Talk:Pygmy peoples/Archive 1

message: "The most closely studied group are the Mbuti of the Ituri Rainforest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which were the subject of the study The Forest People (1962) by Colin Turnbull."
sounds familiar - white man studies backward, almost inhuman black tribe. does "heart of darkness" come to mind? i know it doesn't explicitly say that, but doesn't it give that vibe? perspective should be changed.
:I'm sorry, but white men _did_ study "backwards" people. That's not inaccurate. You can't possibly say that the African pygmies were more than or equally as advanced as the Europeans.
:Please outline an *objective* definition of "advanced"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elsenrail (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  racialist phrasing 

message: What sort of attention from an expert does this article need? Hyacinth 08:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert

message: How should this article be expanded? Hyacinth 08:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever this article is expanded and there is more room, here is a link eto a portrait circa 1914 :Image:NSRW Africa Pygmy.png --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand

message: They are native to central Africa and also the location opposite from Central Africa.--Digitalseal 16:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except South America. Meateatingvegan 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  woo 

message: We should make it clear in the first paragraph that the term "Pygmy-American" should not be used in place of progressive expressions such as little people.
:: that "little people" link directs to a page about gnomes and folklore, looks like your attempt at being "progressive" backfired Angryafghan 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pygmy-American. 

message: Does anyone know anything about the pygmies of the pacific island New Guinea in the states of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia? --217.232.72.199 13:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pygmies in New Guinea 

message: The people of smaller size that we're discussing are NOT a different species from humans. They can, and do (as I just heard an an NPR report, sorry about the lame cite) reproduce successfully with other humans in their areas. Their genes only differ in the SIZE issue, as ALL humans genes differ. They don't indicate an "other." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.159.25 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Because they are not a new species 

message: Can anyone confirm this? 124.82.4.141 08:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Homo sapiens? 

message: It's true.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.82.4.141 (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason Hugh Sam wrote all of this 

message: I took out this paragraph because it's silly.  I've never heard anyone suggest the skeleton is a Pygmy (there were no references); it's obviously not since the brain is much smaller and it has various skeletal differences.  KarlM 06:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted ''[[Homo floresiensis]]'' "controversy" 

message: Has anyone heard of any pygmies from South America? Before reading this article it was my belief that pygmies were actually from South America, as I have heard many times of pygmy tribes deep in the Amazon Rainforests. This would certainly be believable as many native peoples from the equatorial parts or South America are very short, and South Americans and Latinos in general tend to be short. TeePee-20.7 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although there are South American peoples of short stature, they are not referred to as pygmies, at least not in anthropology.--Ezeu 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pygmies from South America 

message: The article currently reads:
The name "Negrito" comes from the Spanish or Portuguese "little Negro" and was given by early explorers who assumed the Andamanese they encountered were from Africa. This assumption was discarded when anthropologists noted that apart from dark skin and curly hair, they had little in common with any African population, including the African pygmies.  
The thing is, negrito means, first and foremost in Spanish and Portuguese, "little black" - there really is no "negro" from the Iberian perspective.  In Spanish people are regularly termed café ("coffee-colored"), moreno ("brown-colored"), etc., which indicates a color, not a race or origin.  (To reiterate: color is not race.  Conflating color and race is a tempting simplification that in the USA has become codified, and that shows here.)  The point is, if Spanish and Portuguese people see people who are relatively smaller and darker and call them negritos ("little blacks"), that does not indicate an assumption of origin in Africa.  (If it were africanitos, then the assumption would be clear.)  An assumption that does not exist cannot be discarded.  If there is evidence that this assumption existed, then put it in the article, but explaining it with the bad translation "little negro" is really bad original research.
Adam Mathias 05:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just edit the thing if you believe it is incorrect. --Ezeu 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Negrito"