Talk:Negrito/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semang image

I regret your position on the the Semang statue in the Field Museum. These peoples need all the support they can get. A sympathetic rendering of them from whatever quarter is valuable. If you dislike the image, perhaps you can find a better, and post it. The Semang, the Aetas, the Andaman Islanders (who perhaps have a better chance for survival as a group) need public awareness for their personhood. What better way than images. Ancheta Wis 12:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio- passages excised

I have excised several passages which would appear to be in violation of copyright, as they are taken word-for-word from a site maintained by the Andaman Association - see here and here. The Andaman Association site states:

• Text and figures of this book are ©1997-2005 The Andaman Association, Switzerland, unless otherwise stated. All rights are reserved.

The passages were first introduced by User:Karukera on 15 Nov 2003, in a series of edits starting with this one. Although subsequent editors have modified the text a little (such as changing "We believe" for "others believe"), the text is substantially the same. Karukera has not edited since Dec 2003: Special:Contributions/Karukera, and is unlikely to have anything to do with the source of the material. The article was in need of a good overhaul anyway...--cjllw | TALK 06:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Needs complete overhaul. For a start, this article should presumably discuss the anthropological term "negrito", which has been applied to various peoples, not just those in Philippines & Malaysia. Would need to also cover whether the term has validity in anthropological /racial classification sense, what the problems with this are, what specific evidence there is that these disparate groups have some genetic heritage in common, etc etc. The topic can also use a more sensitive and scientific analysis than is provided at present. I removed the EB1911 quote, this view is rather dated and at best warrants inclusion only in terms of demonstrating how perceptions have changed, rather than to put forward as an acceptable contemporary view of these peoples.--cjllw | TALK 01:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok I think it has fufilled these requirements. If not, add them. The term "negrito" is described. The terms significance is that it reminds the readers that there are Black people in East Asia. Black people have a wide genetic heritage, so trying to relate or distance them from a West African or "true" Negro is meaningless. - Zaph

I restored the cleanup tag- the idea of these is to notify and hopefully attract other editors to pitch in and improve the article to at least some minimal standard of coverage. Since nothing had actually been added since the tag was first applied, I don't see how removing it will help.--cjllw | TALK 02:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Revisting African link

There is significant evidence that shows the negritos from Africa and Asia are of one negrito race. Half of the links here already claim it and most book and encyylodpedia or dictionarys state that the african negritos and asian negritos are all basically one race of negritos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 December 2005.

There is much speculation, but little hard evidence, that the various widely-dispersed peoples who have at various times been identified as "negritos" or "negritoid" may have some common (but distant) genetic heritage. I don't disagree that notable sources which entertain such claims should be presented here, however this needs to carefully done to reflect just what sort of connection is claimed, and what the evidence (such as it is) actually allows. For example, although I think George Weber from the Andamans site (whose material was previously plagiarised here) is a reasonable-enough thinker, he is not by his own admission an expert in the field. If you actually read through his extensive coverage on the topic, there have actually been very few genetic studies made, and there is certainly no linguistic or archaeological evidence which can tie these dispersed groups together. In the main it remains a hypothesis, which might well be true, but the evidence is mostly unavailable. A far more rigorous treatment on what it means to classify a group as "negrito" would also be required.--cjllw | TALK 02:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

realted to African-Pygmy groups?

• some scientist say that they are realted to them, but how can that be? African-Pygmies only live in central-Africa and especialy in congo very deep in the jungles, and they are extremly isolated. I doesn't make sens that they just sudenly decide to move to some islands on the other side of the globe. Pygmies of South-East Asia and Ociena must have evolved like that due to environmental conditions on their native islands.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.220.52.101 (talk • contribs) 28 December 2005.
• And what evidence do you have that the African-Pygmies never traveled outside of Africa? There is plenty of physical evidence to proved that they did. Look at the color of skin, eyes, hair, nose and even cutoms, traditions, etc. By the way there are NO jungles in AFRICA. Forests and low grassy plains. [Nita June 20, 2006 1:14pm CST] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.22.199.86 (talk • contribs) 20 June 2006

• No jungles in Africa? Jungle simply means a densely overgrown tropical forest. Pygmies live in the most densly forested region in Africa – the central African rain forest. --Ezeu 07:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

no the pygmies of Africa did not discover east asia before any european explorers which is basically what you are saying, is it so hard to believe that there are more than one examples of insular dwarfism on the planet, each isolated group is an individual case and there are several in South east asia Angryafghan 12:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Melanesian link?

Sorry im not too informed on this, but isnt there a connection between Negritos and Melanesian people? eg those from Timor or Flores in Indonesia? They really look similar. but why no mention about either terms in either articles? kawaputra^tok2me 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent

Something went wrong with the paragraphs on mitochondrial DNA. They now give the misleading impression that there is something peculiar about the mDNA of Negritos. In particular the last sentence makes no sense:

"Thus the Negritos are treasured for this source of information about our origins, as the genetic drift of their their mtDNA is then a measure of the time which has elapsed from the generation of their common mother, to our own era."

What is "our own era"? Who is this "us" that apparently does not include the Negritos? Some term such as "this era" or just simply "today" would be better.

I believe what this means to say is that the genetic drift in Negrito mDNA can be used to measure the time that has elapsed between the lifetime of our common mother (the theoretical common mother of all humans) and now. I would edit the article so that it said this more clearly, but I am not at all sure that such a "mitochondrial Eve" theory is well enough established to be stated as fact.

Sergeirichard 06:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I reworked the paragraph, starting from the last sentence, which is now in subjunctive mood. Ancheta Wis 09:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this DNA stuff just bunk?--86.29.251.10 07:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated

I've rearanged a lot of the article so it reads more easily. Also added a pic and some info on their origins. I think the media section is completely irrelevant though, and will delete it unless anyone has any objections. --Matt Oid 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kunlun is in fact an ancient Chinese term applied to black people, but their portrayal in legend is as strong and large. The small Negritos are the least likely identification. The Kunlun material would be good in another article, but not this one. --JWB 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the section to its own page here: Kunlun Nu

--Matt Oid 09:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Temporary editing until sources are provided.

I have placed sources needed comments as well as studies that state the opposite of what is being claimed. In the words of Dr. Bulbeck who has done extensive studies in the area in his . The long shadow of skin colour As noted towards the start of this paper, Coon’s (1962) proposal of ‘Australoid’ relics in Southeast Asia is not supported by modern studies in physical anthropology. In addition, studies in craniometry have consistently found that Philippine ‘Negritos’ cannot be distinguished from other East Asian populations (e.g. von Bonin 1931; Hanihara 1993; Bulbeck and Adi 2005; and see below). Yet the belief that the Negritos of Island Southeast Asia represent an Australoid population that held sway before a mid to late Holocene Mongoloid immigration is widespread, and not infrequently cited as straightforward fact (e.g. Diamond 1997: 332–8). We suggest that this view is a retention of the hoary belief that human races can be classified by skin colour, given that a dark skin (along with a different hair form) sets the so-called Negritos apart from other Southeast Asians.

The craniometric analysis that supposedly aligned Negritos with Australo-Melanesians merits some discussion. Brace et al. (1991: 251, 259) took twenty-four measurements but decided to remove nine of them after converting them to indices (see Fig. 3). Four of their indices are the same as or similar to commonly employed indices – three that relate the length, breadth and width of the cranial vault to each other (16/17, 16/18, 17/18) and one that expresses the sagittal projection of the uppermost nasal saddle (nasion) as a proportion of the breadth between the orbits (22/23). Two of their indices, however, are idiosyncratic. One such index expresses the forward projection of the upper jaw as a ratio of the forward projection of the point at the top of the nasal aperture (6/19). The purpose of this index might be to gauge the relationship between the nasal bones and upper jaw in terms of their anterior projection, but the measurements are likely to be highly autocorrelated owing to the proximity of the utilized landmarks, and the probable effect would be to remove both measurements from analysis. The second unusual index expresses the forward projection of the top of the nasal aperture (with respect to the upper lateral orbits) as a proportion of the breadth between the orbits at their lateral midpoints (13/21). No explanation is given as to why these two particular measurements are chosen for representation as an index. The analysis by Brace et al. thus employed six indices, of which two are highly unusual, along with fifteen measurements not involved in the six indices. No attempt was made to justify including indices and direct measurements (chords and subtenses) in the same analysis. The only conceivable justification is that the analysis yielded the result that Brace et al. (1991: 259–60) wanted, in that Andaman Islanders and Philippine Negritos formed a distinct cluster with Australo-Melanesians, relatively distinct from their South Asian sample and well removed from their Jomon-‘Mongoloid’ cluster. This is the result they favoured, even though direct analysis of their original measurements aligned Andaman Islanders with South Asians (as confirmed by Wright 2002: 6) and found that Philippine Negritos could not be distinguished from Mainland East Asians (Brace et al. 1991: 254, 260–1). It is also the result that several commentators have chosen to emphasize, without noting the dubious aspects of this particular analysis or the other conflicting results obtained by Brace et al.Matsumura and Hudson, who believe that the original inhabitants of Indo-Malaysia were closely related to Australo-Melanesians, report that Brace et al. ‘advocated that Philippine Negritos are closely related to Australo-Melanesians’ (Matsumura and Hudson 2005: 204). Bellwood (1997), who believes that the original inhabitants of Indo-Malaysia belonged to the Australo-Melanesian race, went considerably further. ‘Brace et al. (1991) offer no doubt from craniofacial evidence that the Southeast Asian Negritos are most closely related to Australians and Melanesians’ (Bellwood 1997: 72).

We are not advocates of the notion that Indo-Malaysia has been free from immigration from northerly sources. Our own research strongly suggests some level of immigration over the last two thousand years (e.g. Bulbeck 2000: 33, 2004: 252; Rayner and Bulbeck 2001: 37–8), just as historical sources indicate some level of Chinese immigration into Indo-Malaysia throughout that period. The point we emphasize is that the supposed evidence relating Southeast Asia’s ‘Negritos’, or earlier inhabitants of Indo-Malaysia, specifically to southwest Pacific populations is meagre and contradictory Figure 3 Cranial measurements converted by Brace et al. (1991) into indices. Note that the measurements depicted in (b) are not chords, but are subtenses measured between the projections of the indicated anatomical points onto the median sagittal plane. 128 David Bulbeck et al. (http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/roonka.html). As reflected in the minority ‘Mongoloid’ component among the Coobool Creek crania, we suggest that the distinctiveness of Indo-Malaysian and southwest Pacific populations is predominantly the effect of cumulative differentiation following the colonization of Sahulland, a process that has continued throughout the Holocene.

Races of Homo sapiens: if not in the southwest Pacific, then nowhere David Bulbeck, Pathmanathan Raghavan and Daniel Rayner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salsassin (talk • contribs) 11:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt what you say. But you cannot address the reader or refer to yourself in the article. You must voice your concerns on the talk page and not the actual page. Plus, there are tags used for when something needs to cited. Instead of ^{source needed} you should use {{Fact}}. Feel free to re-add the appropriate fact tags where needed and your info provided it is correctly cited. And please sign your name with four tildes like "(~~~~)". Thank you. --Ghostexorcist 11:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to do all that. Here is what I changed.

A number of features would seem to suggest a common origin for the Negritos and African pygmies, especially in the Andamanese Islanders who have been isolated from incoming waves of Asiatic peoples. These features include short stature, very dark skin, woolly hair, scant body hair and occasional steatopygia. The fact that Andamanese pygmoids closley resemble Africans in their cranial morphology adds significant weight to this theory.^{source needed} This claim is disputable as studies such as those of Walter Neves and the Lagoa Santa remains of Brazil tangentially place Andamanese as closer to some Asians and Polynesians cranially than Africans.Graphs showing the 95% confidence interval dispersion as seen through the first two principal components. (A) Analysis of males, with size and shape considered. (B) Analysis of males with size effect corrected. (C) Analysis of females, with size and shape considered. (D) Analysis of females with size effect corrected. Notice that once size effect was corrected, both males and females categorized closer to the Atayal of Taiwan, the Ainu of Japan, etc. Furthermore, studies have show that Andamanese such as the Onge are brachyiocephalic to mesocephalic while Africans are dolychocephalic in their vast majority. Cephalo-facial Variation Among OngesFrontal and Facial Flatness of Major Human Populations

Genetic testing, however, allies Negritos only occasionally with African Negroids^{Source Needed, ALL studies I have seen place them among Asian/Pacific Island populations}. Cranial tests of pygmoids from Southeast Asia to New Guinea place them in the Australo-Melanesian branch of humanity. A study on blood groups and proteins in the 1950s suggested that the Andamanese were more closely related to Oceanic peoples than Africans. Genetic studies on Phillipine Negritos, based on polymorphic blood enzymes and antigens, showed they were similar to surrounding Asian popultaions. These findings can, however, be largely attributed to a level of interbreeding between the Negritos and later waves of people arriving from the Asian mainland, and are not necessarily an indication of ancestry. ^{Source needed again for this claim. Most genetic testing in populations that do not show admixture still show ancestry from a common ancestry, as well as dental patterns such as the sundadont.}

Maybe you can edit appropiatly Salsassin 11:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

References

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "Negrito" in reference to Africans.

I do not have access to the book used as a reference (will check at the library later). Could anyone (ie User:Ghostexorcist) let us know what African people are Negritos? --Ezeu (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the book, Tang Dynasty sources refer to the east African slaves brought to China via Arab traders as "Kunlun". It states Kunlun was a term used to describe dark-skinned people from Southeast Asia and Africa. I have provided another source in the etymology section that states Kunlun means Negrito. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So someone claims that someone in China, around the year 900 AD referred to dark skinned people by a word in a Chinese language, that you deduce to be equavalent to the word "Negrito", a term that was contrived by seventeenth-century European sailors to refer to dark skinned people they came across in Asia, to mean that hence there are African tribes of Negritos? --Ezeu (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not the person who connected Kunlun with Negrito, it was a Chinese professor. Please see the etymology section. There is also this publication. It names specific african tribes and categorizes them under Negritos. There is also this book passage. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the book passage you just cited, the term Negrito was specialized to refer to Asian peoples and not Africans after 1887.

Kunlun legends describe large men of great strength. (See book "The Star Raft".) Also dark-skinned people coming from various parts of Africa and Asia to China would not be all of small stature. All the Asian Negrito and African Pygmy tribes live in inland areas and would not have been likely to become sailors. It is misleading to say that Kunlun "means" Negrito - at most the term may have applied to some Negrito people as well as many larger people. Please provide the actual quote and full context from Liu's book. --JWB (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I provided two sources, not just the one you are referring to. Read the first one too. Here is another one. I have "The Star Raft", it is cited in the article. Liu's mention of Negritos is in a footnote, it reads "The name K'un-lun is generally believed to mean 'Negrito'." Apart from Liu's book, there is also this source. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

None of your references say that Negritos include people in parts of Africa. The short statured people in Africa are Pygmies and San. The only community in Asia with recent African ancestry (ie not part of the "Out of Africa" migrations) are the Siddi in India, and they are not Negritos. I ask you to list what people IN Africa are generally referred to as Negritos. Your claims are fringe to say the least. --Ezeu (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fringe? That's funny. I'm afraid that it is not my theory. I suggest that you read this one again. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that ancient anthropological text you refer to (full text) does not even remotely corroborate any of your claims. --Ezeu (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So, that text says Negrillos. My source says Negrito. I am more inclined to believe the book scan instead of a random archived transcript. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the scan. --Ezeu (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So we have the same book with different sayings. As would be expected, I am leaning towards my version. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The text mentions Negrilloes (alt Negrillos), an outdated seldom used synonym for Pygmies. Even if the text called some Africans Negritos, which it does not, a century-old anthropological text is not an adequate reference, given that modern science shows that there is no genetic affinity between Negritos and Africans. And you have still not answered the basic question - what African populations are TODAY referred to as Negritos? --Ezeu (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction, your original big question was "I ask you to list what people IN Africa are generally referred to as Negritos." Notice the emphasis? The Encyclopædia Britannica scan I supplied states these tribes are the "Akkas, Batwas, Wochuas and others". Your view on the text's strengths or weaknesses is your opinion. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What Britannica scan? The current version of Britannica says that the term Pygmy is loosely applied to so-called Negrito peoples of Asia - and says nothing about the application of the term Negrito to any African people. --Ezeu (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Count four replies down from the beginning of this discussion. It is the first link. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That is the 1911 version of Britannica, which is out dated - and even it says nothing about African Negritos. Obsolete texts should not be used at all as a reference in anthropological articles. It is especially important when such texts are in direct contradiction to modern knowledge. Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is a known problem here at Wikipedia because it contains information that is out of date, yet freely available (leading more people to find and use its outmoded content uncritically). If you are interested in writing a correct article, and not merely to push ancient and incorrect views, use up to date references. The current version of Encyclopædia Britannica would be a good start. Please also read Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica where you can find this quote "Even in 1917 it was seen as an unreliable source when Willard Huntington Wright published his scathing Misinforming a Nation". --Ezeu (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we still going on about this? What are you talking about "it says nothing about African Negritos"? It states "Second are the large Negrito family, represented in Africa by the dwarf-races of the equatorial forests, the Akkas, Batwas, Wochuas and others, and beyond Africa by the Andaman Islanders, the Aetas of the Philippines, and probably the Senangs and other aboriginal tribes of the Malay Peninsula." If you feel it is outdated, then you need to delete the 1911 Britannica material that already adorns the main article at the bottom. This constant back and forth is really staring to get old. How about this, I'll just leave it up to you. But I like JWB's suggestion below. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is reasonable to say that some older usage of the word did not distinguish between African and Asian peoples. (For that matter, some obsolete usage of the word "Negro" includes some Asians or Pacific Islanders of similar physical type, while current usage does not.) But this should be distinguished from the current definition.

Also, the statement of Negritos in "parts of Africa" is currently referenced to The Star Raft. Does the book have a quote saying that directly? Or is this your own conclusion based on two statements "Kunlun are Negrito" and "some Kunlun were from Africa" from two different books? (As I remember, The Star Raft does not take the position that the Kunlun were exclusively what modern anthropology calls Negritos; in any case, the medieval Chinese probably did not have a clear idea of whether they came from Africa, Southeast Asia, or both.) --JWB (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggestion about the "older usage of the word". The 1911 Britannica reference can be used as a source, but I imagine that Ezeu will delete it since it's supposedly no good. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put the "older usage of the word" in the etymology section where it belongs. You are welcome to "imagine" what you want. Le mot juste is all I care about. --Ezeu (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Link I found somewhere

Yes, I am aware of the genetic research that proves thet Negritos, Melanesians and Aborigines are not related to Africans, but I found this link to a Melanesian website that says otherwise....[1]. The person writing seems to be a self-identified Melanesian, claiming African origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice45 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What is a negrito

i was just wondering how negritos changed the world today and what it had to do with black history... Were negritos captured by the Europeans and sent on the Middle Passage way back when? idk... i just wanna know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.9.25.21 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Negritos are not actually from Africa. They are indigenous to their region of the world; although they may resemble certain African peoples, genetically they have more in common with Filipinos and Malays. The link I found seems to off my point a bit, and I would really much like to know its origin. --Maurice45 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Melanesian & Papuans

Are these ethnicities also counted as being Negrito? actually- are they even related to Negritos at all? --Maurice45 (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongoloid?

The Spanish Wikipedia says that the Negritos are all Mongoloids. Is this really the case? 69.120.98.246 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd phrase

"...descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans."

Aren't we all? Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we all must be. However, that phrase was lifted directly from the Abstract in the cited supporting source: "The distinct genetic identity of the aboriginal populations of the Andaman Islands and other Asian and African populations deciphered by nuclear and mitochondrial DNA diversity suggest that (i) either the aboriginals of Andaman are one of the surviving descendents of settlers from an early migration out of Africa who remained in isolation in their habitat in Andaman Islands, or (ii) they are the descendents of one of the founder populations of modern humans." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So we include nonsensical statements as long as they're sourced? That's not a formula for encyclopedic accuracy.

The source is still useful for its statement about the possibility of descent from early emigrants out of Africa; the rest can be snipped. (That statement might as well read: "They may even be members of Homo sapiens." That's how absurd it is.)

Suggested change:

Before: "...suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans."

After: "...suggesting that they may be the descendants of settlers from one of the earlier migrations out of Africa."

I say let people stumble across the silly statement on their own, if they bother to read the source. There's no reason to taint the article with it. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not African?

IT is weird that people would say, Negritos have no connection to africans simply because they don't look like africans. According to biology, race is meaningless because race doesn't determine genetics; a person of one race isn't necessarily more closely related to members of its own race, than others. The idea of race is just a social concept. Negritos are supposed to be the pygmies in Asia, and Negrillos is what they called the pygies in Africa. Saying Negritos are not related to Africans would be like saying Americans are not relate to Europeans, because they are now breeding in a new area with a diffrent population. Negritos migrated from Africa just like other humans.

The funniest thing about this, is that anti-black sentiments take a nose dive on this topic. Black people obviously are regenerated in various genetic arenas. How is it that two very distant groups of people can look so similar? BEcause the human condition is not by default "white". When we take a white point of view, we try to explain how humans relate to it. Obviously the human point of view would explain how different people relate to the Black ancestors. - Zaph

So the pygmies, a nomadic tribe discovered south east asia before any european explorers? and they did it without any ships nor any knowledge of sea travel.....................LMAO!! Angryafghan 12:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to be geared towards the negrito of the Philippines. It needs to have a more global view. I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but, like the info I've added to the page, negritos lived in China as well. I found one online article that says Arab merchants came to china accompanied by negrito slaves. At some point, these negritos became involved in a type of literary prose that portrayed them as heroic. I've recently purchased a book on the connection between Africa and China. I'll probably add more info to the page later. (Ghostexorcist 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Of course they have a connection to Africans. That connection is in fact a distant one. That's it. Somebody2love (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Somebody2love

Let's see the DNA for proof!--86.29.251.10 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Zaph, DNA tests prove they are not related to africans..... just like some mexicans and arabs look alike but have totally different DNA...141.155.160.29 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

They are related to Africans, they just happen to be more closely related to Asian people. Somebody2love (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Somebody2love

"Totally" different DNA? "Not related to africans?" How fascinating. And here I thought we were all Africans at a pretty recent timeframe. I'd hate to accuse Wikipedia comments of being overblown, but...--158.111.5.34 (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Race is a social construct, differences in genome patterns of specific populations are not. You're changing the context. Negritos are not Africans in the sense that they do not closely match the genome patterns of Africans despite the superficial similarity of their phenotype. It is just as inaccurate to say that we are all Africans as it is to say that we are all cleanly divided into several distinct races. The correct assertion is we are all Homo sapiens sapiens with expected genetic subgroups from genetic drift resulting from geographic and cultural barriers. In the same way that you can't claim to be the parent of someone else's child, Negritos did not descend directly from African populations.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 09:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And yeah, one more thing, why treat Africans as if they are genetically static? They are NOT the original 'race'. They have themselves drifted from the earliest true humans. Hmm... let's put it this way: Modern Africans are not the "father" and the rest of the genetic subgroups their "children". The "father" genetic population has long since diverged into the genetic subgroups now. i.e. Africans are also "children" of the original 'race', not the original 'race' itself. It's not linear progression, but a convoluted tree of ancestry that branch out, merge with other branches, separate again, etc., and most importantly, branches grow--Obsidi♠n^Soul 09:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The mistake is to treat Africans as if they were all the same people. Modern genetic investigations have established that there is more genetic diversity within African populations than in all of the rest of the world. In other words, various African populations are more different from each other than non-African populations are different from each other, and some Africans are more different from other Africans than they are from non-Africans. This all makes sense if you realize that Africa is the homeland of homo sapiens, the place where humans have been living the longest. A group or groups, carrying some but not all of the genetic variation among humans within Africa, left Africa and colonized the rest of the world. As for the Negritos: the various Negrito groups are probably only very distantly related to each other, and get lumped together because they are black-skinned people living in areas where most people have a different skin color. They are likely to be descended from the people who migrated into the SE Asia/Indonesia/Melanesia area >50,000 years ago and established populations that have remained in place since then. More genetic research will be needed to give a clear picture of the relationships of the Negrito groups to each other and to other populations. But yes, we are all related to each other. Davidiank (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the several paragraphs that follow, establishing an Asian genetic connection to the Negrito people, isn't this phrase now giving the wrong impression?

"The claim that Andamanese pygmoids more closely resemble Africans than Asians in their cranial morphology in a study of 1973 added some weight to this theory..."

Map

I am extremely dubious of the "Geographical Distribution of the Chief Manifestations . . ." map. Not only is it from 1870, rendering it practically useless except as a primary source indicating what was thought in 1870, but there must be more recent maps that delineate current research on the distribution of human differences, based on genetics instead of surface features.

Even if there isn't such a map, I think this map should be removed or its date of origin commented on, since its use in this article is dubious. 76.16.81.30 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The term (like many in physical anthropology) is primarily historical, and the article may need to say this more clearly. --JWB (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the map, legend, etc. It is not simply dubious: it is obsolete and misleading. Modern scholarship does not support the groupings illustrated in the map, which is only of interest as an example of the sort of thing that used to be done to classify human populations. It is particularly a problem on this page, because it proposes that Melanesian and African populations are essentially the same, which is simply not true. Davidiank (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Negrito is Spanish!

It would actually be negrinho in Portuguese.For example, the diminutive in Portuguese has been used in Ronaldinho.Domsta333 (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Both "inho" and "ito" can be used in Portuguese diminutives - I have an uncle named "Celia" and a cousin also named "Celia" that we call "Celita". We also say "canito" with the meaning of "small dog" (dog - cão)--194.38.144.2 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The term was originally used and preserved in the Philippines, a Spanish colony. While they are inhabitants of neighboring islands in SE Asia as well, none of their local populations refer to them as 'Negrito' and the Portuguese holdings in the region are very minor - Macau and East Timor (which AFAIK does not have a Negrito population). The Philippines on the other hand, do refer to them as Negrito in the different local languages.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Negrito" is definitely a Portuguese word

Map of the territories of Philip II, King of Spain in 1598

  Territories appointed to the Council of Castile.

  Territories appointed to the Council of Aragon.

  Territories appointed to the Council of Portugal.

  Territories appointed to the Council of Italia.

  Territories appointed to the Council of the Indies.

  Territories appointed to the Council of Flanders.

comprising the disputed territories of the United Provinces.

The Portuguese were the first Europeans to arrive in Africa and Asia, they occupied several harbors on the coasts of India and Bangladesh, colonies in Malaysia, Singapore, Malacca, Java, Flores, Sunda Islands, Mascarenhas, Macau, Timor, Seychelles, Ceylon, ... etc, etc, etc..

The Spaniards in Asia only occupied the Philippines, discovered by a Portuguese, Ferdinand Magellan.

The term Negrito was given by the Portuguese to some people in Asia that look similar to some from África, and not by the Spaniards.

To know the former Portuguese empire in Asia see wikipedia FMPARENTE (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Only" the Philippines? Please take a look at the map given on the right. Tell me how much is red (Spanish) and how much is blue (Portuguese). All Portuguese Southeast Asian 'colonies' were little more than trading posts, just big enough to contain a port and not much else. In addition, most of the places you mentioned were areas merely visited by the Portuguese, not colonized (dropped anchor, exchanged a few words or gunshots and arrows with the locals perhaps, etc.)

Anyway, enough of this. Let's talk with sources, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Here's an 1834 book by William Marsden on the peoples of Southeast Asia. It is the earliest source I can find which uses the term, and in this he clearly identifies the origin of the term as Spanish.

Upon the whole, therefore, it may be thought most expedient to preserve the Spanish appellation of negritos (the diminutive of negro black) for the people, and to call their languages, generally, negrito or negritan. By this term also they will not be confounded with the more decided negroes of Africa; to whom, in respect to speech, as well as to some physical circumstances, they have not any relation.

- William Marsden (1834). "On the Polynesian, or East-Insular Languages". Miscellaneous works of William Marsden. Pub. for the Author by Parbury, Allen. p. 4.

Furthermore numerous dictionaries attribute the term as Spanish, with the first recorded use in written English as somewhere between 1812 and 1835. Please do not restore the Portuguese assertion if you can not provide a reliable source that is not derived from past revisions of this Wikipedia page.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How about saying that the word negrito is a diminutive of Negro (that's verifiable), and using the etymology in that root-word article — "member of a black-skinned race of Africa," 1550s, from Sp. or Port. negro "black," from L. nigrum (nom. niger) "black," of unknown origin (perhaps from PIE *nekw-t- "night," cf. Watkins). See cites there, [2] + [3], and, no doubt, other sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be compounding it with Negro, with which it might or might not share a common derivation from. It certainly does not refer to the same groups of people. Another Spanish derived diminutive of Negro was Negrillo. This has tentatively entered the English vocabulary at about the same time as Negrito, but has fallen in disuse since. Take note that the two were very clearly differentiated. Negrito referred to Southeast Asian pygmies while Negrillo referred to the true African pygmies (and in that sense, Negrillo is more clearly the word which was based on the Spanish and Portuguese word Negro). Nonetheless, it is unverifiable if Negrito was indeed derived from Negro or if it was simply a coincidence, as both groups possess dark skin.

The assertion that Negrito is Portuguese seem to be based on nothing but grammar. Seeing that Portuguese and Spanish are very close linguistically, it's not much of an argument. Yes both are linguistically correct in both languages, but were they really used in the same way? The English word boutique (clothing shop) and the French word boutique (any kind of shop) for instance, have the same spelling, are both linguistically correct, have the same etymons, but do not refer to the same things. We can claim that both were derived from Latin (apotheca - a storehouse), that is verifiable, but we can not claim that the French word originally also referred purely to stores selling clothing by citing their Latin origins.

In short, we are not talking about language. If we had been we would have included all other meanings of Negrito in both Spanish and Portuguese (and Italian besides) - including that of any small dark-skinned person (of any ethnicity), animal, or thing (a true diminutive, more often an affectionate nickname) or of bolding (in typography). Negro, Negrito, English Denigrate, French Nigeria, etc. are of course derived from Latin for 'black'. Those are easily verifiable, but not for the same information. They have no bearing whatsoever on this usage, as the Latin word was never used in the same sense. The etymology we are looking for here is very specific - its usage in the past 500 years or so when referring to these ethnic groups and whence it came from. Anything beyond that is irrelevant, it would be like mentioning the Latin word rubeus when talking about the town of Rouge, Toronto.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 23:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing we should not be talking about is original research about what we, as Wikipedia editors, think about that. We should be presenting verifiable info about that, citing reliable sources in support, and considering due weight regarding the viewpoints which we present and the sources which we cite. Here's a few possibly relevant supporting sources.

• negrito, reference.com {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help), "1805–15; < Spanish negrito, equivalent to negr ( o ) black + -ito diminutive suffix", (citing Dictionary.com Unabridged; Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.), "— n , pl -tos , -toes: a member of any of various dwarfish Negroid peoples of SE Asia and Melanesia; [C19: from Spanish, diminutive of negro black]", (citing Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition; 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins; Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009.)
• Ne·gri·to, webster.com {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help), a member of a people (as the Andamanese) belonging to a group of dark-skinned peoples of small stature that live in Oceania and the southeastern part of Asia", "Origin of NEGRITO: Spanish, diminutive of negro; First Known Use: 1812".
• Negrito definition, yourdictionary.com {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help), "a member of any of certain dark-skinned peoples of short stature living in Oceania and SE Asia", "Origin: Sp, dim. of negro, black, Negro: in allusion to their small stature & dark skin".
• Negrito, bookrags.com {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help), "Etymology: The term 'Negrito' is the Spanish diminutive of Negro, i.e. 'little black person', referring to their small stature, and was coined by early European invaders and explorers who assumed that the Negritos were from Africa. Occasionally, some Negrito are referred to as pygmies, bundling them with peoples of similar physical stature in Central Africa, and likewise, the term Negrito was previously occasionally used to refer to African Pygmies."(citing Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, 1910–1911: 'Second are the large Negrito family, represented in Africa by the dwarf-races of the equatorial forests, the Akkas, Batwas, Wochuas and others...' (pg. 851)), "According to James J.Y. Liu, a professor of comparative literature, the Chinese term Kun-lun (traditional Chinese: 崑崙) means Negrito."(citing Liu, James J.Y. The Chinese Knight Errant. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967 (ISBN 0-2264-8688-5)).
• Definition: Negrito, websters-online-dictionary.net {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help), "Etymology: The term 'Negrito' is the Spanish diminutive of Negro, i.e. 'little black person', referring to their small stature, and was coined by early European explorers who assumed that the Negritos were from Africa. Occasionally, some Negrito are referred to as pygmies, bundling them with peoples of similar physical stature in Central Africa, and likewise, the term Negrito was previously occasionally used to refer to African Pygmies." (citing Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, 1910–1911: 'Second are the large Negrito family, represented in Africa by the dwarf-races of the equatorial forests, the Akkas, Batwas, Wochuas and others...' (pg. 851)).
• Negrito(Ne·gri·to), oxforddictionaries.com {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help), "Origin: Spanish, diminutive of negro 'black' (see Negro); compare with Negrillo".
• Negrito, wordnik.com {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help), "[...] Etymologies: Spanish, diminutive of negro, Black person; see Negro."
• Negrito, en.academic.ru {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help), from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English. 2000., "Negritos Ne*gri"tos, n. pl.; sing {Negrito}. [Sp., dim. of negro black.] (Ethnol.) A degraded Papuan race, inhabiting Luzon and some of the other east Indian Islands. They resemble negroes, but are smaller in size. They are mostly nomads." (Citing "[1913 Webster]").

Perhaps the article could use a section, separate from the Etymology sectio, about the anthropology of Negrito peoples — wherein the timeline of first-contacts with Negrito peoples could be detailed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

My failing, sorry. I tend to rise up to WP:OR with my own WP:OR (re: the original post of this section). Though in my defense the sources you found do support my earlier comments and my reasons for asserting a purely Spanish origin of the term, heh.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in case you didn't see it. I did cite a source. See my first response above. Not a dictionary definition, I was aware of them, going as far as opening my offline copies of 'respectable' dictionaries, but was too lazy to cite them all when they're all saying the same thing. Marsden's paper is arguably far more in context and of stronger relevance, being one of the first recorded instances of the word appearing in English "scientific" papers in a context clearly referring to the Negrito people. Linked too and already added in the article to support removing earlier (uncited) insertions of Portuguese. See William Marsden (1834). "On the Polynesian, or East-Insular Languages". Miscellaneous works of William Marsden. Pub. for the Author by Parbury, Allen. p. 4.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ONLY "were little more than trading posts"??????

You need to study a little bit more, because if many colonies were only one port, many other territories were considerable, for example Ceylon and the Moluccas and other islands of present Indonesia.

List of , not complet, of the Portuguese colonial empire in Asia and Oceania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_Portuguese_Empire

Reached by the Portuguese in 1498 by Vasco da Gama. Macau was the last possession in Asia and was handed over to the People's Republic of China in 1999.

• Aden: possession (failed in 1510;1516–1538)
• Bahrain: possession (1521–1602)
• Ceylon: colony (1597–1658). Dutch took control in 1656, Jaffna taken in 1658.
• Flores Island: possession (16th-19th century)
  • Solor: possession (1520–1636)
• Gamru/Bandar Abbas: possession (1506–1615)
• Hormuz/Ormuz: possession subordinate to Goa (1515–1622). Incorporated into Persia in 1622.
• Laccadive Islands (1498–1545)
• Macau/Macao: settlement (1553–1557), leased territory subordinated to Goa (1557–1844); overseas province (1844–1883); combined overseas province with Timor-Leste under Goa (1883–1951); overseas province (1951–1976); Chinese territory under Portuguese administration (1976–1999). Returned to full sovereignty of People's Republic of China as a special administrative region in 1999.
  • Coloane: occupation in 1864
  • Taipa: occupation in 1851
  • Ilha Verde: incorporated in 1890
  • D. João, Lapa and Montanha Islands: settled by Portuguese missionaries in the 19th century; occupation by Portuguese troops in 1938. Taken in 1941 by the Empire of Japan and restored to China in 1945.
• Makassar (1512–1665)
• Malacca: settlement (1511–1641); lost to the Dutch
• Maldives: possession (1518–1521, 1558–1573)
• Moluccas
  • Amboina/Ambon: settlement (1576–1605)
  • Ternate: settlement (1522–1575)
  • Tidore: colony (1578–1605). Seized by Dutch in 1605.

From an anonymous atlas c.1550

• Muscat: possession (1515–1650)
• Índia Portuguesa/Portuguese India: overseas province (1946–1961). Taken over by India in 1961 and recognised by Portugal in 1974.
  • Baçaim/Vasai: possession (1535–1739)
  • Bombaím/Mumbai: possession (1534–1661)
  • Calicut/Kozhikode: settlement (1512–1525)
  • Cambay/Khambhat: possession
  • Cannanore: possession (1502–1663)
  • Chaul: possession (1521–1740)
  • Chittagong: possession (1528–1666)
  • Cochin: possession (1500–1663)
  • Cranganore: possession (1536–1662)
  • Damão/Daman: acquisition in 1559. Became part of overseas province in 1946. Retaken over by India in Dec 1961.
  • Diu: acquisition in 1535. Became part of overseas province in 1946. Retaken over by India in Dec 1961.
  • Dadra: acquisition in 1779. Retaken over by India in 1954.
  • Goa: colony (1510–1946). Became part of overseas province in 1946. Retaken over by India in Dec 1961.
  • Hughli: possession (1579–1632)
  • Nagar Haveli: acquisition in 1779. Retaken over by India in 1954.
  • Masulipatnam (1598–1610)
  • Thanlyin: possession (1599–1613)
  • Mangalore (1568–1659)
  • Negapatam/Nagapattinam (1507–1657)
  • Paliacate (1518–1610). occupied by the Dutch in 1610.
  • Coulão/Quilon: possession (1502–1661)
  • Salsette Island: possession (1534–1737). conquered by the Marathas.
  • São Tomé de Meliapore: settlement (1523–1662; 1687–1749)
  • Surat: settlement (1540–1612)
  • Tuticorin/Thoothukudi (1548–1658)
• Socotra: possession (1506–1511). Became part of Mahri Sultanate of Qishn and Suqutra
• Qatar: possession (1517–1538). Lost to the Ottomans
• Timor: claimed and partially possessed from 1520 to 1640.
  • West Timor: part of Timor lost to the Dutch in 1640.
  • East Timor: colony subordinate to Portuguese India (1642–1844); subordinate to Macau (1844–1896); separate colony (1896–1951); overseas territory (1951–1975); republic and unilateral independence proclaimed, annexed by Indonesia (1975–1999, UN recognition as Portuguese territory). UN administration from 1999 until independence in 2002.

In Asia and Oceania

	Now part of	Name of territory
	Bahrain	Bahrain
	Bangladesh	Chittagong
	Burma	Thanlyin
	East Timor	East Timor
	Hong Kong SAR	Tuen Mun District
	India	Portuguese India (Vasai, Bombaím/Mumbai, Calicut/Kozhikode, Cambay/Khambhat, Cannanore, Chaul, Cochin, Cranganore, Damão/Daman, Diu, Dadra, Goa, Hughli, Nagar Haveli, Masulipatnam, Mangalore, Negapatam/Nagapattinam, Paliacate, Coulão/Quilon, Salsette Island, São Tomé de Meliapore, Surat, Tuticorin/Thoothukudi), Laccadive Islands
	Indonesia	Flores, Solor, Makassar, Ambon, Ternate, Tidore, West Timor
	Iran	Bandar-Abbas, Hormuz, Qeshm, Bandar-e Kong
	Japan	Dejima
	Macau SAR	Macau
	Malaysia	Malacca
	Maldives	Maldives
	Oman	Muscat, Muttrah, Sohar, Qurayyat, Qalhat, Barka, As Sib, Khasab, Madha
	People's Republic of China	Hengqin New Area, Ningbo, Sanchuang
	Qatar	Qatar
	Saudi Arabia	Qatif, Tarut
	Sri Lanka	Portuguese Ceylon
	United Arab Emirates	Dibba Al-Hisn, Khor Fakkan, Julfar (Ras al-Khaimah), Bidiyah, Kalba
	Yemen	Aden, Socotra

NOW, COMPARE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_East_Indies The Spanish East Indies came to be defined as:

• Las Islas Filipinas (today the Republic of the Philippines): Manila, Luzon, Visayas, Palawan, Balambangan Island, Northern Mindanao, Zamboanga, Basilan, Jolo, Palmas Islands, including isolated outposts in Keelung, Taiwan, and in the islands of Gilolo, Ternate, and Tidore in the Maluku Islands and Manado in Northern part of Sulawesi (formerly Celebes).
• Islas Carolinas (the Federated States of Micronesia)
• Islas Marianas (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Territory of Guam)
• Islas Palau (Republic of Palau)

The Spanish used several names that are not currently used. Gran Moluccas (Great Molluccas) for the island of Mindanao and Nueva Castilla (New Castile) for Luzon.

Spanish control over this area expanded slowly throughout the centuries. The Batanes Islands were conquered in the 18th century. The highlands of Luzon remained outside of Spanish control until the early 19th century, and the southernmost tip of Palawan, not until the late 1890s. The rest of Mindanao (Caesarea Karoli)—aside from outposts in Northern Mindanao, Zamboanga, Cotabato, and the islands of Basilan and Jolo, the rest was only nominally under Spanish control, remaining fairly independent from direct Spanish administration under both the Sulu, and the Maguindanao sultanates, as well as a number of other Lumad tribes not affiliated with either. Similarly, Palau and the vast majority of the Caroline Islands were not governed by Spanish missions until the early 19th century.

Conclusion

In Asia the Portuguese colonial empire was greater than in the Spanish colonial empire: in size, in population, extension, duration, etc.

My suggestion is: in the text "negrito", Spanish or Portuguese word FMPARENTE (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say that I'm flabbergasted. You are turning this into a battleground on which colonial power had more land than whom. This is about an ethnic group, it has nothing to do with your how much land Portugal had over Spain in SE Asia.

As for the 'trading post' comment. The comment was not to belittle the Portuguese empire, but to show the actual extent of the cultural influences of the Portuguese on SE Asia. You are actually including Western South Asia and the Middle East. Both of which do not possess Negrito populations. So... um, what exactly are you arguing about? Negrito etymology or the extent of the Portuguese empire?

Anyway, however far the extent of Portuguese empire was, it has nothing to do with this article. The fact that we are arguing over which colonial power coined which very racist term is also a bit hilarious really. Although I have one excuse - I belong to neither of the former empires.

Again I ask you one simple thing:

Please provide a reliable source stating irrefutably that the term Negrito may be of Portuguese origin.

Otherwise, please do not revert sourced content on your opinions alone, it is disruptive. Particularly given the supporting sources given by User:Wtmitchell above.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

It's curious the lack of intellectual honesty and argumentative, I was not the first to post a map with a scale unwarranted and that shows the world, to try to document a question about Asia. who got that way was not me,but you, and if you're not accustomed to debate, you must choose carefully your arguments.

About the colonial empires of Portugal and Spain in Asia for me is closed.

To the specific questions: 1 - Until this moment no one has proven who he called "negrito" to these people, if were the Portuguese or were the Spanish.

2 - From the Etymology, and the question is here, the truth is that the word exists in Portuguese and Spanish as a diminutive of "negro,". like many others words equals in both languages.

3 FONTS 3.1 - Online dictionaries: - http://www.infopedia.pt/lingua-portuguesa/; - http://www.priberam.pt/; 3.2 - Written Dictionaries: - Dicionário Houaiss da língua Portuguesa, editora Objectiva, 2007 Rio de Janeiro ISBN: 85-7302 383-X; - Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa, Academia das Ciências de Lisboa, Verbo Editora, Lisboa 2001, 972-22-2046-2.

FMPARENTE (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Re truth vs. verifiability, see the initial paragraph of WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the map, that was in response to your assertion that the Portuguese had far more holdings in Southeast Asia than they really did as your attempt at justifying a Portuguese origin of the word. You went as far as removing the Spanish origin entirely, based only on your opinions. Given the warnings on your talk page, it is quite apparent that you do have a bias when it comes to Portuguese history and that you are probably Portuguese yourself.

As for your statement that 'no one has proven who he called "negrito"', who are you referring to? Marsden's book? Actually he does. He specifically identifies which groups he considers Negritos and differentiates them from Africans. In addition, he identifies the source of the term in his English usage as Spanish. This was in 1834. You can't get more reliable than that, surely. Note that this does not in any way remove the possibility that it may also have been Portuguese, as Spain and Portugal did share monarchs for a bit and are very close culturally and linguistically (Magellan was of course, Portuguese). But as stated explicitly in the sources, the origin of the term is Spanish. You can not contradict sources simply because of your nationalistic tendencies.

The sources you presented just now are all modern works. Furthermore none of them explicitly discusses the origin of the term or even applies the term for the Negrito people. They simply defined the word.

• The Infopedia definition of Negrito does not discuss etymology, and worse, it does not mention the Negrito people at all.
• The Dicionário Priberam definition of Negrito does the same thing. No etymology, has no mention of Southeast Asian Negritos.

If those are your proofs, you need something far more compelling than that, I'm afraid. I'll happily support including Portuguese as a possible origin of the term for the Negrito people if you can find reliable sources supporting it. Otherwise, replacing Spanish with Portuguese based only on the fact that the two languages are similar and some sort of sense of rivalry on your part on the past accomplishments of both empires does not satisfy Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and neutrality.

That is intellectual honesty. I have no desire to engage in a pissing contest on which of your countries was more powerful than the other, as I belong to neither. But I do know that the Portuguese influence on Southeast Asia was minimal at best, being Southeast Asian myself. It's apparent that you are making the mistake of lumping all of Asia together. South Asia and the Middle East are Asian regions yes, but they are not Southeast Asia and barely within or completely outside of the geographical range of Negrito populations.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 16:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There are too many personal considerations in your arguments, I do not continue discussions with people, Obsidian, that confuse arguments with personal insults, such as "nationalistic tendencies", one thing is , agree or disagree with the arguments of someone, other thing is trying to insult someone because of their arguments, you can say what you want without no more responses from me.FMPARENTE (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Er... it's not an insult to point out a WP:Conflict of Interest. I simply meant you seem to have a motivation for pushing the Portuguese origin of the term contrary to verifiable sources and may not be able to present arguments objectively by virtue of your nationality/nationalism. You also mistake these discussions for debates. These are not debates, these are discussions to reach a consensus based on Wikipedia policies. Any arguments we have here are only secondary to verifiable information. We always follow the most reliable source if found, no matter what happens in these talk pages. We can argue all week long, but if neither of us can provide a reliable source to back up arguments, we're both still merely conducting WP:Original research, which is unacceptable.

But in this case, we do have a reliable source containing the relevant information. It gives the origin of the term 'Negrito' for these people as Spanish, there are no sources stating a Portuguese origin . That is the only thing that matters. The discussion on the extent of the Spanish and Portuguese holdings in Southeast Asia is secondary and purely for context, one which I admittedly joined purely because I disagree.

The question of etymology became (incorrectly) a question of the extent of the Portuguese empire with your very first post. There is no such thing as a 'scale unwarranted' map. Yes it shows the world, but I was referring to the Southeast Asian region (NOT Asia as a whole), surely you can pinpoint where Southeast Asia is on that map and which countries clearly show territorial dominion?

You see... we are actually not talking about Asia. We are talking about the region where Europeans would have been most likely to encounter Negritos. And that area, I'm afraid, does not include Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, India, Sri Lanka, Japan, Iran, etc., the majority of the places you mentioned in your previous post. Malacca and East Timor are the only Portuguese colonies which are within the Negrito geographical range. And both of them are trading posts and a bit out of range. East Timor is nearer Papua New Guinea, whose populations are correctly Melanesian, not Negrito. Malacca was a bustling commercial port, and the Semang people (the Negrito of Malaysia) most decidedly avoid settlements of the larger Malay ethnicities. The Philippine archipelago, meanwhile, is home to the largest number of Negrito tribes in Southeast Asia. In addition, the Spanish method of colonization (complete cultural assimilation, mostly through religion), makes it far more likely for them to have first encountered and named the Negritos, not the Portuguese.

But again, all of these do not matter. What matters is that reliable sources all say that the term Negrito for these people is derived from Spanish.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 18:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

POOR RESEARCH AND EXTREMELY MISLEADING

For those (or individual ) who added the haplogroup D clearly on bottom of page clearly have no ANY UNDERSTANDING OF GENETIC HAPLOGROUP. The chinese article says NOTHING about haplogroup D is due to negrito which is completely different from China. The only negrito with D* are the Adamanese who are ISOLATED in adaman islands. FOR GOD SAKE.... DO SOME PROPER RESEARCH AND READ SOME """" REAL GENETIC EVIDENCE"""".What amazes me is that the person who added that piece of crap, OBVIOUSLY didn't even bother to check OR READ on the genetic of adamanese. The only negrito with haplogroup D is the adamanese, and there D* is completely different and isolated only in adamans. Haplogroup D1 (tibetans), D3a Tibeto-Burmese, D2 ainu are all different. The only haplogroup D in china is because of tibeto-burmese and Tibetan, because their D belongs to D1 and D3a.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andamanese_people

" Andamanese (Onges and Jarawas) belong almost exclusively to the subtype designated Haplotype D, which is also common in Tibet and Japan, but rare on the Indian mainland.[13] However, this is a subclade of the D haplogroup which has not been seen outside of the Andamans, marking the insularity of these tribes."

HERE.... at least read on the haplogroup D wiki page ( Obviously the person who added that piece didn't bother do research).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_D_(Y-DNA)

" Haplogroup D is also remarkable for its rather extreme geographic differentiation, with a distinct subset of Haplogroup D chromosomes being found exclusively in each of the populations that contains a large percentage of individuals whose Y-chromosomes belong to Haplogroup D: Haplogroup D1 among the Tibetans (as well as among the mainland East Asian populations that display very low frequencies of Haplogroup D Y-chromosomes), Haplogroup D2 among the various populations of the Japanese Archipelago, Haplogroup D3 among the inhabitants of Tibet, Tajikistan and other parts of mountainous southern Central Asia, and paragroup D* (probably another monophyletic branch of Haplogroup D) among the Andaman Islanders. Another type (or types) of paragroup D* is found at a very low frequency among the Turkic and Mongolic populations of Central Asia, amounting to no more than 1% in total. This apparently ancient diversification of Haplogroup D suggests that it may perhaps be better characterized as a "super-haplogroup" or "macro-haplogroup." In one study, the frequency of Haplogroup D* found among Thais was 10%."WarriorsPride6565 WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Tahitians - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. 06:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tahitians which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Aren't we all Africans?"

Why does everyone keep saying this? My family is European. Not African. Why would we all be African? Yo? Negrito please! lol Presidentbalut (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Y-DNA

Still no Y-DNA from outside Andaman and Nicobar? 128.68.72.249 (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Are Negritos Australoid or Mongoloid?

The article doesn't make it clear, and this is bugging me. I acknowledge the uniqueness of this group, but it's generally agreed upon that each racial group of humans can be classified under one of the four macro-racial categories, so you can't say "neither" without challenging the fundamentals of anthropology. The genealogy of H.s.sapiens is such that early modern humans diverged into Negroids and proto-Austro-Eurasians, from whom the Australoids came about before the rest diverged into Caucasoids and Mongoloids. The article calls Negritos Negroid more than once, which, genetically speaking, is plain wrong. I'm starting to think that "Negrito," like "Pygmy," is an umbrella term for a wide array of races related not by genetics, but by morphology, and that serves a different branch of taxonomy altogether. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Negritos are Australoid and it mentions so the on Australoid race page, my recent edit to the page states how they are belonging to the Australoid race. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Negrito in Sumatra, Indonesia?

There is no Negrito people in Sumatra, Indonesia. -- Si Gam (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Negritos...

The whole "they have also been shown to have separated early from other Asians, suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, commonly referred to as the Negroids, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans" is blatant copy and paste from this book except someone changed it to "Negroid" instead of Australoid to fit their POV. I explained this on ShawntheGod account (which I'm no longer using due to me forgetting the password), but you can see why I removed the text due to WP:C-P (possible copyright violation) and because someone altered the source to fit their POV, not remaining a WP:NPOV, as the sources that follow the aforementioned textual do not even substantiate the text properly too, someone tried to ascribe text from the Late Evolvers book to other sources. I simply cleaned the article up by removing the copy and pasted text that has been altered by someone with a clear POV to a neutral and properly sourced article. Kymako (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

African/ Asian origins

This article has been stable for a long time, we can't therefore have an editor who is new to the page come here and starting introducing a completely different point of view without at the very least having the consideration to discuss it on the talkpage. Let's follow the project principles, not our own beliefs, please. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So you're trying to discriminate because I am "new" to editing this article? This article could have bullshit info from 2005 and that still wouldn't make it acceptable. How about you put your dislike for me aside and open your eyes to see the bigger picture. My revision removes POV and unsourced content. I didn't remove anything reliably sourced. We can include a section about racist 19th century ideology and how some classified Negritos as Australoid, but it would still need reliable sources per policy. Omo Obatalá ^(talk) 01:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The remark about being "new to the page" implies exactly what you said: the "article could have bullshit info from 2005", which means that a few hundred editors have so far been wrong and you are the only one who is right. THEREFORE, it is customary around here if you are going to do anything to an article that is DRASTICALLY different from what it has been for a long time — which here is referred to as a 'stable version' — that you first present your views on the discussion page. THIS is not what you do, I have seen your work across many articles, you have the habit of removing huge chunks of content and repalcing them with your own huge chunks. But don't worry, things have a habit of evening out in the end. I for one don't have much interest in this article, what motivates me is stopping people with personal agendas. Others will come who have this article's interest at heart. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been following this edit war battle-by-battle, but I see that in this most recent edit User:Omo Obatalá said, "everything I removed was unsourced so per policy it must be sourced before being readded. [...]". That edit removed content and supporting cites naming the following sources:

• "Genetic affinities of the Andaman Islanders, a vanishing human population". Current Biology. Retrieved February 7, 2015.
• "The skeletal phenotype of "negritos" from the Andaman Islands and Philippines relative to global variation among hunter-gatherers". Human Biology. Retrieved February 7, 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

and replaced it with alternative and contradictory content citing Getting Here: The Story of Human Evolution, William Howells, Compass Press, 1993.

William W. Howells, the author of the 1993 book, was apparently a strong voice in the field of anthropology for quite a while. He died in 2005. I don't know much about this topic, but it seems to me that by 2015 anthropologists might have learned some things which contradicted to some extent what was thought to be true in 1993. Presuming that the points at issue in this edit war are still at issue in current anthropological thinking, it is contrary to WP policy for an article to take a position about which view is right and which is wrong. WP:DUE (part of WP's WP:NOPV policy) says

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

One wonders:

• Is there a source somewhat more recent than the 1993 book which supports the assertion which that 1993 book is cited to support?
• Are the 2015 sources cited in support of the alternative position thought to be credible?

Perhaps this article ought to say that there are two schools of thought on this. Perhaps it ought to say that anthropologists used to think X but, based on later discoveries, they now think Y.

I don't know enough about the topic to make more than a ham-handed effort at fixing this up. Can editors who know more about this topic than I please, please, stop squabbling, discuss this in a reasonable manner, and come to a consensus about what the Origins section of this article ought to say? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let me speak on this (once again). The previous version of this article contains these two excerpts of text "The Negrito peoples have been shown to have separated early from other Asians, suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, commonly referred to as the Negroids, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans." and "The Negritos are probably descendants of the indigenous Negroid populations of the Sunda landmass and New Guinea, predating the Austronesian peoples who later entered Southeast Asia" is copied from this Late Evolvers book, except someone changed it from "Australoid" to "Negroid" for a POV. So not only does there appear to be a copyright violation here, but a distortion of text from "Australoid" to "Negroid" for a POV attempt at trying to essentially make it seem like the Negritoes have a Sub-Saharan African/Negroid origin. Hilariously enough the two sources that follow those previously quoted excerpts of text that are this source and Getting Here: The Story of Human Evolution, neither state anything about Negritos being "Negroid". So not only did the article contain copied text, but copied text that was changed from "Australoid to "Negroid" for a POV, and sources that follow copied text that doesn't even substantiate the material. My edit to the article gave this article new original text (getting rid of the copyright violation), sources that actually substantiate the text properly and sources from scientific journals, and cleaned up a POV mess of an article. Yet according to Omo my edits were "unsourced", despite me citing two scientific journals. Makes sense. Kymako (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Origins

This sentence in the section Negrito#Origins makes little sense to me. There is a similar statement in the lede. Could someone knowledgeable on the topic clarify these sentences?

• Negritos are the most genetically similar to neighboring populations.

CorinneSD (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead info plagiarized

The following passage from the lead paragraph has been blatantly plagiarized from this link, which is cited as a source.

"Negritos are arguably the most enigmatic people on our planet as they belong to an ancient stratum of Homo sapiens in Asia. No other living human population has experienced such long-lasting isolation from contact with other groups."

It is basically a patch work of different sentences taken directly from the linked research paper. For example:

"This is
the first molecular genetic evidence on the
affinities of the Andaman Islanders, arguably
the most enigmatic people on our planet."(pg. 2)

"Genetic studies on Philippine
Negritos, based on polymorphic blood
enzymes and antigens, showed that they were
similar to surrounding Asian populations and
rejected the notion that they belonged to an
ancient stratum of Homo sapiens in Asia." (pg. 2)

The first passage from page two only concerns the Andaman Islanders and not Negritos as a whole, so that makes the lead incorrect. The second passage from page two contradicts the lead and states that the negrito do not belong to an ancient stratum of Asian people. As it stands right now, even if he paraphrased the information, it is not usable because of all of the incorrect statements and contradictions.

I will continue to remove the information because it breaks copyright laws. I have warned User:Matt Oid, the person who added the info, in the past about plagiarism, but he continues to re-add the material after it's been deleted. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, since the Andamanese people are the only ones to be significantly isolated. Kortoso (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Historical distribution

This section sort of runs out of gas when it gets to the other populations section. We discuss the Andamese, then briefly mention possible Negritos in Taiwan. Nothing about Negritos of Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia, as hinted at in the lede. I'd suggest filling out this section a little better. Kortoso (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You are confused as to the content of this paragraph. "Other populations" apparently refers here, to populations not usually included under the heading of "negritos" (but of interest or relevance; extinct populations; assimilated populations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.87.245 (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Negrito. 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/20091007223234/http://www.eastling.org/paper/YellowBrown-pbs.pdf to http://www.eastling.org/paper/YellowBrown-pbs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029071336/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/CB_2002_p1-18.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/CB_2002_p1-18.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409132033/http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msl124v1.pdf to http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msl124v1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029071336/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/CB_2002_p1-18.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/CB_2002_p1-18.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

All the links on this page lead to a problematic facebook page and that should get fixed asap.

All the links on this page lead to a problematic facebook page and that should get fixed asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.80.22 (talk) 01:13, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this has been fixed.--Auric talk 20:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Early stages of the Austronesian diaspora showing best-fit genomic proportions of Austronesian-speaking peoples in ISEA and their inferred population movements.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit of Genetics Section

I added a paragraph under the Genetics section of the article talking about Y-Chromosome and mDNA origins of the Negritos. Moj9 (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That paragraph you added make the origins of Negrito looks unsuitable on the top and there are also spelling errors too. Also the genetic study that you added is basically already mentioned in the Origin and ethnic relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito#Origin_and_ethnic_relations

" Negrito peoples may descend from the first settlers of South and Southeast Asia. Despite being isolated, the different peoples do share genetic similarities with their neighboring populations.[24][25] They also show relevant phenotypic (anatomic) variations which require explanation.[25] "

" This has often been interpreted to the effect that they are remnants of the original expansion from Africa some 70,000 years ago. Studies in osteology, cranial shape and dental morphology have connected the Semang to Australoid populations, while connecting the Andamanese to Africans in craniometry and to South Asians in dental morphology, and Philippine Negritos to Southeast Asians. A possible conclusion of this is that the dispersal of mitochondrial haplogroup B4a1a is connected to the distinction between Philippine and other Negritos.[21] However, another study suggests that the Onge (indigenous to Little Andaman) are more closely related to Southeast Asian Negritos, Melanesians, and Southeast Asians than they are to present-day South Asians, and that the Great Andamanese (of the northern Andamans, as opposed to the Onge or other Andamanese groups) "appear to have received a degree of relatively recent admixture from adjacent regional populations but also share a significant degree of genetic ancestry with Malaysian negrito groups".[26] " Vamlos (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)