True

      >>> 1==2

      False

      --

      Todd Stephens

      ICQ# 3150790

      "A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire

      #2; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:04:00 GMT
    • On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 11:21, Wojtek Walczak wrote:

      > Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisa(a):

      > > the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

      > Who said that?

      Well, Guido doesn't like it, but Just does, so that cancels out the Van

      Rossum vote <wink>. I'm on Just's side though, but this is about as

      religious an argument as Pythoneers get. I'm confident there's no way

      <> can be officially deprecated as long as Python 2.x is alive.

      -Barry

      --BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--

      Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

      iQCVAwUAP5QC0XEjvBPtnXfVAQJbtAP+Jk7p783PUDnclFvYW0 h6lddjPENkkBr3

      YUbE5DbjNkBG+bDspyX2lNU3z3k60jBlhHKLXEe3wdccysi4ad EpGRdFiSM+iUU0

      suvcN2Y4FnRXG4t+xKi+qAcoXdU/Qy8EjPddWD7J0Q0PPq2O2yoOgwxUDDYm30dv

      ApwafLLHPZ8=

      =1J2M

      --END PGP SIGNATURE--

      #3; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:05:00 GMT
    • Todd Stephens wrote:

      > Gerrit Holl wrote in article

      > <mailman.242.1066645130.2192.python-list.python.todaysummary.com.python.org>:

      >> Hi,

      >>

      >> the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

      >>

      > Deprecated where? Possibly it is kept for backwards compatability, but it

      > still works fine in Python 2.3:

      http://www.python.org/doc/current/ref/operators.html :

      """

      The comparison operators <> and != are alternate spellings of the same

      operator. != is the preferred spelling; <> is obsolescent.

      """

      Alex

      #4; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:06:00 GMT
    • Wojtek Walczak wrote:

      > Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisa?(a):

      >> the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

      > Who said that?

      Python's official docs, e.g.:

      http://www.python.org/doc/current/ref/operators.html

      The exact word used is "obsolescent" rather than "deprecated".

      Alex

      #5; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:07:00 GMT
    • In article <mailman.259.1066664663.2192.python-list.python.todaysummary.com.python.org>,

      Barry Warsaw <barry.python.todaysummary.com.python.org> wrote:

      > On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 11:21, Wojtek Walczak wrote:

      > > Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisa(a):

      > > > the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

      > > Who said that?

      > Well, Guido doesn't like it, but Just does, so that cancels out the Van

      > Rossum vote <wink>. I'm on Just's side though, but this is about as

      > religious an argument as Pythoneers get.

      I've long since given in, though... I don't like having two ways to

      spell one thing any more than the next guy. In the end it's just a

      matter of what you're used to, and I'm totally used to != now. (Heck,

      you can even find me occasionally indenting with _spaces_, that's how

      low I've sunk ;-)

      > I'm confident there's no way

      > <> can be officially deprecated as long as Python 2.x is alive.

      That's for sure.

      Just

      #6; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:08:00 GMT
    • Wojtek Walczak wrote:

      > Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisa(a):

      > > the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

      > Who said that?

      The documentation calls it obsolete:

      """

      <> and != are alternate spellings for the same operator. != is the preferred spelling; <> is obsolescent.

      """

      (http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel...omparisons.html)

      Is there a difference between obsolescent, obsolete and deprecated?

      yours,

      Gerrit.

      --

      215. If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and

      cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and

      saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.

      -- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law

      --

      Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:

      http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/

      Kom in verzet tegen dit kabinet:

      http://www.sp.nl/

      #7; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:09:00 GMT
    • Gerrit> Is there a difference between obsolescent, obsolete and

      Gerrit> deprecated?

      Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?) having

      several different words for "snow". The subtle differences are lost on

      people who've never seen snow. ;-)

      Dictionary.com (via Google) shows these relevant (and related) definitions:

      obsolescent - Being in the process of passing out of use or usefulness;

      becoming obsolete. (Also, in a biological sense "gradually

      disappearing".

      obsolete - No longer in use or outmoded in design, style, or

      construction (two definitions).

      deprecate - To express disapproval of; deplore, or to belittle;

      depreciate.

      Of these, deprecate's computer meaning seems to be quite far from it's

      using in non-computer English. Further down the page, it shows a couple

      more-to-our-needs definitions of deprecate:

      Said of a program or feature that is considered obsolescent and in the

      process of being phased out, usually in favour of a specified

      replacement. Deprecated features can, unfortunately, linger on for many

      years. This term appears with distressing frequency in standards

      documents when the committees writing the documents realise that large

      amounts of extant (and presumably happily working) code depend on the

      feature(s) that have passed out of favour. (from The Free On-line

      Dictionary of Computing)

      Said of a program or feature that is considered obsolescent and in the

      process of being phased out, usually in favor of a specified

      replacement. Deprecated features can, unfortunately, linger on for many

      years. This term appears with distressing frequency in standards

      documents when the committees writing the documents realize that large

      amounts of extant (and presumably happily working) code depend on the

      feature(s) that have passed out of favor. (from the Jargon File)

      In the context of discussions about '<>', I think "obsolecent" and

      "deprecated" mean roughly the same thing, though "deprecated" suggests a

      more formal notion. In Python, if a language feature is deprecated, there

      is generally a specified sunset period. As Barry suggests, even though '<>'

      is obsolescent, it's likely to be around for a long while.

      One might speculate that as 3.0 nears, the last release or two in the 2.x

      line might provide a way for programmers to run their code with a __future__

      import something like

      from __future__ import deprecated_in_3

      or if the effect is desired more globally, to specify a --three or -3 flag

      on the interpreter command line.

      Skip

      #9; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:11:00 GMT
    • Gerrit Holl wrote:

      > Wojtek Walczak wrote:

      > > Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisa(a):

      > > > the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

      > > Who said that?

      > The documentation calls it obsolete:

      > """

      > <> and != are alternate spellings for the same operator. != is the preferred spelling; <> is obsolescent.

      > """

      > (http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel...omparisons.html)

      > Is there a difference between obsolescent, obsolete and deprecated?

      The word obsolete is deprecated; use obscolescent instead. ;-)

      -Peter

      #10; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:12:00 GMT
    • "Skip Montanaro" <skip.python.todaysummary.com.pobox.com> wrote in message

      news:mailman.263.1066669744.2192.python-list.python.todaysummary.com.python.org...

      > In the context of discussions about '<>', I think "obsolecent" and

      > "deprecated" mean roughly the same thing, though "deprecated" suggests a

      > more formal notion. In Python, if a language feature is deprecated, there

      > is generally a specified sunset period. As Barry suggests, even though '<>'

      > is obsolescent, it's likely to be around for a long while.

      In Fortran, it's the other way round. Heinous constructs like computed

      GOTOs are obsolesecent in Fortran 90 and removed in Fortran 95,

      whilst COMMON blocks are merely deprecated.

      As you suggest, the subtle distinctions that may exist probably have to give

      way to locally accepted usage.

      #11; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:13:00 GMT
    • On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 13:59, Erik Max Francis wrote:

      > Now comes the argument over whether _obsolescent_ and _deprecated_ are

      > synonymous in this context :-).

      Technically, I'd say they aren't because <> constructs don't generate

      deprecation warnings.

      -Barry

      --BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--

      Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

      iQCVAwUAP5Qve3EjvBPtnXfVAQKqqQP9F8Cssp43inCQT5SG8F KKjBrZQ6kodJZX

      D0MTBEtFR/BMnXo5ZRSaTgd16jwKc8c60ZNC48WTIij9pmQB0Qvi/JSHwIrJcI1r

      wjfh/B3O6BQXHtiqtJtyMhgt5kdYtJgDo5UKE2TOHjppu3/5zPSmtfDROm6nELBG

      wyAtPIi2EsE=

      =LwG0

      --END PGP SIGNATURE--

      #12; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:14:00 GMT
    • Barry Warsaw <barry.python.todaysummary.com.python.org> wrote previously:

      |I'm confident there's no way <> can be officially deprecated

      Heck, we true believers should be more ambitious: Deprecate the

      heretical '!=' pseudo-assignment!

      #13; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:15:00 GMT
    • Barry Warsaw wrote:

      > On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 13:59, Erik Max Francis wrote:

      >> Now comes the argument over whether _obsolescent_ and _deprecated_ are

      >> synonymous in this context :-).

      > Technically, I'd say they aren't because <> constructs don't generate

      > deprecation warnings.

      So let's introduce obsolescence warnings...!-)

      Alex

      #14; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:16:00 GMT
    • Barry Warsaw wrote:

      > Technically, I'd say they aren't because <> constructs don't generate

      > deprecation warnings.

      I was being semifacetious. In my experience, usually they are used in

      different ways. Deprecation is a stricter form of obsolescence.

      Obsolescent just means that the feature should no longer be used, since

      it has been replaced by superior forms. Deprecated means that an

      obsolescent form has actually been marked for future removal. A

      deprecated feature can be removed, an obsolescent feature can become

      deprecated.

      --

      Erik Max Francis && max.python.todaysummary.com.alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/

      __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE

      / \ If you're not besides me / I'll do your best / To carry on

      \__/ India Arie

      #15; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:17:00 GMT
    • On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 14:45, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:

      > Barry Warsaw <barry.python.todaysummary.com.python.org> wrote previously:

      > |I'm confident there's no way <> can be officially deprecated

      >

      > Heck, we true believers should be more ambitious: Deprecate the

      > heretical '!=' pseudo-assignment!

      Now there's a bold and enlightened Pythoneer! Three cheers!

      -Barry

      --BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--

      Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

      iQCVAwUAP5Q6BnEjvBPtnXfVAQIW3QP/YfcIce7L8JJ/oWwjbY49wTjUHd2j6lGm

      zTwhC3rUs7ISpCkZtt0O0Yj+vOTPmLIgAZopbRu/VGxJo5JMOmigWxxI+f9PEliI

      H0Hs/Ly9GDcXntyF71w9rAHK0oOiSgCZttdHeybADcPx/x0bTw+kOD1Q96rhRejT

      EXAAk/uAg3Y=

      =9DHp

      --END PGP SIGNATURE--

      #16; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:18:00 GMT
    • On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 15:09, Alex Martelli wrote:

      > Barry Warsaw wrote:

      >

      > > On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 13:59, Erik Max Francis wrote:

      > >

      > >> Now comes the argument over whether _obsolescent_ and _deprecated_ are

      > >> synonymous in this context :-).

      > >

      > > Technically, I'd say they aren't because <> constructs don't generate

      > > deprecation warnings.

      >

      > So let's introduce obsolescence warnings...!-)

      class

      SilentPendingMisguidedObsolescenceSuggestion(Pendi ngDeprecationWarning):

      pass

      :)

      --BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--

      Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

      iQCVAwUAP5Q6X3EjvBPtnXfVAQJ9mAP/f51+7+eVX3gKDWVifqI3sDM4MNv8Y345

      Tk0kvPsqKEYpM60U2DrkVmpVCinkuEQnP+9nBbNye7M/30VRt8VGqbBpNjdNCvSu

      mJPjt51kjd4cQaejSHY7/3Kr0Fn8SXHVXvKRcXegadX27ZuFQj2sonsIuRtfWnTm

      yk36wyRta4M=

      =KW/x

      --END PGP SIGNATURE--

      #17; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:19:00 GMT
    • Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:44:17 -0400, Barry Warsaw napisa(a):

      >> > the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong tim=

      > e.

      >> Who said that?

      > Well, Guido doesn't like it, but Just does, so that cancels out the Van

      > Rossum vote <wink>. I'm on Just's side though, but this is about as

      > religious an argument as Pythoneers get. I'm confident there's no way

      ><> can be officially deprecated as long as Python 2.x is alive.

      Is there any outline to mark it as deprecated in docs and the code

      somewhere between 2.x and 3.0? I know that this is _distant future_,

      but we can think about it and maybe vote. I'm on Guido's side not

      because I don't like it, but because I think that Python doesn't need

      two 'not equal' operators. It reminds me about ruby and its methods

      for built-in classes which are doubled in some cases. This is nothing more

      than a pollution.

      --

      [ Wojtek Walczak - gminick (at) underground.org.pl ]

      [ <http://gminick.linuxsecurity.pl/> ]

      [ "...rozmaite zwroty, matowe od patyny dawnosci." ]

      #18; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:20:00 GMT
    • Skip Montanaro fed this fish to the penguins on Monday 20 October 2003

      10:08 am:

      > Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)

      I believe (but will admit that there is a chance that it is a

      localized group) that "Eskimo" has been superceded by "Inuit". (Which,

      to most of the US, is probably on par with stating that <> has been

      superceded by !=)

      --

      > ================================================== ============ <

      > wlfraed.python.todaysummary.com.ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <

      > wulfraed.python.todaysummary.com.dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <

      > ================================================== ============ <

      > Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <

      > Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <

      #19; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:21:00 GMT
    • Skip Montanaro fed this fish to the penguins on Monday 20 October 2003

      10:08 am:

      > Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)

      {Continuing the previous response -- I don't know of any way to

      retrieve for editing a message that has been "sent" from KNode; unlike

      Agent's outbox}

      I think my dislike for != is that Python /does/ have a NOT keyword,

      unlike C, where the ! alone is "not".

      So I guess that I'm saying I'd have preferred to see

      x not == y

      (though this is where folks complaining about == vs = get the advantage)

      vs

      x != y

      Though I feel comfortable with

      x <> y

      (it's faster to type, among other things -- left-shift, rock the right

      hand over the ., keys -- vs right-shift, 1, move from right-shift to =)

      --

      > ================================================== ============ <

      > wlfraed.python.todaysummary.com.ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <

      > wulfraed.python.todaysummary.com.dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <

      > ================================================== ============ <

      > Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <

      > Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <

      #20; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:22:00 GMT
    • Alex Martelli <aleax.python.todaysummary.com.aleax.it> writes:

      > Barry Warsaw wrote:

      > > On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 13:59, Erik Max Francis wrote:

      > >> Now comes the argument over whether _obsolescent_ and _deprecated_ are

      > >> synonymous in this context :-).

      > > Technically, I'd say they aren't because <> constructs don't generate

      > > deprecation warnings.

      > So let's introduce obsolescence warnings...!-)

      What about anathematized and so on?

      http://mail.python.org/pipermail/py...ber/011113.html

      Cheers,

      mwh

      --

      In short, just business as usual in the wacky world of floating

      point <wink>. -- Tim Peters, comp.lang.python

      #21; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:23:00 GMT
    • Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

      > Skip Montanaro fed this fish to the penguins on Monday 20 October 2003

      > 10:08 am:

      > > Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)

      > I believe (but will admit that there is a chance that it is a

      > localized group) that "Eskimo" has been superceded by "Inuit". (Which,

      > to most of the US, is probably on par with stating that <> has been

      > superceded by !=)

      The people are called Inuit. Eskimo is a European term, meaning "flesh

      eater". It is not used by the Inuit, since it is not a kind name.

      yours,

      Gerrit.

      --

      199. If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a

      man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

      -- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law

      --

      Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:

      http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/

      Kom in verzet tegen dit kabinet:

      http://www.sp.nl/

      #22; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:24:00 GMT
    • >> Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)

      Dennis> I believe (but will admit that there is a chance that it is a

      Dennis> localized group) that "Eskimo" has been superceded by

      Dennis> "Inuit".

      I considered "Inuit", but thought that "Inuit" related to "Eskimo" as

      "Cherokee" related to "American Indian" (also no p.c. but common usage until

      the last 20 years or so). So, I guess the [OT] pop quiz of the day is (fill

      in the blank):

      "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      Dennis> (Which, to most of the US, is probably on par with stating that

      Dennis> <> has been superceded by !=)

      Indeed.

      Skip

      #23; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:25:00 GMT
    • Skip Montanaro wrote:

      > "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      > Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original

      inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in

      their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or

      'person'.

      the word 'eskimo' was a pejorative term used by (non-inuit) peoples living

      further to the south on the american continent, and has the meaning 'eater

      of raw meat'. because of this origin, it is disfavoured.

      --

      Joost Kremers

      since when is vi an editor? a discussion on vi belongs in

      comp.tools.unusable or something... ;-)

      #24; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:26:00 GMT
    • Joost Kremers wrote:

      > Skip Montanaro wrote:

      > > "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      > > Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      > to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original

      > inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in

      > their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or

      > 'person'.

      > the word 'eskimo' was a pejorative term used by (non-inuit) peoples living

      > further to the south on the american continent, and has the meaning 'eater

      > of raw meat'. because of this origin, it is disfavoured.

      And not just disfavoured, but deprecated *and* obsolete, except, clearly

      in the some parts outside .ca, where in the context of this thread we

      obviously have to say it's merely "obsolescent". ;-)

      -Peter

      #25; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:27:00 GMT
    • Dennis> Though I feel comfortable with

      Dennis> x <> y

      I suspect anyone who's written significant amounts of Pascal will find it

      comfortable (though I imagine that population is dwindling as CS departments

      struggle to make their programs more "relevant" and bow to the gods from

      Redmond). '!=' makes more mnemonic sense if you're a C programmer, despite

      being slightly harder to type. '<>' sort of suggests 'less than or greater

      than'. Maybe it should be written as '<|>'.

      I-think-we-need-a-<wink>-operator-ly, y'rs,

      Skip

      #26; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:28:00 GMT
    • Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

      > Skip Montanaro fed this fish to the penguins on Monday 20 October 2003

      > 10:08 am:

      > > Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)

      > Though I feel comfortable with

      > x <> y

      > (it's faster to type, among other things -- left-shift, rock the right

      > hand over the ., keys -- vs right-shift, 1, move from right-shift to =)

      The problem to me is that it does not feel logical for non numeric types.

      For me, x <> y reads as "x < y or x > y", which is not the same thing.

      I don't really like != either, since ! is quite arbitrary for "not", but

      I guess it is the least bad solution.

      yours,

      Gerrit.

      --

      130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another

      man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and

      sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the

      wife is blameless.

      -- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law

      --

      Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:

      http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/

      Kom in verzet tegen dit kabinet:

      http://www.sp.nl/

      #27; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:29:00 GMT
    • Peter Hansen wrote:

      ~ Joost Kremers wrote:

      ~ >

      ~ > Skip Montanaro wrote:

      ~ > > "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      ~ ~ > > Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      ~ >

      ~ > to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original

      ~ > inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in

      ~ > their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or

      ~ > 'person'.

      ~ >

      ~ > the word 'eskimo' was a pejorative term used by (non-inuit) peoples living

      ~ > further to the south on the american continent, and has the meaning 'eater

      ~ > of raw meat'. because of this origin, it is disfavoured.

      ~

      ~ And not just disfavoured, but deprecated *and* obsolete, except, clearly

      ~ in the some parts outside .ca, where in the context of this thread we

      ~ obviously have to say it's merely "obsolescent". ;-)

      I didn't know Eskimo was a bad word. I didn't know American Indian was a

      bad word(s) either. When I was little we called Native Americans "Red

      Indians". I guess that wouldn't go down very well today, that's the term

      I use in my head though, just cos I'm used to it. Come to think of it, if

      you said the word America to me when I was little, I thought of Native

      Americans only and not, erm, "Modern Americans".

      I'm 25 and from England btw.

      #28; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:30:00 GMT
    • In article <mailman.297.1066748057.2192.python-list.python.todaysummary.com.python.org>,

      Skip Montanaro <skip.python.todaysummary.com.pobox.com> wrote:

      ...

      > >> Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)

      > Dennis> I believe (but will admit that there is a chance that it is a

      > Dennis> localized group) that "Eskimo" has been superceded by

      > Dennis> "Inuit".

      > I considered "Inuit", but thought that "Inuit" related to "Eskimo" as

      > "Cherokee" related to "American Indian" (also no p.c. but common usage until

      > the last 20 years or so). So, I guess the [OT] pop quiz of the day is (fill

      > in the blank):

      > "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      > Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      I'm a few hours south of that border, but then the people

      in question aren't confined to Canada anyway.

      The way I understand it, Eskimo still prevails, in the absence

      of any general alternative.

      Your understanding of Inuit agrees with mine - they might well

      prefer that term, but Yupik Eskimo people presumably wouldn't.

      The only clear error is to confuse the Aleuts with Eskimos.

      Donn Cave, donn.python.todaysummary.com.u.washington.edu

      #29; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:31:00 GMT
    • Skip Montanaro <skip.python.todaysummary.com.pobox.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.297.1066748057.2192.python-list.python.todaysummary.com.python.org>...

      > >> Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)

      > So, I guess the [OT] pop quiz of the day is (fill

      > in the blank):

      > "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      > Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      I think 'Inuit' would be best here. For a decent definition, see

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inuit

      We also use 'aboriginal', but that is a broader term that also includes

      southerners.

      #30; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:32:00 GMT
    • Gerrit Holl <gerrit.python.todaysummary.com.nl.linux.org> wrote previously:

      |The problem to me is that it does not feel logical for non numeric types.

      |For me, x <> y reads as "x < y or x > y", which is not the same thing.

      This still makes sense to me in a kind of metaphorical way, even for

      non-comparable types. Of course, I'm on record as disliking things that

      don't compare successfully (an abomination introduced relatively

      recently), so I guess that influences it.

      The problem, to my mind, with '!=' is the series:

      x += y

      x -= y

      x %= y

      x &= y

      x != y

      One of these things is not like the others. REALLY, really not like the

      others (the first four are assignment statements, the last an

      expression).

      Nonetheless, I'm with Just here. Despite being the worse spelling, only

      having '!=' is better than having two alternatives. And when they pry

      the '<>' from my cold, dead hands, I'll stop using it in the next life

      (where the angels program in Python 3000).

      Yours, David...

      --

      mertz.python.todaysummary.com. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY:_/_/_/_/ v i

      gnosis _/_/ Postmodern Enterprises _/_/ s r

      ..cx _/_/ MAKERS OF CHAOS... _/_/ i u

      _/_/_/_/_/ LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU_/_/_/_/_/ g s

      #31; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:33:00 GMT
    • In article <639f17f8.0310211020.53f31dbe.python.todaysummary.com.posting.google.com>,

      nholtz.python.todaysummary.com.docuweb.ca (Neal Holtz) wrote:

      > Skip Montanaro <skip.python.todaysummary.com.pobox.com> wrote in message

      > news:<mailman.297.1066748057.2192.python-list.python.todaysummary.com.python.org>...

      > > >> Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)

      > > So, I guess the [OT] pop quiz of the day is (fill

      > > in the blank):

      > > "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      > > Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      > I think 'Inuit' would be best here. For a decent definition, see

      > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inuit

      Hm, so follow that to usage note for Eskimo and read that

      there is no general substitute that includes all people

      known as Eskimos, and further that the supposed grounds

      for offense is doubtful anyway.

      To call a Yupik "Inuit", is like calling a Norwegian "Swedish"

      because some unknown person once claimed that "Scandinavian"

      meant "eater of smelly cheese".

      Donn Cave, donn.python.todaysummary.com.u.washington.edu

      #32; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:34:00 GMT
    • David Mertz wrote:

      > One of these things is not like the others. REALLY, really not like

      > the

      > others (the first four are assignment statements, the last an

      > expression).

      But in that case, why doesn't

      x == y

      send you into a recursive discomfort loop from which you never return

      :-)?

      --

      Erik Max Francis && max.python.todaysummary.com.alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/

      __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE

      / \ God is love, but get it in writing.

      \__/ Gypsy Rose Lee

      #33; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:35:00 GMT
    • > "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      >Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      To my (eu-domain) eye the use of "American Indian" instead of "Indian

      American" is strange. To mention that "Eskimos have more than X names

      for snow" is not done here because of overexposure to the concept, yet

      I did it twice today, once comparing it to the number of names French

      Europeans have for "maronnes" and now this post.

      Anton

      #34; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:36:00 GMT
    • anton.python.todaysummary.com.vredegoor.doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) wrote previously:

      |> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      |>Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      |To my (eu-domain) eye the use of "American Indian" instead of "Indian

      |American" is strange.

      Incidentally, in Canada, "First Nations" is generally used rather than

      "Native American." But in either case, Native Americans themselves are

      quite split--as would be any group of people when it comes to

      politics--over best names. In a lot of cases, when referring to a

      particular person, naming her particular nation and tribe (Navaho, Oglala

      Sioux, etc.) is better. But lots of NAs themselves prefer "Indian" as a

      term.

      Probably an influence on the names is that Canada has a much larger

      percentage of Indian immigrants (i.e. from India) than does the US--or

      their families of 2nd or 3rd generation. The name "Indian" quite apart

      from coming from a 500 year old mistake, refers to a quite different

      large group of Canadians. Not that Indian-Americans are a rarity in the

      USA either, but we USAians are really quite thick in the head, as a

      rule.

      Yours, Lulu...

      --

      _/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/

      _/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[mertz.python.todaysummary.com.gnosis.cx]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/

      _/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/

      _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/

      #35; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:37:00 GMT
    • Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:

      > Probably an influence on the names is that Canada has a much larger

      > percentage of Indian immigrants (i.e. from India) than does the US--or

      > their families of 2nd or 3rd generation. The name "Indian" quite

      > apart

      > from coming from a 500 year old mistake, refers to a quite different

      > large group of Canadians. Not that Indian-Americans are a rarity in

      > the

      > USA either, but we USAians are really quite thick in the head, as a

      > rule.

      I suspect that in and around large cities, thus tending toward greater

      diversity, the unadorned term _Indian_ will be assumed to refer to Asian

      Indians rather than Native Americans. I certainly know that's always

      been the case around here (San Francisco South Bay Area), even well

      before the dot com bubble in which the demand for software people

      brought a lot of (Asian) Indian folks over here. Particularly with the

      more common usage of the term "Native American," I think the inherent

      ambiguity in the group name _Indian_ is starting to fade here in the US.

      --

      Erik Max Francis && max.python.todaysummary.com.alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/

      __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE

      / \ Extremes meet.

      \__/ John Hall Wheelock

      #36; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:38:00 GMT
    • Anton Vredegoor wrote:

      > To my (eu-domain) eye the use of "American Indian" instead of "Indian

      > American" is strange.

      Do you mean American Indian and Indian-American meaning different things

      (they do; the former refers to Native Americans and the latter refers to

      naturalized Indians of Asian origin), or that American Indian (i.e.,

      Native Americans) should be better be referred to as Indian Americans

      (which it shouldn't, X-American means a naturalized person from X, like

      Japanese-American or Polish-American).

      --

      Erik Max Francis && max.python.todaysummary.com.alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/

      __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE

      / \ Extremes meet.

      \__/ John Hall Wheelock

      #37; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:40:00 GMT
    • In article <3F94257A.FEE61697.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com>, Peter Hansen wrote:

      > Gerrit Holl wrote:

      >>

      >> Wojtek Walczak wrote:

      >> > Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisa(a):

      >> > > the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

      >> > Who said that?

      >>

      >> The documentation calls it obsolete:

      >> """

      >> <> and != are alternate spellings for the same operator. != is the preferred spelling; <> is obsolescent.

      >> """

      >> (http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel...omparisons.html)

      >>

      >> Is there a difference between obsolescent, obsolete and deprecated?

      > The word obsolete is deprecated; use obscolescent instead. ;-)

      LOL!

      --

      ..:[ dave benjamin (ramenboy) -:- www.ramenfest.com -:- www.3dex.com ]:.

      : d r i n k i n g l i f e o u t o f t h e c o n t a i n e r :

      #38; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:40:00 GMT
    • Joost Kremers <joostkremers.python.todaysummary.com.yahoo.com> wrote:

      >Skip Montanaro wrote:

      >> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      >>

      >> Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      The problem with the above is that there is no way to fill in

      the blank and be correct! The terms are reversed...

      "Native American" is to "American Indian"

      as "Eskimo" is to "Alutiiq".

      WE can swap the term "Alutiiq" with a number of other terms,

      such as Inuit, Yupik, Inupiat, Yupiaq. And, we can swap

      "American Indian" with such terms as "Eskimos", "Hawaiians",

      "Samoans"...

      >to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original

      >inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in

      >their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or

      >'person'.

      The singular is "inuk". It means a great deal more than just

      "man" or "person". (It means something on the nature of

      "genuine man", as being a human with a human spirit, as opposed

      to a human which is actually an animal temporarily masquerading

      as a human for a short time. The derivation has to do with an

      "original owner" concept relating to ones spirit.)

      >the word 'eskimo' was a pejorative term used by (non-inuit) peoples living

      >further to the south on the american continent, and has the meaning 'eater

      >of raw meat'. because of this origin, it is disfavoured.

      That has always been a nice sounding reason for the derogatory

      use of the term Eskimo by Canadians (blame it on Indians!);

      however, it isn't true.

      There are two theories as to the etymology of "Eskimo", and in

      neither case is it in any way derogatory. Ives Goddard at the

      Smithsonian Institute believes it derives from Algonquin words

      meaning "snowshoe netter", and Jose Mailhot from Quebec believes

      it came from words meaning "people who speak a different

      language". Both are quite reasonable, and though I personally

      tend to side with Mailhot, she publishes in French and is little

      known compared to Goddard, and hence most dictionaries etc are

      now using his definitions.

      Whatever, in Canada all Eskimo people are in fact Inuit, and it

      is considered impolite to call them anything else. By the same

      token, the *only* word in the English language which properly

      describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does

      not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,

      and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik. Moreover, in Alaska the

      Inupiat people, who are the same as the Canadian Inuit people,

      simply do *not* like to be called Inuit! (They use the word

      Inupiat.)

      It should also be noted that Alaska's Eskimo people are

      virtually all rather fond of the term "Eskimo".

      Quayanaqpuk,

      Ap'a

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #39; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:42:00 GMT
    • Donn Cave <donn.python.todaysummary.com.u.washington.edu> wrote:

      >Your understanding of Inuit agrees with mine - they might well

      >prefer that term, but Yupik Eskimo people presumably wouldn't.

      Even the Inupiat (who are technically Inuit) people in Alaska

      don't care to be referred to as "Inuit". They like Inupiat,

      and they certainly don't mind being called "Eskimos".

      >The only clear error is to confuse the Aleuts with Eskimos.

      > Donn Cave, donn.python.todaysummary.com.u.washington.edu

      I've seen Japanese people walk up to Yup'ik people in the

      Anchorage airport and start speaking Japanese to them...

      And a lot of the tourist who come to Fairbanks think that every

      Alaska Native person the see is an Eskimo, while in fact they

      are looking at local Athabascan people.

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #40; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:42:00 GMT
    • Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <mertz.python.todaysummary.com.gnosis.cx> wrote:

      >anton.python.todaysummary.com.vredegoor.doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) wrote previously:

      >|> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      >|>Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

      >|To my (eu-domain) eye the use of "American Indian" instead of "Indian

      >|American" is strange.

      >Incidentally, in Canada, "First Nations" is generally used rather than

      >"Native American." But in either case, Native Americans themselves are

      >quite split--as would be any group of people when it comes to

      >politics--over best names. In a lot of cases, when referring to a

      >particular person, naming her particular nation and tribe (Navaho, Oglala

      >Sioux, etc.) is better. But lots of NAs themselves prefer "Indian" as a

      >term.

      The term "Native American" is a coined word that the US Federal

      government came up with to reference *all* indigenous people in

      the US and its territories. Hence it includes American Indians,

      Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, American

      Somoans and probably somebody I've forgotten to name.

      It obviously can't mean anyone who is Canadian, by definition.

      >Probably an influence on the names is that Canada has a much larger

      >percentage of Indian immigrants (i.e. from India) than does the US--or

      >their families of 2nd or 3rd generation. The name "Indian" quite apart

      >from coming from a 500 year old mistake, refers to a quite different

      >large group of Canadians. Not that Indian-Americans are a rarity in the

      >USA either, but we USAians are really quite thick in the head, as a

      >rule.

      >Yours, Lulu...

      Another oddity with naming conventions came up about a dozen

      years ago. If my memory serves, it was a meeting in regard to

      education, and involved the Bureau of Indian Affairs or

      whatever, but it was a national symposium of Native people...

      and when they had to choose a set of terms, they ran into a

      problem. Seems that there was obstinate opposition to the term

      "native" by many Lower-48 Indian groups, yet Alaskans absolutely

      insisted that the *only* way to reference all of the people

      indigenous to Alaska was to use the term Native. Hence, they

      adopted the phrase "American Indian and Alaska Native peoples".

      You'll find that phrase has been widely adopted by the US

      Federal government when it refers specifically to that group of

      people, as opposed to the wider significance of the term Native

      American.

      (Boy, any of those Lower-48 folks who don't think there's any

      difference between Canadians and USAians, really ought to try

      talking about this subject... it'll cure 'em of such a notion!)

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #41; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:44:00 GMT
    • Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters fed this fish to the penguins on Tuesday 21

      October 2003 18:32 pm:

      > Incidentally, in Canada, "First Nations" is generally used rather than

      > "Native American." But in either case, Native Americans themselves

      > are quite split--as would be any group of people when it comes to

      I'm afraid I still tend to use Amerind at times -- a term I think I've

      only seen in some older Andre Norton novels (possibly "Beastmaster" --

      which was science fiction and NOT the sword&sorcery the moview would

      have one believe). Of course, if I'm going to use Amerind, for

      consistency I should also use Asiaind <G

      --

      > ================================================== ============ <

      > wlfraed.python.todaysummary.com.ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <

      > wulfraed.python.todaysummary.com.dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <

      > ================================================== ============ <

      > Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <

      > Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <

      #42; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:45:00 GMT
    • Floyd Davidson fed this fish to the penguins on Tuesday 21 October 2003

      20:47 pm:

      > meaning "snowshoe netter", and Jose Mailhot from Quebec believes

      > it came from words meaning "people who speak a different

      > language". Both are quite reasonable, and though I personally

      Wasn't that the application of the ancient "barbarian" (one whose

      speech sounded like "barbarbar..." <G

      --

      > ================================================== ============ <

      > wlfraed.python.todaysummary.com.ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <

      > wulfraed.python.todaysummary.com.dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <

      > ================================================== ============ <

      > Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <

      > Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <

      #43; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:46:00 GMT
    • Floyd Davidson:

      > The term "Native American" is a coined word that the US Federal

      > government came up with to reference *all* indigenous people in

      > the US and its territories. Hence it includes American Indians,

      > Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, American

      > Somoans and probably somebody I've forgotten to name.

      When did the phrase come into use? I'm thinking about the

      indigenous populations of ex- US territories, like the 40 or so

      years we held the Phillipines, or the time (times?) we took over

      Cuba .. or our current control of Iraq (does that make it

      a territory? A protectorate? Do I need a passport to enter

      country?... I guess so.)

      Anyway, there's something strange about the thought of

      native Phillipinos all being called Native American. I'm

      also suprised about Puerto Rico in that list. I thought

      most of the people there came from European/African

      lineage, with little of the local pre-Columbus genetics

      or culture remaining. But I can easily be wrong. I am

      definite that all the native Puerto Ricanos I know don't

      think of themselves as Native American.

      > indigenous to Alaska was to use the term Native. Hence, they

      > adopted the phrase "American Indian and Alaska Native peoples".

      > You'll find that phrase has been widely adopted by the US

      > Federal government when it refers specifically to that group of

      > people, as opposed to the wider significance of the term Native

      > American.

      Interesting. One of the local radio shows is "Native American

      Calling". It's a talk show, and people from Alaska call in.

      They also include news from around the US and Canada.

      I'll be on the lookout now to see if/when they say "Alaska

      Native peoples"

      There's also the low-grade complaints because some people

      use the term "Indian Country" while others don't like that term.

      Speaking of naming ethnicities, I've heard about Americans

      applying the "African-American" to black people in the UK. :)

      Andrew

      dalke.python.todaysummary.com.dalkescientific.com

      #44; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:47:00 GMT
    • Erik Max Francis <max.python.todaysummary.com.alcyone.com> wrote:

      >Anton Vredegoor wrote:

      >> To my (eu-domain) eye the use of "American Indian" instead of "Indian

      >> American" is strange.

      >Do you mean American Indian and Indian-American meaning different things

      >(they do; the former refers to Native Americans and the latter refers to

      >naturalized Indians of Asian origin), or that American Indian (i.e.,

      >Native Americans) should be better be referred to as Indian Americans

      >(which it shouldn't, X-American means a naturalized person from X, like

      >Japanese-American or Polish-American).

      The problem with this naming scheme is that the natural way for an

      Indian who was born in America to identify with the Indian cultural

      heritage first and in second place with being an American, seems to be

      taken by the denominination for *foreign* Indians.

      Would you also rather say American Texan, because Texan American would

      mean an American that is naturalized from the foreign country of

      Texas?

      Anton

      #45; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:48:00 GMT
    • mertz.python.todaysummary.com.gnosis.cx (David Mertz) wrote in

      news:mailman.309.1066759490.2192.python-list.python.todaysummary.com.python.org:

      > The problem, to my mind, with '!=' is the series:

      > x += y

      > x -= y

      > x %= y

      > x &= y

      > x != y

      > One of these things is not like the others. REALLY, really not like the

      > others (the first four are assignment statements, the last an

      > expression).

      Why didn't you pick this list instead?

      x <= y

      x >= y

      x != y

      x == y

      x /= y

      One of these things is not like the others. REALLY, really not like the

      others (the first four are expressions, the last an assignment statement).

      --

      Duncan Booth duncan.python.todaysummary.com.rcp.co.uk

      int month(char *p){return(124864/((p[0]+p[1]-p[2]&0x1f)+1)%12)["\5\x8\3"

      "\6\7\xb\1\x9\xa\2\0\4"];} // Who said my code was obscure?

      #46; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:49:00 GMT
    • Anton Vredegoor wrote:

      > The problem with this naming scheme is that the natural way for an

      > Indian who was born in America to identify with the Indian cultural

      > heritage first and in second place with being an American, seems to be

      > taken by the denominination for *foreign* Indians.

      I'm still not sure what you're objecting to in the bigger issue.

      There's no question that there is an unfortunate ambiguity in the term

      _American Indian_ to mean a Native American -- which comes from

      misexpectations of the discoverers and explorers of the New World -- vs.

      an American of (Asian) Indian origin. But that's inevitable in evolving

      terminology (in any field, not just the one we're talking about here).

      If I emigrated to India, became naturalized, and renounced my

      citizenship in the United States, saying (in English) that I'm an

      American-Indian would be ambiguous, but that's simply because of an

      existing "corruption" in the terminology, because "American Indian" is a

      preexisting term overloaded to mean something else. It doesn't have

      anything to do with the adjective-noun form of the phrasing.

      > Would you also rather say American Texan, because Texan American would

      > mean an American that is naturalized from the foreign country of

      > Texas?

      I've never heard anybody use either term, due to the obvious redundancy,

      so I can't comment.

      --

      Erik Max Francis && max.python.todaysummary.com.alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/

      __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE

      / \ It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly.

      \__/ Anatole France

      #47; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:50:00 GMT
    • Duncan Booth wrote:

      > Why didn't you pick this list instead?

      > x <= y

      > x >= y

      > x != y

      > x == y

      > x /= y

      > One of these things is not like the others. REALLY, really not like

      > the

      > others (the first four are expressions, the last an assignment

      > statement).

      And, by the way, that /= token is used to mean other things in other

      languages (for instance, it's "not equal to" in Lisp).

      --

      Erik Max Francis && max.python.todaysummary.com.alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/

      __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE

      / \ It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly.

      \__/ Anatole France

      #48; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:51:00 GMT
    • Erik Max Francis <max.python.todaysummary.com.alcyone.com> wrote:

      >I'm still not sure what you're objecting to in the bigger issue.

      >There's no question that there is an unfortunate ambiguity in the term

      >_American Indian_ to mean a Native American -- which comes from

      >misexpectations of the discoverers and explorers of the New World -- vs.

      >an American of (Asian) Indian origin.

      In my original post, which was an answer to :

      > "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      I tried to "brainstorm" some possible delicate connotations of the

      terms (perhaps not so successfully), because I think that is the way

      to solve analogy problems like these.

      Since you cut away the problem my post was about in your first reply

      to my post it's not a surprise you are now having difficulties seeing

      the bigger issue, which IMO was about solving this analogy problem.

      The answer is possibly "Indian" (with ambiguous connotations)

      Anton

      #49; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:52:00 GMT
    • Floyd Davidson wrote:

      >>to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original

      >>inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in

      >>their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or

      >>'person'.

      > The singular is "inuk".

      you may not believe me, but i actually knew that. just a typo... ;-)

      > It means a great deal more than just

      > "man" or "person". (It means something on the nature of

      > "genuine man", as being a human with a human spirit, as opposed

      > to a human which is actually an animal temporarily masquerading

      > as a human for a short time. The derivation has to do with an

      > "original owner" concept relating to ones spirit.)

      interesting. i wasn't aware of the cultural implications of the word...

      >>the word 'eskimo' was a pejorative term used by (non-inuit) peoples living

      >>further to the south on the american continent, and has the meaning 'eater

      >>of raw meat'. because of this origin, it is disfavoured.

      > That has always been a nice sounding reason for the derogatory

      > use of the term Eskimo by Canadians (blame it on Indians!);

      > however, it isn't true.

      like i said, it was "to the best of my knowledge"... i never heard of any

      other etymology. thanks for setting this straight.

      > Whatever, in Canada all Eskimo people are in fact Inuit, and it

      > is considered impolite to call them anything else. By the same

      > token, the *only* word in the English language which properly

      > describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does

      > not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,

      > and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik.

      i have never before heard the word 'eskimo' be used to refer to people in

      siberia.

      > It should also be noted that Alaska's Eskimo people are

      > virtually all rather fond of the term "Eskimo".

      so noted... i'll keep it in mind.

      --

      Joost Kremers

      since when is vi an editor? a discussion on vi belongs in

      comp.tools.unusable or something... ;-)

      #50; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:53:00 GMT
    • Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <mertz.python.todaysummary.com.gnosis.cx> wrote in message news:<mailman.269.1066675982.2192.python-list.python.todaysummary.com.python.org>...

      > Barry Warsaw <barry.python.todaysummary.com.python.org> wrote previously:

      > |I'm confident there's no way <> can be officially deprecated

      > Heck, we true believers should be more ambitious: Deprecate the

      > heretical '!=' pseudo-assignment!

      Hurrah!!!

      BTW, I am back ;)

      Michele

      #51; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:54:00 GMT
    • "Andrew Dalke" <adalke.python.todaysummary.com.mindspring.com> wrote:

      >Floyd Davidson:

      >> The term "Native American" is a coined word that the US Federal

      >> government came up with to reference *all* indigenous people in

      >> the US and its territories. Hence it includes American Indians,

      >> Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, American

      >> Somoans and probably somebody I've forgotten to name.

      >When did the phrase come into use? I'm thinking about the

      In relatively recent times. For some reason the date 1948

      sticks in my mind, but that may be off by a few years either

      direction.

      >> indigenous to Alaska was to use the term Native. Hence, they

      >> adopted the phrase "American Indian and Alaska Native peoples".

      >>

      >> You'll find that phrase has been widely adopted by the US

      >> Federal government when it refers specifically to that group of

      >> people, as opposed to the wider significance of the term Native

      >> American.

      >Interesting. One of the local radio shows is "Native American

      >Calling". It's a talk show, and people from Alaska call in.

      >They also include news from around the US and Canada.

      >I'll be on the lookout now to see if/when they say "Alaska

      >Native peoples"

      You'll hear lots of Alaskans! And they will almost all use

      the term "Native" with regularity. When they want to

      distinguish Alaskans from everyone else, it will be "Alaska

      Natives" or "Alaska Native people".

      >There's also the low-grade complaints because some people

      >use the term "Indian Country" while others don't like that term.

      That one is a real problem, because there is the common

      vernacular and there is the legal term too. And if you want

      bitter fights, get involved in the legalities of just what is or

      is not legally "Indian Country". The courts, and in particular

      the US Supreme Court, want to reduce the application of that

      term because with it comes sovereignty that they would like to

      diminish.

      Indian Law is a maze of tricks and word games, all designed to

      remove ownership of whatever it is that Native people have that

      non-Native people want. And "Indian Country" is right in the

      middle of that.

      What you'll notice is that most people who like the term "Indian

      Country" also use it as a stick to poke non-Native legal

      philosophy in the side. However, here in Alaska the courts have

      found ways to deny either that fact of Indian Country or the

      effect. First they say that only Native Allotments are Indian

      Country, and then they say yes they are, but tribes have no

      governing authority over them individually, and therefore cannot

      exercise sovereignty on them. Translate that to: The State of

      Alaska government is good enough for me and it will damned well

      be good enough for you, even if it does *nothing* for you.

      >Speaking of naming ethnicities, I've heard about Americans

      >applying the "African-American" to black people in the UK. :)

      Heh heh, there are more upsetting things than that.

      My children are Yup'ik Eskimo (Central Alaskan Yupik), and grew

      up in a Yup'ik village. They think of "white" people in terms

      of culture more than skin color, and use the traditional Yupik

      word to name it: Kass'ak (gu-suk). (It was originally derived

      from the Russian word, Kaz'ak, which became Cossack in English.

      Technically it means "stranger", but commonly is used to mean

      "white man".)

      So in the late 1970's we moved to live near Eielson AFB in the

      Fairbanks area. My children were pre-teens / early teens, and

      went to schools on base, and I worked on base. So they dropped

      by my work location after school if they needed a ride home

      later than the bus run. That lead to an interesting experience

      for some of the young black GI's.

      When the subject of race relations came up (keep in mind that I

      was just old enough to be the father of these young men, so we

      our relationship is pretty much father/son rather than

      co-workers and/or friends) I couldn't resist telling a couple of

      them that, welllll... my kids just figured they were "Kass'aks

      with black colored skin".

      Can imagine their shock when they said, "What's that mean?", and

      I said with a grin, "White man! Because to them you are just

      another White Man!". A totally new concept to a young black

      fellow... but a very good experience to have because it is *all*

      relative.

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #52; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:55:00 GMT
    • anton.python.todaysummary.com.vredegoor.doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) wrote:

      >Would you also rather say American Texan, because Texan American would

      >mean an American that is naturalized from the foreign country of

      >Texas?

      Don't ask Alaskans that question... you might not agree with their

      answers... ;-)

      Of course, we aren't necessarily too keen on calling ourselves just

      American, either.

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #53; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:56:00 GMT
    • Joost Kremers <joostkremers.python.todaysummary.com.yahoo.com> wrote:

      >Floyd Davidson wrote:

      >>>to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original

      >>>inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in

      >>>their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or

      >>>'person'.

      >>

      >> The singular is "inuk".

      >you may not believe me, but i actually knew that. just a typo... ;-)

      I figured it was a typo. It would be hard to spot though, for

      anyone that doesn't have a particular interest in that

      terminology. (Everyone has trouble with Inupiaq and Inupiat

      too.)

      >> It means a great deal more than just

      >> "man" or "person". (It means something on the nature of

      >> "genuine man", as being a human with a human spirit, as opposed

      >> to a human which is actually an animal temporarily masquerading

      >> as a human for a short time. The derivation has to do with an

      >> "original owner" concept relating to ones spirit.)

      >interesting. i wasn't aware of the cultural implications of the word...

      Yupik and Inuit are the "same" word in the two branches of the

      Eskimo language. They derive from the Proto-Eskimo word "Inuy"

      (Which actually is two different words, one with a funny looking

      'n' and a funny looking 'y', the other with a normal 'n' and

      only the 'y' looks odd. But I can't reproduce that, and don't

      know how to say it phonetically. In the following quote there

      are also different variations of 'a', 'r', 'e', and 'y'. I've

      highlighted words with variations on the character set that

      cannot be displayed.)

      PE Proto-Eskimo (2000 years ago)

      AAY Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik (south central Alaska)

      CAY Central Alaskan Yupik (Yup'ik, western Alaska)

      NSY Naukan Siberian Yupik (East Cape on Chukchi Pen.)

      CSY Central Siberian Yupik (St. Lawrence Is. and Chukotka)

      Sir Sirnikski (Chukotka) (Siriniki Chukotka, extinct)

      SPI Seward Peninusla Inuit (Seward Peninsula and Bering St.)

      NAI Northern Alaska Inuit (Kotzebue to Canada)

      WCI Western Canadian Inuit (Alaska to Hudson Bay)

      ECI Eastern Canadian Inuit (Canada east of Hudson Bay)

      GRI Greenlandic Inuit (Greenland, all dialects)

      "PE /inuy/ or *inuy* 'human being' [for Inu forms inuk, etc.,

      compare /innar-/ and /inaluk/, and for Yup yuk, etc., compare

      /ina(va)-/ and /inay-/; in possessed form (yua, /inyua/, etc.)

      this base, the orginal Eskimo ethononym, is everywhere

      attested also in the senses 'resident spirit', 'core of

      boil' and 'chick in egg'; cf. also perhaps Aleut /inisxi-X/

      'owner', ... ]

      ...

      AAY suk 'person, owner'

      CAY yuk ... 'person, owner'

      NSY yuk 'person, male person'

      CSY yu(u)k ... 'person, male person'

      Sir yux 'person'

      SPI inuk 'person, master, owner' ...

      NAI /inyuk/ 'person, owner' [and /inyunyuk- 'form a being (egg)' ...

      WCI inuk 'person, owner'

      ECI inuk 'person, owner' [as verb = 'form (chick in egg)' and

      innu(k)- 'get inhabitants, appropriate']

      GRI inuk ... 'perons, owner' ... 'get a boil, form (chick in egg)']"

      from "Comparative Eskimo Dictionary With Aleut Cognates", 1994,

      by Fortescue, Jacobson, and Kaplan.

      Note the similarity in all Inuit forms except NAI (and there was

      much clipped out that relates to other uses of the term in NAI).

      That is really interesting given that we are talking a 1000-2000

      year old language that stretches from the Bering Straits all the

      way to Greenland!

      Yupik dialects are each distinct though, from Alutiiq in south

      central Alaska to Siberia, each shows at least some small

      variation, which is probably simply because those people have

      been in place for probably 6-8,000 years.

      >> That has always been a nice sounding reason for the derogatory

      >> use of the term Eskimo by Canadians (blame it on Indians!);

      >> however, it isn't true.

      >like i said, it was "to the best of my knowledge"... i never heard of any

      >other etymology. thanks for setting this straight.

      The old claims that it means "eaters of raw meat" or something

      like that are slowly being replaced in literature by studied

      etymologies. But the original was popular just because it is

      catchy and easy to remember! Of course, it also says a lot more

      about our culture than it does about Eskimos, because quite

      frankly no Eskimo would be insulted by the idea that they eat

      raw meat (Two days ago I was given a package of raw bowhead whale

      blubber, fresh from a whale... which is ready to eat form!) Of

      course, Englishmen probably think/thought Norwegians and Swedes

      were horrible for eating raw meat too...

      >> describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does

      >> not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,

      >> and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik.

      >i have never before heard the word 'eskimo' be used to refer to people in

      >siberia.

      There aren't very many of them, and they are all relatively

      close to the the Eastern tip of Siberia. They are all Yupik,

      though the dialects they speak can't be understood by Alaskan

      Yupik speakers on the mainland. Saint Lawerence Island is only

      36 miles from the coast of Siberia, and they move back and forth

      between the Island and the mainland traditionally. (The

      Soviet's stopped that, but it is now at least possible again.)

      >> It should also be noted that Alaska's Eskimo people are

      >> virtually all rather fond of the term "Eskimo".

      >so noted... i'll keep it in mind.

      Wanna see an Alaska Native get steamed? Tell an Aleut he's

      actually an Eskimo; tell an Indian he's an Eskimo; tell an

      Eskimo he's an Inuit. "Native", however, is a safe term that

      any of them will be happy to hear.

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #54; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:57:00 GMT
    • >> Skip Montanaro wrote:

      >>> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      Floyd> The problem with the above is that there is no way to fill in the

      Floyd> blank and be correct! The terms are reversed...

      I don't think so. My intent was to answer the question, "What's the current

      politically correct term to use in place of 'Eskimo'?" I believe the above

      SAT-style question captures the correct relationship. "Native American" is

      p.c., "American Indian" (or simply "Indian") is not. "Eskimo" is apparently

      also not p.c.

      Floyd> Whatever, in Canada all Eskimo people are in fact Inuit, and it

      Floyd> is considered impolite to call them anything else. By the same

      Floyd> token, the *only* word in the English language which properly

      Floyd> describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does

      Floyd> not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,

      Floyd> and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik. Moreover, in Alaska the

      Floyd> Inupiat people, who are the same as the Canadian Inuit people,

      Floyd> simply do *not* like to be called Inuit! (They use the word

      Floyd> Inupiat.)

      Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like there's no one best term.

      Skip

      #55; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:58:00 GMT
    • Quoting Anton Vredegoor (anton.python.todaysummary.com.vredegoor.doge.nl):

      > Erik Max Francis <max.python.todaysummary.com.alcyone.com> wrote:

      > >I'm still not sure what you're objecting to in the bigger issue.

      [...]

      > Since you cut away the problem my post was about in your first reply

      > to my post it's not a surprise you are now having difficulties seeing

      > the bigger issue, which IMO was about solving this analogy problem.

      I think there's a misunderstanding growing here. If I can summarize

      what I've discovered by reading this interesting but grossly off-topic

      thread, I will. Maybe someone else who's been reading the whole thing

      can summarize.

      > > "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      This analogy puzzle tries to use "Native American" as an example of a

      more politically sensitive term replacing an older, less politically

      sensitive term (in this case, "American Indian"). There are several

      problems with this formulation, though. There's also a problem with

      the term we're being asked to fill in a value against: "Eskimo" can be

      meant in a couple different ways, one correct and one incorrect.

      The relationship between "Native American" and "American Indian" is

      not clear-cut. A great deal of political sentiment is tied up in both

      terms. While most Americans, particularly those who are accustomed to

      making an effort at political sensitivity, tend to regard "Native

      American" as a politically sensitive replacement for "American

      Indian", this is not entirely true.

      For many people who would be labelled "Native American", this is not

      an acceptable formulation. Probably for the same reasons, they would

      object to my use of the word "indigenous" in preceding paragraphs.

      Also, according to the precise definition of the term "Native

      American", this term may well represent a superset of what was

      previously intended by "American Indian" -- in particular, there's

      some concern that native Phillipinos might be included in "Native

      Americans", but are definitely not included in "American Indians".

      Further, it appears that "Eskimo" is not as clearly understood as we

      thought it was. Some portion of our audience believes Eskimo to be a

      pejorative term. Some portion of our audience regards Eskimo as a

      tribal name.

      Where the original question tried to sort out "What term has replaced

      Eskimo in the same way Native American has replaced American Indian?"

      But it appears that Native American hasn't really replaced American

      Indian in the simple way we thought it had. Meanwhile, for some prior

      usages of "Eskimo", that term is still correct: it identifies a

      specific cultural/ethnic/tribal group. In other ways, there doesn't

      appear to be a real equivalent. While "all descendents of indigineous

      peoples" seem to have some kind of collective identity, it does not

      appear that "all descendents of indigineous peoples that lived north

      of the Arctic" do.

      --G.

      --

      Geoff Gerrietts <geoff at gerrietts net>

      "I have read your book and much like it." --Moses Hadas

      #56; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:59:00 GMT
    • Quoting Geoff Gerrietts (geoff.python.todaysummary.com.gerrietts.net):

      > Further, it appears that "Eskimo" is not as clearly understood as we

      > thought it was. Some portion of our audience believes Eskimo to be a

      > pejorative term. Some portion of our audience regards Eskimo as a

      > tribal name.

      > Where the original question tried to sort out "What term has replaced

      > Eskimo in the same way Native American has replaced American Indian?"

      > But it appears that Native American hasn't really replaced American

      > Indian in the simple way we thought it had. Meanwhile, for some prior

      > usages of "Eskimo", that term is still correct: it identifies a

      > specific cultural/ethnic/tribal group. In other ways, there doesn't

      > appear to be a real equivalent. While "all descendents of indigineous

      > peoples" seem to have some kind of collective identity, it does not

      > appear that "all descendents of indigineous peoples that lived north

      > of the Arctic" do.

      Up to this point I think I was doing okay. I should have kept going

      down the thread, missed a few key posts. :)

      But it looks like Eskimo is still more complicated than my initial

      readings suggested. I don't think I can adequately express how it is

      "correctly used", but I think it's pretty safe to say that a

      substantial percentage of prior usage intended it to apply more

      broadly than it actually does.

      --G.

      --

      Geoff Gerrietts "Punctuality is the virtue of the bored."

      <geoff at gerrietts net> --Evelyn Waugh

      #57; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:00:00 GMT
    • |Floyd Davidson:

      |> The term "Native American" is a coined word that the US Federal

      |> government came up with to reference *all* indigenous people in

      |> the US and its territories. Hence it includes American Indians,

      |> Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians

      "Andrew Dalke" <adalke.python.todaysummary.com.mindspring.com> wrote previously:

      |When did the phrase come into use?

      |also suprised about Puerto Rico in that list.

      I've never heard/read Native American used as widely as Floyd suggests.

      Only applying to the native peoples of the Americas.

      In the case of Puerto Rico, Columbus was thoroughly exterminationist;

      and likewise the rest of the Spanish conquistidor's in the Carribean

      after him. So the ENTIRE native population (Boricuas Indians) of Puerto

      Rico were slaughtered outright, or died of disease. And similarly in

      most of the Western Carribean.

      Yours, Lulu...

      --

      Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies

      of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the

      underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual

      property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.

      #58; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:01:00 GMT
    • |Floyd Davidson:

      |> The term "Native American" is a coined word that the US Federal

      |> government came up with to reference *all* indigenous people in

      |> the US and its territories. Hence it includes American Indians,

      |> Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians

      "Andrew Dalke" <adalke.python.todaysummary.com.mindspring.com> wrote previously:

      |When did the phrase come into use?

      |also suprised about Puerto Rico in that list.

      I've never heard/read Native American used as widely as Floyd suggests.

      Only applying to the native peoples of the Americas.

      In the case of Puerto Rico, Columbus was thoroughly exterminationist;

      and likewise the rest of the Spanish conquistidor's in the Carribean

      after him. So the ENTIRE native population (Boricuas Indians) of Puerto

      Rico were slaughtered outright, or died of disease. And similarly in

      most of the Western Carribean.

      Yours, Lulu...

      --

      Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies

      of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the

      underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual

      property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.

      #59; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:02:00 GMT
    • Floyd Davidson:

      > Of course, we aren't necessarily too keen on calling ourselves just

      > American, either.

      And others living in the Americas are Americas too. (Went to

      one talk where the speaker wanted "Americans" to call themselves

      "United Statens")

      And some English don't like thinking of themselves as European.

      And being raised in the US South (losing side of the Civil War)

      means it feels strange being called a Yank (Yankees being

      the victors) -- even though I was raised by a Michigander and

      a Canadian so don't have strong southern heritage.

      And being raised in Miami I was used to the term "Hispanic",

      which is apparently frowned upon because it's another made-up

      term, and the proper one (at least for some Hispanic people)

      is Chicano. Except that it needs the feminine "-a" ending

      when talking about a woman despite English not working that

      way.

      And ... and... I'm trying to figure out how to get back to

      Python. I assume some Python people like being called

      Pythonistas and others don't, but that's not really a general

      term used outside c.l.py.

      Andrew

      dalke.python.todaysummary.com.dalkescientific.com

      #60; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:03:00 GMT
    • Skip Montanaro <skip.python.todaysummary.com.pobox.com> wrote:

      > >> Skip Montanaro wrote:

      > >>> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      > Floyd> The problem with the above is that there is no way to fill in the

      > Floyd> blank and be correct! The terms are reversed...

      >I don't think so. My intent was to answer the question, "What's the current

      >politically correct term to use in place of 'Eskimo'?" I believe the above

      >SAT-style question captures the correct relationship. "Native American" is

      >p.c., "American Indian" (or simply "Indian") is not. "Eskimo" is apparently

      >also not p.c.

      I've never heard that "American Indian" is not pc, nor that "Native

      American" was ever meant to be a direct replacement for it.

      Obviously some people mistakenly believe that "Eskimo" is not pc,

      and just as mistakenly think the "Inuit" is a direct replacement.

      > Floyd> Whatever, in Canada all Eskimo people are in fact Inuit, and it

      > Floyd> is considered impolite to call them anything else. By the same

      > Floyd> token, the *only* word in the English language which properly

      > Floyd> describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does

      > Floyd> not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,

      > Floyd> and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik. Moreover, in Alaska the

      > Floyd> Inupiat people, who are the same as the Canadian Inuit people,

      > Floyd> simply do *not* like to be called Inuit! (They use the word

      > Floyd> Inupiat.)

      >Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like there's no one best term.

      Each of those terms have different meanings though, and when

      used in the proper context, they are *all* precisely correct!

      Of course, that is all very easy for someone like me (living

      very much in an environment where all of those terms are used

      with regularity), and not so easy for someone who only

      occasionally has need to sort them out.

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #61; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:04:00 GMT
    • Floyd Davidson wrote:

      > Skip Montanaro <skip.python.todaysummary.com.pobox.com> wrote:

      > > >> Skip Montanaro wrote:

      > > >>> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

      > > Floyd> The problem with the above is that there is no way to fill in the

      > > Floyd> blank and be correct! The terms are reversed...

      > >I don't think so. My intent was to answer the question, "What's the current

      > >politically correct term to use in place of 'Eskimo'?" I believe the above

      > >SAT-style question captures the correct relationship. "Native American" is

      > >p.c., "American Indian" (or simply "Indian") is not. "Eskimo" is apparently

      > >also not p.c.

      > I've never heard that "American Indian" is not pc, nor that "Native

      > American" was ever meant to be a direct replacement for it.

      > Obviously some people mistakenly believe that "Eskimo" is not pc,

      > and just as mistakenly think the "Inuit" is a direct replacement.

      I think you've inadvertently expanded the scope of those beliefs.

      In fact it was limited to "Eskimo is not PC for the _Inuit_". I

      don't think anyone has really disproved this, unless someone

      claiming to represent the Inuit's communal interest in the matter

      posted while I wasn't looking.

      But clearly there is also misunderstanding of which peoples call

      themselves Inuit.

      -Peter

      #62; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:05:00 GMT
    • Geoff Gerrietts <geoff.python.todaysummary.com.gerrietts.net> wrote:

      >Where the original question tried to sort out "What term has replaced

      >Eskimo in the same way Native American has replaced American Indian?"

      >But it appears that Native American hasn't really replaced American

      >Indian in the simple way we thought it had. Meanwhile, for some prior

      >usages of "Eskimo", that term is still correct: it identifies a

      >specific cultural/ethnic/tribal group.

      You were doing great until this last paragraph. Eskimo does not

      refer to any tribe or tribal group. It refers to a language

      group, a cultural/ethnic group or to a genetic group. But there

      are literally hundreds of unique tribes within the cultural

      group known as Eskimos. For that matter, and this may come as a

      surprise to some, the term tribe isn't necessarily the best

      description of Eskimo governance, and "nation" might be a much

      better term. There is little doubt that before Europeans

      brought diseases to Northwestern Alaska there were what can only

      be described as a very well delineated group of Eskimo Nations

      there (Earnest S. Birch Jr. has published detailed studies).

      By the time anyone was interested in learning what Eskimos were,

      they had been decimated, and tribal relationships were just

      about all that was left.

      One might speculate that the same was/is true of American Indian

      governance. We can certainly say for example that the Iroquois

      and several other Confederations that were very functional well

      into the 1800's met the "nation" criteria too.

      Some of them were exceedingly sophisticated governments, and

      most of them were very sophisticated social cultures too.

      They've been portrayed as "savage" and "primitive" to make it

      easier to justify taking what they owned away from them. But

      the simple fact is that in many ways they were far more advanced

      in 1500 than the average European society was at that time.

      >In other ways, there doesn't

      >appear to be a real equivalent. While "all descendents of indigineous

      >peoples" seem to have some kind of collective identity, it does not

      >appear that "all descendents of indigineous peoples that lived north

      >of the Arctic" do.

      There is more to that than you can probably imagine!

      Rest assured that almost *anything* you hear about Eskimos on

      the Internet is false. That is equally true of almost any

      anthropology book published prior to about 1970. The problem is

      that all of these sources have a lot of just really good

      information, but it takes an expert to wade through what is

      presented to throw out the garbage.

      You've all heard, for example, that the "Eskimos have xxxx words

      for snow" business is not true.

      How about...

      Eskimos (and or all other Native Americans) had no concept of

      private property or land ownership.

      FACT: The penalty for trespass on private property for

      the purpose of illegal use was death.

      Eskimos had no form of governance.

      FACT: The Europeans who visited Eskimos were unable to

      comprehend that government does not necessarily

      involve noise and violence. It also does not

      necessarily exclude women. There is not a single

      description of Eskimo governance prior to 1965 in

      any anthropology text I've ever heard of. But in

      the late 60's the Yupiit Nation decided they had

      to write it down, because their children were being

      taught in Western schools and not learning it. As

      of about 1975 there isn't a single anthropology text

      that I know of which still claims they had no form

      of governance! 1741 to 1970 is a long time to miss

      a very simple fact like that...

      Eskimo men offer their wives to visitors.

      FACT: In a matrilineal society where the woman owns the

      house, it most certainly would not be possible for

      a man to offer what he doesn't own and has no

      authority over. Consider the plight of a poor lady,

      though, who finds a stranger somewhat interesting

      but also finds that he's too dumb to talk to a woman.

      So she just orders the nearest man, "Tell that tall

      dumb one that he's staying in my igloo."

      Eskimos put old people out on the ice.

      FACT: In a society with an oral history, that is the same

      as burning the books in your library. Insane.

      The older an elder is, the more precious and more

      protected they are.

      Eskimos and Indians killed each other on sight.

      FACT: In several places there have traditionally been Indian

      and Eskimo villages on opposite sides of a river within

      1/2 a mile of each other!

      I could go on for an hour at least, and worse yet I could

      probably write two or three pages of commentary on each of these

      things.

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #63; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:06:00 GMT
    • Peter Hansen <peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com> wrote:

      >Floyd Davidson wrote:

      >> I've never heard that "American Indian" is not pc, nor that "Native

      >> American" was ever meant to be a direct replacement for it.

      >>

      >> Obviously some people mistakenly believe that "Eskimo" is not pc,

      >> and just as mistakenly think the "Inuit" is a direct replacement.

      >I think you've inadvertently expanded the scope of those beliefs.

      I've tried to provide some education on what they actually do

      mean.

      >In fact it was limited to "Eskimo is not PC for the _Inuit_". I

      >don't think anyone has really disproved this, unless someone

      >claiming to represent the Inuit's communal interest in the matter

      >posted while I wasn't looking.

      You do realize that most of my neighbors speak Inuit? I'm not

      suggesting that I read it somewhere in a newspaper or a book,

      I'm talking about real live Inuit people. Not to mention a lot

      of Eskimos who are not Inuit (e.g., all of my children and

      grandchildren).

      Like I said, it is mistaken to believe the term Eskimo is

      not pc, or that there is even a valid replacement for it

      in the English language.

      >But clearly there is also misunderstanding of which peoples call

      >themselves Inuit.

      That is what I was trying to clear up. Just who is Inuit, and

      who isn't. And who wants to be called Inuit, and who doesn't.

      And why. (You might want to browse my web page. The URL is

      in my sig.)

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #64; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:07:00 GMT
    • Floyd Davidson wrote:

      > Like I said, it is mistaken to believe the term Eskimo is

      > not pc,

      I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying

      unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere

      on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as

      "Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,

      as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

      -Peter

      #65; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:08:00 GMT
    • Quoting Peter Hansen (peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com):

      > I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying

      > unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere

      > on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as

      > "Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,

      > as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

      No. He's saying that there are Eskimo, and there are Inuit. The two

      have some overlap but not a lot.

      Eskimo is not a pejorative. Calling a person who considers himself

      Eskimo an Inuit would be like calling a German person French.

      Sometimes you're going to get away with it, and sometimes you're going

      to get a fight.

      The same is true in reverse. Both terms are acceptable, when applied

      to the right people.

      --G.

      --

      Geoff Gerrietts <geoff at gerrietts dot net>

      "Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments

      when he was merely stupid." --Heinrich Heine

      #66; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:09:00 GMT
    • Peter Hansen <peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com> wrote:

      >Floyd Davidson wrote:

      >>

      >> Like I said, it is mistaken to believe the term Eskimo is

      >> not pc,

      >I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying

      >unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere

      >on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as

      >"Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,

      >as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

      OK, so you don't understand what "pc" means.

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #67; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:10:00 GMT
    • Geoff Gerrietts <geoff.python.todaysummary.com.gerrietts.net> wrote:

      >Quoting Peter Hansen (peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com):

      >>

      >> I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying

      >> unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere

      >> on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as

      >> "Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,

      >> as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

      >No. He's saying that there are Eskimo, and there are Inuit. The two

      >have some overlap but not a lot.

      All Inuit are Eskimos, but not all Eskimos are Inuit.

      >Eskimo is not a pejorative. Calling a person who considers himself

      >Eskimo an Inuit would be like calling a German person French.

      How about like saying that we must never use the word

      "European", because some Brits really do like to be called

      British and some French really do like to be called French, and

      therefore we should call Italians and Germans English, so as not

      to offend the Hungarians by the use of the word European.

      If that sounds like a twisted maze of foolishness... it is!

      >Sometimes you're going to get away with it, and sometimes you're going

      >to get a fight.

      >The same is true in reverse. Both terms are acceptable, when applied

      >to the right people.

      You know one of the odd things about Canadians and this word "Eskimo",

      is that Canadian Inuit people don't seem to mind Alaskans using that

      word, whether to describe Alaska Eskimo or to describe Canadian Eskimos.

      They don't mind, because we use the word as it is meant to be used.

      What they find offensive is not the word, but the *way* that white

      Canadians use it. And *that* is what definitely is not pc.

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #68; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:11:00 GMT
    • Quoth Floyd Davidson <floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com>:

      ...

      | I could go on for an hour at least, and worse yet I could

      | probably write two or three pages of commentary on each of these

      | things.

      Technically that would have to be off topic, but it's bound to be

      more interesting than the Lisp vs. Python troll wars that we seem

      to like so much these days. Thanks for the education!

      Donn Cave, donn.python.todaysummary.com.drizzle.com

      #69; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:12:00 GMT
    • "Donn Cave" <donn.python.todaysummary.com.drizzle.com> wrote:

      >Quoth Floyd Davidson <floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com>:

      >...

      >| I could go on for an hour at least, and worse yet I could

      >| probably write two or three pages of commentary on each of these

      >| things.

      >Technically that would have to be off topic, but it's bound to be

      >more interesting than the Lisp vs. Python troll wars that we seem

      >to like so much these days. Thanks for the education!

      >Donn Cave, donn.python.todaysummary.com.drizzle.com

      I should thank the other participants. I've gotten several

      emails, and *all* of them have been very pleasant.

      Is there something about Python?

      I've got a book on it here somewhere, maybe I should try

      learning it as a therapy for high blood pressure? ;-)

      (The trouble is, I really should spend more time learning eLisp,

      because I'm a dyed in the wool XEmacs user with some very large

      init files that are painful to maintain...)

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #70; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:13:00 GMT
    • Floyd Davidson wrote:

      > Peter Hansen <peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com> wrote:

      > >Floyd Davidson wrote:

      > >>

      > >> Like I said, it is mistaken to believe the term Eskimo is

      > >> not pc,

      > >I guess I need that spelled out more clearly. Are you saying

      > >unequivocally that there is not a *single* group of Inuit anywhere

      > >on the planet who have expressed a strong desire to be known as

      > >"Inuit" rather than as "Eskimos"? If that's the case, my apologies,

      > >as I must have missed that part of your posts in my skimming.

      > OK, so you don't understand what "pc" means.

      In this newsgroup, it should surely mean personal computer. :-)

      All I'm trying to clear up is whether you are saying that the

      effectively institutionalized advice (in Canada) not to use the

      term "Eskimo" for the Inuit is deprecated (to try to tie this

      in a minor way back to the thread).

      I don't care if other groups call themselves Eskimo. All I

      care about is whether we've been fed a load of crap for all

      these years and should ignore any advice implying that the

      Inuit do not like to be called Eskimo.

      -Peter

      #71; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:14:00 GMT
    • Peter Hansen <peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com> wrote:

      >Floyd Davidson wrote:

      >I don't care if other groups call themselves Eskimo. All I

      >care about is whether we've been fed a load of crap for all

      >these years and should ignore any advice implying that the

      >Inuit do not like to be called Eskimo.

      You cannot lump all Inuit people and get just one answer.

      Inuit people in Alaska use the term Eskimo all the time.

      In Canada and Greenland Inuit people will not appreciate the

      term "Eskimo" as a specific term for them when used by locals.

      That is particularly true of Canadians. They do not seem to

      mind the general (correct) use of the term by others who do not

      have any intent to insult them.

      Note that in Canada and Greenland, *all* Eskimos are Inuit,

      hence there is little need to use that term to describe those

      people.

      I would also caution that the implication of the first sentence

      in the quoted paragraph above is that there is some great

      difference between Inuit and "other groups [who] call themselves

      Eskimo". The most obvious characteristic they have, is that

      they are exceedingly similar. The Inuit branch separated from

      the Proto-Eskimo branch about 2000 years ago, and hence are a

      "newer" form than is the Yupik branch. The Aleuts separated

      probably 4000 years ago, and have evolved to something

      specifically non-Eskimo.

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #72; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:15:00 GMT
    • Floyd Davidson wrote:

      > In Canada and Greenland Inuit people will not appreciate the

      > term "Eskimo" as a specific term for them when used by locals.

      > That is particularly true of Canadians. They do not seem to

      > mind the general (correct) use of the term by others who do not

      > have any intent to insult them.

      Okay, thanks for taking the time to clarify, Floyd!

      The impression I get then is that because some people (although

      I think more so in the distant past than in recent years?)

      might hold ill will towards their northern neighbours, the

      rest of us with nothing against them might as well avoid the

      term Eskimo entirely, to minimize the risk of someone making false

      assumptions about us and how we feel about them.

      > Note that in Canada and Greenland, *all* Eskimos are Inuit,

      > hence there is little need to use that term to describe those

      > people.

      Probably where the institutionalized advice comes from in the first

      place. If all Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, and all Inuit can be

      called Eskimos (but only by those who don't have intent to insult

      them, apparently :-), then it's best to avoid the whole issue and

      just use the term Inuit.

      -Peter

      #73; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:16:00 GMT
    • Peter Hansen <peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com> wrote:

      >Floyd Davidson wrote:

      >>

      >> In Canada and Greenland Inuit people will not appreciate the

      >> term "Eskimo" as a specific term for them when used by locals.

      >> That is particularly true of Canadians. They do not seem to

      >> mind the general (correct) use of the term by others who do not

      >> have any intent to insult them.

      >Okay, thanks for taking the time to clarify, Floyd!

      >The impression I get then is that because some people (although

      >I think more so in the distant past than in recent years?)

      >might hold ill will towards their northern neighbours, the

      >rest of us with nothing against them might as well avoid the

      >term Eskimo entirely, to minimize the risk of someone making false

      >assumptions about us and how we feel about them.

      That doesn't follow, logically, from the facts. No other word

      in the English language can be used in place of the term

      "Eskimo", and therefore if you want to correctly refer to the

      group of people known as Eskimos, you have no choice but to use

      that term.

      >> Note that in Canada and Greenland, *all* Eskimos are Inuit,

      >> hence there is little need to use that term to describe those

      >> people.

      >Probably where the institutionalized advice comes from in the first

      >place. If all Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, and all Inuit can be

      >called Eskimos (but only by those who don't have intent to insult

      >them, apparently :-), then it's best to avoid the whole issue and

      >just use the term Inuit.

      But you *cannot* correctly call all Eskimos Inuit.

      What title would you suggest for these works:

      "Comparative Eskimo Dictionary With Aleut Cognates"

      Fortescue, Jacobson, and Kaplan

      "Eskimo Essays"

      Ann Fienup-Riordan

      "Eskimo Warfare"

      "Eskimo Kinsmen: Changing Family Relationships in Northwest Alaska"

      "Traditional Eskimo Societies in Northwest Alaska"

      "The Eskimos"

      Ernest S. Burch, Jr.

      "The Eskimos of North Alaska"

      Norman A. Chance

      "Alaskan Eskimo Education"

      John Collier

      "Yup'ik Eskimo Dictionary"

      Steven A. Jacobson

      "Bashful No Longer: An Alaskan Eskimo Ethnohistory"

      Wendell Oswalt

      Moreover, who is going to tell Oscar Kawagley that he can't

      shouldn't use the word Eskimo:

      "Yupiaq Eskimo Education"

      Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #74; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:17:00 GMT
    • Floyd Davidson wrote:

      > Peter Hansen <peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com> wrote:

      > >Floyd Davidson wrote:

      > >>

      > >> In Canada and Greenland Inuit people will not appreciate the

      > >> term "Eskimo" as a specific term for them when used by locals.

      > >> That is particularly true of Canadians. They do not seem to

      > >> mind the general (correct) use of the term by others who do not

      > >> have any intent to insult them.

      > >Okay, thanks for taking the time to clarify, Floyd!

      > >The impression I get then is that because some people (although

      > >I think more so in the distant past than in recent years?)

      > >might hold ill will towards their northern neighbours, the

      > >rest of us with nothing against them might as well avoid the

      > >term Eskimo entirely, to minimize the risk of someone making false

      > >assumptions about us and how we feel about them.

      > That doesn't follow, logically, from the facts. No other word

      > in the English language can be used in place of the term

      > "Eskimo", and therefore if you want to correctly refer to the

      > group of people known as Eskimos, you have no choice but to use

      > that term.

      Hmm... I was unclear. I meant to refer only to the Inuit

      living in Canada above. If it wasn't clear in the past, I'm

      in Canada and all comments I've made apply only to the situation

      in Canada.

      > >> Note that in Canada and Greenland, *all* Eskimos are Inuit,

      > >> hence there is little need to use that term to describe those

      > >> people.

      > >Probably where the institutionalized advice comes from in the first

      > >place. If all Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, and all Inuit can be

      > >called Eskimos (but only by those who don't have intent to insult

      > >them, apparently :-), then it's best to avoid the whole issue and

      > >just use the term Inuit.

      > But you *cannot* correctly call all Eskimos Inuit.

      Certainly not, as you've made clear. You've also made it clear

      that "in Canada ..., all Eskimos are Inuit", and once again I

      point out that my only interest in this matter is in relation

      to the situation in Canada, and the (what I called) institutionalized

      advisory not to use the term Eskimo in relation to them.

      In light of this clarification, I think my comments do follow

      logically from the facts as you've described them. I can't

      tell whether the fact you keep confusing what I say results

      from my poor way of expressing myself, or perhaps from your

      certain knowledge that you know more than anyone living (or

      at least anyone else present here) about this stuff, and that

      therefore any comment from others containing the words Eskimo

      or Inuit must surely therefore contain factual errors. I hope

      it's just the former, and if so I apologize again. And I don't

      intend to post here again, as I think I've understood you quite

      well, even if it's not clear to you that I have.

      Cheers,

      -Peter

      #75; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:18:00 GMT
    • Quoth Peter Hansen <peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com>:

      ...

      | Hmm... I was unclear. I meant to refer only to the Inuit

      | living in Canada above. If it wasn't clear in the past, I'm

      | in Canada and all comments I've made apply only to the situation

      | in Canada.

      That wasn't too clear, actually, and may account for some of

      the confusion over your point. I guess the rest might be due

      to a misperception about the degree to which you actually had

      a point, vs. just commenting on your own circumstances.

      Donn Cave, donn.python.todaysummary.com.drizzle.com

      #76; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:19:00 GMT
    • Peter Hansen <peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com> wrote:

      >Floyd Davidson wrote:

      >>

      >> Peter Hansen <peter.python.todaysummary.com.engcorp.com> wrote:

      >> >Floyd Davidson wrote:

      >> >>

      >> >> In Canada and Greenland Inuit people will not appreciate the

      >> >> term "Eskimo" as a specific term for them when used by locals.

      >> >> That is particularly true of Canadians. They do not seem to

      >> >> mind the general (correct) use of the term by others who do not

      >> >> have any intent to insult them.

      >>> >Okay, thanks for taking the time to clarify, Floyd!

      >>> >The impression I get then is that because some people (although

      >> >I think more so in the distant past than in recent years?)

      >> >might hold ill will towards their northern neighbours, the

      >> >rest of us with nothing against them might as well avoid the

      >> >term Eskimo entirely, to minimize the risk of someone making false

      >> >assumptions about us and how we feel about them.

      >>

      >> That doesn't follow, logically, from the facts. No other word

      >> in the English language can be used in place of the term

      >> "Eskimo", and therefore if you want to correctly refer to the

      >> group of people known as Eskimos, you have no choice but to use

      >> that term.

      >Hmm... I was unclear. I meant to refer only to the Inuit

      >living in Canada above. If it wasn't clear in the past, I'm

      >in Canada and all comments I've made apply only to the situation

      >in Canada.

      I can only respond to what you actually do say. I've never been

      able to read your mind, or anyone else's. You did *not* said a

      word about restricting your comments to Canada and Canadian

      users. When you address me about Eskimos, after I've made it

      clear as a bell from word one that I'm talking about Eskimos

      from Greenland to Siberia, it is absurd to suggest that I would

      know you are a Canadian or that I would know you are limiting

      your comments to the usage by Canadians.

      However, it is also true that the point doesn't change even

      then. Would you like me to find a list of appropriate uses of

      the term Eskimo by Canadians?

      The difference is just that in Canada you have a less frequent

      need for that term than we do in Alaska. But you still have

      occasion to use it.

      >> >> Note that in Canada and Greenland, *all* Eskimos are Inuit,

      >> >> hence there is little need to use that term to describe those

      >> >> people.

      >>> >Probably where the institutionalized advice comes from in the first

      >> >place. If all Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, and all Inuit can be

      >> >called Eskimos (but only by those who don't have intent to insult

      >> >them, apparently :-), then it's best to avoid the whole issue and

      >> >just use the term Inuit.

      >>

      >> But you *cannot* correctly call all Eskimos Inuit.

      >Certainly not, as you've made clear. You've also made it clear

      >that "in Canada ..., all Eskimos are Inuit", and once again I

      The inverse is also true. In Canada, all Inuit are Eskimos.

      >point out that my only interest in this matter is in relation

      >to the situation in Canada, and the (what I called) institutionalized

      >advisory not to use the term Eskimo in relation to them.

      >In light of this clarification, I think my comments do follow

      >logically from the facts as you've described them. I can't

      >tell whether the fact you keep confusing what I say results

      >from my poor way of expressing myself, or perhaps from your

      >certain knowledge that you know more than anyone living (or

      >at least anyone else present here) about this stuff, and that

      >therefore any comment from others containing the words Eskimo

      >or Inuit must surely therefore contain factual errors. I hope

      >it's just the former, and if so I apologize again. And I don't

      >intend to post here again, as I think I've understood you quite

      >well, even if it's not clear to you that I have.

      >Cheers,

      >-Peter

      Sounds like you have an ego problem, not one of how to express

      it. I am _not_ sorry to have abused you with the facts though.

      --

      Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>

      Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.python.todaysummary.com.barrow.com

      #77; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:20:00 GMT