Talk:San people

Africa B‑class

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Appropriate ethnonym

So San is offensive? Wetman 07:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure. - Nat Kraus e 08:06, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. San comes from the neighbouring Nama, and means outsider. thefamouseccles 10:00, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I think I've heard or read the (non-sexist?) term BUSH PEOPLE or BUSHPEOPLE somewhere. How common is this in Southern Africa? Wikipeditor 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Bushmen" offensive? You aren't one of these semantics lunatics who think that the patriarchy is hidden in the english language are you?

-TEH OGROK

Actually, bushmen, bushpeople, bushwomen, etc... these are all considered offensive. These people are now called, anthropologically, the San, and, more appropriately, are classified as within the khoisan language group, which is characterized by an integrated "clicking" noise. I belive that the currently acceptable term for these people is the khwe. 206.188.163.1 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Mariyah[reply]

According to Bushmen expert Elizabeth Marshall Thomas in her 2006 book The Old Way, Bushmen is "how most Bushmen refer to themselves collectively" (Introduction). San is a pejorative term among the Bushmen. -- Stbalbach 16:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for revert

The info added by User:Chueyjoo (who hasn't contributed to any other article except Assata Shakur on 29 May 2005, also involving a possible copyvio) is quite dodgy, which I've reverted wholesale:

Image:Bushmen1.jpg is a possible copyvio, which I've tagged and added to WP:PUI.
"Bushmen are known to be shorter than other ethnic africans, and they usually have asiatic oval eyes." — while I could be swayed for the 'shorter' attribute, I'm not biting the 'asiatic oval eyes'. I'd like to see a cite of some sort of medical text before we re-add this.
Nelson Mandela most definitely was not a bushman; he was (and still is) Xhosa.

Dewet 20:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are they farmers,Nomadic Hurders or Hunter Gatherers?

                                     -Jason

Well, traditionally they're hunter-gatherers, but for information about how most of them live today, I suggest you read this article. Click here for the full text. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 02:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!Kung

My understanding is that !Kung is one of the languages spoken by the Bushmen; the article on the !Kung language refers to it being spoken by "perhaps 15,000 Saan". As such, where does !Kung people fit in? Should there be a merge?

I confess I have no idea at all, but hopefully someone here knows what's up. The article is currently unwatched, so thought I'd bring it to someone's attention. Thanks all. Shimgray | talk | 20:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the !Kung are probably a sub-group of the Bushmen, correct me if I'm wrong. It should probably be made clear on that article. --Khoikhoi 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different groups, different names

The group of bushmen in the Nyae Nyae region of Namibia definitely called themselves "Bushmen" when I was there in 2000 and again in 2005.

My understanding is that the group in Botswana (where I have not been) prefer to call themselves "San".

The article does not address the current economy. Many people believe that the bushmen still live as hunter gatherers (which was stated as a claim in "The Gods Must be Crazy"). This is most emphatically not true and not possible given the relatively small area that the bushmen are allowed to occupy in Nyae Nyae. I think this point, among others, should be stated in the article.

Cre 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Bushmen and !Kung people?

Shouldnt the !Kung article be merged to Bushmen. !Kung people consists mostly of a cut-n-paste of someone's essay, and !Kung are Bushmen. --Ezeu 02:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The !Kung language article suggests that this is a subgroup. --Henrygb 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the !Kung are definitely a sub-group of the Bushmen. Also, here's a paragraph from the !Kung language article:

!Kung is endangered, along with most other Khoisan languages, because of encroaching Bantu and Khoi cultures. The Herero and Nama languages are becoming more commonly spoken among the Kung-ekoka, and the hunter-gatherer way of life that is typical of the Khoisan-speaking peoples is being eroded by Bantu and Khoi farming settlements.

Since they are neither Bantu nor Khoi, this can only suggest that they are a Bushmen tribe. I support the merge. --Khoikhoi 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am retracting my merge suggestion. Will try to cleanup and expand !Kung instead. After all, wikipedia is not running out of space.--Ezeu 17:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging them with Berbers?

Image from s:The New Students Reference Book

Here is a link to a picture you might want to use when this article expands further: Image:NSRW Africa Bushman Woman.png.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap shots

I am a decendant of the nation known as The Bushman.We go by the term Coloureds now,because we wear Fancy dress and can speak English.I would like to congratulate the degenerate wankers who hide behind cryptic nicks on a job well done.Your vandalism of this page and unprovoked slander is a fine testament to the perils of idle time and not so idle hands.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theospeak (talk • contribs)

That's quite a sweeping statement. Why don't you (since the onus rests on yourself) tell us what's wrong, or even better, fix it yourself? It's no help making personal attacks on other contributors and vague accusations. dewet|✉ 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The descendant of the nation is probably a Bastar of Rehobath. What he (she) didn't say, is that there were thirty odd racial classifications in South West Africa, before it became independent. !Kung, and their relatives had their own classification, which was not one of the ten or so "Coloured" classifications.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.54.252 (talk • contribs) 23:41 (UTC), 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

For those who want to spend some time... a user on Flickr has this set of photos licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0 which means they can be uploaded to the commons for our use here... gren グレン 23:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article needs more historic data

this people has a significant cultural heritage of an important early civilization. who can help to expand this theme? ive started a section on history. regards Covalent 05:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article is not to wikipedia standards

I have added the standard template because sections of the article are to encycopedic standard.

For exemple this paragraph: Another great problem is regards to hunting. This area contains two obvious dilemmas. Number one ; the Bushmen of the Kalahari and elsewhere are persecuted and in Botswana imprisoned and even tortured for hunting; a traditional right since thousands of years before the present colonists ever arrived; this is a travesty of justice, but the second point of injustice is that American and other tourists travel to various southern African countries and go on hunting holidays! Not only is this an insult since Bushmen wish to hunt respectfully for survival and the maintenance of their traditional life, one of the oldest on the planet , but these foreign, 'sport ' hunters have been indiscriminately hunting such game as Eland and Kudu-game sacred to Bushmen and in the case of the Eland for example, a creature of supreme importance, not only culturally and spiritually as is the Kudu, but in the ecology of the land , as according to Bushman lore, Eland are related to the bringing of/ coming of the rains.

Kilrati 17:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing's atrocious. Peppered with Politically Correct hand-wringing and white man's guilt. I fell asleep before I found out something I didn't know. What a bore.

This does not sound remotely like an encyclopedia. While I agree with some of the sentiments expressed, this article violates NPOV.

"Other problems exist, such as that regarding the rock art, sacred to the Bushmen being 'owned' or in custody of the South African Government and often, it appears, on private lands where land owners make money from tourism but the traditional inheritors of the art cannot visit , or afford to visit , are further thorns in the side and contribute to what was outright genocide but now is occuring as a subtler but nevertheless devastating policy of ethnocide. Simply put , it appears most Southern African countries want the Bushmen to disappear from existence, something which understanding the issues, it is incument on us to prevent."

Unless this is a direct quote from someone giving an opinion, this has no place in an encyclopedia. (By the way, I have no connection to this article previously, and I haven't edited much, I'm just a dedicated reader of Wikipedia who was taken aback by this page.)-Randomglitter 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San/Bushmen

The Third Edition of The Dobe Ju/'hoansi by Richard B. Lee states that the term San means "aborigines" or "settlers proper" and that "t]he term Bushman has both racist and sexist connotations." As a footnote, however, it states,

"The Term San is not without problems of its own. Some point to this Nama term's negative connotations, meaning "worthless" or "no account." And the term Bushman has its advocates among anthropologists and others. San leaders themselves are divided over the term Bushmen. At a recent meeting reported by Megan Biesele, one said he never wanted to hear the term used again in post-apartheid Namibia. Another argued that the term could be ennobled by the way in which they themselves now chose to use it. However, as Pan-San or Pan-Bushman political consciousness grows in southern Africa, we assume a general term will emerge. By the late 1990s, San had come into general use by the San people themselves. (9)

If the term has come into general use by the San/Bushmen themselves, then it would seem that that is the appropriate term to use to describe. And if this was so by the late 1990s, then it seems unlikely the popularity of the term San has dwindled to the extent the article suggests. I personally don't feel confident in our current sources. And although states that the term Bushmen is in common use among the San/Bushmen, there is no source given. Theshibboleth 11:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagarism?

This article is either a direct copy of this page or the other page is a direct copy of the wikipedia article.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bushmen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.145.10.22 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is the source. Many sites mirror Wikipedia and add advertising banners to make your view experiencing more pleasant. -- Stbalbach 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Please get consensus before changing the article name. -- Stbalbach 12:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motivating Recent Edits to "government persecution" section...

I have removed this title, since using the words "government persecution" is neither factual, nor verifiable and bordering on the inflamatory.

I have also added references to the official government's statement on the issue, so as to ensure the article remains UNBIASED and shows BOTH SIDES of the story.

I have removed any language which may be construed as unbiased.

In particular, I have removed statements that were not verifiable (and are therefore considered not factual)

Where unsubstantiated facts were stated, I have preceded the paragraphs with "It is claimed.." or "it is rumoured.." or "it is alleged..." Since that is all that it is, until verification and citation can be provided.

Please feel free to improve add or edit - but lets stick to Wiki standards and provide a factual, balanced article to the public...

Give the public the FACTS and let them make up their own minds about which side to take.Dzstudios 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]