Talk:Khoekhoe/Archive 1

Archive 1

San or Bushmen

In South Africa, the term San has become favored in official contexts, being included in the blazon of the new national coat-of-arms. Some peole find the term Bushmen the problem term bush men, while san is more acceptable a term, it is more authentic as it is an African applied ethnic label, as opposed to an 18th century one.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "San" is considered offensive to the Bushmen. San comes from the neighbouring Nama, and means outsider. Khoikhoi 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

so what do they call themselves, in their language? --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the different tribes have different names for themselves. However, the word for "men" is kwai. Khoikhoi 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As the article on San (Bushmen) correctly says San have no collective name for themselves in any of their languages (which are many); some of the autonyms include !Xoon (pl. !Xooŋake), ‘N/ohan (pl. N/umde) or Ju/’hoansi. --Newydd 10:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Further verification required: etymology of the term 'Hottentot'

It won't do simply to claim that the now dated term 'Hottentot' derives from the Dutch 'gestotter' (stutter), which is unlikely. The term Hottentot originates from a jesting carried over from a repetitive formula in a traditional dancing-song, "Ãten tãten, ãten tãten...", in 2/4 time. See "Mind Your Colour: The "Coloured" Stereotype in South African Literature" By Vernie A. February (p. 17); and the Afterword to "Dusklands" by J.M. Coetzee (though it should be kept in mind that the latter is a work of metahistoriographical fiction). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.133.166 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

I deleted the 'Khoisan' article (rd. to Khoisan languages) as nonsense. It looks like there wasn't much in it that didn't repeat other articles, but here's some stuff that might be relevant here, if s.o. wants to work it in:

Historically, they have been referred to as the Capoid race because they can be visually distinguished from most other sub-Saharan Africans by way of their relatively lighter skin color and their epicanthic folds. Both Khoi and San people 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-speaking groups.

kwami (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the current-day population of this Khoikhoi ethnic group?

id like to know the current day population that the most recent census has counted. there is talk that this group is exstinct. if there extinct when did the last of these people actually live? if not extinct how many are on this planet earth? if no specific census number is known what is the offical estimate? 69.208.14.63 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Extinct?

Ehm ... aren't the Khoi extinct? If you are one and therefore obviously not, please accept my apologies :) DirkvdM July 8, 2005 14:24 (UTC) NO! they're not, im one myself, NAMA, to be more specific. There are still San amoung us.(User:Anmire) August 21,2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.88.21.195 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Discussion Note : In the history taught in southern african countries, the story of the khoi is given as such; The Khoi people originated around the area of Zaire and northen congo, they are a hugely proud race or very dark skinned peoples ('black as coal') and have developed this way due to them being a forest people. In the years of the egyptians, they ensalved bordering tribes of Khoi to work as slaves, they are commonly reffered to as 'the Cushites'. They were enslaved due to their large build, compared to the Bantu tribesman from etheopia and somalia, who were smaller and more of a chocolate colour. The Khoi eventually migrated away to avoid the slavery and left their cushite brethren. They migrated through the congo down to northern Namibia, where they were met by desert. The Khoi then met the 'San' people, the true bushmen. Being a warring race, they enslaved the san to bide their journey through the deserts of namibia and into western south arfica. Many Khoi remained witht he san people and bred them into the race now known as Khoisan. The remaining Khoi mirgration continued south till they hit the cape and then turned north following the seas edge. They eventually kept going till they reached the plains of Natal, and the remaining tribesman formed the KwaZulu tribe.

In this time, the Bhantu had migrated through the rift valley, absorbing other bhantu race tribes and they eventually hit the lands of the Khoi in Natal and desided to form their kingdom in Mozambiquie, known as the Monomatapa.

(It would be nice if this could be verified and researched) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.77.110 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 January 2007.

— The above is not at all believable. Cerumol2 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Date incongruity

The article states that the Khoikhoi have been in "southern Africa" since the 5th century C.E., then says that they have been at the Cape for 2000 years. And it is not clear whether the article is trying to distinguish Botswana from "southern Africa". --Haruo (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

San

Maybe it should be pointed out that the word “san” simply means “forager” in the Khoikhoi language? The distinction may have been more an economic than a cultural one.

2014-01-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.157.228 (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

The following statement in the article is a typical example of the slander and discrimination against the Afrikaner government that is found in history:

"and so the beginnings of the multi-racial Cape franchise was born in 1853. This law decreed that all citizens, regardless of colour, had the right to vote and to seek election in Parliament. This non-racial principle of franchise was later eroded in the late 1880s, (it was a British Colony) and then finally abolished by the Apartheid Government. "

Here is the truth.. Thomas Pakenham , a British historian did the most complete and well researched account of the Boer War in his book of the same name. He found that as one of the conditions to end the Boer War (See wikipedia Treaty Of Vereeniging) was one demanded by Sir Alfred Milner, British Cape Governor,and the British signee of the Treaty. Milner demanded the continued disenfranchisement of the native people of the Cape and South Africa, and even travelled to England to address Parliament on the need to do this. The Boer signees of the Treaty, even if they did not agree,had no choice but to sign, as their woman and children were dying in concentration camps. The citations are Thomas Pakenham, The Boer War, and the Vereeniging treaty wikipedia website, showing Milner to be a signee.

To be historically correct, the ending of the sentence should read ..This non-racial principle of franchise was later eroded in the late 1880s, and then finally abolished by the British Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.125.229 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Quena

"Bring Back the 'Hottentot Venus'" refers to the Khoikhoi as Quena. 206.87.106.176 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Major clarification needed

This article repeatedly contradicts itself on two major points.

1)Are the KhoiKhoi a subdivision of the Khoisan culture/ethnicity, culturally and ethnically distinct from the KhoiSan or synonymous with the KhoiSan? The article makes all three claims. It begins by claiming that "The Khoikhoi... are a historical division of the Khoisan ethnic group". It then contradicts that by claiming that "Khoi bands... intermarried with San. However the two groups remained culturally distinct" It then apparently contradicts both claims by noting that "The traditional Khoisan are a hunter and gatherer society..." which implies that KhoiKhoi is synonymous with "traditional Khoisan hunter-gatherers".

Which of these claims, if any, is correct? They can't all be true. KhoiKhoi can't be a division of the KhoiSan, culturally distinct from the KhoiSan and synonymous with the KhoiSan.

2) Are the KhoiKhoi agriculturalists/pastoralists, or are they hunter/gatherers. The article makes both claims. The article starts by claiming that "When European immigrants colonized the area... Khoikhoi were practising extensive pastoral agriculture... with large herds of Nguni cattle". It reinforces that claim by stating that "Husbandry of sheep, goats and cattle provided a stable, balanced diet and allowed the related Khoikhoi peoples to live in larger groups than the region's previous inhabitants" and that "Khoikhoi continued to graze livestock and the San subsisted as hunter-gatherers". Which all makes it quite clear that the KhoiKhoi have a long tradition of agriculture/pastoralism. However the article then claims that "The traditional Khoisan are a hunter and gatherer society..."

So which is correct? Are the KhoiSan traditionally pastoralists, or are they traditionally a hunter and gatherer society? They can't be both. I am guessing that this is linked to the confusion over whether the KhoiKhoi are culturally the same as, a cultural division of or culturally distinct from the KhoiSan.Mark Marathon (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Khoisan article says "Khoisan (...) is a unifying name for two groups of peoples of Southern Africa, who share physical and putative linguistic characteristics distinct from the Bantu majority of the region.Culturally, the Khoisan are divided into the foraging San, or Bushmen, and the pastoral Khoi (...)". So assuming this article is correct, it should be at least mentioned that "KhoiKoi are one of the two subgroups of the Khoisan groups of peoples of Southern Africa" - or something the like. Any objection to adding it? --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School announcement

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Review within the Wikipedia Primary School project

Hi all. As anticipated, some weeks ago Prof. Andrew B. Smith (Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town) agreed to review this article within the scope of the project linked above. You can find his notes in the PDF I just uploaded to Commons. We'd like to thank Prof. Smith for his work and for his helpful notes. We invite everybody to feel free to reuse the review to improve the article and/or to comment it here. Best, --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion.

Could we please get a main picture for the article that doesn't depict the Khoi, you know, worshipping the moon? That's kind of just pandering to stereotypes about Africa and I'm sure that we can do better in depicting an ethnic group. 76.18.140.105 16:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• It could be switched with the one further down. -BaronGrackle 20:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Xhosa people from the western part of the Eastern cape share lot of things with the Khosian (Xhoysian ) Some of the Khosian from the Cape town they migrate to the east part because of quarrels with the first Settlers(boer ) As the result of that they intermarried with Xhosa people and adapted the Xhosa language with loan Xhoysian(Khosian) words Misoklov (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Racial classification in SA

In an attempt to divide the san from Zulus they classified them as colored to stop unification, can this be added here?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Any evidence for this sweeping statement? Hottentot/Khoikhoi were certainly not Zulu!

Khoe and Zulus have ancestry in commong. 25% of Khoisan ancestry is European or Bantu. 33% of Zulu and Xhosa ancestry is Khoisan/Aka. 33% for the Sotho, 40% for the Tswana. So much for Apartheid, which was based on the notion that people had been separated since the creation of the world. All populations are mixed with previously existing populations. MrSativa (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hottentot as derogatory

An editor has been persistently changing the status quo, and rather uncontroversial, statement that the term hottentot is derogatory. This despite the claim being well referenced. The latest reversion was made with the justification that: References 3 and 5 do not call the term "Hottentots" derogatory, only 4. Reference 6 does not label "Hottentots" offensive. So, let's look at that.

Reference 3 says "Terms like... hottentot (derogatory for the Khoikhoi of southern Africa)..." So, yeah, it does call the term Hottentot derogatory.

Reference 5 says "The term Hottentot is a derogatory one..." So, yeah, it does call the term Hottentot derogatory.

Reference 6 says "she came from a clan of Quena people, better known in South Africa by the derogatory term Hottentot." So, you are technically right, it doesn't call it offensive, it calls it derogatory, a claim that you have just reverted despite knowing this because you read this refrence.

Editor, at this stage your edits have a very good chance of being ruled vexatious. You clearly know that the references support the claim that that the term is both offensive and derogatory. I am trying to assume good faith, but it is difficult to believe that you did not see a ywhere in any of these references where the term was called deogatory or offensive, and therefore you could remove the material from the article.

If you keep behaving in this manner and if you persist in ignoring WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO and persist in this edit warring, your stay here may be brief. Consider that please. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The title of this article should be moved to Hottentot because that is the English name for this people, and this is the English Wikipedia. People are offended by everything nowadays, and you shouldn't be catering to political correctness. Besides, you don't call the Japanese people Nihonjin, the French people Français, or the Welsh people Cymry. Don't destroy the English language with politically-correct bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.36.194.93 (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

To counter your unsubstantiated assertion with one of my own from my lofty perch in Cape Town, using the term "hottentot" as a non-historical descriptor for Khoi/San people anywhere in South Africa is asking for trouble up to and including lawsuits. It's derogatory all right. Where "political correctness" means "not being a dick just because", you will find that WP is definitely catering to it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)