Eskimo and PC!
ns...@aurora.alaska.edu
thread..
Eskimo is a word coming from a Cress word for flesh eater, it might have once
been derogitory, and even if it is kind of trus that many eskimo delicacies are
basically raw. Muktuk, Walrus Liver, raw fish, and such, soem are also a bit
let to rot a little bit, and are considered good eating by some, thou you can
at tiems smell who eats the "rotted" foods.. Stink fish, stink flipper, stink
eggs, and such.. Not really sure on that, I know soem people I know who stink,
but not sure if it diet or otherwise..
These days the word Eskimo is generally used by all to define the arctic people
called Inuit, Inupiat, Yupik, Siberian Yupik and a few others.. Who mostly all
share the same basic culture, and dielects (seme say related languages, it
depends, there is soem differences between the different groups) and
conditions.. There is soem derogetory words based on Eskimo, one I know of is
"Ski Mo" basically used alot by military people, or by people who live in the
large cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks, namely cause of the large infusion of
Eskimos who move to these cities and get stuck, drunk or whatever... It is not
a very nice word, kind of similar to saying "Nigger".
This word is not based on the word Eskimo:
Other one is Klootch (spelling ??), I think is a Athabascan word or not sure,
word meaning in its modern meaning as a woman (and maybe man) who exchanges sex
for alcohol..
Im just a Gusiq home in Nome..
Gusiq is a local eskimo word for White Man..
Nome is a town on the boundary (kind of) of Inupiat, Siberian Yupik, Yupik and
other cultures, Russians are seen almost every day. Basically a point of entry
to and from Russia. Chukotka(sp)..
===
Ghost Wheel - ns...@acad3.alaska.edu
Les Earnest
These days the word Eskimo is generally used by all to define the
arctic people called Inuit, Inupiat, Yupik, Siberian Yupik and a few
others.. Who mostly all share the same basic culture, and dielects
(seme say related languages, it depends, there is soem differences
While these groups probably evolved from a single culture some 1,000
years or more ago, they are now three fairly distinct cultures and
linguistic groups. Inuit and Inupiat (or variations on those
spellings) are essentially one culture that apparently evolved in
Northern Alaska and migrated across Northern Canada to Greenland.
Siberian and Alaskan Yupiks are the second group and what is left of
the Aleuts constitute a third group.
Im just a Gusiq home in Nome..
Gusiq is a local eskimo word for White Man..
Further South it is pronounced more like "gussack." As you may know,
it is derived from the Russian word "Cossack," for historical reasons.
--
Les Earnest (L...@cs.Stanford.edu) Phone: 415 941-3984
Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305 Fax: 415 941-3934
Floyd Davidson
>ns...@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
> These days the word Eskimo is generally used by all to define the
> arctic people called Inuit, Inupiat, Yupik, Siberian Yupik and a few
> others.. Who mostly all share the same basic culture, and dielects
> (seme say related languages, it depends, there is soem differences
> between the different groups) and conditions. [. . .]
>
>While these groups probably evolved from a single culture some 1,000
>years or more ago, they are now three fairly distinct cultures and
>linguistic groups. Inuit and Inupiat (or variations on those
10,000 years ago.
> Gusiq is a local eskimo word for White Man..
>
>Further South it is pronounced more like "gussack." As you may know,
>it is derived from the Russian word "Cossack," for historical reasons.
It actually means "stranger".
--
fl...@ims.alaska.edu A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
Floyd Davidson
>
>Eskimo is a word coming from a Cress word for flesh eater, it might have once
>been derogitory, and even if it is kind of trus that many eskimo delicacies are
>basically raw. Muktuk, Walrus Liver, raw fish, and such, soem are also a bit
>let to rot a little bit, and are considered good eating by some, thou you can
>at tiems smell who eats the "rotted" foods.. Stink fish, stink flipper, stink
>eggs, and such.. Not really sure on that, I know soem people I know who stink,
>but not sure if it diet or otherwise..
The food isn't rotten. Rot comes from bacterial action which also
produces toxins that can be anything from mildly discomforting to
extremely poisonous (e.g. salmonella and botulism).
Various Eskimo delicacies are produced by enzyme action, which is
generally call an "aging process". That is exactly the same
reason your beef steak is tender, just taken a bit farther than
the butcher shop does!
Aging food to such an extreme is common in Asian cultures. Kim
Chi any one?
Les Earnest
from a single culture 1,000 or more years ago, Floyd Davidson writes:
10,000 years ago.
This is certainly wrong -- their languages are too close to have
separated that long ago. On the other hand, I'm not a linguist and
I'm sure that Floyd is not either, so I decline to bash this any further.
Regarding my remark that the eskimo word "gusig" is derived from the
Russian "Cossack," Davidson says:
It actually means "stranger".
Close but not quite. It generally has derogatory connotations and
means about the same thing as "gringo" does to Mexicans.
Floyd Davidson
>In response to my remark that the three main eskimo groups evolved
>from a single culture 1,000 or more years ago, Floyd Davidson writes:
> 10,000 years ago.
>
>This is certainly wrong -- their languages are too close to have
>separated that long ago. On the other hand, I'm not a linguist and
>I'm sure that Floyd is not either, so I decline to bash this any further.
Aleut has probably been separated longer than 10,000 years. Yup'ik
and Inupiat cultures were distinctly separate migrations at about
10,000 years ago.
How close do you think the languages are?
If you really have an interest, I can get a technical description
from someone who is a linguist, and whose area of study is exactly
that.
>Regarding my remark that the eskimo word "gusig" is derived from the
>Russian "Cossack," Davidson says:
> It actually means "stranger".
>
>Close but not quite. It generally has derogatory connotations and
>means about the same thing as "gringo" does to Mexicans.
Perhaps when YOU hear it the connotation is generally bad! :-)
Irene Reed published a Yup'ik dictionary as part of her earliest
work with the Alaska Native Language Center at the University of
Alaska at Fairbanks. I don't have a copy of it so I can't tell
you what it says. (If you would like a copy, I do have the
address and price info here. ANLC takes mail orders too.)
Irene used to do "research" in my living room. (Those ladies did
a lot of gossiping and laughing!)
The word means "stranger" to Irene's expert sources, so I'm fairly
sure what her dictionary would say. It can have derogatory
connotations. It is used in place of "white". But it need not be
either. I rarely hear it used in a derogatory way, though it
certainly can be. And I'm certain that some people rarely ever
hear it when it is NOT an insult!
I'm positive it is meant as I'm understanding it. It describes
what I am to Yup'ik speakers in the sense that it means "white".
All "whites" are strangers by definition.
Floyd
George W. Hayduke
> Other one is Klootch (spelling ??), I think is a Athabascan word or not sure,
> word meaning in its modern meaning as a woman (and maybe man) who exchanges s
> for alcohol..
You mean Coutch? I think that's a Tlingit word...
"Hooch, coutch, and a victorola..."
--
Fred Polsky aka George -- sys...@fred.com -- AS...@ALASKA.BITNET fnord
PO Box 232251 -- Anchorage, AK 99523-2251 -- Fredbox: +1 907 344 8437
Telebit WorldBlazer -- Waffle 1.65 -- PGP v2.2 public key available
"I suppose there's a little bit of Sean Ryan in all of us." -- Bob Rusbasan
Walter Rutherford
fl...@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) wrote:
>
> In article <1993Aug9.1...@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> l...@cs.stanford.edu writes:
> >In response to my remark that the three main eskimo groups evolved
> >from a single culture 1,000 or more years ago, Floyd Davidson writes:
> > 10,000 years ago.
> >
> >This is certainly wrong -- their languages are too close to have
> >separated that long ago. On the other hand, I'm not a linguist and
> >I'm sure that Floyd is not either, so I decline to bash this any further.
>
> Aleut has probably been separated longer than 10,000 years. Yup'ik
> and Inupiat cultures were distinctly separate migrations at about
> 10,000 years ago.
>
Aleuts are NOT Eskimo. Your only disagreement here seems to be from a
misunderstanding earlier in the posts when you switched from talking
about people of the far North to include other groups.
> >Regarding my remark that the eskimo word "gusig" is derived from the
> >Russian "Cossack," Davidson says:
> > It actually means "stranger".
> >
> >Close but not quite. It generally has derogatory connotations and
> >means about the same thing as "gringo" does to Mexicans.
>
Point is do they use this work for ALL strangers? For example, I doubt
that Gusiq is used for someone from a neighboring village and is reserved
for Whites or folks from the white/Western culture - so it means a little
bit more than just 'stranger'. I have heard the work used only as a mildly
(perhaps jokingly) derogatory - and they definitely meant Caucasian.
Daniel A. Johnson
>> >Regarding my remark that the eskimo word "gusig" is derived from the
>> >Russian "Cossack," Davidson says:
>> > It actually means "stranger".
>> >
>> >Close but not quite. It generally has derogatory connotations and
>> >means about the same thing as "gringo" does to Mexicans.
>>
>
>Point is do they use this work for ALL strangers? For example, I doubt
>that Gusiq is used for someone from a neighboring village and is reserved
>for Whites or folks from the white/Western culture - so it means a little
>bit more than just 'stranger'. I have heard the work used only as a mildly
>(perhaps jokingly) derogatory - and they definitely meant Caucasian.
First, I am no linguist, anthropologist nor claim any expertise beyond having
lived in Barrow for a while (Inupiat area) as well as Bethel (Yupik). I have
been the object of these terms for quite a few years.
I don't think the Inupiats in Alaska use Gusiq - I remember a term "Tunik", not
a deravation of Gusiq, but rather an Inupiaq word which I always took to mean
"white person" or maybe non-Inupiat. Sometimes it was derogatory, but
usually, just descriptive - depending on what you deserved or the state of
mind of the speaker. At the time I was in Barrow, "honkey" was used quite a
bit to refer to non-natives, with its common derogatory meaning. A black
person I worked with claimed it was the first time she had ever been called a
honkey.
In my experience, Yupiks use Gusiq almost exclusively as a neutral way of
referring to a non-native. I never felt derogatory connotations, but it
certainly could be used that way. I never heard the definition as "stranger"
as Floyd said, but could be. I was always told it came from Cossak, from the
Russians who occupied much of coastal Alaska in the last century. From this I
always assumed that the connection was that cossaks were white, therefore
gusiqs are white, not just stranger Could be the other way around, but I don't
think an Athabascan woudl be called a Gusiq.
Also: In my experience, while it is only polite to refer to Yupiks as Yupiks
(and incidently, Chupiks as Chupiks), and Inupiats as such, many
people have introduced themselves to me as Eskimos (I had to find out from
where), and have never felt "Eskimo" to be impolite or offensive (of course,
this doesn't mean "Eskimo" is not p.c. - the p.c. police don't really care
about what people really think and feel, just what they ought to.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Johnson fn...@aurora.alaska.edu Fairbanks, Alaska USA
Hit <return> for next message
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Davidson
>In article <1993Aug10.0...@raven.alaska.edu>,
>fl...@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) wrote:
>>
>> In article <1993Aug9.1...@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> l...@cs.stanford.edu writes:
>> >In response to my remark that the three main eskimo groups evolved
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >from a single culture 1,000 or more years ago, Floyd Davidson writes:
>> > 10,000 years ago.
>> >
>> >This is certainly wrong -- their languages are too close to have
>> >separated that long ago. On the other hand, I'm not a linguist and
>> >I'm sure that Floyd is not either, so I decline to bash this any further.
>>
>> Aleut has probably been separated longer than 10,000 years. Yup'ik
>> and Inupiat cultures were distinctly separate migrations at about
>> 10,000 years ago.
>>
>
>Aleuts are NOT Eskimo. Your only disagreement here seems to be from a
>misunderstanding earlier in the posts when you switched from talking
>about people of the far North to include other groups.
Aleuts are not Eskimo, they are Aleut. Aleuts speak a language
that is of the same type as the other two main groups of Eskimo
languages. They are derived from the same genetic pool and
language pool and cultural pool... I have no idea how you define,
or what you mean, by "far North". Aleuts are Aleut. Eskimos are
Yup'ik or Inupiat, and they all speak Eskimoean languages. OK?
About ten minutes ago I was speaking to a recognized expert on
these matters. She has for several years now been the host of the
cultural evening of Native arts and dance put on each year during
the Alaska Federation of Natives. She has taken the basic course
on Alaska Native Languages taught by Dr. Krause at UAF. She has
also taken the Yup'ik course taught by Steve Jacobson at UAF. Her
mother, aunts and grandmother helped Irene Reed (who preceeded Dr.
Krause as the head of the ANLC) develop the Yup'ik dictionary (for
those who wish to nitpick, please note the proper spelling of the
word...). She teaches Native Studies for the Juneau school
district and she has recently been part of a group of Native
educators doing the curriculum development for an upcoming tour of
Alaska the fall by a Smithsonian exhibit of "Polar Region"
cultural artifacts called "Crossroads of Culture". (My daughter.)
I did relate the nature of this particular exchange, and was told
that my understanding is an understatement of the facts. Aleuts in
the region where Yup'ik and Aleut cultures meet (the upper part of
the Aleutian chain and the Alaska Penninsula) speak a separate
language (I have no idea how to spell it, but it sounded like
Aleutuk or Aleutik) that definitely has a mixture of both
Southern Yup'ik and Aleut. It is considered a separate language.
Likewise to a linguist, what we are talking about when we say
the "Yup'ik language" is linguistically several different languages
(not just dialects, of which each has many). Southern, Central,
Siberian, etc. are all truely different languages from that
perspective according to the Alaska Native Language Center.
And she verified that the University teaches that the 10,000
year number is probably correct.
>> >Regarding my remark that the eskimo word "gusig" is derived from the
>> >Russian "Cossack," Davidson says:
>> > It actually means "stranger".
>> >
>> >Close but not quite. It generally has derogatory connotations and
>> >means about the same thing as "gringo" does to Mexicans.
>>
>
>Point is do they use this work for ALL strangers? For example, I doubt
>that Gusiq is used for someone from a neighboring village and is reserved
>for Whites or folks from the white/Western culture - so it means a little
>bit more than just 'stranger'. I have heard the work used only as a mildly
>(perhaps jokingly) derogatory - and they definitely meant Caucasian.
Yes, they do use the word for ALL strangers, but people from other
villages are not strangers. (Usually they are relatives...) People
who live far enough away, no matter what they are, are gusuk.
As I said before, the word can be used in a derogatory manner, but it
isn't always or even most often used that way.
I'm inclined to find all these observations about what Yup'ik is or
what it means fairly facinating. Different people have different
exposure and depth of exposure, so it isn't too amazing that there
are disagreements in the perceived meanings of various things.
I lived in a Yup'ik house, in a Yup'ik village for half of my adult
live. My family is Yup'ik. My children are Yup'ik. My one grand
child is Yup'ik. I stick out like a sore thumb in the crowd.
Les Earnest
[. . .] Her
mother, aunts and grandmother helped Irene Reed (who preceeded Dr.
Krause as the head of the ANLC) develop the Yup'ik dictionary (for
those who wish to nitpick, please note the proper spelling of the
word...).
I believe that there is more than one Yupik dictionary. I have one
that was developed in the '30s by missionaries and published in the
'40s.
I lived in a Yup'ik house, in a Yup'ik village for half of my adult
live. My family is Yup'ik. My children are Yup'ik. My one grand
child is Yup'ik. I stick out like a sore thumb in the crowd.
Hey, I have five Yupik grandchildren, so there!
--
fl...@ims.alaska.edu A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
Floyd Davidson
>
>I believe that there is more than one Yupik dictionary. I have one
>that was developed in the '30s by missionaries and published in the
>'40s.
By the the Moravian Missionaries. I think that dictionary is the
reason Irene developed her own!
Rev. Dreybhert was a missionary. Irene Reed is a linguist.
The difference in the dictionaries is worth noting.
> I lived in a Yup'ik house, in a Yup'ik village for half of my adult
> live. My family is Yup'ik. My children are Yup'ik. My one grand
> child is Yup'ik. I stick out like a sore thumb in the crowd.
>
>Hey, I have five Yupik grandchildren, so there!
Whaka, upa! (That status gets a lot of respect in my book.)
Do they speak Yup'ik? My grandchild does, but only half my
own kids can. I consider it my fault that half my kids can't
speak it because I have absolutely no talent at learning
languages, and I couldn't help at all...
Walter Rutherford
fl...@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) wrote:
>
> >> >Regarding my remark that the eskimo word "gusig" is derived from the
> >> >Russian "Cossack," Davidson says:
> >> > It actually means "stranger".
> >> >
> >> >Close but not quite. It generally has derogatory connotations and
> >> >means about the same thing as "gringo" does to Mexicans.
> >>
> >
> >Point is do they use this work for ALL strangers? For example, I doubt
> >that Gusiq is used for someone from a neighboring village and is reserved
> >for Whites or folks from the white/Western culture - so it means a little
> >bit more than just 'stranger'. I have heard the work used only as a mildly
> >(perhaps jokingly) derogatory - and they definitely meant Caucasian.
>
> Yes, they do use the word for ALL strangers, but people from other
> villages are not strangers. (Usually they are relatives...) People
> who live far enough away, no matter what they are, are gusuk.
You can't be both a relative (or neighbor) and a stranger? Is there another
word for people_we_should_know_but_dont_yet?
>
> As I said before, the word can be used in a derogatory manner, but it
> isn't always or even most often used that way.
>
> I'm inclined to find all these observations about what Yup'ik is or
> what it means fairly facinating. Different people have different
> exposure and depth of exposure, so it isn't too amazing that there
> are disagreements in the perceived meanings of various things.
>
Also language is a tool and as a tool is molded to each users hand (mouth).
I doubt that everybody who uses the word gusik/gusiq/gusuk, including
native
speakers, has the same basic definition of the word (depends on how/where
they learned the word) or is trying to say the same thing. Words change
their
definitions over time. If it has been in the language for a long time then
it
almost certainly doesn't carry the original meaning; for example, if it did
truly evolve from "Cossack".
I discussed this with a friend last night and he thought that it was
similar
to the Japanese word 'gaijin'; something like foreigner or outlander. Not
necessarily derogatory but can be if desired. Even the two of us couldn't
agree on a meaning (we are both non-native, longtime Alaskans). I didn't
think
that gusiq would be used for say Asian strangers. Then again, I didn't
think
that "honky" would be used for a black woman as somebody else pointed out.
I am really surprised to hear that it is used even for Yup'ik strangers.
I'm
going to have to double check that with some friends.
Walter R.
Walter Rutherford
fl...@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) wrote:
>
>
> Aleuts are not Eskimo, they are Aleut. Aleuts speak a language
> that is of the same type as the other two main groups of Eskimo
> languages. They are derived from the same genetic pool and
> language pool and cultural pool...
My mistake. The original poster did include Aleuts in his original
statement. I wouldn't dispute 10,000 years to account for the cultural
and language differences we see from the North Slope to the Aleutians.
Even a couple hundred years can make vast differences in a language, but
these are just dialects or accents. Without external influences the time
it would take for two groups to develop separate, mutually incomprehensible
languages would almost have to be in the thousands of years. As a rule
cultures and languages just don't change fast unless they have to due to
a sudden change - like contact with foreigners.
Les Earnest
Do they speak Yup'ik? My grandchild does, but only half my
own kids can. I consider it my fault that half my kids can't
speak it because I have absolutely no talent at learning
languages, and I couldn't help at all...
Mine speak Yup'ik with varying skills, depending on how much time they
have spent in that environment. I notice, however, that even the
youngest never make a mistake about which language to use when speaking
to a given individual. Pretty amazing when you think about it.
BTW, I'm off to Alaska by car tomorrow morning and so must temporarily
withdraw from this forum.
Floyd Davidson
>fl...@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) wrote:
>>
>> >> >Regarding my remark that the eskimo word "gusig" is derived from the
>> >> >Russian "Cossack," Davidson says:
>> >> > It actually means "stranger".
>> >> >
>> >> >Close but not quite. It generally has derogatory connotations and
>> >> >means about the same thing as "gringo" does to Mexicans.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Point is do they use this work for ALL strangers? For example, I doubt
>> >that Gusiq is used for someone from a neighboring village and is reserved
>> >for Whites or folks from the white/Western culture - so it means a little
>> >bit more than just 'stranger'. I have heard the work used only as a mildly
>> >(perhaps jokingly) derogatory - and they definitely meant Caucasian.
>>
>> Yes, they do use the word for ALL strangers, but people from other
>> villages are not strangers. (Usually they are relatives...) People
>> who live far enough away, no matter what they are, are gusuk.
>
>You can't be both a relative (or neighbor) and a stranger? Is there another
>word for people_we_should_know_but_dont_yet?
Please don't read too much into that or try splitting hairs with it.
The word's base meaning is "stranger", it is in fact derived from the
Russian "Cossack", it is generally used to mean non-Yup'uk people,
particularly those of European/American cultures, and it can be used
both as a mere description or as a derogatory description. The
general use of the work just simply means "white man". But you
have to understand it in terms of the derivation and the culture
to catch the exact nuanances, and that is what everyone seems to be
missing and getting all uptight about.
Whatever single particular nuance that YOU heard, isn't all there
is to it.
>I am really surprised to hear that it is used even for Yup'ik strangers.
>I'm
>going to have to double check that with some friends.
What you think you heard, and what other people think they said, may
be two different things!
In this case you are reading something into that which isn't there.
Specifically I said that people in other villages are NOT strangers.
That would pretty much include every single Yup'ik person in the
whole world as being NOT a stranger.
A linguist would say the meaning of the word is "stranger", but you
cannot apply the concept of "stranger" in your culture to a word that
is used in a different culture, and then try picking nits with what
that would mean if it were true. It isn't necessarily the case.
George W. Hayduke
> Aleuts are NOT Eskimo. Your only disagreement here seems to be from a
> misunderstanding earlier in the posts when you switched from talking
> about people of the far North to include other groups.
"We are NOT Eskimos."
-- Graham Chapman
--
Fred Polsky aka George -- sys...@fred.com -- AS...@ALASKA.BITNET -- fnord
PO Box 232251 -- Anchorage, AK 99523-2251 -- PGP v2.2 public key available
Radio Free Fredbox +1 907 344 8437 -- Telebit WorldBlazer -- Waffle 1.65
GEEK CODE 1.0.1: GAT d-- p---@ c++++ "I suppose there's a little bit
+u- e+ !n h++(--)(*) f+ l m* s++/-- of Sean Ryan in all of us."
!!g w+++ t+ r- y+ -- Bob Rusbasan