calories?

"Nunya B." wrote:
"nanner" wrote:
"Nunya B." wrote:
"nanner" wrote:
"Eddie-Type2" wrote:
The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly referred
to
as Inuit, not Eskimos.

That is false. They are Inuit Eskimos (as opposed to Yupik
Eskimos), and technically can be referred to by either term.
They prefer the more specific term Inuit. But Eskimo is in fact
still correct... except that it is an all inclusive term which
includes not just Inuit, but also Yupik (people, language, or
culture).

Well, sure they are properly referred to as Inuit, that's the name they
call themselves but if they were/are eaters of raw meat then they are
properly referred to Eskimo by the other Native Americans who saw them
as such.

That is a myth perpetuated by Westerners. The term Eskimo has
nothing to do with raw meat, and would hardly be insulting even
if it did.

Right, so unless the person using it is a Native American, the term
"Eskimo" is incorrect.

The term Eskimo is correct *if* (but not only if) you are
speaking English and want to reference *all* types of Eskimos
rather than just one type. It still is not wrong when used to
reference only a single type (Inuit or Yupik) but it just isn't
as technically valid as using one of the more specific terms.

by that logic shouldn't we just call the Inuit "people" since that is the
definition of the word and we are not Inuit?

In a perfectly PC world, sure. But Inuit is what the aboriginals of the
Arctic region prefer to be called thus it is fine to call them that. They

Not all Inuit people, much less all Eskimos, want to be
referenced with the term Inuit. Those in Greenland and Canada
use Inuit. Those in Alaska use the term Inupiat. Of course all
Eskimos in Siberia are Yupik, and like Yupik Eskimos in Alaska
they do not want to be called Inuit either.

do not prefer to be called Eskimos.

And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any
Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all?

It's like calling the aboriginals of
the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do
that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to
be mistakenly from India.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians
prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just
like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any
subject...

So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound
like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way
it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone.

Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh?

Quyanaqpak,
Ap'a Flo

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Nunya B." wrote:
"Lá~ká~ Wáná" wrote in message
.com...
Tell that to the many people who don't eat carbs and live long health
lives. Start with the Eskimos amd other tribes from the far north.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...330/7487/326-d

Inuits have a significantly shorter life expectancy than other Canadians.

But there is nothing which correlates that to diet. On the
other hand, they die from accidents at a higher rate (because
people in the Arctic commonly do things that are dangerous) and
also have a higher infant mortality rate, which is usually taken
as an indicator of poor medical care.

Ancient people lived even shorter lives.
http://www.wonderquest.com/LifeSpan.htm

If you're going to post bull****, back it up with actual facts.

I don't think that typical Eskimo diet statistics have any
meaning at all when applied in the manner above.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

do not prefer to be called Eskimos.

And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any
Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all?

Yes, actually I do. I also know Pacific Islanders, native Hawaiians
and people from a number of indigenous groups.

It's like calling the aboriginals of
the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do
that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to
be mistakenly from India.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians
prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just
like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any
subject...

RIght. Where I'm from, most dislike it immensely. I realize that
different nations and tribes do things differently. I go by what
passes locally/regionally with the tribes in the neck of the woods
having been indoctrinated into it as part of their community. As with
everything - life is a lot different in AK.

So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound
like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way
it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone.

Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh?

Of course I do, but then again so do you. I never claimed to be an
expert.

Giga-waabamin,
--
the volleyballchick

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Nunya B." wrote:
"Lá~ká~ Wáná" wrote in message
.com...
Tell that to the many people who don't eat carbs and live long health
lives. Start with the Eskimos amd other tribes from the far north.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...330/7487/326-d

Inuits have a significantly shorter life expectancy than other Canadians.

But there is nothing which correlates that to diet. On the
other hand, they die from accidents at a higher rate (because
people in the Arctic commonly do things that are dangerous) and
also have a higher infant mortality rate, which is usually taken
as an indicator of poor medical care.

And there is nothing to the claim that they live long healthy lives
either which is the original point I was responding to. Sorry if you
have a problem with it but I'm going to continue to counter the useless
garbage pulled from thin air.

If you want to talk life spans look at the Okinawa study where there
are people who do have a significantly longer life span when taken per
capita and some of that is attributed to the fact that they generally
don't stuff themselves and also their diet which is chock full of carbs
and no so much fat.
--
the volleyballchick

I can speak a bit in this area, I am part Cherokee and part apache, I am an
American, I don't get offended if you can't figure it out and think I am
from India, but I wouldn't let you housesit for me, Lee
Nunya B. wrote in message
ups.com...

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

do not prefer to be called Eskimos.

And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any
Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all?

Yes, actually I do. I also know Pacific Islanders, native Hawaiians
and people from a number of indigenous groups.

It's like calling the aboriginals of
the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to
do
that though the people they were referring to never considered
themselves to
be mistakenly from India.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians
prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just
like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any
subject...

RIght. Where I'm from, most dislike it immensely. I realize that
different nations and tribes do things differently. I go by what
passes locally/regionally with the tribes in the neck of the woods
having been indoctrinated into it as part of their community. As with
everything - life is a lot different in AK.

So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound
like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's
the way
it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone.

Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh?

Of course I do, but then again so do you. I never claimed to be an
expert.

Giga-waabamin,
--
the volleyballchick

Hi Floyd,

In my opinion, the term Eskimo and your continued use of it shows your lack
of respect for the people you are referring to

If we take your logic, then perhaps the terms formerly used in the past
regarding Afro-Americans should continue to be used?

We all know the progression of reference and if some of those terms ( in
particularly one that I won't mention) were used today, you would start a
riot!!!!

I think you show some respect and refer to them properly. They do not
prefer to be called Eskimos, so why do you feel you have the right to
continue to use the term?

Eddie
Weight June05-359.0lbs
Current Weight-286.8lbs
Loss to date=72.2lbs
Goal Weight-180.0lbs

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Nunya B." wrote:
"nanner" wrote:
"Nunya B." wrote:
"nanner" wrote:
"Eddie-Type2" wrote:
The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly
referred
to
as Inuit, not Eskimos.

That is false. They are Inuit Eskimos (as opposed to Yupik
Eskimos), and technically can be referred to by either term.
They prefer the more specific term Inuit. But Eskimo is in fact
still correct... except that it is an all inclusive term which
includes not just Inuit, but also Yupik (people, language, or
culture).

Well, sure they are properly referred to as Inuit, that's the name they
call themselves but if they were/are eaters of raw meat then they are
properly referred to Eskimo by the other Native Americans who saw them
as such.

That is a myth perpetuated by Westerners. The term Eskimo has
nothing to do with raw meat, and would hardly be insulting even
if it did.

Right, so unless the person using it is a Native American, the term
"Eskimo" is incorrect.

The term Eskimo is correct *if* (but not only if) you are
speaking English and want to reference *all* types of Eskimos
rather than just one type. It still is not wrong when used to
reference only a single type (Inuit or Yupik) but it just isn't
as technically valid as using one of the more specific terms.

by that logic shouldn't we just call the Inuit "people" since that is the
definition of the word and we are not Inuit?

In a perfectly PC world, sure. But Inuit is what the aboriginals of the
Arctic region prefer to be called thus it is fine to call them that. They

Not all Inuit people, much less all Eskimos, want to be
referenced with the term Inuit. Those in Greenland and Canada
use Inuit. Those in Alaska use the term Inupiat. Of course all
Eskimos in Siberia are Yupik, and like Yupik Eskimos in Alaska
they do not want to be called Inuit either.

do not prefer to be called Eskimos.

And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any
Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all?

It's like calling the aboriginals of
the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do
that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves
to
be mistakenly from India.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians
prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just
like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any
subject...

So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound
like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the
way
it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone.

Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh?

Quyanaqpak,
Ap'a Flo

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Nunya B." wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

do not prefer to be called Eskimos.

And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any
Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all?

Yes, actually I do. I also know Pacific Islanders, native Hawaiians
and people from a number of indigenous groups.

Then you probably should *ask* a few Eskimos about this, instead
of imagining what they would say. (I have no idea what
Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders or other indigenous groups have
to do with it... they won't know any more than you do.)

It's like calling the aboriginals of
the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do
that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to
be mistakenly from India.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians
prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just
like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any
subject...

RIght. Where I'm from, most dislike it immensely. I realize that
different nations and tribes do things differently.

Then do *not* make sweeping statements suggesting that one
specific opinion would satisfy everyone.

I go by what
passes locally/regionally with the tribes in the neck of the woods
having been indoctrinated into it as part of their community. As with
everything - life is a lot different in AK.

Life is a lot different in *many* parts of of the US.

If you want to see an interesting discussion on the topic, use
Google to research the threads for creating the
soc.culture.native newsgroup at a dozen plus years ago. The
original attempt failed over the issue of what to name it,
because everyone was divided (and vehemently so) no matter what
name was used. The eventually successful attempt worked because
the vote to creat and the vote to name were separate.

So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound
like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way
it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone.

Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh?

Of course I do, but then again so do you. I never claimed to be an
expert.

Then do *not* make statements like the one above. I personally
know a few thousand Eskimos who would be very upset that you are
saying they "sound like an ignorant White person".

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Nunya B." wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Nunya B." wrote:
"Lá~ká~ Wáná" wrote in message
.com...
Tell that to the many people who don't eat carbs and live long health
lives. Start with the Eskimos amd other tribes from the far north.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...330/7487/326-d

Inuits have a significantly shorter life expectancy than other Canadians.

But there is nothing which correlates that to diet. On the
other hand, they die from accidents at a higher rate (because
people in the Arctic commonly do things that are dangerous) and
also have a higher infant mortality rate, which is usually taken
as an indicator of poor medical care.

And there is nothing to the claim that they live long healthy lives
either which is the original point I was responding to. Sorry if you
have a problem with it but I'm going to continue to counter the useless
garbage pulled from thin air.

My family buried our matriarch early last year. She was 102.
She had been eating a traditional Eskimo diet all of her life,
and we certainly do believe that is part of what allowed her to
live so long. All of her siblings that survived long enough to
become adults lived well into their 80's, and one into his 90's.

While it is a fact that Eskimos (Inuit included) have an average
lifespan shorter than non-Inuit Canadians, it is not at all
clear that diet is a factor and indeed *might* be a responsible
for precisely what was stated:

... many people who don't eat carbs and live long health
lives. Start with the Eskimos amd other tribes...

Many people live a long healthy life without eating lots of carbs.
If it were actually unhealthy, they would not be able to do that.

If you want to talk life spans look at the Okinawa study where there
are people who do have a significantly longer life span when taken per
capita and some of that is attributed to the fact that they generally
don't stuff themselves and also their diet which is chock full of carbs
and no so much fat.

But that does *not* suggest that a low carb diet is more healthy.

You aren't correlating valid facts with results.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Eddie-Type2" wrote:
Hi Floyd,

In my opinion, the term Eskimo and your continued use of it shows your lack
of respect for the people you are referring to

Is your opinion of any significance? Is there some reason
anyone should imagine that you have more knowledge about this
topic than the average non-Inuit Canadian? I happen to be well
aware that the average non-Inuit Canadian agrees with you...
for a lot of usually very good reasons which I do appreciate;
but alas, they have virtually all of their facts *wrong*.

If we take your logic, then perhaps the terms formerly used in the past
regarding Afro-Americans should continue to be used?

That is wrong. You don't seem to know anything about the term
Eskimo, much less about Inuit or other Eskimo people.

We all know the progression of reference and if some of those terms ( in
particularly one that I won't mention) were used today, you would start a
riot!!!!

I think you show some respect and refer to them properly. They do not
prefer to be called Eskimos, so why do you feel you have the right to
continue to use the term?

I've discussed this topic with Eskimos from Greenland and from
Canada as well as with Alaskan Eskimos. (I should warn you that
I've also discussed this with my immediate family: all of whom,
with the exception of me, do happen to be very traditional
Eskimos.) Let me provide you with a few facts.

The etymology of the term "Eskimo" is plagued with a myth that
it is an Indian word for "eaters of raw meat", as if that would
be an insult. Of course nobody but a Westerner with a very
hypocritical Eurocentric view would consider that insulting.
Worse yet, that isn't what it means at all!

There are two well documented possible derivations for "Eskimo".
An anthropologist from Quebec, Jose Mailhot, did a definitive
study quite some time back, and decided it probably came from
words meaning "People who speak a different language".

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

Mailhot speaks fluent Cree. Her study has never been refuted.
However, she publishes in French, and is almost unknown on the
Internet or in the US.

Another view comes from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian
Institute, who says it probably meant "snowshoe netter".
Goddard of course is a linguist who studies Algonquian
languages.

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

You can find more discussion at

http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-300.html

Another URL, which I hesitate to suggest because it contains some
rather gross errors (read with caution),

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html

The gist of that is you are simply *wrong* about any derivation
of Eskimo being insulting. But the overall problem with your
understanding is the idea that "Inuit" is a valid replacement
term for "Eskimo" in the English language. It is *not*.

Inuit is just one branch of what the term Eskimo covers.
Whether applied to language, to culture, or to a people, there
are two branches of Eskimo, and 1) Yupik Eskimos are not Inuit,
plus 2) many "Inuit" Eskimos simply do *not* like to be called
Inuit (they use the term Inupiat, which has a slightly different
connotation than Inuit).

I personally have never met an Eskimo who objected to being
called in Eskimo in the correct context. I know some who will
correct anyone who calls them personally an Inuit.

In any English language discussion of "Eskimo" that includes
both Yupik and Inuit, the *only* proper term that can be used is
"Eskimo". There is no other all encompassing term in the
English language. In fact most discussions do encompass all
Eskimos, because they have a common ancestry (the Inuit
variation is perhaps 1500-2000 years old, while Yupik is a
continuum from Proto-Eskimo as it existed prior to that).

For that reason virtually all academic work (linguistics,
anthropology, etc.) necessarily continues to use the term Eskimo
in all cases. It is precisely correct.

http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/inuitoreskimo.html

That said, in both Canada and Greenland it is true that all
Eskimos are Inuit, and particularly in Canada they do use the
term Inuit to reference themselves. They of course would prefer
that everyone else also call them that. There is nothing
unreasonable about that preference. It is also true that the
term Eskimo has been used in Canada in a derogatory manner by
non-Eskimos; and much for that reason has been officially
deleted from the government's list of acceptable terminology.

Hence, when in Canada or Greenland, it makes very good sense to
use the term Inuit when discussing local people.

But to claim that any of the above makes the term Eskimo a
grossly insulting, or in any way inherently incorrect, term is
simply a misunderstanding on *your* part.

Here are a few other interesting URLs, though not directly
discussing this topic (they do, however, use the term "Eskimo"
quite properly):

A comparison between Inuit and Yupik languages,

http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/yupik_inuit.html

Discussions of Inuit dialects and Yup'ik,

http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/i.html
http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/cy.html

A fascinating discussion of Lower Kuskokwim River Yup'ik
culture by a Yup'ik elder (who also happens to have a PhD
in Anthropology),

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/Histor.../kawagley.html

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Great reply Floyd! I'm quite impressed with your reply, but this is the part
that sticks out most....

......"That said, in both Canada and Greenland it is true that all
Eskimos are Inuit, and particularly in Canada they do use the
term Inuit to reference themselves. They of course would prefer
that everyone else also call them that. There is nothing
unreasonable about that preference. It is also true that the
term Eskimo has been used in Canada in a derogatory manner by
non-Eskimos; and much for that reason has been officially
deleted from the government's list of acceptable terminology.

*****Hence, when in Canada or Greenland, it makes very good sense to
use the term Inuit when discussing local people*****

But to claim that any of the above makes the term Eskimo a
grossly insulting, or in any way inherently incorrect, term is
simply a misunderstanding on *your* part.........." --------------OK, I
give - I agree with you.

But I think you missed my original posting where I clearly said to LW ....

......."The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly
referred to
as Inuit, not Eskimos........"

Then you popped in and went nutso on Nunya's posting...........

You are obviously well educated on the subject, but you really should read
and understand what you are responding to before you go off the deep-end
with your replies....

That being said, I am truly impressed with your response and no offense was
ever intended.

Now, what do you have to say about weight-loss and WW ? LOL!!!

Eddie
Weight June05-359.0lbs
Current Weight-286.8lbs
Loss to date=72.2lbs
Goal Weight-180.0lbs

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Eddie-Type2" wrote:
Hi Floyd,

In my opinion, the term Eskimo and your continued use of it shows your lack
of respect for the people you are referring to

Is your opinion of any significance? Is there some reason
anyone should imagine that you have more knowledge about this
topic than the average non-Inuit Canadian? I happen to be well
aware that the average non-Inuit Canadian agrees with you...
for a lot of usually very good reasons which I do appreciate;
but alas, they have virtually all of their facts *wrong*.

If we take your logic, then perhaps the terms formerly used in the past
regarding Afro-Americans should continue to be used?

That is wrong. You don't seem to know anything about the term
Eskimo, much less about Inuit or other Eskimo people.

We all know the progression of reference and if some of those terms ( in
particularly one that I won't mention) were used today, you would start a
riot!!!!

I think you show some respect and refer to them properly. They do not
prefer to be called Eskimos, so why do you feel you have the right to
continue to use the term?

I've discussed this topic with Eskimos from Greenland and from
Canada as well as with Alaskan Eskimos. (I should warn you that
I've also discussed this with my immediate family: all of whom,
with the exception of me, do happen to be very traditional
Eskimos.) Let me provide you with a few facts.

The etymology of the term "Eskimo" is plagued with a myth that
it is an Indian word for "eaters of raw meat", as if that would
be an insult. Of course nobody but a Westerner with a very
hypocritical Eurocentric view would consider that insulting.
Worse yet, that isn't what it means at all!

There are two well documented possible derivations for "Eskimo".
An anthropologist from Quebec, Jose Mailhot, did a definitive
study quite some time back, and decided it probably came from
words meaning "People who speak a different language".

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

Mailhot speaks fluent Cree. Her study has never been refuted.
However, she publishes in French, and is almost unknown on the
Internet or in the US.

Another view comes from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian
Institute, who says it probably meant "snowshoe netter".
Goddard of course is a linguist who studies Algonquian
languages.

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

You can find more discussion at

http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-300.html

Another URL, which I hesitate to suggest because it contains some
rather gross errors (read with caution),

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html

The gist of that is you are simply *wrong* about any derivation
of Eskimo being insulting. But the overall problem with your
understanding is the idea that "Inuit" is a valid replacement
term for "Eskimo" in the English language. It is *not*.

Inuit is just one branch of what the term Eskimo covers.
Whether applied to language, to culture, or to a people, there
are two branches of Eskimo, and 1) Yupik Eskimos are not Inuit,
plus 2) many "Inuit" Eskimos simply do *not* like to be called
Inuit (they use the term Inupiat, which has a slightly different
connotation than Inuit).

I personally have never met an Eskimo who objected to being
called in Eskimo in the correct context. I know some who will
correct anyone who calls them personally an Inuit.

In any English language discussion of "Eskimo" that includes
both Yupik and Inuit, the *only* proper term that can be used is
"Eskimo". There is no other all encompassing term in the
English language. In fact most discussions do encompass all
Eskimos, because they have a common ancestry (the Inuit
variation is perhaps 1500-2000 years old, while Yupik is a
continuum from Proto-Eskimo as it existed prior to that).

For that reason virtually all academic work (linguistics,
anthropology, etc.) necessarily continues to use the term Eskimo
in all cases. It is precisely correct.

http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/inuitoreskimo.html

That said, in both Canada and Greenland it is true that all
Eskimos are Inuit, and particularly in Canada they do use the
term Inuit to reference themselves. They of course would prefer
that everyone else also call them that. There is nothing
unreasonable about that preference. It is also true that the
term Eskimo has been used in Canada in a derogatory manner by
non-Eskimos; and much for that reason has been officially
deleted from the government's list of acceptable terminology.

Hence, when in Canada or Greenland, it makes very good sense to
use the term Inuit when discussing local people.

But to claim that any of the above makes the term Eskimo a
grossly insulting, or in any way inherently incorrect, term is
simply a misunderstanding on *your* part.

Here are a few other interesting URLs, though not directly
discussing this topic (they do, however, use the term "Eskimo"
quite properly):

A comparison between Inuit and Yupik languages,

http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/yupik_inuit.html

Discussions of Inuit dialects and Yup'ik,

http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/i.html
http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/cy.html

A fascinating discussion of Lower Kuskokwim River Yup'ik
culture by a Yup'ik elder (who also happens to have a PhD
in Anthropology),

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/Histor.../kawagley.html

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)