Talk:San people

DNA genome question

Please read the following question without suspicion of racism, I am truly curious and would like to know more: The San people are said to have the oldest DNA in the genome. I understand this to mean the San's DNA has the least amount of mutations/adaptations/evolutions from the original "Adam DNA"; this begs the question, are they the least evolved/advanced people on Earth? If this is true then it is not necessarily a bad thing if you consider evolution as just a change for adaptation to circumstances and assume that the San's environment just has not changed that much since the time of "Adam" to force them to change significantly- if you're religious you could even say that they are the picture of God's original design for humans and all subsequent "tribes" of people are perversions or corroded images of this initial design. Unfortunately, some people will not view the San's unchanged and possibly "original human" DNA as the nice picture of purity that I just described, rather, some might assert that the San are therefore closer to our evolutionary ancestors, the monkeys (or whatever the scientific name might be of that monkey-like creature that we see in the Darwin diagram of ape to man) and attempt to validate their racist beliefs with this "scientific fact" (and possibly extrapolate out that other similar or related black people are inferior and so on). So, getting to my actual question, I am wondering if there are any documented arguments out there or groups that use this information to support racist views (Hitler would probably have loved to have this information). Also, I am wondering, if the San are the least changed (DNA) people then who are the most changed (DNA) people and do the most changed (DNA) people assert that they are the most advanced or superior in the human group? As as side note, I have heard "Black" or "African-American" people pridefully state that they are "pure" (usually if they are darker than another "black" person- possibly a counter argument to the "red-bone" thing) and I wondered if the persons saying this understood that this claim can certainly be a double-edged sword. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.191 (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at it this way. England is the source of the English language, but we would not consider the language spoken there to be more primitive or unevolved than dialects in other countries. Additionally, most English dialects do not directly come from standard British English (in the same way that Hindi does not come from Sanskrit, and French does not come from Classical Latin). Lastly, British English did not simply stop evolving when other dialects went to other countries.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of "Y-chromosomal Adam" in the first paragraph of the article is quite misleading. By definition, this man was the most recent male ancestor common to all human beings who happened to participate in the global genetic testing. (Presumably the male ancestor of all human beings alive today.) But this man was NOT the male ancestor of all human beings ever. (For example, if all people besides those of central Asian heritage died out, that might make Genghis Khan the Y-MCRA.) Now, whoever came up with the catchy but misleading name "Y-chromosomal Adam" for the Y-MRCA is partly to blame for the confusion, but let's at least use this commonly accepted definition of the term.

By the way, the poster of "Please read the following question..." has a few other misconceptions. I know of no evidence to suggest that the San people are genetically stagnant and immune from mutations and evolution, that they are somehow a genetic snapshot of 'how people used to be'. To use the analogy of a family tree, they are not necessarily closer to the root than other groups, they just happen to have fewer branchings between them and the root.

You might argue that African ancestries are somehow 'genetically superior' to other ancestries in that Africa has enormously more genetic diversity and thus a greater chance of having some members survive a cataclysmic plague or the like. But I suspect that human nature and intercontinental air travel will shortly (at least on the cosmic scale) spread that diversity around the world.

Perhaps to clear up another of the poster's misconceptions: Geneticists are not claiming that apes are closer than humans to the root of all primates. They are just another branch. Apes evolved to be good at flinging poo at zoo visitors; humans evolved to be good at producing politicians; they're just different directions.

--74.248.228.7 (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate ethnonym

So San is offensive? Wetman 07:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC) the san(also known as bushmen or bawsarwa.

Pretty sure. - Nat Krause 08:06, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

I also heard that they were called Basarwa in Botswana; if this term is used to describe all bushmen (not just the botswanian ones), perhaps opt for this name instead and rename article. Another possible name is RAD (remote area dwellers), I don't like "bushmen" as it is a term invented and used by the European kolonials.

81.244.192.200 (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Bushman" is also inappropriate because it's a term used for all African non-Pygmy foragers. The Hadza, e.g., are called "Bushmen", but have nothing to do with this article.

"Khwe" might be appropriate, but is perhaps better for the Khoi peoples (Khwe and Khoi are cognate). San is the general anthropological word. Is it any more offensive than "Bushman"? kwami (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Borshay Lee includes a statement at the very beginning of his ethnography, The Dobe !Kung, saying that he considers the term "Bushmen" inappropriate. Matthew Durington, a visual anthropologist who has worked with the !Kung said the same in a lecture that I attended at Towson University in 2006. There is also an incomplete article titled !Kung (people) that needs to be merged with this one, so that would be a good opportunity to fix the title issue. Randomundergrad (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

Aren't significant numbers of ethnonyms given by outsiders (exonyms), and originally imbued with none-too-kind connotations? The word "Welsh" also meant "foreigner" at one time, but I can't remember the last time I read anything about the "Cymry" people, even by the most politically-correct authors. It seems to me that a good ethnonym needs to strike a balance between accuracy, recognizability, and inoffensiveness. --74.248.228.7 (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

!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)

---

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)

The !Kung are a subgroup (tribe) of San with their own distinct language, in the same way that German, French, Italian are subgroups and languages of Europeans. I have a university textbook that is all about the !Kung. Roger (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

lol wat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormwoodpoppies (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ey, speaking of cheap shots, why's half the article in past-tense, like these dudes don't exist anymore? Either they're still around, or the "population" section of the general information window in the top right is grossly inaccurate, right? Furthermore, the user Theospeak seems convinced that they're not extinct. Am I missing something, here?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

Article name

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

"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)

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.

PS - I am avidly in favour of support for the Bushmen people, their crisis and am in no way diminishing the hardship they suffer. However - wikipedia is not the platform to put forward subjective views and emotional convictions. Dzstudios 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

class X words?

"The term is a class 2 noun (as indicated by the "ba-" class marker), while an older class 6 variant, "Masarwa," is now almost universally considered offensive.[5] (using class 5 labels with class 6 plurals is a common strategy used by speakers of southern Bantu languages to show contempt for ethnic groups, though there are many societies whose own endonyms are class 1 nouns with irregular class 6 plurals)"

Could somebody explain this better, please? What are class 2 nouns, class 5 labels, etc.? -Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.210 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a certain scheme used in describing Bantu languages. Please see Sesotho nouns. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest people of the world - nonsene

"Genetic evidence suggests they are one of the oldest, if not the oldest, peoples in the world — a "genetic Adam" according to Spencer Wells, from which all humans can ultimately trace their genetic heritage.[1]"

This is just stupid and/or racist statement. How can some people be "the oldest"? Did they stop evolving 100 000 years ago, while the other people kept evolving? Or were the other people "created" later? I can understand, that changing habitat will pose greater evolutionary pressure for peoples moving out of Africa, but labeling as "the oldest people" is just pseudo science. This line should be removed or changed to make some sense.--Jarri K (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

agree with this comment; that's not a really good paraphrasing of Spencer Well's book, and I don't think he labeled "Genetic Adam" (or "Eve") as being from any specific group other than being in Africa at certain points in time Spettro9 (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bushmen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review in progress --Anonymaus (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

By way of introduction I would like to say that I enjoyed the article: it was readable and interesting. However this is my first GA review (sorry! we all have to start somewhere) so I've decided to assess it by following the Wikipedia:Good article criteria very narrowly.

Is it well written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• The article is well written in an engaing and readable style. There are no apparent spelling or grammatical errors.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The lead section provides a brief summary and stimulates further reading. Headings and paragraphs are used appropriately. In general, there is no use of technical jargon except for "(using class 5 labels with class 6 plurals is a common strategy used by speakers of southern Bantu languages to show contempt for ethnic groups, though there are many societies whose own endonyms are class 1 nouns with irregular class 6 plurals)" which I deleted. I note this has been commented on before on the talk page. If you want to keep this, it should be explained - but it is probably not essential to the sense of the paragraph. There is no inappropriate use of POV language, or any other breaches of the style guidelines.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

• The paragraphs "Opponents to the relocation policy ..." ; "It is further claimed ..." and "However, only a limited number ..." have no clear supporting references. This is important, as this is the most politically contentious part of the article. The section from "The Bushman kinship system..." to "... far from receding waters" also lacks referencing, unless it is [11}, in which case the sources should be referenced within each paragraph. The comparison with the Eskimo kinship system needs support or explanation.

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;

• The sources seem to be reliable as far as I can tell, as a non-Anthropologist

(c) it contains no original research.

• No evidence of original research

Is it broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

• The paper focuses on the current circumstances of the Bushmen of Botswana, whereas in the introduction you refer to "South Africa, Zimbabwe , Lesotho, Mozambique, Swaziland, Botswana, Namibia and Angola". Your focus on Botswana comes close to a POV violation; at the very least there should be some explanation of what happened to the Bushmen in the other countries of southern Africa. I Googled "Bushmen Namibia" and got 118 000 results. I think this is a major weakness of this article.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• There is no unnecessary detail

Is it neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• While you represent both sides of the land rights issue in Botswana, your exclusive focus on Botswana might be taken as a POV violation. However, since I've already raised this under the previous heading, I'll give you a

Is it stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Some lively and partisan editing over the last few weeks, and the objection to "Oldest people in the world" on the Talk page hasn't been addressed, so it isn't really stable.

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

• This looks OK to me

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Images are used well and the article has a good overall appearance.

In conclusion I'm sorry to say that the weaknesses with regard to referencing and comprehensive coverage are important. These can be fixed but probably not in a short period of time I'm not going to put the result "on hold". I have failed the article but I do think the problems can be fixed and when you have done so I would encourage you to re-submit for GA review. Best wishes --Anonymaus (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to someone with a rudimentary knowledge of evolutionary biology. The "Capoid race" as an identifiable genotype extends back further than so called Negroids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, or Australoids. While it's misleading to say the rest of humanity "evolved" from them (implying that they're more beast-like, or a "missing link") the more agreeable term would be that we diverged from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormwoodpoppies (talk • contribs) 22:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

merge?

I deleted (rd'd) the Khoisan article as nonsense. Turns out there wasn't much in it to save anyway. Here's some stuff that might be relevant here, if s.o. wants to integrate it into the article:

Historically, they have been referred to as the Capoid race because they can be visually distinguished from most other sub-Saharan Africans by way of their relatively lighter skin color and their epicanthic folds. From the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period, hunting and gathering cultures known as the Sangoan occupied southern Africa in areas where annual rainfall is less than 40 inches (1016mm)—and today's San resemble the ancient Sangoan skeletal remains. The San people were the original inhabitants of much of southern Africa before the southward Bantu expansion — coming down the east and west coasts of Africa — and later European colonization.

Over the centuries the many branches of the San peoples were absorbed, killed, or displaced by Bantu speaking societies who were migrating south in search of new lands, most notably the Xhosa and Zulu. Both have adopted some San clicks and loan words into their respective languages. The San survived in the desert or in areas with winter rains which were not suitable for Bantu crops. During the colonial era they lived in South Africa, Namibia and Botswana. Today many of the San live in parts of the Kalahari Desert where they are better able to preserve much of their cherished culture.

kwami (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Name of the article is highly offensive

Bushmen? In 2009? Really?! Seriously, to whoever made this, and defends it, the word "Bushmen" is a racist slur, and has no place in a modern-day encyclopedia except in a "History of Racism" article. The accepted term is "San People". Only a bigot would use the term "Bushmen", excepting of course preceded with a phrase like "Hundreds of years ago racists used to call the San...". 41.245.165.55 (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue of naming is already addressed in the article: Bushmen#Naming. Please show reliable sources for "San People" being a mainstream international name for these people, and then propose a move of the article to the new name. Note that Survival International, who work directly with indigenous tribal people, use the term Bushmen,[1] so accusing editors who prefer that term of being racist is not constructive and should be avoided. Fences&Windows 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming research

The following material removed from the article for discussion and future reference. WBardwin (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire genome of one San individual has been determined along with coding gene variations from four other individuals in a paper to appear in December 2009. Much older ancestral genomes can be accessed via the forthcoming Neanderthal genome and existing genome projects for five species of great apes.

Their physical characteristics

There appears to be nothing in this article whatsoever about the physical characterstics of the Bushmen. They have been described as unusually short-statured, having "Mongoloid" traits including, if I recall, epicanthic folds on the eyes and a mongolian spot on newborn babies. The men reportedly have a semi-erect penis permanently and the women a genital apron, that is elongated labia I believe. None of this is discussed or mentioned. Really weird. People have bodies as well as culture. Julian

I thought maybe that was a joke when I just read it on a website. http://www.isds.duke.edu/~ervance/saemails.html Bushmen men are born with, live with, and die with, a semi-erection. Have I written about this before? It's called Qwxai-Qwxqha (pronounce it with lots of clicking sounds). Their penis is always semi-erect, and it's always depicted on them in their rock paintings. So *WHY* is that? I mean, there has to be some kind of reason behind it. --RyanTee82 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Migration

Why?Tortuga135 (talk)