James Annan <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Marc Adler wrote:
>> Musashi wrote:
>>
>>>You know, I don't think people in Japan are aware that the word "eskimo"
>>>(which is the same in Japanese) is derogatory.
>>>At least I didn't.
>> What?! How can it be derogatory? That's where we get our word
>> for
>> 'skiing,' for chrissake.
>
>Eskimo means something like "raw meat eater". I'll make sure I
>explain that to the next rice-muncher I hear using the term.

That has been very much discredited.  It sounds exciting, so
people remember it.  However, I can't imagine that an Eskimo
would be insulted by the idea that they eat raw meat.  Since
most people eat raw meat, I can't imagine why anyone would think
it to be an insulting term!  (I've had raw tuna as part of a
meal at least three times in the last week...  but I often dine
with Korean people.  One meal included muktuk, a traditional
Eskimo food consisting of raw skin and blubber from a whale.)
Big deal...

And then,

Brett Robson <deep_m_m@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Musashi wrote:
...
>> You know, I don't think people in Japan are aware that the
>> word "eskimo"
>> (which is the same in Japanese) is derogatory.
>> At least I didn't.
...
>"The claim that Eskimo is offensive is based primarily on a
>popular but disputed etymology tracing its origin to an Abenaki
>word meaning "eaters of raw meat." Though modern linguists
>speculate that the term actually derives from a Montagnais word
>referring to the manner of lacing a snowshoe, the matter remains
>undecided, and meanwhile many English speakers have learned to
>perceive Eskimo as a derogatory term invented by unfriendly
>outsiders in scornful reference to their neighbors'
>unsophisticated eating habits."

Actually  the matter has been fairly well decided for at least
a couple of decades now.  There is no question but that the
"eaters of raw meat" is wrong.  But the above etymology claim
related to snowshoe netting is one of two claims for the correct
etymology of "Eskimo".

Ives Goddard from the Smithsonian has suggested that version,
though I'm not sure of exactly what he bases the claim on (he is
a linguist and studies Algonquin languages, so it is not a
trivial claim).

  Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5 (Arctic), p6

Another, and better documented, claim is that is derived from
words meaning "people who speak a different language".  That was
determined by Jose Mailhot, an anthropologist from Quebec who
speaks fluent Cree.  However, she publishes in French and is
little known in the US or on the Internet, and therefore few
people have ever heard of her work.

  Mailhot, Jose, L'etymologie de *esquimau' revuew et
  corrigee. In: Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2(2): 59-69.

See  <http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-300.html for more
discussion.

As to using "Inuit" rather than "Eskimo", it just won't fly.
In Canada and Greenland, where all of the Eskimos are indeed
Inuit Eskimos, that is indeed the prefered terminology.

In Alaska and Siberia you definitely do *not* want to be
referring to anyone as "Inuit" unless you know exactly what you
are saying.  First, most Alaskan Eskimos and all Siberian
Eskimos are Yupik, not Inuit.  Second, all of the people who
technically are "Inuit" call themselves Inupiat, and don't like
the term Inuit!

BTW, while this business of the proper terminology for referring
to Eskimos is complex, it isn't exactly of any significant
consequence.  People aren't insulted by incorrect use of the
terms so much as they are informed about the knowledge level of
the person speaking.  Hence, if you use the wrong term nobody
will really care, but if you tell a Yupik Eskimo they actually
are "Inuit", that person will simply and probably silently write
you off as an idiot just to start with.

-- 
FloydL. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com