Talk:Khoisan

message: I speak under correction, but isn't the Khoi and San the official names while Bushmen and Hottentots are the derogative names?
I have often heard from San (as well as Khoi) people that they feel offended to be called Bushmen or Bushies.
:The assertion elsewhere is that "San" is a particularly negative name meaning "outsider" used by the Khoi.  See Bushmen for details, pointing at the bottom half of  --Henrygb 00:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  for special information look a.t.:  --80.143.127.143 22:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: This statement can be misleading, as Khoisans have probably evolved roughly as much as other modern humans, and implies than modern humans evolved from Khoisans as opposed to both groups diverging from the same common ancestor. It's more accurate (and doesn't have eugenicist implications) to say that they retained some traits that were lost in other (i.e., non-Khoisan) modern humans. SteveSims 23:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most archaic human group" 

message: The Khoisan were treated very poorly not only by the Europeans but also by the warlike Zulus who considered them to be be little more than animals.
"...who considered them to be be little more than animals." - what kind of evidence could possibly support this? If this were the case, surely the Zulu would not have incorporated clicks into their language? When the Zulu became "warlike", didn't they extend military hostility towards various ethnic groups in a uniform manner, not just towards the Khoisan alone? Be very careful of eurocentric textbook bias! Factual information is more worthy of encyclopedic reference than this "...considered them to be little more than animals" useless fluff. Extermination by Commandos
>>To add, I feel the European campaigns against the San peoples should be mentioned in the history section too. Both German and Dutch settlers took pretty genocidal approaches, and the British were only marginally better, still essentially permitting a lot of settler violence. I don't feel I have the knowledge or time to write this in an authoritative way, but here's a good starting point for a reference on German genocide http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&context=gsp And Anatomy of a South African genocide on the Dutch side.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.20.132 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khoisan Extermination 

message: I'm adding some new information that I believe to be accurate. If I'm incorrect, please change it in accordance with the facts. I just finished giving a class based on the Lee and DeVore book, as well as the biography of Nissa in her own words by Marjorie Shostak, and have been reading about the people of the Kalahari with great pleasure for a good many years.--Samivel 00:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding some new information 

message: Oppose merge as Bushmen (San) is not equivalent to, but a subgroup of Khoisan.--Ezeu 14:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Khoisan is a term that includes both the Bushmen (San) and the Khoikhoi (Khoi), hence - Khoi-San. I wouldn't be a good idea to merge. --Khoikhoi 18:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose merging Bushmen and Khoisan 

message: "...Both share physical and linguistic characteristics, and it seems clear that the Khoi branched forth from the San by adopting the practice of herding cattle and goats from neighboring Bantu tribespeople..."
I have always wondered... what exactly is a "tribesman"? (an official definition would be nice)
:  Tribesman - n.
:#A man who is a member of one's own tribe.
:#A member of a tribal people.
:  - pl.n.
:#The people of one's own tribe.
:#An aboriginal people living in tribes: "the tribespeople of the Kalahari Desert".
:Cheers! —Khoikhoi 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what exactly does "tribespeople" mean? 

message: 1) I really think it is someones POV that the physical uniqueness of Khoisan peoples are diminishing because of supposed increase in intermarriage.
2) What gene study says that the Khoisan are "similar" to other indigenous African peoples ? What exactly does "similar" entail since all humans are genetically similar ? I really do think the Khoisan are probably quite genetically different from other Africans, possibly as much as they are from Europeans, Asians or Austro-nesians in some respects. This especially makes sense considering current archaeological analyisis claims that the Bantu peoples only arrived in South Africa 1500-2000 years ago while the Khoisan have been there for 30,000 years or (probably) much more.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.126.241 (talk • contribs) 11 August 2006
:Please remove all unsourced claims you find in this article.--Ezeu 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what gene study ? 

message: I haven't read Knight 2003 and probably wouldn't understand it, but I doubt that it supports statements like “Khoisans thus actually represent the most archaic human group” or insinuations of Khoisan people somehow being the world's first human beings, oldest people or some such.
The latter is just plainly absurd – if there was a time when there were only Khoisan and no other human beings had entered the scene yet, then where did all other humans come from? Their ancestors may have been around for a long time, but so have everybody's.
::: Where did all other humans come from? That is very easy question to answer: one proto-Khoisan  long time ago had a genetic mutation and all non-Khoisan people are carrying that mutation. For Y chromosome, the name of that mutation is M168. ( The group of peoples without mutation M168 is a little wider than Khoisan but I have to simplify things to give a simple answer to your question). So what you are calling a plainly absurd is actually well-established scientific fact. I agree that we should be careful assigning to peoples names like 'archaic' but in this case its meaning is extremely well defined. Warbola 14:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special humans 

message: References to physical appearances of _human beings_ and using these as a basis for differentiating between surrounding ethnic groups is interesting, but seems a little dated - the kind of material one would expect to find in the diary of Vasco Da Gama or Jan Van Riebeck, or the kind of material one would expect to find about animals in a safari game guide booklet. Are we discussing aliens who are incapable of understanding our communications? It seems as though this kind of information is stated as scientific (such as reference to female genitals), and therefore unoffensive, relevant and useful - worthy of encyclopedic reference. "Elongated labia"?? Who decided that they are elongated? I bet if they were asked for their opinion, they would suggest that the ones you are used to seeing are "miniature labia"... Some respectful neutrality when talking about ethnic groups would be more in tune with our times. 
A lot of other interesting information, which I am sure would be more worthy of encyclopedic reference exits and should (in my humble opinion) replace the other less humane references. Detailed information on family structures, religious beliefs, rock art and its meaning/importance, environmental harmony, hunting expertise, architecture/dwellings, clothing... contribution to medicine (buchu, hoodia etc), musical instruments, weapons, contemporary lifestyle issues... Where did "IKE E : IXARRA I IKE" come from, why was it chosen, what does it mean and how true are the rumours that it does not mean what it was believed to mean? some such information has been included, but i think this should be the main focus and the other stuff should perhaps even be omitted all together. I wish someone would share knowledge and rescue us from this... The Gods Must Be Crazy ...level of knowledge (pitiful ignorance, really). Comments on "Special humans" and "Tribespeople" echo similar concerns, please can someone display knowledge and update this article so that it teaches its readers something new and fresh? Just a thought (with a flare of irritation, yes i admit... but i did try to control it).
I could not agree more I appreciate the genetic data,but the khoisan are'nt just fodder for population genetics.I'm part Khoisan and descend from a khoisan group who were what we might call "freedom fighters" during the colonial period.They learnt dutch and did write about their treatment one ancestor wrote "We lived very contentedly ... before these Dutch plunderers molested us;  and why should we not do so again;  if left to ourselves?  Has not the Groot Baas [god] ... given plenty of grass-roots, and berries, and grasshoppers for our use;  and, till the Dutch destroyed them, an abundance of wild animals to hunt?  And will they not return and multiply, when these destroyers are gone?". I'll be submitting some historical and cultural data within the next month.
202.67.87.114 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien perspective? 

message: The sentence
"The distinct characteristics of all human varieties [...] all may have beginnings in the physiology of the Khoisan [citation needed]"
does not deserve to be in a Wikipedia article and should be removed.
I doubt that a citation will ever be provided. This is a view sometimes expressed by people who do not fully understand the implications of mitochondrial DNA studies and incorrectly believe that since they have the longest lineage all other human populations must've evolved from them. As noted above, this then implies that they're Ur-Humans who sat down and stubbornly refused to evolve.
Speculation about (as I once saw on TV) "skin colour that can either become lighter or darker, the high cheek bones like those of Mongolians, the East Asian eyes,..." does not deserve to be in a modern encyclopedia without citation (in context).
Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 12:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Feel free to get rid of it. — mark ✎ 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unevolved template humans 

message: clean up and chapters needed.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format clean up needed

message: This material is unworthy of encyclopedic reference:
Physically the Khoisan, with their short frames (149-163 cm/4'9-5'4;), copper brown skin, tightly coiled "peppercorn" hair, high cheekbones, and epicanthic eye folds are quite distinct from the darker-skinned peoples who constitute the majority of Africa's population. They have moderately long legs with long muscle bellies, which is a trait that sharply distinguishes them from surrounding Pygmy and Bantu populations having muscles with short bellies and long tendons (Coon 1965). Two distinguishing features of some Khoisan women are their elongated labia minora and tendency to steatopygia,, features which contributed greatly to the European fascination with the so-called Hottentot Venus. However, the physical differences between Khoisan and other peoples may be diminishing due to intermarriage.
:I fail to see how the physical traits of a people are somehow not worthy of an Encyclopedia. Though the paragraph does need a cleanup. --Kurtle (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The '''physical appearance''' section belongs in a '''[[Human Zoo]]''', not in an encyclopedia 

message: This section would be better placed in a separate or more relevant article as it is not really about the Khoisan as much as it is about genetics, haplogroups and recent single origin hypothesis :
According to Knight et al. (2003) Y-haplogroup A, the most diverse or oldest-diverging Y haplogroup transmitted purely by patrilineal descent, is today present in various Khoisan groups at frequencies of 12-44%, and the other Y-haplogroups present have been formed by recent admixture of Bantu male lineages E3a (18-54%), and in some groups, noticeable Pygmy traces are visible (B2b). The Khoisan also show the largest genetic diversity in matrilineally transmitted mtDNA of all human populations. Their original mtDNA haplogroups L1d and L1k are one of the oldest-diverging female lineages as well. However, analysis of neutral autosomal (inherited through either parent) genes finds that the Khoisan are similar to other sub-Saharan African populations.
The presence of Haplogroup A, especially the subclade A3b2, in East Africa have led some to speculate on an ancient connection between those populations and the Khoisan, although the negligibly small frequencies of the A haplogroup that were observed in some recent genetic studies on East Africans puts this theory in serious doubt.Juan J Sanchez et al., "High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males," European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 856–866
One interpretation is that the Khoisan are the earliest-diverging human group, or even a group that has preserved the original human lifestyle along with genetics. More conservatively, it can be said that the patrilineal or matrilineal descent of most individuals in most other human groups have passed through common genetic bottlenecks that are later than the most recent common patrilineal ancestor or most recent common matrilineal ancestor shared by all humans, and that the ancestors of the Khoisan avoided these particular bottlenecks. Such bottlenecks might be associated simply with the chance reproductive success of particular males, or with the settlement and subsequent expansion of a small group (e.g. modern humans venturing out of Africa, or the Sahara Pump Theory, or recovery from disasters like the Toba catastrophe) or have even more complex causes.
This does not show that the Khoisan were particularly isolated through history and prehistory; in fact, the autosomal genes demonstrate interchange with other African populations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.214.219 (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer of "Oldest human group?" section to a more relevant article

message: There's nothing on thier 20th century history--J intela (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent history 

message: Hey all - I've been trying to improve this article over the last month, since it was rather disorganized and tended to emphasize controversial and overall unimportant details about the Khoisan previously.  I've added several historical notes about the Khoisan from authors like Jared Diamond, moved parts out of the intro into other sections, and made clearer that various names and beliefs about Khoisan are outdated and considered racist today (including one deletion of a controversial detail about Khoisan women that is highly outdated and minute in any case).  
I also wrote a new section on the Y chromosome genomic studies about the Khoisan, which were quite significant (published in Science, National Geographic, etc.) but wrongly written about in past versions of this page.  I made sure to not use terms that would lead to wrong intepretations of these results, and added a sentence from the original author of the paper stating that these results only show an older shared ancestry for the Khoisan, but not that they "stopped evolving" since they continued to change in parallel and similar ways to all other human populations.  I think this now satisfies a neutral and correct description of the studies, compared to earlier versions that elicited complaints. Please let me know what you think about how the article goes, and whether there are any objections to what I've written, since I'm committed to improving this wiki.  Thanks. Wilytilt (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. I've redone the lede; as for the genetics section, could you clarify which peoples the studies were based on? The KS are not a group, genetically, culturally, or linguistically, apart from whatever validity 'capoid race' might have. Any genetic study that only identifies the people as "Khoisan" is close to worthless, so I hope the studies behind those sources provide more detail than that. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes and new section describing genomic studies, September 2010

message: In a citation of an article by Knight A, et al., in volume 13 of Current Biology at pages 464–73 in a footnote to the Genetic studies section a URL is extraordinarily lengthy. In the References section it extends far beyond the right edge of the section, detracting from the appearance of the References section and—at least on an iPad—causes a rendition of the article at a smaller-than-normal scale to accommodate the extension of the URL far into the right margin of the article; i.e., the article is in the left half of the screen and the right half of the screen is empty margin except at the line of the URL.  173.72.170.69 (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: I made this edit as many reliable sources to the contrary are cited in Bushmen#Ethnic nomenclature, where I have tried to present a balanced view of the name situation (I see no need to repeat it all here per WP:CONTENTFORK). I cannot view the source cited here, but the original sourced edit was changed without explanation some time ago without correction. HelenOnline 08:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Re these edits by Kwamikagami (shortly following the discussed move of Bushmen to San people which they opposed), partially reverted by Afro-Eurasian and me, we do not need a WP:CONTENTFORK here especially one contradicting sourced information elsewhere. HelenOnline 21:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Where did I say San is not derogatory? HelenOnline 21:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying that consensus on what to name the WP article is consensus outside of WP, which it is not.  — kwami (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean by "consensus outside of WP" (if you are going to insist on saying I said something specific, please say where I said it). There is the overall consensus of the San people (which is what I was referring to here based on the first sentence in the paragraph), but I am not sure the word consensus would generally be applicable to independent reliable sources. In any event, both were taken into account when Bushmen was moved to San people. I am also not sure what this debate has to do with this article, since San terminology is covered elsewhere in the most appropriate place and there is no need for a content fork here especially given the history I outlined above. HelenOnline 12:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your own sources show there is not overall consensus of the San people, as has been pointed out to you several times already.  And you're the one creating the conflict in the content fork, so I don't understand your last comment.  — kwami (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point continuing this discussion as you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I refer anyone interested to Talk:San_people#Requested_move_12_January_2014 where this matter has been discussed ad nauseum. HelenOnline 19:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology correction 

message: For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. As this will almost certainly result in the removal of the "Biology and genetic studies" section from this article, I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics for ethnic groups RfC 

message: Sorry guys! I inadvertently messed up the phonetic spellings of the name "Khoisan" at the beginning of the article and didn't pick it up until after I had already saved. I haven't been able to restore it. Can anyone else help? We can roll back to an earlier edit, but then then spelling corrections I made will be lost, and I'm not sure how to do the rollback.
Apologies to everyone.
Cadar (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Messed up the phonetic spelling!

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khoisan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210183349/http://www.africanlanguages.org/khoesan.html to http://www.africanlanguages.org/khoesan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Seems to be heavily biased, and citing incredibly weak sources, it appears to be all from one guys website. So atm I am gonna delete the whole section, if someone can give a good reason to keep it that would be good to know IamDaEmper0r (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration of Sovereignty 

message: The following wording is used in the "Origins" section of this article and extensively quoted all over the net:
... the MIS 5 "megadrought", 130,000 years ago ...
Neither in this article, nor anywhere else on the net, have I found an explanation of this phrase. Looking up "MIS 5," I discovered that it is divided into substages from 5e (oldest) to 5a (youngest). According to this source, most of MIS 5 was characterized by moist conditions. Only the relatively short 5d and 5b substages are characterized by drought. Furthermore, according to this article (in Norwegian Wikipedia), stage 5d occurred at about 109,000 BP and 5b at about 89,000 BP (MIS 5 as a whole lasted from approx. 123,000 BP to 82,000 BP). Neither of these sources make any mention of a "megadrought"; nor does there seem to have been any major drought at around 130,000 BP. Indeed, it is unclear whether MIS 5 goes as far back as 130,000 BP.
I am not a specialist, but it looks like the MIS 5 "megadrought", 130,000 years ago is an artifact of multiple cuts and pastes on the net. Someone, preferably someone with specialist knowledge, should revise and correct this passage. Was there a MIS 5 megadrought, and, if so, when did it take place, and what relevance does it have to the Khoisan expansion? Reputable sources for this information should also be included.
Filursiax (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIS 5 "megadrought" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Khoisan were also known as Hottentots 102.222.6.202 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is mentioned in the second paragraph of the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khoisan were also known as Hottentots 

message: Having stumbled upon this article and trying to decipher what it is about, I mercilessly pruned the lead section from endless regurgitation of terminology, languages and etymologies. I don't think anything of value has been lost. Most of it was specifically about San or Khoi anyway, and I believe it has already existed in the appropriate articles. No such user (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: The image depicting a 1900 drawing of a naked khoisan woman is really necessary? The context in which that image belongs is of classification and racialization of african people, common to 19th century "cientific racism". 
What if instead of that image there is an actual picture of khoisan people's face? 
Seeing that drawing can be seriously upseting and offensive. Please respond and considere changing it.
Let's make Wikipedia a more welcoming and respectful place. Casa de Lancastre (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the image doesn't seem appropriate for this article. At best, it would need more information beyond the year to adequately put it into historical context. I'll remove it. The text could probably use improvement too – currently the material about steatopygia is cited only to a source from 1882. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist Image in "Physical Characteristics and Genetics"