White Eskimo: Knud Rasmussen's Fearless Journey into the Heart of the Arctic (A Merloyd Lawrence Book)

I think Rasmussen's fame is supported by his luck -born in two different cultures: dad's Danish heritage and his mother's side's Inuit heritage. Of course, his charismatic charm is something we should not omit. After reading it, I see the balance between the infusion of one culture into another and its preservation of each culture at the same time. The great thing about Rasmmussen is that he was speaking for Inuit, valuing the welfare of them first, and Inuit's traditions to be preserved intact, though realizing the inevitable adaptation of Inuit culture to European influence. By the way, what happened t the child Rasmussen accidentally had with one of the girl...??? Rasmussen is excused from that part - his free affairs - because of his other great things he did to exploring and discovering Inuit origins and its legends, customs, and beliefs?

Knud Rasmussen was almost unique in ethnography: a trained ethnographer from an almost completely traditional, small-scale-society background. Bown calculates that Rasmussen was 1/8 Inuit, but the photos and some other accounts make him seem rather more than 1/8. In any case, he was raised in Greenland as a member of the mixed Danish-Inuit society there, and lived his early life more as an Inuit than as a Dane; he obviously identified with his mother and her people. This gave him a unique perspective when he came to write ethnography; he writes as a cultural insider, not an outsider trying to come to grips with a "strange" culture. There have been many Native American ethnographers before and since, but most of them were raised in a fairly "white" world, and few indeed were raised making a living by traditional hunting and sledding (as Rasmussen was).This biography is a wonderful read, and makes Rasmussen come alive as a wild and romantic individual, a combination of daredevil Arctic traveler and careful, thorough explorer and ethnographer. It shows his very Inuit sense of travel and risk-taking as just part of life; I have read a great deal of Rasmussen's work and can vouch for the incredibly detached, all-in-a-day's-work style in which he describes long, difficult, dangerous journeys and brushes with death. Rasmussen was also rather casual about love affairs, more so than an Inuit would have been but still in their rather free tradition. Not so well covered are Rasmussen's obvious problems: fear of commitment, difficulty in settling down, impulsiveness, frequently wild and even irresponsible risk-taking. These seem likely to have come from his position as leader in two very different cultural worlds but not being fully a member of either one. He also had a driven, overachieving, show-them-all quality that I have seen in some other Native American leaders.Rasmussen was one of the main reasons I got into anthropology. As a beginning biology student who grew up reading Jack London and other romancers of the frozen north, I would escape from my studies by reading about Arctic exploration. Rasmussen's accounts were far different from the usual run of tales. He laid out the whole wonderful and absorbing mental world of the Inuit, in enormous detail and compelling style, explained by a fully participant member of the culture. I switched majors and never looked back.

Primitive people have hopes, fears, faith, loves and courage in their ever near world of survival. Their concept of God may be "Mother of the Sea" or "Earth Wind" but they live with resiliency without the narractive that comes from a developed Bible. Whatever your own faith, you will benefit from hearing how a primitive people explain their own emotions despite the threats that stare them in the face daily.

Now approaching 80, forty six years ago I spent only weeks traveling by canoe in the Canadian Barren Grounds. Yet, I am still fascinated by people who lived or traveled across remote Arctic stretches and explorers of the other antipode. Among the many books about the Arctic I have read or taught from, I wondered why Rasmussen was so often mentioned but little was written solely about him. I knew of him but haven’t read his works. Neither have the several friends of mine interested in colder climes pointed me towards his work. There are what I would consider definitive biographies of Nansen, Diamond Jenness, and others and many good books about Samuel Hearne, Hornby the Hermit, John Rae, Shackelton, Amundsen and Scott. Yet, as the author points out nothing of that scale about Rasmussen. So I appreciate this book. But something about it makes me uncomfortable. I would like to explore that here.It may just be the author’s breezy style where I would have liked something more serious. Rasmussen, like Nansen, had a youth of travel and middle age of worldly endeavors. Nansen became a diplomat, but Rasmussen continued to focus his concerns on his beloved Eskimo peoples. While the author made much of Rasmussen’s ability to charm and befriend his Inuit subjects, I found the title a bit of an overstatement. It may be that the Inuit did regard him as a white Eskimo, but his childhood and his genealogy made him in many ways more Eskimo than white. So maybe the title should have been “Eskimo White Man”. Of course there were others who are sometimes mentioned who were real Eskimo white men. I would have liked Rasmussen viewed in that context rather than being reminded time and time how unique his connection with Eskimos was for a white man. It is this kind of literary romanticism that puts me off. I should emphasize that this is my particular bug a boo, not one that I image a general reader would be aware of. It has a lot to do with the kind of adjectives an author chooses. It inflates the hero, who might really be worthy, but I would like that worthiness explored without the superlatives.What else. In the early parts of the book the reader is told that Rasmussen is a prince among men. Other than his youthful awkwardnesses, he knows how to charm and endear himself to people. In some circumstances he is outspoken. As the book goes on, I get the sense that Rasmussen had a rather less pleasant side to him. He makes fun of people. He is dictatorial, He fathers a child with apparent indifference. He is what, one might call, an emotionally abusive father and husband, by omission as much as adulterous commission. In that he may have just been living Eskimo morality. But he defends Eskimo emotional attachment moderated by the necessities of survival. He counters people who say Eskimos repress emotion. His treatment of Eskimo women with whom he had sexual and living relationships may have been acceptable to them and Eskimo Society. But his marriage and liaisons with European women had much to be desired. The author doesn’t explore this to my satisfaction.There is another issue that stands out for me. I like the way the author matter-of-factly reports on the treatment of Eskimo dogs. If I remember correctly Scott was hesitant to use dogs because of British sentimentality, a la “man’s best friend.” Amundsen had no trouble consuming dogs on the way home. So Rasmussen reports the feeding dogs to dogs as needed for food especially when they could no longer pull . The most gruesome scene is of a female pupping and other dogs eating the young as they emerged, the mother finishing the last one. I recently watched a cartoon in the house of a computer graphic artist. In it a cute little dog greedily eats all sort of junk food. It took me a long time to even understand what the film was about. After about the third engorgement, I realized, “oh yes,” an imitation of a human junk food eater. I found the cartoon, strange, even a bit obscene. I was tempted to related some of Rasmussen’s story, but realized how inappropriate that would have been.While the author goes into detail about the four early Thule Expeditions I feel he gave short shrift to the Fifth. Yes Rasmussen was very interested in the ethnology of the Eskimo groups he met. But I would have like to know much more about the subtle differences among them and also more about the challenges of travel and what he found along the way. That reflects my particular interest in the Canadian Arctic.In any case this is written for a general audience and I am asking for a definitive biography including how his anthropology came out of who he was. So some of my comments are unfair. As a general biography, the author has done a very good job. He keeps the reader interested, even on the edge of his/her seat. He is a good writer. For those who want to know about Greenlanders and the north I can recommend the book. After reading it go on to read Gretel Ehrlich’s This Cold Heaven to get sense of how the changes Rasmussen encouraged undermined traditional Eskimo culture. Rasmussen also made money bringing about those changes. I wonder how much his heirs made when the Americans built Thule Air Force base during WWII? The author notes the irony of Rasmussen’s desire to preserve Eskimo culture museum-like while feeling that Eskimos needed to enter the modern world.Charlie Fisher, emeritus prof. and author

Great book

Une lecture agréable et une écriture fluide et accessible. Plustôt romancé à l'américaine, comme le fait Stephen R. Bohn, mais juste et qui donne le goût de lire davantage sur Rasmussen. Il faut dire que Rasmussen mérite bien cet hommage.

Wonderful passages including excellent interpretations of Inuit songs, just beautiful.