Heat is gone. I am a much happier Gravdigr today, and yesterday.

could use a little here overnights -gonna be just a touch over freezing tonight, apparently :eek: Should still be reaching room temperature in the day for a week or so at least

If you leave your windows open it's guaranteed to be room temperature.

really? how does that work then?

What is room temperature? The air temperature in the room?

If you are an Eskimo, then no. It is too hot.

Hey tw--from one "person who regularly misses evolutions in language and genuinely doesn't want to hurt people's feelings but sometimes it's hard" to another... you may want to know that "Eskimo" is now considered a racial slur. People of that heritage prefer "Inuit."

Like I said, not accusing or haranguing you, just keeping you up to date to prevent future social gaffes.

And Martin Luther King called them Negros. I never knew why the word changed. Or when. It just suddenly happened.

So, why is the word Eskimo wrong? What changed? Did those people become experts in accounting software?

BTW, you are not among those who constantly post personal insults as proof that everyone else is wrong. No reason to apologize for posting in a adult (logical) manner. Those other people are politically ... 'Nazi like'. They need to apologize for being themselves - just like The Don. Since they (not you or I) want to turn the Cellar into a cesspool of cheapshots. And want to wreck shit.

Meanwhile, cited is curiosity resulting in a logical question. What changed, when, and why?

From Google:
So Inuit is one type of Eskimo? And Yupik is another? Is Google politically incorrect?

And do they not know what room temperature really is?

Natives of the northern climes from Greenland all the way through Canada and the US to Siberia belong to two language groups, Inuit or Yupik. Whitey called them all eskimos. There has been a long debate about where the word came from but the way it was used is on par with nigger. Some Alaska natives want to be called Inuit but some don’t because Inuit is not a word in the Yupik language. I don’t know why they can’t add it but I suspect there is more to it than that. Maybe they’ve been taught/or they feel, they are different and resent being forced to identify as Inuit.

tw,

The word Eskimo derives from phrases that Algonquin tribes used for their northern neighbors. The Inuit and Yupik peoples generally do not use it to refer to themselves. The governments in Canada and Greenland have ceased using it in official documents.

The most commonly accepted etymological origin of the word "Eskimo" is derived by Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian Institution, from the Innu-aimun (Montagnais, see Algonquian languages) word ayas̆kimew meaning "a person who laces a snowshoe", "snowshoe-netter" or "to net snowshoes" and is related to "husky" (a breed of dog), and does not have a pejorative meaning in origin. The word assime·w means "she laces a snowshoe" in Montagnais. Montagnais speakers refer to the neighbouring Mi'kmaq people using words that sound like eskimo.

Some people consider Eskimo derogatory because it is popularly perceived to mean "eaters of raw meat" in Algonquian languages common to people along the Atlantic coast. One Cree speaker suggested the original word that became corrupted to Eskimo might have been askamiciw (which means "he eats it raw"); the Inuit are referred to in some Cree texts as askipiw (which means "eats something raw").

In Canada and Greenland, the term "Eskimo" is predominantly seen as pejorative and has been widely replaced by the term "Inuit" or terms specific to a particular group or community. This has resulted in a trend whereby some Canadians and Americans believe that they should not use the word "Eskimo" and use the Canadian word "Inuit" instead, even for Yupik people. Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982, recognized the Inuit as a distinctive group of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

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).

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, 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.

The Inuit of Greenland refer to themselves as "Greenlanders" and speak the Greenlandic language.

Because of the linguistic, ethnic, and cultural differences between Yupik and Inuit peoples, it seems unlikely that any umbrella term will be acceptable. There has been some movement to use Inuit, and the Inuit Circumpolar Council, representing a circumpolar population of 150,000 Inuit and Yupik people of Greenland, Northern Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, in its charter defines Inuit for use within that ICC document as including "the Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik (Russia)."

In 2010, the ICC passed a resolution in which they implored scientists to use "Inuit" and "Paleo-Inuit" instead of "Eskimo" or "Paleo-Eskimo". American linguist Lenore Grenoble has explicitly deferred to this resolution and used "Inuit–Yupik" instead of "Eskimo" with regards to the language branch. In a 2015 commentary in the journal Arctic, Canadian archaeologist Max Friesen argued fellow Arctic archaeologists should follow the ICC and use "Paleo-Inuit" instead of "Paleo-Eskimo".

But, in Alaska, the Inuit people refer to themselves as Iñupiat, plural, and Iñupiaq, singular (their North Alaskan Inupiatun language is also called Iñupiaq). They do not commonly use the term Inuit. In Alaska, Eskimo is in common usage.

Alaskans also use the term Alaska Native, which is inclusive of all Eskimo, Aleut and other Native American people of Alaska. It does not apply to Inuit or Yupik people originating outside the state. The term Alaska Native has important legal usage in Alaska and the rest of the United States as a result of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.

The term "Eskimo" is also used in linguistic or ethnographic works to denote the larger branch of Eskimo–Aleut languages, the smaller branch being Aleut.

Under U.S. and Alaskan law (as well as the linguistic and cultural traditions of Alaska), "Alaska Native" refers to all indigenous peoples of Alaska. This includes not only the Iñupiat (Alaskan Inuit) and the Yupik, but also groups such as the Aleut, who share a recent ancestor, as well as the largely unrelated indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and the Alaskan Athabaskans. As a result, the term Eskimo is still in use in Alaska. Alternative terms, such as Inuit-Yupik, have been proposed, but none has gained widespread acceptance.

Sexobon's post gives some partial answers, but overall I've found answers to this sort of question to be fairly irrelevant. The only reason to want to know "why" is so we can better predict people's behavior in the future--but this is the kind of change that will always remain completely unpredictable. What's more, to believe you can identify a logical reason for it is to imply that some other language changes (or indeed, this one) may not be legitimate because they aren't logical. But that only denies reality. They aren't logical, and there is never a unified, uncontradicted reason why--but they *are* nevertheless real, with potentially real consequences.

Ironically, this means that the only logical thing to do is accept this sort of thing immediately and move on, because you'll never get the satisfaction of an answer so there's no point in wasting time searching for one. It's the logical person's equivalent of "God did it." Why did other people behave irrationally? Because they're other people.

Any answer that does not also say why is best treated as a myth or lie

Reasons why also separate comments from the nasties with comments that actually contribute something. Sexobon's comments demonstrate that plenty of contradictory expressions are acceptable - somewhere.

Since this is the internet (it is everywhere) I think I will just be politically correct and call them "Pale Face". The term is accurate.

Except those that come from America. Then maybe using the 1930 term "Hey Joe" is acceptable.

No. That won't work. Because some Joe's, who open a window, might find room temperature too cold. How political correctness has changed things. Say anything and someone is always insulted.

Well he is still a mafioso type - The Don. And that is an insult with plenty of well documented reasons that justify the insult. No reason to be politically correct with names that accurately define that Pale Face.

When The Don opens a window, is that to throw the woman out before Melania opens the door to enter? Well that will keep the room temperature down. And no Pale Face is insulted.

What was the question?

The only "why" that matters in this case is the demonstrable fact that people respond the way they do. If you have been given information, and refuse to alter your behavior accordingly, then your frustration and/or confusion when someone inevitably calls you racist will be illogical. You have the facts, the outcome is predictable, and the choice to avoid it (or not) is completely on you.

The frustration and/or confusion will be logical, since he is not racist. As much as they would protest, the person calling him racist when he is not is the one who is illogical.