I am, the term 'eskimo' is outdated and offensive. The Inuit people have various groups and that term is now the only one accepted to encompase them.
Feelings Halfway Through The Series
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
I am, the term 'eskimo' is outdated and offensive. The Inuit people have various groups and that term is now the only one accepted to encompase them.
She was being serious and it doesn't matter if it was the "popular" phrase or not, it's still racist.
You know what was also casually popular? The n-word.
Uh. I didn't? Take a look, I can wait. I was responding to another poster. Maybe you're ignoring @Kirk Prime, I don't know. But, I was responding to their post, as it is clearly labeled.
First, let me say, I'm having a problem with your explanation because you aren't really supplying any examples. But, go on...
No... But, then, you've finally given me an example. What about in Doctor Who? Again, you suggested it wasn't just Rosa and Demons, so, I'm just trying to find your "trivia" example in the other episodes. And again, you used the phrase "smashing in the face." Now, certainly, I get the "smashing in the face" of nostalgia and trivia of Ready Player One, it's why I didn't finish the book, I felt like that's ALL it was. So, what in this season of Doctor Who is like your example from Ready Player One?
I get the idea of home. But, if you start hating where you live, why continue to live there? Home is where you make it. If home isn't HOME anymore, why continue to live there?
And when it's something like a TV show, yes, it's been there, it's been a comfort, but, it's STOPPED being a comfort, it's stopped being your Dad before the divorce--and I get grieving for a show that was once loved, but, as some point, it's healthy to move on and find a new home, yes?
Because, in the end the show ISN'T your dad before the divorce. It ISN'T your home. Those are memories. Good memories. But, when the thing that conjures up those good memories doesn't do it, isn't it better to move on? You'll still have the memories.
Last edited:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo
It’s the only accepted in some places. Also it seems Inuit is a bit of catch all term being used to include non-Inuit peoples. It’s also a bit open to debate as to whether it’s a pejorative or not by the looks of things. The good news is, generally I use Inuit on the rare occasions I am talking about native peoples in Canada, and only use Eskimo in cases where I am using catchphrases...which is probably even rarer. Oh. Except Eskimo kiss, that’s less rare because of the time and place I grew up in, and again, isn’t being used in a pejorative sense. Either way, I think the phrase ‘sell ice makers to eskimos’ is (a) common and (b) actually has naf all to with inuit, actual or fictional.
It might be an insult in some places, here, it’s generally not.
It’s use as a phrase is also completely incomparable to segregation or any of the actual evils of bigotry, it’s just an incorrect name that came into common usage, after the name was given by another group of people in the first place. Perspective I guess.
Not to the people themselves, who I would rather listen to.
My bad on the primekirk bit, I was in a hurry at the time, and all the other quotes were mine.
The other stuff is still you not reading what I said. I personally do not consider Rosa or Demons in any way problematic, but I can see why people might be of the opinion it’s not the kind of who they want...without it being due to bigotry. This is what all the ‘smashing in the face’ discussion is about. So you can stop asking about Rosa or Demons, and indeed Who in general to some extent, because I outright said I wasn’t talking directly about those things. It was talking about tastes, taking ideology out of the equation.
You get what I am saying, because you understand the Ready Player One example.
The rest of this is you having an argument with shadows, because you haven’t got the first bit.
In terms of your assessment, well, let’s just agree to differ. I think that empathy shows itself in different ways, and I perhaps have a different thinking to how people regard things that have meaning to them. Whether it’s the land they grew up on or the things that held meaning for them.
I will be sure to listen to the next Inuit I meet, it’s the kind of subject I would find interesting. And yes...a people absolutely have the right to self-define, and correct innocent errors made through the complicated nature of civilisations meeting. Personally I would certainly like more thought given to various aboriginal or near-aboriginal cultures, right around the world. But that’s not even remotely what I or the thread is talking about.
*shrug*
I'm literally reading every word you are writing. Perhaps I'm disagreeing, but, please, don't say I'm not reading what you are writing. I am.
I brought up Rosa, then you said Rosa wasn't what you were talking about, so...that's how we got to this moment. So, the smashing in the face IS about Rosa and its messaging. You are suggesting that some people don't want Doctor Who to be so on target about it's moralizing--which, to be clear, is the DNA of the show. Yes?
I wasn't asking about Rosa and Demons. I specifically set those aside, because you said you didn't have them in your mind posts ago. So, I was asking for examples OUTSIDE of Rosa and Demons.
I don't know if that's always possible. Especially for stories that are so political... but YMMV.
OOHHHHHH, I see, it's MY fault, because of your vague examples from Doctor Who, that I'm not agreeing with you, that's what you mean by "haven't got the first bit."
I'm not trying to have an argument with shadows. I'm trying to understand. I'm trying to listen--something that you keep asking people to do. But, when I ask for specifics, for examples, I get ... none.
Agree to disagree.
You have a real talent for circumlocution. A little brevity and clarity would go a long way. For example: most people would agree that Tasha's "drugs are bad" speech in Symbiosis is anything but subtle, but I can't think of a moment in this series that comes even close. You obviously can, so please, briefly and clearly, point them out.
I can’t give you examples of OTT moralising in Who, because I personally don’t find Who to be OTT. But I can see why people would...because I accept that everyone’s view on what is OTT differs. See?
I accept that you think there’s too much eighties nostalgia in Ready Player One, even though I (so far..haven’t finished the book yet) do not think it is too much.
Do I think Who shouldn’t have a moral? No, I think it should have, and usually does...though not always the one people think. The best ones have had multiple viewpoints. The McCoy era gets a lot of stick, but it’s full of the most powerful stuff who has managed.
The closest I get to an actual disagreement is that I think it’s better served for the show when it uses allegory, particularly for anything more recent than say the nineteen thirties. Because there’s a difficulty with stuff in living memory of handling it wrong. It’s a big dice roll. Sometimes they will hit a six, but sooner or later they won’t.
I am not enjoying the show at the moment, but it’s politics aren’t why. It’s level of message isn’t why either. But I can see how some people would find that to be the case, without it being because they are bigots etc.
I can’t think of anything in this season, but some of my favourite bits in Who are even less subtle than Tasha. So...’where I fall is where I stand’ etc....how about ‘not pure in their blobbiness?’ For an older one. So here’s the thing...I do not have issues with Who’s morality, nor with its levels...but I accept some people would without it making them Illinois Nazis. People slag off ‘white kids firebombed it’ for being too OTT, or for not going far enough....personally I think the scene is beautiful and does so much with so little, makes a stand and talks about the character and the story all in a few seconds. I think I would settle on that as one of my favourite bits of Who taking a stand.
But I accept it’s not to everyone’s tastes.
What do you mean "out of date?" There is literally a rise of anti-immigrant, pro-white violence in America right now and a general fascistic tilt to many countries within the past years. How on Earth is a story about standing up to racist policies, standing for the right thing and allies knowing when to help and when let to let people speak and stand for themselves "out of date?" Are you kidding me?
Why would a story about religious strife, intermarriage and the effects of war be out of date? It's not like there are a multitude of endless wars going in the world over disputed and enforced borders and religious intolerance? It's not like the public persecution and purity testing of women for daring to speak truth to power is literally unfolding on TV screens? The fact that you can claim all of this was, somehow, covered and conquered by American TV shows in the 70s, is just shameful. The idea that there aren't shows dealing with these same topics on TV in other countries right now is just baffling.
I am loathe to qualify anyone using "PC" as a pejorative. But you haven't really been able to prove this as others have demanded. But worst of all, your "PC Lowers Quality" phrase doesn't make a lick of sense. The head of Warner Brothers has announced "Diversity is good for business." At the same time films with more diverse casts, more diverse crews and more diverse stories review better, perform better and engender better results for their casts of mostly newcomers. So this claim is absolute nonsense. "PC" doesn't lower quality, it makes you uncomfortable. And honestly, no one cares about your feelings anymore there are bigger markets, bigger returns and new converts to be had.
This gave me a good laugh. A very sad laugh, but a good one. Because you're absolutely right.
Geez, you could've saved us both a lot of time if you had just said that.
Yeah, and thanks for the healthy dose of condescension, as well. Because I can also accept that people's views differ, that's why I was asking, that's why I was listening, that's why I was engaging, so I could understand, rather than just shrug.
It’s literally what I have been saying since the beginning. Largely because I felt some people were having their opinions about not much much like the level of message conflated with disagreeing with the actual message. I was also just ruminating on how that works across the board. Then it seemed to take on a life of its own. To say it went round the houses is an understatement, what can I say. *shrug*
Still. Staves off Alzheimer’s they say.
No. You haven't. It's fine. Whatever. I'm bored of this merry go round.
"Actually my entire argument was figurative the entire time" is certainly *a* way to leave an argument.
A
Amaris
Guest
I honestly didn't know this. Now I'm trying to memorize "Inuit" in place of "eskimo."
You can look at my posts. I literally say ‘this isn’t me talking about who’ etc a few times, including before professor zoom enters the conversation essentially. It’s there on the page.
Be careful with that. Not all "Eskimos" are Iniuits (it would not be smart to refer to a Yupik as an Iniut) , and "Eskimo" isn't even considered derogatory in many places. It certainly is in Canada and Greenland, but not quite so much in The United States (in general) and Alaska in particular.
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:
"In Canada and Greenland, the term Eskimo has largely been supplanted by the term Inuit.[3][21][22][24] While Inuit can be accurately applied to all of the Eskimo peoples in Canada and Greenland, that is not true in Alaska and Siberia. In Alaska the term Eskimo is commonly used, because it includes both Yupik and Iñupiat. Inuit is not accepted as a collective term and it is not used specifically for Iñupiat (although they are related to the Canadian Inuit peoples).[3]
In 1977, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) meeting in Utqiagvik, Alaska, officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all circumpolar native peoples, regardless of their local view on an appropriate term. As a result, the Canadian government usage has replaced the (locally) defunct term Eskimo with Inuit (Inuk in singular). The preferred term in Canada's Central Arctic is Inuinnaq,[25] and in the eastern Canadian Arctic Inuit. The language is often called Inuktitut, though other local designations are also used. Despite the ICC's 1977 decision to adopt the term Inuit, this was never accepted by the Yupik peoples, who likened it to calling all Native American Indians Navajo simply because the Navajo felt that that's what all tribes should be called."
A
Amaris
Guest
Noted!
Similar threads
