I completely agree with this. Bravo! I wonder whether it would make sense for the folks at Persuasion to think more concretely about HOW people can support due process and open civil discourse. We are encouraged to speak up, which is fine — but what exactly might that mean? Not all of us are on Twitter, and I’m not sure that is always the best means anyway. What are some concrete things that people can do to help?
I was wondering about this too. I was thinking of whether creating and signing a version of the Harper's letter for regular people would help. Andrew Doyle (UK comedian whose Twitter parody account is the very funny Titania McGrath) said that he thinks most liberals do not like the creeping illiberalism of the left, and it would lose much its power if people knew that most liberals felt this way.
Well said, Yascha. What's particularly troubling about this particular wave of polarization is that for the first time (to my knowledge) educated people in American academia and media have open contempt for "western" tenets of free inquiry and fair trial.
I'm not entirely hopeless about the basic tenets of civility and justice winning out in the end. Assuming that the majority of the outrage crowd on twitter isn't aware of the critical theory and post-modernism that their movement is based on, it's still possible to reach out and bring them back to reasonable ground. (Fingers crossed.)
I fear your hope is misplaced. These type people have been around forever - basically hard leftists with contempt for the status quo and all institutions and individuals who support it. This current crop is particularly loathsome but the real difference is that institutions (including media) are currently backing them. This gives them the power their kind have previously lacked in the U.S. They can't be reasoned with. They must be taken on and defeated - not only with freedom of speech arguments but on substance as well.
It is this, the backing of the hard left by media and institutions, that is making the difference currently, as you say. My local newspaper has been almost completely brought in line, and has helped the hard left force a local mayor, city manager and head of a city “boosters” organization out of office, and are now pursuing our county sheriff and several *insufficiently progressive* County Supervisors.
Worse, my “progressive” state Senator has introduced legislation that will deem anyone with a camera a “duly authorized” member of the press who must be allowed access to any area, and would make it a misdemeanor for a police officer to seek to bar them. We recently had a *citizen journalist* with a cell phone attempt to interfere with the arrest of a man suspected of two attempted murders. It’s a miracle no one was killed due to this reckless interference. If this legislation passes, the cadre of hard left *journalists* will increase exponentially overnight. The danger of this capitulation to the hard left by the media and institutions can not be overstated.
I continue to comment in the conversation threads of that same local paper, but have already been targeted as someone “of that ilk” and I think I know where that is headed.
This is so right. But how can one get the wokees read it ? And understand it ? I live in Norway and this is creeping over the border, into our country to.
It is? In Denmark we're also beginning to see it. For instance, at an event at one of our universities they were singing a Danish song called "The Danish song is a young blond girl", but someone who wasn't an ethnic Dane got offended and so they have removed the song from the repertoire.
I have recently found myself defending the most (to me) unlikely people, with these cowardly preambles such as “I am no fan of (x) but”. I have to do better. The times demand it.
It is unclear to me if these preambles make people more likely to listen or to dismiss? I often think that such disclaimers aren't necessary. By feeling compelled to pre-empt any "contamination" or "guilt by association" when defending people, we may sort of reinforce or recognize these concepts as legitimate at some level.
During this summer in Denmark there has been a heated debate regarding an ice cream popsicle called "Kæmpe Eskimo"/"Giant Eskimo". Many people from Greenland think the term Eskimo is derogatory and want to be called inuit, which means human. Thus many on social media call for the renaming of the ice cream and indeed one of the ice cream manufacturers has changed the name to "O'paya" - the name of the chocoloate beans being used.
When you have lived your life without thinking the ice cream popsicle could be offensive you start to wonder what is going on exactly. Inspired by Persuasion I decided to investigate the matter for a few hours and there seems to be a lot of myths involved in the discussion.
Eskimo is an umbrella term denoting people of Inuit, Aleut and Yupik origin. So what should we then call Eskimo if not Eskimo? Inuit? A prominent group of people of Inuit origin wants that. But Aleut and Yupik people seem to prefere Eskimo since they are not Inuit (from the Thule-culture).
In my opinion, the real issue could be a power struggle on who is going to define the arctic peoples. In fact, by coinsidence I found an article on Eskimo ice cream, which happens to be an important part of the Yupik culture! And it is based on berries like the ice cream popsicle! Could it be that the ice cream popsicle was inspired by and an hommage to the authentic Eskimo ice cream aka. Akutaq?
Additionaly, it is claimed in the debate that the word Eskimo comes from a Native American people that used it in derogatory sense and that it means "those who eat raw food". First of all, that people would not find eating raw food derogatory. Secondly, the terms most likely comes from French esquimeaux which referes to their snow-shoes.
This debate indicates that it is not about finding out the truth, but a power struggle since it is about words, but only in a way where it becomes a symbol of opression and a deeper and wider understanding of the word is unimportant. The so-called opressed ends up running the risk of becoming the opressor by not focusing on the truth.
Hi Frederik. Being in Australia, I am not across the Eskimo debate (or culture) so I can't comment on it with any authority but your post interested me. I didnt realise the term was controversial, but from what I can tell, it is seen as a colonial term imposed as a catch-all or "umbrella term" (as you point out) to describe groups who see themselves as distinct and thus have their own distinct names for themselves that they would prefer were used to refer to them. So I don't think the issue is that it is racist, offensive or derogatory so much as it is a) seen as a relic of a colonialist organising world-view that b) is imposed rather than self-determined. This would strike me as reasonable grounds for retiring the word. You post asks what term we should use to refer to these peoples collectively, but I suppose the counter-question would be, "Why do we NEED to refer to distinct groups collectively?" Perhaps a catch-all term that is derived from the name of the region (like European, African or Asian) would be agreeable.
Hi JF, I'm glad my post was of interest. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and an insightful link.
I agree with you that it's the fact that someone else has imposed the term on them which probably is the main issue. Especially seeing that the arctic peoples often speak both their own Ethnic language as well as the official languages of their country, like Danish and English, they will often come across "Eskimo". Unfortunately, in the debate a lot of other arguments are used which are not necessarily based on evidence.
That is a good question, whether a catch-all term is useful or not. Personally, I think it would be a useful to be able to categorise those ethnicities that are not "Native Americans", but are descendants of later migrations from Siberia. Their languages are also related. It would be too cumbersome in my opinion to name all the peoples when you could have a handy term for that.
You could use geography and say the "arctic peoples", but that would mean other peoples than Eskimos would be part of that category, which is not useful in the sense above. Arctic peoples of the Americas is more precise, yet not precise enough (What about people in Siberia?) and too long, in my opinion.
I'm a bit skeptical about using the term "Inuit" as a catch-all because it seems like another term imposed from above by the stronger group of "Eskimos".
I would love to see a debate with input from the many peoples currently being called Eskimo!
My point in regarding to this article was that some people I have talked to decided to join the ones calling for the renaming of the ice cream because of the alt-right people defending the name of the ice cream. Which is another kind of contagion of the debate.
At basic argument level this reasoning of "guilt by association" is fallacious and something that should be taught in freshman-level college courses. The "logic" behind it argues one should only communicate with family and friends who are like-minded. This leads one back to the same subjective place: one's own ideas as right and infallible.
This is so true, and more people need to be saying it loud and proud. However, I worry that our voices won’t matter when institutions and businesses fold so completely under attacks by the social media mob. Every concession gives power and momentum to the next mob demand. It validates and makes righteous the cause of silencing “unjust” voices, encouraging the hunt for more wrongthink to “correct”, by any means necessary.
Lately I’ve felt like Berenger in the last act, surrounded by rhinoceroses, shouting “I won’t capitulate!”
How timely, as I just posted a comment on Yoffe's essay making an analogy to the Czech Charter 77 (correcting my mistaken year) and Vaclav Havel & co-signatories' using samizdat to stand up for the band 'Plastic People of the Universe' and others unjustly prosecuted.
I completely agree with this. Bravo! I wonder whether it would make sense for the folks at Persuasion to think more concretely about HOW people can support due process and open civil discourse. We are encouraged to speak up, which is fine — but what exactly might that mean? Not all of us are on Twitter, and I’m not sure that is always the best means anyway. What are some concrete things that people can do to help?
I was wondering about this too. I was thinking of whether creating and signing a version of the Harper's letter for regular people would help. Andrew Doyle (UK comedian whose Twitter parody account is the very funny Titania McGrath) said that he thinks most liberals do not like the creeping illiberalism of the left, and it would lose much its power if people knew that most liberals felt this way.
Well said, Yascha. What's particularly troubling about this particular wave of polarization is that for the first time (to my knowledge) educated people in American academia and media have open contempt for "western" tenets of free inquiry and fair trial.
I'm not entirely hopeless about the basic tenets of civility and justice winning out in the end. Assuming that the majority of the outrage crowd on twitter isn't aware of the critical theory and post-modernism that their movement is based on, it's still possible to reach out and bring them back to reasonable ground. (Fingers crossed.)
I fear your hope is misplaced. These type people have been around forever - basically hard leftists with contempt for the status quo and all institutions and individuals who support it. This current crop is particularly loathsome but the real difference is that institutions (including media) are currently backing them. This gives them the power their kind have previously lacked in the U.S. They can't be reasoned with. They must be taken on and defeated - not only with freedom of speech arguments but on substance as well.
It is this, the backing of the hard left by media and institutions, that is making the difference currently, as you say. My local newspaper has been almost completely brought in line, and has helped the hard left force a local mayor, city manager and head of a city “boosters” organization out of office, and are now pursuing our county sheriff and several *insufficiently progressive* County Supervisors.
Worse, my “progressive” state Senator has introduced legislation that will deem anyone with a camera a “duly authorized” member of the press who must be allowed access to any area, and would make it a misdemeanor for a police officer to seek to bar them. We recently had a *citizen journalist* with a cell phone attempt to interfere with the arrest of a man suspected of two attempted murders. It’s a miracle no one was killed due to this reckless interference. If this legislation passes, the cadre of hard left *journalists* will increase exponentially overnight. The danger of this capitulation to the hard left by the media and institutions can not be overstated.
I continue to comment in the conversation threads of that same local paper, but have already been targeted as someone “of that ilk” and I think I know where that is headed.
Good luck.
This is so right. But how can one get the wokees read it ? And understand it ? I live in Norway and this is creeping over the border, into our country to.
It is? In Denmark we're also beginning to see it. For instance, at an event at one of our universities they were singing a Danish song called "The Danish song is a young blond girl", but someone who wasn't an ethnic Dane got offended and so they have removed the song from the repertoire.
Do you have any examples of it in Norway?
Orwell was one of the great prophets of an intensely violent century
I have recently found myself defending the most (to me) unlikely people, with these cowardly preambles such as “I am no fan of (x) but”. I have to do better. The times demand it.
I think to have the preamble is OK, maybe even desirable. Don't be ashamed to use it. People will listen to you more if you make that clear.
It is unclear to me if these preambles make people more likely to listen or to dismiss? I often think that such disclaimers aren't necessary. By feeling compelled to pre-empt any "contamination" or "guilt by association" when defending people, we may sort of reinforce or recognize these concepts as legitimate at some level.
Excellent piece!
During this summer in Denmark there has been a heated debate regarding an ice cream popsicle called "Kæmpe Eskimo"/"Giant Eskimo". Many people from Greenland think the term Eskimo is derogatory and want to be called inuit, which means human. Thus many on social media call for the renaming of the ice cream and indeed one of the ice cream manufacturers has changed the name to "O'paya" - the name of the chocoloate beans being used.
When you have lived your life without thinking the ice cream popsicle could be offensive you start to wonder what is going on exactly. Inspired by Persuasion I decided to investigate the matter for a few hours and there seems to be a lot of myths involved in the discussion.
Eskimo is an umbrella term denoting people of Inuit, Aleut and Yupik origin. So what should we then call Eskimo if not Eskimo? Inuit? A prominent group of people of Inuit origin wants that. But Aleut and Yupik people seem to prefere Eskimo since they are not Inuit (from the Thule-culture).
In my opinion, the real issue could be a power struggle on who is going to define the arctic peoples. In fact, by coinsidence I found an article on Eskimo ice cream, which happens to be an important part of the Yupik culture! And it is based on berries like the ice cream popsicle! Could it be that the ice cream popsicle was inspired by and an hommage to the authentic Eskimo ice cream aka. Akutaq?
https://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Akutaq_EskimoIceCream.htm
Additionaly, it is claimed in the debate that the word Eskimo comes from a Native American people that used it in derogatory sense and that it means "those who eat raw food". First of all, that people would not find eating raw food derogatory. Secondly, the terms most likely comes from French esquimeaux which referes to their snow-shoes.
This debate indicates that it is not about finding out the truth, but a power struggle since it is about words, but only in a way where it becomes a symbol of opression and a deeper and wider understanding of the word is unimportant. The so-called opressed ends up running the risk of becoming the opressor by not focusing on the truth.
Hi Frederik. Being in Australia, I am not across the Eskimo debate (or culture) so I can't comment on it with any authority but your post interested me. I didnt realise the term was controversial, but from what I can tell, it is seen as a colonial term imposed as a catch-all or "umbrella term" (as you point out) to describe groups who see themselves as distinct and thus have their own distinct names for themselves that they would prefer were used to refer to them. So I don't think the issue is that it is racist, offensive or derogatory so much as it is a) seen as a relic of a colonialist organising world-view that b) is imposed rather than self-determined. This would strike me as reasonable grounds for retiring the word. You post asks what term we should use to refer to these peoples collectively, but I suppose the counter-question would be, "Why do we NEED to refer to distinct groups collectively?" Perhaps a catch-all term that is derived from the name of the region (like European, African or Asian) would be agreeable.
https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php#:~:text=The%20Inuit%20Circumpolar%20Council%20prefers,have%20long%20preferred%20other%20names.
Anyway thanks for giving me some food for thought.
Hi JF, I'm glad my post was of interest. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and an insightful link.
I agree with you that it's the fact that someone else has imposed the term on them which probably is the main issue. Especially seeing that the arctic peoples often speak both their own Ethnic language as well as the official languages of their country, like Danish and English, they will often come across "Eskimo". Unfortunately, in the debate a lot of other arguments are used which are not necessarily based on evidence.
That is a good question, whether a catch-all term is useful or not. Personally, I think it would be a useful to be able to categorise those ethnicities that are not "Native Americans", but are descendants of later migrations from Siberia. Their languages are also related. It would be too cumbersome in my opinion to name all the peoples when you could have a handy term for that.
You could use geography and say the "arctic peoples", but that would mean other peoples than Eskimos would be part of that category, which is not useful in the sense above. Arctic peoples of the Americas is more precise, yet not precise enough (What about people in Siberia?) and too long, in my opinion.
I'm a bit skeptical about using the term "Inuit" as a catch-all because it seems like another term imposed from above by the stronger group of "Eskimos".
I would love to see a debate with input from the many peoples currently being called Eskimo!
Nice chatting with you.
My point in regarding to this article was that some people I have talked to decided to join the ones calling for the renaming of the ice cream because of the alt-right people defending the name of the ice cream. Which is another kind of contagion of the debate.
"in regard"*
"Those who eat raw meat"*
At basic argument level this reasoning of "guilt by association" is fallacious and something that should be taught in freshman-level college courses. The "logic" behind it argues one should only communicate with family and friends who are like-minded. This leads one back to the same subjective place: one's own ideas as right and infallible.
This is so true, and more people need to be saying it loud and proud. However, I worry that our voices won’t matter when institutions and businesses fold so completely under attacks by the social media mob. Every concession gives power and momentum to the next mob demand. It validates and makes righteous the cause of silencing “unjust” voices, encouraging the hunt for more wrongthink to “correct”, by any means necessary.
Lately I’ve felt like Berenger in the last act, surrounded by rhinoceroses, shouting “I won’t capitulate!”
How timely, as I just posted a comment on Yoffe's essay making an analogy to the Czech Charter 77 (correcting my mistaken year) and Vaclav Havel & co-signatories' using samizdat to stand up for the band 'Plastic People of the Universe' and others unjustly prosecuted.