On Topic Discussion Alaskan Native Tribes Identify as Eskimos in Contrast to Native Populations in Greenland and Canada

[NotHardUp1]

So, Telly's locked thread caused me to go read up on how Eskimo is perceived by Natives in the north. Having lived in Alaska for a couple of years, I kinda remembered it NOT being a thing there.

This link to the Alaskan Native Language Center in Fairbanks offers good insight into the question, and the evolution of thought by Native Alaskans on the topic: https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit-eskimo/

Our vicarious hypersensitivity is another example of cultural appropriation. "We" take offense on behalf of others, which is more than a little bit condescending considering Alaskans are fully capable of speaking for themselves and their own cultural and linguistic sensibilities and sensitivities.

What is lost on the non-Native population too often is that the Eskimos resent being inappropriately lumped in with the Inuit, a tribe and/or linguistic group that they do not recognize as their own. Identities are very regional.

When I lived there, I remember being told that if Northwest Natives strayed up into the Eskimo lands of Alaska, they were invariably killed as invaders. They may have looked like their close kin to the north, but they were not counted so.

 

[ChickenGuy]

This is as good a place for me to ask about this as any thread - what peoples exactly are described as "First Nations"?

I've heard this term a few times, always seemingly when referring to Canada, and so I assume it's the same people as Native Americans, or rather the term used to describe them in Canada?

Is there any difference between the terms?

 

[frankfrank]

THAT.

IS.

INTERESTING.

I always assumed that the northernmost peoples (at least the ones who are still living traditionally, forever way-off-the-grid) didn't even think of borders as relevant enough to consider Canadian and Alaskan counterparts as enemies/invaders. Also I found it interesting that Eskimo is an acceptable expression of self-identity by native Alaskans. I was there for a good while in 1986 and, yeah sure, I heard people talking about "Eskimos" but I thought nothing of it, because I'm not sure that I had yet begun understanding it as a possibly offensive term quite that early. It seems like the 1990s or late 1980s when I started hearing it?

That might be meaningless, because sometimes things that I thought were from the 1990s were from 1974, or I could swear that something was going on in the early 1980s but I find out it was faddish in 1997, etc. The timing of when I think I started hearing more about Inuit may be skewed because it MAY have been a result of having my first access to a lot of Canadian TV by backyard satellite dish, around that very same time (1986, in this case).

Does this also mean that saying a native Alaskan is Inuit, is also an insult?

I also don't think there are all that many left who are actually nomadic, because word has "gotten out" that life can be much less a task and much safer than the traditional lifestyle, and their exposure to exoculture (i. e. electricity, reliable food supply, permanent shelter, etc.) has probably caused general migration to population centers of some kind. Climate change is also working against them as some of the animals have falling populations, and one specific animal (the largest land animal there - the polar bear) may go extinct. I actually don't know if that is true with the populations of seals, caribou, etc. but finding that it's possible to move somewhere and have a lot of this stuff already "done for you" is an attractive option.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Cultural appropriation has absolutely nothing to do with wanting respect for other cultures or.... "vicariously taking offense." That's not even close to what it means. But I never imagined it was a secret that most cultures demand distinction, black Americans vs Africans, puerto ricans vs mexicans, deutch vs somebody, somebody else vs somebody else and so on and so forth, I don't think this is unique to eskimos we all demand respect for our identity and are not super welcoming to outsiders claiming it.

 

[NotHardUp1]

The linked article stated that they only perceived "Eskimo" as derogatory when it was viewed chiefly as an outsider term for them. Once the origin was traced to a Native word, it was not seen the same.

Whereas they don't mention Inuit being an insult, they don't want that term because it is not even in their language, and is therefore not applicable to their people.

Not having defined borders has never meant a people didn't have a defined identity or culture. Borders were always in dispute or moving in countries that were not nomadic either. Many of the invading conquerors in Asia certainly arose from herders and nomadic cultures.

 

[NotHardUp1]

This is as good a place for me to ask about this as any thread - what peoples exactly are described as "First Nations"?

I've heard this term a few times, always seemingly when referring to Canada, and so I assume it's the same people as Native Americans, or rather the term used to describe them in Canada?

Is there any difference between the terms?

It has not been a preferred term in the US, but may be growing. Like the Alaskans, some Native Americans self-identify with terms others aver from using for them out of caution, i.e., "Indians."

There still exists a Bureau of Indian Affairs.

I think many ethnic groups are smart enough to recognize the difference between a foreign term and an insult. I mean, people from India and China and Japan alike come to America and readily self-identify as Asians, when none of their cultures knew their lands as Asia in their native languages.

And conversely, being called by an appropriate or accepted moniker does not mean the term was not used as an insult. Homer Simpson invariably says something or someone is as "dirty as a Frenchman," and satire usually lampoons culture closely enough to be recognizable behavior.

 

[KaraBulut]

This is as good a place for me to ask about this as any thread - what peoples exactly are described as "First Nations"?

I've heard this term a few times, always seemingly when referring to Canada, and so I assume it's the same people as Native Americans, or rather the term used to describe them in Canada?

Is there any difference between the terms?

You're exactly correct. Canadians use the term "First Nations" and the Americans use the term "Native Americans" (or the legacy term, "Indians") for their aboriginal groups. They're synonymous, as is "indigenous people".

It has not been a preferred term in the US, but may be growing. Like the Alaskans, some Native Americans self-identify with terms others aver from using for them out of caution, i.e., "Indians."

The term "Indian" has always been confusing and it's becoming increasingly so with the large number of South Asian immigrants who have immigrated to the US (permanently or on temporary work visas) in the past two decades. A replacement term is overdue.

One thing that came to mind after reading the site you linked is something that I've seen over the years: how Native America groups are viewed as a uniform group of "Indians", as if they were one group of people who just lived in different places. That's much like saying that the Irish and the Scots are the same because they both lived in the British Isles.

The different groups of Native Americans had overlapping cultures and languages but they considered themselves distinct groups of people. And the distinct groups often did not get along with each other.

Back in the period where there was a constant need to find justification for LGBT people, there were frequent references to how Indian tribes recognized same-sex relationships and gender non-conforming people. There were multiple references in gay writings about the "berdache" (later changed to the politically correct term, "Two Spirit").

In addition to the logical flaw in using Native America culture to justify the role of LGBT people in American society, it was also an example of how the "Indians" were all lumped into one group. In fact, each group of tribes had unique views of gender and gender roles.

The same holds true for the native people in Alaska, it seems. It's convenient to refer to them as "Eskimo" for a group description but that's not necessarily how they view them themselves.

 

[gsdx]

This is as good a place for me to ask about this as any thread - what peoples exactly are described as "First Nations"?

In Canada, First Nations people are any Aboriginals who are not Métis or Inuit.

Inuit (pronounced 'IN-oo-it', not 'IN-you-wit') you already know. The Métis, according to The Canadian Encylopedia, are "people of mixed European and Indigenous ancestry, and one of the three recognized Aboriginal peoples in Canada. The use of the term Métis is complex and contentious, and has different historical and contemporary meanings."

 

[NotHardUp1]

The same holds true for the native people in Alaska, it seems. It's convenient to refer to them as "Eskimo" for a group description but that's not necessarily how they view them themselves.

Yet they reach for some overarching term, and their hands come back with "Eskimo" by their own choice.

The recognize that they are tribes of a race, just as it is common today to refer to Europeans who are certain both diverse and divided, yet from recognizably closer related genes.

"Indians" also recognize (some not) now that they are more closely related than the European conquerors, so therefore may find some solidarity, as they surely have had less success individually as tribes or nations than when they have united to fight for their rights and restitution. There may be significance in both Eskimos and Indians choosing larger umbrellas like the EU does, like LGBT does. God knows there's not much unity in LGBT outside the political cause.

 

[KaraBulut]

...The recognize that they are tribes of a race, just as it is common today to refer to Europeans who are certain both diverse and divided, yet from recognizably closer related genes.

In the US, the Native American groups are becoming increasingly divided between the "haves" and the "have nots".

The tribes that have business holdings- mineral rights or gaming casinos- have money. Money gives them some political power and it also gives them a better chance of getting their children into universities and graduate level education.

The tribes that have remained poor don't have the political clout and they're not making advances in addressing some of their long term issues.

The Hawaiian and Alaska Natives seem to have their own culture and their own agreements with State and Federal government. They're considered Native Americans but we seem to perceive them as separate... and perhaps that's why Alaska Natives tend to be called "Eskimo" instead of Native American?

 

[frankfrank]

...and perhaps that's why Alaska Natives tend to be called "Eskimo" instead of Native American?

An interesting aside for me is that I've tended to think of "Eskimo" only for those who live farther north, perhaps north of the Yukon River or thereabouts. I've never thought of indigenous people who live in places like Southeast ("the Panhandle"), the Matsu Valley (Palin Territory), the Aleutians, etc. as Eskimos. That latter might be because my sister's husband, in my teens, was stationed at Shemya and he was mentioning the Aleuts as natives in the area.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Having lived in Alaska and New Mexico, I haven't noticed non-Natives regarding Native Americans very differently in the two states, nor anywhere else I have lived.

They are viewed as tribes with proportionate political might to their size. Navajos are the muscle.

All of the regional tribal governments are notorious for their corruption and clanish behavior, favoring their own relatives.

As for poverty, it is an old problem on the reservations, in pueblos and villages, and rife with addictions.

Sadly, tribal behaviors feed the cycle. Their children have favored status for unversity admittance, but their culture works against it. Family ties keep them too close to home where poverty is certain.

Wealthy tribes wont reinvest their money at home except in predatory enterprises like casinos that bleed their own.

As a people, they are very likeable, but their communities seem to be self destructing after surviving centuries of conflict with Europeans and with each other.

What war, disease, broken treaties and exile did not do, modern culture seems to be finishing.

I hope they turn it around. It will be all our loss as a nation if they do not, and we were the cause of their oppression so we should help now even more.

 

[KaraBulut]

...
As for poverty, it is an old problem on the reservations, in pueblos and villages, and rife with addictions.

Sadly, tribal behaviors feed the cycle. Their children have favored status for unversity admittance, but their culture works against it. Family ties keep them too close to home where poverty is certain.

Wealthy tribes wont reinvest their money at home except in predatory enterprises like casinos that bleed their own...

I agree with you.

An interesting aside- what you've written here is very similar what J. D. Vance wrote about multi-generational poverty in his memoir about growing up poor in Appalachia, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.

 

[ChickenGuy]

And since I am unaware again, can someone tell me another thing - why casinos? Why choose to make money through of all things, casinos? It seems so incongruous to Native American culture. Surely they could have other means?

Why not promote tourism? Do reservations have visitor centres? Would they, for example, sell arts and crafts? I would have thought they could make plenty that way.

Are reservations open or closed to the average American public traveller? Do they welcome visitors? Or do they in general prefer privacy and solitude?

 

[rareboy]

This is as good a place for me to ask about this as any thread - what peoples exactly are described as "First Nations"?

I've heard this term a few times, always seemingly when referring to Canada, and so I assume it's the same people as Native Americans, or rather the term used to describe them in Canada?

Is there any difference between the terms?

Just to also clarify, the nation of Canada has three founding peoples, the french, english and aboriginal inhabitants.

The natives in Canada, including all those who came here after the American Revolution are recognized as 'First Nation' people and are governed only as prescribed under the original federal treaties.

Canada's constitutional relationship with native peoples is much different than in the US.

This does not change the fact that native people were horribly mistreated, including thousands of children being taken from their families and communities to be raised in residential schools.

 

[rareboy]

And since I am unaware again, can someone tell me another thing - why casinos? Why choose to make money through of all things, casinos? It seems so incongruous to Native American culture. Surely they could have other means?

Why not promote tourism? Do reservations have visitor centres? Would they, for example, sell arts and crafts? I would have thought they could make plenty that way.

Are reservations open or closed to the average American public traveller? Do they welcome visitors? Or do they in general prefer privacy and solitude?

Natives were pushed by the state and provincial governments to get into casinos because their reservations were exempt from laws forbidding gambling in the remainder of the jurisdiction. It was also seen as a way to foster economic growth and develop tourism.

And let's not be simplistic about selling souvenirs. It doesn't create a solid economy. And natives aren't any more or less likely to be skilled in crafts as anyone else.

Reservations cannot be human zoos. These are not people whose lives are frozen in some 19th century romantic tableau.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

And since I am unaware again, can someone tell me another thing - why casinos?

They didn't exactly beg the colonists for casinos. We learned this in like 3rd grade.

Why choose to make money through of all things, casinos?

You're really stretching the term "choose." See above.

It seems so incongruous to Native American culture.

Only if you take your cues on NA culture from Bugs Bunny cartoons instead of history books.

Why not promote tourism? Do reservations have visitor centres? Would they, for example, sell arts and crafts? I would have thought they could make plenty that way.

Maybe because they're human beings and not a living art exhibit for the people who slaughtered their ancestors. And NA's don't just sit around carving dolls out of tree bark. The idea that they can sustain a whole economy selling bobble heads and keychains is so silly it's almost offensive.

Are reservations open or closed to the average American public traveller? Do they welcome visitors? Or do they in general prefer privacy and solitude?

What a funny time to ask if we're welcome on their land.

 

[KaraBulut]

Natives were pushed by the state and provincial governments to get into casinos because their reservations were exempt from laws forbidding gambling in the remainder of the jurisdiction. It was also seen as a way to foster economic growth and develop tourism.

Exactly.

Adding another thing that wouldn't be familiar to someone not from the US. In many States in the Southern US, organized gambling (games where participants can lose money) is not legal. There are many Protestant religious groups that oppose "games of chance" and they have ensured that prohibitions were written into long-standing State and local laws against things like gambling, alcohol sales and other vices.

People want to gamble.

The loophole is that anything that is not on State land is not subject to the prohibition. It's why there are Riverboat casinos and cruise ships in the Gulf of Mexico that have casinos. As rareboy indicated, Indian Reservations are not State land.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I agree with you.

An interesting aside- what you've written here is very similar what J. D. Vance wrote about multi-generational poverty in his memoir about growing up poor in Appalachia, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.

I had no ties to Appalachia, but the cycle of poverty was omnipresent in my youth and obvious to me in contrast to my siblings or mother. It was certain that we children were going to wind up poor adults if left to my mother's devices. I alone of five children broke that cycle, and I do not think it odd that I began saying "poverty breeds poverty" when I was but 13 years old. Impoverished children the world over can see their parents and their own futures being laid down one brick at a time, and oftentimes they dread it.

Exactly.

Adding another thing that wouldn't be familiar to someone not from the US. In many States in the Southern US, organized gambling (games where participants can lose money) is not legal. There are many Protestant religious groups that oppose "games of chance" and they have ensured that prohibitions were written into long-standing State and local laws against things like gambling, alcohol sales and other vices

People want to gamble.

The loophole is that anything that is not on State land is not subject to the prohibition. It's why there are Riverboat casinos and cruise ships in the Gulf of Mexico that have casinos. As rareboy indicated, Indian Reservations are not State land.

I rather think the State is not the source of any tribe being pressured to build a casino. More like the criminals who run large casinos, like Donald Trump, exploit the weakness of tribal government to sell them on the "easy money" to be made in gambling. At any rate, the tribes did and do have choices, and in the case of the Alaskan tribes, many got their settlements from the federal government in the 70's and promptly pissed the money away.

 

[KaraBulut]

I had no ties to Appalachia, but the cycle of poverty was omnipresent in my youth and obvious to me in contrast to my siblings or mother. It was certain that we children were going to wind up poor adults if left to my mother's devices. I alone of five children broke that cycle, and I do not think it odd that I began saying "poverty breeds poverty" when I was but 13 years old. Impoverished children the world over can see their parents and their own futures being laid down one brick at a time, and oftentimes they dread it.

It's interesting how the pattern is the same whether it's hillbillies, low-landers, crackers, swamp rats or Indians.

If you haven't read the Vance book, you would probably find it a good read.

I rather think the State is not the source of any tribe being pressured to build a casino. More like the criminals who run large casinos, like Donald Trump, exploit the weakness of tribal government to sell them on the "easy money" to be made in gambling. At any rate, the tribes did and do have choices, and in the case of the Alaskan tribes, many got their settlements from the federal government in the 70's and promptly pissed the money away.

Quite a few of the Tribes found themselves in bad deals with casino corporations. They also found people coming out of the woodwork claiming Indian relatives.

Things are beginning to change, though. The Tribes with good leadership are re-investing the money into schools and scholarships for higher education. They want the kids to come back to the reservation with business educations and skills so that they can be better stewards of the funds from the casinos and Tribe-owned businesses.